Conversation with James about God, the Big Bang, and the Foundation of Science

I received this comment from James in the thread under my post called Context Rules: The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible Confirmed.


I wonder if you are still there Richard.

Hey there James,

I was out of town for a full week. I had to fly to Ohio to handle a family emergency. I’m happy to report that everything worked out very well.

I also wonder what is your foundation for performing science. Based on a worldview of our universe coming from a big bang and from consequently unguided natural causes, what is your basis for assuming science works at all? You observe the laws of science, yes. But your understanding of the big bang does not allow you the right to assume there to be laws and order in our universe.

Many Christians think the Big Bang is how God created, so there is no necessary connection between it and “unguided natural causes.” But even if there were, it would not give me reason to doubt that “science works” since that is a demonstrable fact. The only question is one of philosophic justification which is interesting but ultimately irrelevant given that science works.

The Big Bang is a consequence of General Relativity coupled with observed facts like the microwave background radiation and the expansion of the universe. It is a scientific theory based on logic and facts. As such, it has nothing more to do with the unsolved philosophical problems relating to the foundation of science than any other theory.

Your assertion that I have no “right to assume there to be laws and order in our universe” is a common argument put forth by Christian apologists. It is based upon the failure of philosophers to achieve a consensus concerning epistemology, ontology, and the foundation of science. As such, it is a variation on the “God of the gaps” argument because it is based on our ignorance. In essence, it merely asserts that we should assume the existence of a god to explain the existence of natural law. The irony, of course, is that if philosophers have achieved a consensus on anything, it is the failure of that argument. And this irony is amplified by the fact that the laws of the universe have proven to be absolutely trustworthy, whereas God has been proven to be absolutely untrustworthy, as explained in my article Is God Trustworthy? The Root of Religious Delusion.

You say there is no reason to think a designer is required. You assume or accept that nothing in our universe requires a designer for its explanation. But yet, laws of nature and logic cannot be created mere matter and energy themselves.

What I actually said was that there is no observable phenomenon that requires a designer to explain. Everything we can actually observe obeys natural law. The only place for any designer would be in the dark region of human ignorance such as the origin of life.

Metaphysical questions about the nature of the “laws of nature and logic” are completely irrelevant because you can’t prove anything by weaving words based on metaphysical speculations. And worse, history is littered with examples of people using metaphysical arguments to “prove” what they already believed.

Furthermore, the laws of logic do not exist as things that require an explanation. They are simply defined by what we mean by our words. This should be obvious when you consider the most fundamental law of logic, the Law of Identity. The statement “A is A” defines what we mean by “is.”

Christians get accused all the time by atheists and intellectuals alike that we ignore evidence and rely on old superstitious and outdated religious myths. I would say that Christians rely on faith, yes. We do not have concrete, absolute dogmatic proof that the Bible is the true inspired Word of God and that God of the Bible is real. Point taken by the critics.

It is good that you admit that fact. So tell me, what is the difference between your faith in the Bible and the Muslim’s faith in the Qu’ran? You can’t appeal to evidence, because you admitted that it is insufficient to settle the matter.

But there is a double standard here. There is no evidence of the big bang being possible either. There are natural phenomia like the wave energy that is labeled to be attributed to the big bang, but this is not proof of the big bang at all. Certainly, when the scientific laws that we all recognize and adhere to opperate and use science to perform studies and make discoveries disagrees with the fundamental premise of the big bang. Calling the big bang science and creation religion is absurd. First off, the big bang is psuedo science. It conflicts with the very laws of science that matter can be neither created or destroyed.

Your comment indicates a radical ignorance of basic physics. There is a massive body of evidence for the Big Bang. It is not absolute proof, but that’s irrelevant because science is not in the business of “proving” things. On the contrary, science is based fundamentally on the awareness that our knowledge is provisional. Thomas Huxley captured this well when he described the “great tragedy of science” as “the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

Your assertion that the Big Bang is “pseudoscience” is utterly absurd and ignorant. The Big Bang is based on the best science of our age. It is a consequence of General Relativity coupled with observed facts like the microwave background radiation and the expansion of the universe. You simply have no clue what you are talking about. Or what? Do you challenge the field equations of General Relativity? Can you understand, let alone refute, this equation?

general_relativity_field_equationDo you reject the Penrose-Hawking Singularity theorem that follows from this equation? Do you reject the evidence (first discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929) that the universe is expanding?

hubble_plot

And do you reject the evidence of the cosmic background radiation that matches the predicted blackbody curve to a higher precision than any scientific observation in history?

cosmic_background_radiationYour assertion that the Big Bang is “pseudoscience” is absurd in the extreme.

First off, the big bang is psuedo science. It conflicts with the very laws of science that matter can be neither created or destroyed. People have been trying to look for a natural scientific explanation for our universe’s origin and it just does not work. The laws of science only work for opperating our universe. It does not work in creating it. Why not one may ask? We use different methods for opperating a car then to make one. The best race car driver in the world probably is not a car designer and or mechanic. We read and write and manuals to use Windows opperating systems. But that is not the same thing as developing an opperating system. It is common sense that the same laws and rules that work for a system in place cannot create the system in the first place.

I agree that the laws we see in the observable universe may not apply before it existed. All physicists recognise this fact. That’s why all physicists acknowledge that the known laws of nature break down at the singularity. And that’s why we can only speak of what happened after the Big Bang. We simply don’t know anything about the singularity itself. There may not even have been a singularity since it is likely that quantum effects would take over at that scale. But no one knows because we don’t have a theory of quantum gravity yet. And so once again, we see that you argument is nothing but the God of the gaps. The only place for your god is the land of darkness, superstition, and ignorance. There is no place for him in the realm of knowledge and observable facts.

It is odd that you did not notice the contradiction in your comments. First you said that the Big Bang contradicted the law of conservation of energy (which applies only in our observable universe), but then you said that such laws don’t apply to the creation event.

In a world that would be created by natural chance, we would not expect order and logic and consistency. It does not follow that one could rely on science consistently to perform observation and experimentation under a viewpoint that our world is natural, chance. Whether you accept it or not, you are borrowing from the Christian viewpoint when you use science for study. You assume that e always equals mc2. In a natural world, there is no basis for this. The best you can offer from a natural argument or explanation is circular logic. Of course there are laws of nature, nature would not exist without the laws of nature. This is not an explanation. It is circular logic that assumes it desired answer.

Your comments overflow with error and false assumptions. There is no reason to think that the world was “created by natural chance.” On the contrary, it is much more natural to think that the world results from natural necessity just like every other event we have ever observed. All events follow natural law by necessity, so it is natural to assume the same for the creation of the world.

Likewise, your assertion that science is “borrowing from the Christian viewpoint” is demonstrably false because Pythagoras was studying the mathematical laws and regularities of music long before Christianity was invented. It is true that the Christian worldview is harmonious with the presuppositions of science, but it is in no wise a necessary precondition.

I do not “assume” that “e always equals mc2.” That is simply the result of a scientific theory which is supported by observation. It is the opposite of an “assumption.” Of course, after we have established it through observation, we then assume it is true. You simply got the process backwards We do not begin by assumption.

Your assertion that nature does not give us any “basis” for the laws of nature makes no sense. The laws simply describe what is. They are they “articulation of ontology” – our way of stating how the world actually works. Where is the circularity in that? You say they are not an explanation for why they are what they are? That’s true, but so what? There cannot be an ultimate explanation for anything. If you say God is the ultimate explanation, then what explains God? If you say he doesn’t need an explanation, why then does the universe need an explanation? Most Christians say that the difference is that God is necessary while the world is contingent. I reject that claim. And so the debate goes round and round, proving nothing but that you can’t prove the existence of God by the weaving of words.

At least Christians admit they do not have a scienfic answer for our origin.

Scientists have no problem admitting that we don’t have a scientific answer for our origin. But at least we have some reasonable theories based on demonstrable facts, unlike Christians who appeal to childish superstitions about an imaginary god with magical powers that simply speaks the world into existence like a wizard saying “abracadabra.”

This does not change how we do science though.

Yes it does! It has motivated countless Christians to reject well-established science like cosmology and evolution for no reason other than because it contradicts the ridiculous mythological cosmology of the Ancient Near East that was incorporated into the Bible.

Much of good science and research and discovery done today is not affected by our philisophical understanding of our origin. It is also a atheistist lie that the acceptance of creation and God will discourage scientific curiosity and discovery. Good Christian scientists from all periods of history never settled for an answer of “that just how God did it.” This is called a noble lie fallacy. This fallacy is committed because one denies truth or facts in order to avoid seemingly negative results, whether real or immaginary in this case. Isaac Newton believed in creation and God. But he was still motivated to find out how gravity works and not just remarking that is how God did it.

I agree that believing in God would not necessarily hinder science, but it certainly has led to the irrational rejection of established science by thousands of believers.

As for Isaac Newton, he rejected the Trinity. Will you appeal to him as an authority in that case too, or are you cherry picking when to apply your appeal to authority? (That would be a double fallacy, of course.)

I hope you do digging for yourself and see that there is plenty of reasons to think that there is a God and that this universe of ours was designed. I hope you also see that there are plenty of reasons to doubt the big bang and evolution for being acceptable and realistic explanations for our origins.

James

I have dug much deeper than you could imagine James. I have degrees in Mathematics and Physics, with a couple years of graduate work towards a Ph.D. in Quantum Physics (which unfortunately I never completed). Likewise, I have educated myself in the philosophical questions relating to theism, science, epistemology, ontology, and so forth. I doubt there is even one significant Christian argument I have failed to review … and refute. You certainly have not presented anything that I have not seen before. I sincerely hope you will continue the conversation and expose any errors you see in my response, and admit the errors I have exposed.

All the best,

Richard

This entry was posted in Christianity, Philosophy. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

150 Comments

  1. MichaelFree
    Posted July 12, 2015 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    James said: “Isaac Newton believed in creation and God. But he was still motivated to find out how gravity works and not just remarking that is how God did it”.

    Richard replied: “As for Isaac Newton, he rejected the Trinity. Will you appeal to him as an authority in that case too, or are you cherry picking when to apply your appeal to authority? (That would be a double fallacy, of course.)”

    It’s illogical to assume that any human beings entire life is constant with never changing views (authority). Just ask Richard, who used to believe in a God-being but who is now an atheist. Therefore if anyone ever points to Richard’s work on atheism as authoritative one need just pull out his quotes from when he wasn’t an atheist to dismiss Richard’s whole life out of hand. Since Richard’s work can be cherry-picked by either an atheist or a believer in God to support their position we should just reject out of hand everything that Richard has ever said (sarcasm).

    This would of course be a double fallacy: assuming that human beings are authorities in anything and assuming that if someone’s life work can be cherry-picked by opposing sides we should just dismiss their whole life’s work.

    I thought I’d point out this discrepancy.

    The truth is the only authority in the whole Universe. The truth is not a person. The bible, which is a book written by people, is presented as an authority, and yet it is “full of contradictions, errors, and moral abominations attributed to God”, just like what you would expect from a human being. The truth is not full of contradictions, errors, and moral abominations.

    A is A.

    Take care.

  2. MichaelFree
    Posted July 12, 2015 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    The important bits: James said “Isaac Newton believed (“belief” never implies authority) in creation and God. But he was still motivated to find out how (truth) gravity works and not just remarking that is how God did it”.

  3. MichaelFree
    Posted July 12, 2015 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    The truth can come through a human being and be evident in their work but a human being can never be the truth. A human being can never be authority. No being, natural or supernatural, can ever be authority. A supernatural being may have might on its side, but might does not make right. The right to rulership belongs to the one who adheres to the truth and who dispenses justice according to the truth. Slavery and torture are not moral deeds; they are unjust. If I said that it was my right to enslave or torture other people I would be a liar, therefore slavery and torture are filthy lies that have been attributed to God’s deeds, a supposed supernatural being whose adherents proclaim to be the truth.

  4. josef.sefton.1
    Posted July 12, 2015 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    As usual, Michael, is teaching falsely. The truth is from the Author of truth. He is the authority and Michael will have to answer to Him. He is a person and He is the sinless God who reveals Himself in the holy Bible.

  5. MichaelFree
    Posted July 12, 2015 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    I have no problem standing before God naked and out in the open, for I have nothing to hide.

    If your God were the truth you would not accept the thefts, the physical assaults, the rapes, the murders, the torture, and the enslavement that has been attributed to God in the bible. I’ll turn my back to any transgressor. Where will you hide Josef when the supernatural power reveals itself and tells you that your religions’ condemnation of non-Christians is evil? Your unrighteous Jesus says I love you, love me in return, or else I will torture you for eternity. Thats what Christianity is: a threat of physical violence in order to gain and keep adherents, and it’s all bullshit.

    Quit whoring around with torture and enslavement and love thy neighbor as thyself. Quit being such a tool of iniquity.

    Be good.

  6. josef.sefton.1
    Posted July 13, 2015 at 2:50 am | Permalink

    Michael, some time ago you were excited to share of your interest for righteous Jesus. Your response to Him, at that time, was very promising.

    So what has happened? Don’t lose heart, for Jesus and the God who reveals Himself in the holy Bible are one! Man can know Our heavenly Father by wholeheartedly trusting and obeying Lord Jesus Christ.

    Michael, I’ve known the LORD intimately for nearly two decades. Even after He saved me I have been chastised. It’s far from easy when the LORD disciplines you, but He has His reasons for doing this.

    Michael, you need to face reality: God rewards and corrects! He truly does rebuke when He deems it necessary. Michael, if you understand that God is just, righteous, loving and gracious you would bow down and praise Him! Truly He is love and worthy to be worshipped in spirit and truth!

  7. MichaelFree
    Posted July 13, 2015 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Josef,

    My righteous interpretation of the Gospels is unwarranted. This was difficult for me to learn.

    Look at my last comment and then look at yours. You don’t know how to refute my comment directly, because my comment is TRUE, and must be hard to swallow, so you offer up a bunch of BULLSHIT instead.

    TRUTH VS BULLSHIT.

    Bullshit hides from the Truth.

  8. josef.sefton.1
    Posted July 14, 2015 at 12:03 am | Permalink

    Michael, you speak of your interpretation, whereas you should be hungering and thirsting for God’s revelation. You seek to be critical and combative, instead of being thankful for God’s comfort, consolation and counsel.

    Michael, you claim to be bold in your pursuit of truth, but you are giving the appearance of closing your eyes and ears to the very person who can teach you that His witness is true.

    When will Richard, Rose and Michael start taking the faithful witness of Lord Jesus seriously?
    Truly nobody who has lived on earth is trustworthy like He is! Richard, Rose and Michael, return to your Bible studies and learn eagerlyfrom the Author of life, for He is a great teacher.

  9. josef.sefton.1
    Posted July 14, 2015 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    Are you Living by trusting in God’s promises?

    Do you know how knowledgeable the LORD is? Do you know that He knows what things you have need of, before you ask Him? See Matthew 6:8

    Even if your daily challenges leave you somewhat confused, endeavor to do as you are told by the LORD, for the LORD is always thinking ahead and His thinking, unlike ours, is totally sound.

    Truly God knows what we need, even before we ask Him. Even though we do not understand all of His ways, let’s not live by our understanding; but live by God’s promises.

    Explorers for truth, read Proverbs 3:5-6 attentively and trust in the promise that almighty God will direct your path.

    Let’s welcome the LORD to direct our path! Now show that you desire to do good by studying the holy Bible daily, with an eagerness to learn from the Teacher of teachers!

  10. James
    Posted July 26, 2015 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    Hello Richard,

    I’ve read your long post. There is a lot there to comment on. I am not sure when I will get to it. Maybe work on some answers in sections off line. But since this is post conversation about science and origins, it would be helpful to stick to that topic on this thread. There are places and pages on this website that other non science comments could be made. It is a free country. Anyone can comment what they want wherever they want. But it is common courtesy to stick to a flow of topic and not clutter the conversation with non relevent and repeat comments.

    James

  11. Frater SvpiaBapmt777
    Posted August 10, 2015 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    Concerning Cosmology and Evolution

    Darwinian Evolution, it seems clear that the many objections raised by Fundamentalist Christians and Biblical I.D. Creationists in general *Are Not* valid!

    They proffer a strawman-argument, “it is not plausible that advanced organisms could form autonomously through random and undirected-processes.” They also say “Life exhibits far too much complexity to attribute it to mere happenstance…and fucking blah-blah-blah.”

    And indeed those who advocate such ideas “seem truly-ignorant and foolish and in defiance of the very basic Popper FALSIFIABLE scientific-laws of nature they claim to respect!

    Evolution.

    Any chemical action will proceed ONLY IF Delta G is a Negative number. Enthalpy is FIXED for any selected compound. Temperature and pressure does not really change a lot so you come to the conclusion that it is Delta S (entropy) that defines the vectoring of Delta G (Gibbs energy).

    Vectoring Equals DIRECTIONALITY…Promote ENTROPY-INCREASE so that the reactions go in ===> ONE DIRECTION!

    They go in the direction of creating more chaotic molecular movements…So basically, [all life is a collection of chemical-reactions!], thus the point is looking at the “FORCE” that drives these chemical reactions and tilts the balance to promote ENTROPY-INCREASE so that the reactions go in ===> ONE-DIRECTION… COMPLEXITY!

    Which means, Entropy defines “the General Direction” in which ALL chemical reactions go. G1 – G2 = Delta G. The CHANGE in Gibbs energy, which always goes toward negative numbers because Delta S always ===> goes up: THIRD AND SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS…

    So, because of these Laws, because of Delta S being prone to increase more and more [as time passes, more and more chaotic, complex or sophisticated molecules will appear] and life itself will appear and get more sophisticated: EVOLVE ===> CHEMICAL-EVOLUTION…BIOLOGICAL-LIFE! US!!

    Change of Gibbs energy resulting in increased entropy: is “IT.” The 2nd and 3rd Law of Entropy permeates and motivates All of Nature.

    Delta-S up ===> goes Chaos Way-Up ===> Sophistication level go Way-Up ===> Second and Third Laws push BIO-CHEMICAL EVOLUTION and LIFE forward RELENTLESSLY ONWARDS!

    THE DIALECTIC AND ONTOLOGICAL-LAW: (QUANTITATIVE-CHANGE LEADS TO ===> QUALITATIVE-CHANGES!) LEARN IT. KNOW IT.

    Here’s a short history of the universe unwinding by Gravitational-Clumping: (Quasars ——> Galaxies ——> Super-Novae (Heavy-Elements ——> Suns/Stars-Planets/Earth) ——> Black Holes and Nucleo-Synthesis (Hydrogen ——> Helium ——> Iron56).

    Matter does not exist independently from the great sea, from so-called empty space. It is a part of space itself. Matter is not floating in a sea-of-nothingness. The nothingness and the pieces of matter do not exist independently from one another.

    They are part of the same matrix-fabric, form and quantum-foam, the deeper implicate-order.

    The concept of time itself did not exist until the cataclysmic-explosion began it all at humbling at the Big-Bang Singularity Zero. A this Singularity point, the laws of physics break down in general relativity, and the density and temperature of the Universe is Infinite. And only the future of quantum physics will determine the future knowledge of the earliest fractions of time in the Universe.

    But perhaps there may have pre-existed an infinite time before…If this is so, then there was no singular-beginning or intial boundary-condition. Yes, the universe, life, existence, and time are all huge mysteries. We don’t have all answers.

    Evolution through natural-selection is “better able to explain the observed-complexity we see and observe,” as is evident from the use of selective evolution to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems that are considered problems too complex for “Intelligent-Designers”.

    The “Explanatory filter” as eliminative, because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, by defaulting to “Design,” this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions.

    Our universe is the expanding is accelerating faster…The future of the universe is not yet firmly known, but according to the ΛCDM model it will continue expanding forever.

    There has to be [natural physical-reasons] for the observed expansion! There is just no getting around that simple fact.

    In the current cosmological epoch, the accelerated expansion due to dark energy is preventing structures larger than superclusters from forming. It is not known whether the acceleration will continue indefinitely, perhaps even increasing until a big rip, or whether it will eventually reverse.

    The big bang model is based on observations of expansion, the cosmic microwave background, the chemical composition of the universe and the clumping of matter. Like all scientific ideas, the model may one day be superseded. But it fits all the current data better than any other model we have!

    In the evolution of the universe, after the inflationary phase, the expansion observed today sets in that is well described by Friedmann equations. A smooth transition is expected between these two different phases.

    For a number of years the support for these theories was evenly divided. However, the observational evidence began to support the idea that the universe evolved from a hot dense state. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1965 lent strong support to the Big Bang model, and since the precise measurements of the cosmic microwave background by the Cosmic Background Explorer in the early 1990’s, few cosmologists have seriously proposed other theories of the origin and evolution of the cosmos.

    That theory holds that the Universe was shaped by an unthinkably large and fast expansion from a single point. One consequence of this is that in standard general relativity, the universe began with a singularity, as demonstrated by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose in the mid-to-late 1960’s. Professor Stephen Hawking & Roger Penrose went on to prove that not only could the universe begin in a singularity, but that in actuality, it had to begin a singularity! Between 1965 & 1968 Roger Penrose & Stephen Hawking successfully proved that time does indeed have a beginning, showing that it (time & space) was with a singularity that the Universe began. Demonstrating that the Universe began as a singularity of infinite density, similar to the end product of a star in ultimate collapse, or a black hole.

    Hubble’s Law.

    Another set of misconceptions involves the quantitative description of expansion. The rate at which the distance between galaxies increases follows a distinctive pattern discovered by American astronomer Edwin Hubble in 1929: the recessionvelocity of a galaxy away from us (v) is directly proportional to its distance from us (d), or v = Hd. The proportionality constant, H, is known as the Hubble constant and quantifies how fast space is stretching- not just around us but aroundany observer in the universe.

    Some people get confused by the fact that some galaxies do not obey Hubble’s law. Andromeda, our nearest largegalactic neighbor, is actually moving toward us, not away. Such exceptions arise because Hubble’s law describes only the average behavior of galaxies. Galaxies can also have modest local motions as they mill around and gravitationallypull on one another- as the Milky Way and Andromeda are doing. Distant galaxies also have small local velocities, butfrom our perspective (at large values of d) these random velocities are swamped by large recession velocities (v). Thus,for those galaxies, Hubble’s law holds with good precision.

    Notice that, according to Hubble’s law, the universe does not expand at a single speed. Some galaxies recede from usat 1,000 kilometers per second, others (those twice as distant) at 2,000 km/s, and so on. In fact, Hubble’s law predictsthat galaxies beyond a certain distance, known as the Hubble distance, recede faster than the speed of light. For themeasured value of the Hubble constant, this distance is about 14 billion light-years.

    If an Infinite Creator-God existed, we wouldn’t exist. And the very fact that we exist means said archaic Creator-God does not.

    Co-Existence with an Infinite being would be Impossible. We know that Transcendent-Nature does exists, “Our Universe.” And if the primitive BibleGod existed, Nature would obviously Not.God would have no need of Nature just as Nature has no need of God. So it’s a Bible style Creator-God OR Nature, it *cannot* both! It would Contradict Observed Reality.

    Hence, there is no god of the theistic bible-style (Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Xenu, Frank, Bob, etc ) since the existence of such a god “would have implications that contradict direct observed reality!” And if there was an intelligent-creator (conscious)- which is a contradiction in itself – observation of nature through the scientific method, and our logic and reasoning skills should be all that is required to reveal it.

    An Creator-God would literally have literally no space or time, no room to do so, nothingness, and no reason to do so…Nothing for a God to do!

    I could believe that the universe has always existed in a finite-unbounded sense and that nothing could have created it. This is applicable to our universe, whether it is infinite and the only universe or one huge universe in a larger conglomerate “multi-verse” which is a group of universes (see astrophysicist Michio Kaku).

    The Universe is the Uncreated Primary (see also the brilliant Russian philosopher Ayn Rand) which exists whether we or our brain-consciousness exist or not and whether we want it to exist or not.

  12. James Mckenzie
    Posted August 16, 2015 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    Hello Richard,

    I will start the conversation and reply to your long post.

    You said:
    —-“Many Christians think the Big Bang is how God created, so there is no necessary connection between it and “unguided natural causes.” But even if there were, it would not give me reason to doubt that “science works” since that is a demonstrable fact. The only question is one of philosophic justification which is interesting but ultimately irrelevant given that science works.”—-

    Your first sentence is not relevant to your position. You say that there is no reason for a creator to explain anything that we can observe. To say that some believe that God used the Big Bang to create would not agree with my position or yours. The fact that science “works” is an obvious fact which I am glad you realize. But you have not given an adequate basis for why science works and why we would expect science to work if the universe through random, unguided natural processes created itself. I am also curious at how you can limit this philosophical debate to a non-irrelevant issue. Is this why you keep up a blog to tell your opinion that is not irrelevant? I think not. The better question to focus on is which worldview, cosmic theory better explains what we observe and what we can measure and which worldview is more consistent with itself.

    You said:
    —-“The Big Bang is a consequence of General Relativity coupled with observed facts like the microwave background radiation and the expansion of the universe. It is a scientific theory based on logic and facts. As such, it has nothing more to do with the unsolved philosophical problems relating to the foundation of science than any other theory.”—–

    Can you explain how the big bang can be the consequence of general relativity? I do not think this is what you meant to write. At least I hope not although you may be repeating or misquoting some secular scientist illogical argument. Stephen Hawking is one who said, “Because there is such a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”
    He also said, “The laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing.”
    This is his idea of good science? How can the beginning be a result of a something not existing yet? Besides, general relativity is not a thing, neither is gravity. The law of gravity and other laws of physics are not things but are recognized patterns of how the universe and objects within the universe operates. Patterns did not exist until matter existed. Relativity is a theory meant to describe the way anything except light moves through time and space. So how can the big bang be the result of general relativity? Did you mean to say we see evidence or support of the big bang model in the theory of relativity? Or did you mean to say the “theory” of the big bang is based on relativity? That would make more sense because when you say the actual big bang is based off of general relativity, you are not making a good statement based on good science and logic.

    Physics recognizes four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force) But according to the big bang model, when did these forces form? Before or after the big bang? The big bang model says they formed after.
    When people who accept creation and God as their worldview assert that the big bang cannot be true because something does not come from something, most secular people who accept the big bang model retort back that where did God from. So in one way I agree that both positions have a beginning that human beings cannot fully know, understand, and conceptualize. But on another point, the comparison of which came first and which worldview makes more sense is deeper than just deciding what came first, the chicken or the egg. I repeat. The big question is which worldview is more logically consistent with itself. Supporters of the big bang say that science and only natural causes and explanations belong in a legitimate cosmology, but they break their own rules to allow plausibility where there are gaps. Creation however assumes the supernatural exists, that God is eternal, and that this universe came by a creator and designer. Forgetting theology for the moment and what the Bible says about God, which worldview to explain the natural phenomena is more consistent with itself?

    You said:
    —-“Your assertion that I have no “right to assume there to be laws and order in our universe” is a common argument put forth by Christian apologists. It is based upon the failure of philosophers to achieve a consensus concerning epistemology, ontology, and the foundation of science. As such, it is a variation on the “God of the gaps” argument because it is based on our ignorance. In essence, it merely asserts that we should assume the existence of a god to explain the existence of natural law.”—–

    I need to point out a few things here. Just because you acknowledge that this is a common Christian apologist argument does not refute the argument. All you did was acknowledge that philosophers disagree. You make it sound like all science evidence points to a big bang and the one or few areas of unanswered questions is where archaic Christian believers try to stick in their 2 cents. But you are wrong in more than one way here. One, all evidences and things we can observe and measure do not point to a big bang, old universe, naturally evolving itself from simple elements out of pure necessity. I will address this more… later. Second, not only are there evidences that should make one reconsider the big bang model, but there are plenty of reasons to consider a creation/designer model. In a word, Christian apologists are not just taking advantage of secular unknown. Christian apologists assert what they believe because they see the evidence points to it. It is a secular/atheist lie that all, many, or most Christians are creationists because the Bible tells them they need to be. Some people became creationists (or at least accepting some kind of design theory) before becoming a Christian.
    You’re missing the point by trying to refute one position by the old “god of the gaps argument.” The God of the gaps argument is a common label used by secular scientists who accuse Christian scientists of just supplying God where they are afraid of saying they have no better clue. It works both ways. It could just as well be called the theory of the gap method or argument. How do you know if the god of the gaps argument isn’t just a cop out for secular scientists who are avoiding what is the most likely scenario? The real argument is what framework (creation or natural big bang) makes sense to explain the known gaps. I could easily just say the same thing against the big bang. You are just using a theory of the gaps model. You are just supplying some man-made theory that only explains a few things we observe. You connect a few irrelevant dots and ignore some others and bang, you got yourself a theory out of a gap. (by the way, I actually will explain these irrelevant dots and not assert they are there) But I will repeat again, we all know there are mysteries to our origins. We all know there are gaps to our knowledge base. The real argument is what framework makes the most sense in explaining those gaps. If you think unguided processes make more sense, then all the power to you. But I think in a universe that demonstrates order, seasons, laws, design, it makes more sense that it was designed. Now to be fair, this does not automatically prove or demonstrate that the God of the Bible is the designer. But a designer, no less, is what makes the most sense. There are also fewer scientific gaps with a younger universe and a designer than with an older universe and somehow unguided processes and from somewhere natural laws that caused hydrogen to turn into people over 14 billion years.

    You said:
    —-“The irony, of course, is that if philosophers have achieved a consensus on anything, it is the failure of that argument.”——

    There is not a lot of relevance here, and this is a shallow point (meaning it lacks depth and clarification). Who are these philosophers you are talking about? Are they all non-Christian? If so, then of course they agree that a “Christian” argument does not work. That would be like me saying that all of Ken Ham’s associates agree that the big bang model is wrong. You would have the right to say, “so what?” Of course Ken Ham and anyone who works for him would think this way. But once again, you do not bring up why the argument fails or even try to refute it. So the point still stands.

    You said:
    —-“And this irony is amplified by the fact that the laws of the universe have proven to be absolutely trustworthy, whereas God has been proven to be absolutely untrustworthy, as explained in my article Is God Trustworthy? The Root of Religious Delusion.”—–

    Now you are breaking away from a philosophical discussion on origins based on scientific observations to add your distasteful opinion on theology. Your opinion is noted, but I think to debate theology and God’s reasons for doing things here is getting off topic. But I think it is good note that for one who claims science to be on the side of the big bang and logic and reasoning, you are the one who is failing to bring up adequate scientific evidences for your side and you are also the one who breaks off on an emotional driven theological attack. Sounds like your problems with God and creation are less scientific but are more theological in nature.
    Also, just saying that the laws of the universe have proven to be trustworthy is stating what every informed person accepts and knows no matter what side of the argument he stands on (creation or big bang). The real argument is which framework makes the most sense based on the evidence we see around us. You can dodge this debate and/or question or you debate and answer it with evidence.

    You said:
    —–“What I actually said was that there is no observable phenomenon that requires a designer to explain. Everything we can actually observe obeys natural law. The only place for any designer would be in the dark region of human ignorance such as the origin of life.”—–

    Your statement is worded in such a way that is narrow minded and is avoiding considering what may be apparent and obvious. It does not work in a debate. I could use the same tactic on the big bang theory. There is no observable phenomenon that requires a big bang theory to explain. It would be better to list actual natural phenomenon and demonstrate which are better explained with a big bang model and which are not as well explained by a designer/creation model.
    Also, the only place needing any designer for further explanation is not just the origin of life. There are more mysteries created when you assume the universe is self generated and is old.

    You do know that there is no working or logical theory for star formation. All the hypothetical models already require stars to exist. You also know that there are predictions that the big bang theory model predicted that are seen or things that exist that do not coincide with the big bang model. The big bang predicted that there should be particles that are magnetic but that only have one pole, monopoles. We do not see these, but the big bang predicted that we should see plenty. There is also the horizon problem. The equilibrium of temperature in the universe is too smooth. Even with the immense time allowed for the big bang model, there still has not been enough time passed to even out such a smooth equilibrium of temperature. Secular scientists know about this. You should know about it too cause you said you have done much digging. There is also the flatness problem regarding the big bang model. Cosmologists model the geometry of space, they made predictions whether the universe would be more curvature in nature or flat. The big bang model predicted a universe with much curvature. But much to the surprise of big bang supporters, the universe ended up being more flat. A solution to the problems has been suggested of course, inflation. Early on in the beginning or near the beginning of the universe, nobody knows when exactly, that universe started inflating, much faster than the speed of light. Why? We do not know. It is said to have inflated by the particle inflaton. There is no evidence of this inflaton particle, but in order to fix the horizon problem, it has to exist even though it does not fit in the big bang model. Nobody also knows how you stop inflation once it starts. The universe is not inflating today (expanding at a faster rate then previously believed to have expanded), so we know or believe that it just must have stopped somehow.
    And the model of inflation says once it starts it does not stop. An article in Astronomy says this, “As to what drove inflation, nobody knows. Physicists have suggested a long list of models to describe the inflating universe, but most of the models are mathematical conveniences with no physical basis. All the theories of inflation amount to the proof that we do not have one good theory yet.” Says Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory astrophysicist Edward W Rocky Kolb. –Astronomy, Eight Grand Mysteries, Special Cosmology, June 2004.
    Another problem with the big bang model is rotation curves. We can measure the velocity of stars as they orbit the centers of their galaxies. Physics makes predictions how fast they should be going based on how far and close the start are to the center of the galaxy. It turns out that the stars that are farthest away from the center are moving too quickly. A common explanation today among secular scientists is dark matter. So in other words, if there was a huge halo of mass around the galaxy it would change the way the dynamics work and changes the velocities. So many say there must be something out there causing this. But we do not see anything there or detect anything. Princeton University cosmologist James Pebbles said, “It’s an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical…”
    In the late 90s, it was discovered that some far objects were displaying red shifts that are not consistent with big bang predictions. When interpreted under the big bang model, it appears that the universe’s expansion is accelerating. Some speculate that dark energy is what is causing this acceleration. From Astronomy, “To get enough oomph to drive the present acceleration of the universe, dark energy must make up about 73 percent of the total density of the universe. The biggest problem with this idea is that no one has any idea what dark energy is. So far, all we’ve been able to do is to name it,’ says the University of Chicago’s Michael Tuner.” Astronomy, Eight Great Mysteries, Special Cosmology, 2004.
    Consider also what was written in Science journal: “The nature of the ‘dark energy’ that is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate is now perhaps the most profound mystery in cosmology and astrophysics. And it may remain forever so.” Science (1 June 2012: Vol. 336 no 6045) So if modern secular physicists say that dark matter (unknown) comprises 23% of our universe, and dark energy must comprise 73% of our universe, that leaves 4% of the universe is normal matter (planets, stars, galaxies). So when you say the big bang is based on good science and explains everything well without a designer, people who share the same opinion as you about the big bang only credit the big bang with explaining 4% of what they believe to comprise the universe. That should make you think about what you choose to accept makes the most sense. This is what the expert supporters of the big bang theory are saying not creationists or big bang doubters.
    Another aspect of the big bang that runs into problems is the fine-tuning problem. The universe is evidently an unlikely place for us to be. The likelihood has been compared to balancing a pencil on its fine point end for 14 billion years all by its self. And I am not just repeating some creation page jargon here. Sr Fred Hoyle who is no friend to creationism said this: “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
    Also read this: “There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life… [The] existence of vital substances such as carbon, and the properties of objects such as stable long-lived stars, depend rather sensitively on the values of certain initial conditions, it is fine-tuned for the essential building blocks and environments that life requires.”
    Freeman Dyson said, “The more I examine the universe, and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the Universe in some sense must have known we were coming” from Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe, New York: Harper and Row, 1979.
    How is it when creationists and Christians say the God did it, that is labeled bad science but when people on the other philosophical side say that the big bang did or evolution did it or the Universe did it, people accept it as science? It is lousy personification at its finest. The universe does not think, reason, and plan for itself. Evolution is not a reasoning thing either. Evolution is merely change over time. So answer me this, what makes more sense to you? Did we somehow come into existence by the big bang, which basically says hydrogen and some helium figured out how to eventually make everything out of necessity? Or does it make more sense to say that an intelligent designer is behind all that we see (at least what was designed originally)? Think about it for a minute. With your worldview and framework of the universe, you arrive at the conclusion that hydrogen and helium gas have out smarted and bewildered the scientific community with the great wonders of our universe and its origin. On the other hand, it might make more sense to say that an infinite powerful designer has the power to create and design in such a way that it still challenges the great minds of our day.
    Sean Carroll said this: “Among all the different ways the microstates of the universe can arrange themselves, only an incredibly tiny fraction correspond to a smooth configuration of ultradense dark energy packed into a tiny volume. The conditions necessary for inflation to begin are extremely specialized and therefore describe a very low entropy configuration. If you were to choose configurations of the universe randomly, you would be highly unlikely to hit on the right conditions to start inflation” from Sean Carroll, The Cosmic Origins of Time’s Arrow, Scientific American, June 2008.
    To put another way, “A change of as little of 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Change those rules of our universe just a bit, and the conditions for our existence disappear.
    “most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned. If they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms”
    “Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.” Stephen Hawking and Leonard Modnow, The Grand Design, Random House Digital, Inc Sept 7, 2010. I do not have to tell you that Stephen Hawking is not a friend of creation or design theory. It has been calculated that the odds of our universe looking the way it does, being able to sustain and produce life on its own 1 in 10^120. (add 120 zeros on the end)
    “Our universe appears surprisingly fine-tuned for life in the sense that if you tweaked many of our constants of nature by just a tiny amount, life as we know it would be impossible. Some of the fine-tuning appears extreme enough to be quite embarrassing-for example, we need to tune the dark energy to about 123 decimal places to make habitable galaxies” Max Tegmark, The Case for Parallel Universes, Scientific American, July 19, 2011.

    What do secular physicists and cosmologists do to counter the incredible odds and the looming appearance of design? One thought is String theory which suggests that the subatomic particles that we are familiar with are not actually particles, but are little strings. This would make them no longer 3 dimensional particles, but 10 dimensional strings even though they look like 3 dimensional particles. They assert that the other 7 dimensions are rolled up so small that we cannot see them. It story telling at its finest. But this what secular scientists say you have to accept if you want the big bang theory to be plausible. So String Theory claims to offer 10^500 possible solutions or equations. Each equation with its corresponding solution represent an actual universe with its own set of constants. So people who hold to String Theory say that there are multiple universe, 10^500. In their thinking, this solves the unlikely possibility of our unique universe that is suitable for life to emerge. Leonard Susskind said this regarding String Theory, “we would be left with no other rational explanation for the illusion of a designed universe” in The Cosmic Landscape, p355. Their reasoning is that if there are 10^500 universes, then it is likely that one of those universes would be suitable for life and fall under the 10^120 chance of being our universe. Others suggest that there are an infinite number of universes because they do not even think 10^500 number of universes is enough to have one unique like ours for life. So all of this so secular scientists can spout off: “If space is infinite and the distribution of matter is sufficiently uniform, then even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere.” So to counter the very, very implausible odds of our unique universe, main stream science is saying that a multiverse is the solution and we just have to accept it. How hypocritical is this? These same people will say that asserting that there is a god/designer who cannot be seen or proven can say that we just need to accept that there are multiple or infinite number of universes that exist that we cannot perceive! Why do main stream scientists get to play storytelling and reject any kind of design model at the same time? It is not based on good science at all. It is based on their preconceived and assumed theory that they are unable to let go.

    You said:
    —-“Metaphysical questions about the nature of the “laws of nature and logic” are completely irrelevant because you can’t prove anything by weaving words based on metaphysical speculations. And worse, history is littered with examples of people using metaphysical arguments to “prove” what they already believed.”—–

    Your argument and accusation carries no valid weight against the designer/creator position since the same argument can be hurled at main stream scientists and their science theories.
    I am glad you admit this since main stream scientists are guilty at weaving metaphysical arguments together to try to convince their philosophical positions. I will repeat what I have already said. It is not a matter of which philosophical position or story you like the most. It is about which worldview and framework is most consistent with itself and with the evidence that we do see. Also, how do you main stream scientists are not just trying to prove what they already accept and presume to be true (about an old universe and its big bang origin)?
    Supporters of the big bang theory say that the big bang is based on good science. I would agree only to a small extent. But no matter how good the points are, if your premise is faulty then your support for your premise will be a questionable, unreliable, faulty, and irrelevant. I could come up with a theory that there are people in the world paid to make my life miserable. I could come up with data that there are people on the road trying to go where I am trying to go all the time. There are people at work who break things, do not put them back, and make life more difficult for me. I could come up with all this data. No matter how “real” the data is, the conclusions I am basing on my data are not valid because my premise is not valid. The same goes with the big bang theory. The only way people can say the big bang theory is based on good science is if they only mention points A, B, C. But if you look at points D-Q, then the theory looks less promising and has noted and known problems within the scientific community.
    People can point to cosmic microwave as a sign of the big bang. But supporters of the big bang model assume the cosmic microwave source. Supporters of the big bang also say red shift is strong evidence for the big bang. But red shift is simply evidence that our universe is expanding, it tells us nothing of the origin. I can take a balloon that is being filled and measure the rate of its expansion. But any sane person would not assume that if we extrapolate the rate of expansion and put in reverse that we arrive at a singularity. The balloon ceases to be a balloon at the point of a singularity. This process, when applied to the balloon, is only good if we know the original size of the balloon. But as a simple point of logic, a balloon does not deflate to a singularity. It shrinks back to its smallest size after already having been manufactured by a designer who designed it to be a balloon at its minimum size. So apply this to the universe. We all know and agree that the universe is expanding. The evidence points to this fact. But there is no way of knowing the original size of the universe. Just like the balloon, was it a six inch balloon, 3 inch, 12 inch, measuring its expanding rate and then going backwards does not tell you the starting size. You are relying on presupposition here and ignorance to assert a philosophical assumption. (theory of the gaps)
    So it is an unjustified jump in reasoning to say that just because we have evidence of the universe expanding means that the universe started as a singularity (and came from nothing). This point of singularity is also debated. Mainstream scientists are not sure either way. So you cannot say that the science is solid evidence when the main stream field is not even convinced. Nothing about the evidence we all know and can measure points definitively to the big bang and not to creation. There is no reason to reject that the universe is expanding based on God’s design. Both the universe starting from nothing and then expanding to everything and God creating it are unscientific. But those are the best we got for philosophical explanations. But it is hypocritical to call one science and one abracadabra. Both require pleas to faith and assumptions. If you reject the creation account because it sounds too much like abracadabra, then maybe you should reject the big bang and evolution. They both rely on something just “appearing” as well.

    You said:
    —–“So tell me, what is the difference between your faith in the Bible and the Muslim’s faith in the Qu’ran? You can’t appeal to evidence, because you admitted that it is insufficient to settle the matter.”—–

    Your attack on Christian faith is common. You assert because there are other faiths from other cultures that the Christian faith is most likely just like all the other fake religions. But I will summarize a quick response even though this is off the scientific, origin topic here. The Bible is woven in history. The Qu’ran is not woven in history. The Bible makes assertions about God’s power and how His power has changed the course of history. There are archaeological finds that support the Bible’s claims. The Qu’ran has none of this. The Qu’ran is doctrine from a guy who have to accept or deny what he is saying is real or not. There is nothing rooted in history or not even an assertion of natural miracles performed to validate that Mohamed is a prophet. The Bible also makes prophecies that came true later. The Qu’ran has no prophecies. But again, this is off topic from our discussion thread here. I do find it interesting that more than once you are one who keeps breaking off topic to discuss theological points and subjective points. But you are also the one who insists that scientific evidence is more abundant on the big bang theory rather than on the design theory. Again, you suggest that your problems with the Bible and the God of the Bible are more theological in nature rather than scientific.

  13. James Mckenzie
    Posted August 16, 2015 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    Hello Richard,

    My reply was long. So I broke it up to avoid the chance of a failed post. It happens. Moving on…

    You said:
    —–“Your comment indicates a radical ignorance of basic physics. There is a massive body of evidence for the Big Bang. It is not absolute proof, but that’s irrelevant because science is not in the business of “proving” things. On the contrary, science is based fundamentally on the awareness that our knowledge is provisional. Thomas Huxley captured this well when he described the “great tragedy of science” as “the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”—–
    (continued from you…)
    Your assertion that the Big Bang is “pseudoscience” is utterly absurd and ignorant. The Big Bang is based on the best science of our age. It is a consequence of General Relativity coupled with observed facts like the microwave background radiation and the expansion of the universe. You simply have no clue what you are talking about. Or what? Do you challenge the field equations of General Relativity? Can you understand, let alone refute, this equation?”——

    Again, you say there is a massive pool of evidence for supporting the big bang, but yet you only seem to cite 2-3 things. Can you cite more please? We would have more to talk about. I on the other hand can cite quite a bit more evidence against the big bang.

    One- the big bang theory violates physics. Something coming from nothing is not valid with a scientific theory. If you were to admit supernatural may be necessary and something needs to be eternal for there to be anything, that you be a more consistent viewpoint.
    The big bang theory invalidates physics and the laws thereof. If the universe came into existence without a cause, goal, or purpose, why would we expect to see a universe abiding by laws of physics? In order to do science at all, we have to assume there are laws and patterns. Secular scientists scoff at creationists that insist that universe needs a cause to come into existence. So for sake of argument, let us presume that the universe does not need a cause. Does it make sense that a senseless universe with no cause adheres to laws and the anthropic principle? Again, your big bang natural argument is contradicting itself. The creation model tells us there is a cause and purpose, and the designer tells us that He created it to follow laws and seasons. I would say that living things that have a cause makes more sense that they came from a universe that has a cause. It makes little sense to say a universe without a cause creating being with a cause.
    Three- The big bang theory nullifies induction. But we observe patterns anyway. Induction is measuring a small, particular instance or state and making a general conclusion. With a universe that came about from natural unguided processes, there is no reason to assume order and patterns. We assume the patterns and order because we see them, but the fact that we see them contradicts the unguided, natural philosophical origin of the big bang story.
    Four- Nullifies abduction. Our society uses the tactics of accepting and finding the best explanation and carrying out justice based on that acceptance. In the courtroom, they do not say did the jury figure it who did it or does the jury know the truth or have proof. No, they ask does the jury have a verdict. Then the jury responds that the jury has reached a verdict. We find the defendant to be guilty or not guilty on these charges. They can only use induction and objectively apply induction to provide the best verdict based on the evidence submitted.
    Five- unpredictable: Stephen Hawking said this, “In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the inverse that is carefully fine-tuned- as if prescribed by an outside agency- or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.”
    If you accept the probability of the big bang and our unique universe which is suitable for life, then you have to come to the conclusion that what scientists who accept the big bang are thinking is true. Regarding making predictions:
    “That’s not possible in an infinite Multiverse. There are no definite predictions, only probabilities. Every conceivable value of dark energy or anything else will exist an infinite number of times among the infinite numbers of universes. And any universal theory of physics valid throughout the Multiverse must reproduce all those values. That makes the odds of observing any particular value infinity divided by infinity. A nonsense that mathematicians call ‘undefined’.” Amanda Gefter, What kind of bang was the big bang? New Scientists, 02 July 2012.
    In a model that can predict everything, you cannot truly make predictions. But this is what experts regarding the big bang are saying today. Many conclude that a multiverse is the only mathematical way to overcome the odds of our universe coming to be by itself.
    Six- self-contradictory: supporters of the big bang are saying that the multiverse is the answer. We have to accept that there are multiple and/or infinite number of undetectable universes outside our own universe. Notice the hypocrisy here. We are not allowed to consider a designer because that is not scientific and evokes the supernatural, but the same supporters of the big bang say that we need to accept multiple non-detectable universes so their math works out okay.
    Some in the scientific community have spoken out against this. “These multiverse theories all share the same fundamental defect: they can be neither confirmed nor falsified. Hence, they don’t deserve to be called scientific. Multiverse theories aren’t theories- they’re science fictions, theologies, works of the imagination unconstrained by evidence” John Hogan in Scientific American.

    “My own moral concerns about the multiverse have more to do with worry that pseudo-science is being heavily promoted to the public. If a wrong idea is promoted for enough years, it gets into the textbooks and becomes part of the conventional wisdom about how the world works. This process is now well underway with multiverse pseudo-science” Peter Woit, author of Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law.

    Seven- Driven by ideology and not science: there are two possible interpretations to red shift. One way, we appear to be in the middle of an expanding universe where everything is moving away from us because it would look this way from anywhere in the universe. Another way, we appear to be at the center of an expanding universe because we are. This second option has been rejected. “The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative.”
    “The unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs… a favored position, of course, is intolerable. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity… must be compensated Etc… There seems to be no other escape.” Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology.
    Stephen Hawking admits: “We are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology.”
    “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” W W Gibbs Scientific American 273(4): 28-29 1995.
    “If there is only one universe, you might have to have a fine-tuner, If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”
    Nothing creating everything, violating the 1st law of thermodynamics, something creating itself, the ad hoc nature of inflation, hydrogen turning into people, dark matter and dark energy, information creating itself, metaphysical anti-science multiverse speculations

    Other problems that come with the big bang and moving from the initial beginning to things forming naturally on their own like stars and planets.
    No Planetestimals:
    “How this process continues from meter-sized boulders to kilometer-scale planetesimals is a major unsolved problem: boulders are expected to stick together poorly, and to spiral into the protostar in a few hundred orbits owing to a headwind from the slower rotating gas.” Johansen, “Rapid planetesimal formation in turbulent circumstellar disks,” Nature 448, 1022-1025 (30 August 2007)
    Aka: getting the boulders to stick together to form larger boulders does not work because they break apart rather than stick together. Another problem is that the objects are spiraling closer to the protostar (which is what they call a star that is forming). They do not and would not maintain a steady orbit. They would collide into the protostar way too soon before the model predicts they could grow into larger planetesimals.

    “Once these planetesimals (about one meter in size) have been formed, further growth of planets may occr through their gravitational accretion into large bodies. Just how that takes place is not understood.”
    -Martin Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, p.553. Textbook

    “objects must have grown very rapidly from sub-mete-sized pebbles into 100km sized bodies, possibly in a single leap.” –John Chambers, “Planetary science: Archaeology of the asteroid belt,” Nature 460, 963-64 (20 August 2009)

    Planet and star formation have to deal with the migration problem. Even if you allow the planet to form, (which evidence strongly suggests that the building blocks of these planets would not work) you still have the problem of the actual (pre-formed) planet orbiting into the star.

    “Theories predict that the giant protoplanets will merge into the central star before planets have time to form. This makes it very difficult to understand how they can form at all.”
    “Understanding the formation of giant planets is currently one of the major challenges for astronomers.” –Astronomy & Astrophysics press release, The locked migration of giant protoplanets, 21 March 2006.

    Problems with star formation
    This is what main stream scientists tell us about star formation. Large amount of gas (clouds of gas) is out in space. Gravity works on the gas until the gas condenses. Nuclear fusion occurs then you get a star. But a problem that you never hear talked about is gravity versus gas pressure. Stars can be stable once they are already stars and dense enough, that high level of density is what gives the star enough stability to be a star. The problem is getting the star to that place of high density and overcoming the gas pressure. The concept is simple. If you have a spray can filled with condensed air, if you push down on the trigger, which way does the air go? The higher pressure air always flows into the common lower pressure air space. No one pushes down on the trigger and sees the less dense air get sucked into the can. The only way you can keep high pressure gas is in some kind of container. Follow this to our space, cloud, gas, star formation problem. Not only is there is no container at all in space but there is not enough high dense, pressured gas to make the star. There is no known solution to keep the gas pressure building during the star formation to the degree necessary to form the star.

    Fortunately and unfortunately for you, main stream scientists are aware of this otherwise there would not be three main categories of theories of ways to overcome this problem. Solutions come in these types of solution: compression, cooling, collisions.
    Compression works in theory when a supernova occurs and resulting shock explosion passes through a gas cloud and it compressed the cloud enough to make higher points of compression which would allow stars to form.
    Cooling is when a supernova also occurs and particles get blown through the gas cloud and the result is that it cools down the cloud enough so that gas pressure goes down. The same concept is seen in putting food, items in a boiling pot of water. Once you put in the “cold or room temperature” items, the water stops boiling because some of the heat is absorbed by the new contents placed in the water. So scientists have good reason to believe that this concept could work in outer space regarding star formation.
    Collision would evolve other stars and galaxies colliding into each and result collision would cause additional stars.
    The problem with all three of these solutions is that all require stars already in existence. Another problem is that the solution requires grains and particles which the big bang cannot produce. Grains and particles can only be produced within a star as a result of the nuclear fusion, according the the big bang model.

    I am not repeating some creation web page jargon. Look at what main stream textbook and scientists have said.

    “The process by which an interstellar cloud is concentrated until it is held together gravitationally to become a protostar is not known.” Eva Novotny, Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors, p.279.
    “Literally hundreds of ideas on how stars are formed have been advanced in past decades. However, we are still far from any real solution.” Martin Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, Second Edition, p 405.
    “The origin of stars represents one of the most fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics.” Charles Lada and Frank Shu, “The Formation of Sunlike Stars,” Science, 4 May 1990, p 564.
    “The formation of stars is one of the most fundamental problems in astrophysics. No current model can reproduce all the observations.” Ward-Thompson, Isolated Star Formation: From Cloud Formation to Core Collapse, Science 4 January 2002: Vol. 295. No 5552, pp. 76-81.

    Cosmic microwave background problem:
    “The apparent alignment in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in one particular direction through space is called “evil” because it undermines our ideas about the standard cosmological model.” Ashok K Singal, Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky?, 17 May 2013, http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134

    So you can say all you want that there is evidence for the big bang. I would agree that people rely on some data and interpret it to fit a big bang model. But this does not prove the big bang and the same scientists have to ignore the other evidence that speaks against the big bang model.

    I will have to finish my full response to the rest of your original post later.

    James

  14. Posted August 17, 2015 at 7:48 pm | Permalink
    Many Christians think the Big Bang is how God created, so there is no necessary connection between it and “unguided natural causes.” But even if there were, it would not give me reason to doubt that “science works” since that is a demonstrable fact. The only question is one of philosophic justification which is interesting but ultimately irrelevant given that science works.

    Your first sentence is not relevant to your position. You say that there is no reason for a creator to explain anything that we can observe. To say that some believe that God used the Big Bang to create would not agree with my position or yours.

    Hey there James,

    I don’t understand your comment. How is it not relevant to my point? You had asked “Based on a worldview of our universe coming from a big bang and from consequently unguided natural causes, what is your basis for assuming science works at all?” I answered by showing your assumption was false. The Big Bang does not necessarily imply that the universe came from “unguided natural causes.”

    Why do you say that the Big Bang is inconsistent with your position? Is it because you deny the universe could be billions of years old? Many Christians think the Big Bang fits with Genesis. Why do you disagree?

    The fact that science “works” is an obvious fact which I am glad you realize. But you have not given an adequate basis for why science works and why we would expect science to work if the universe through random, unguided natural processes created itself.

    What makes you think that natural laws are random? That doesn’t make any sense at all. The laws of gravity and electrodynamics are anything but “random.”

    Why would we expect science to work? Oh … I don’t know. Maybe because science is based on empirical, testable, repeatable, evidence. Maybe because brains with superior logic that correspond to reality survive better and so evolved through natural selection. Knowledge is power. Ability to recognize truth has great value in the struggle to survive.

    Your demand that I “account” for such things seems rather silly given that your religious dogmas are certainly not an “account” of anything. They are nothing but blind superstitions inherited from our primitive and ignorant ancestors.

    I will answer your long post in small segments. It would be best if you replied in kind, so the important points will not be buried under many words.

    All the best,

    Richard

  15. Posted August 17, 2015 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    Many Christians think the Big Bang is how God created, so there is no necessary connection between it and “unguided natural causes.” But even if there were, it would not give me reason to doubt that “science works” since that is a demonstrable fact. The only question is one of philosophic justification which is interesting but ultimately irrelevant given that science works.

    I am also curious at how you can limit this philosophical debate to a non-irrelevant issue. Is this why you keep up a blog to tell your opinion that is not irrelevant? I think not. The better question to focus on is which worldview, cosmic theory better explains what we observe and what we can measure and which worldview is more consistent with itself.

    Cosmic theory? Is that a joke? Christian theism is not a “theory” of any kind! It cannot make any predictions and in as much as it can be tested by experiment, it has failed utterly and completely.

    I really don’t think we are discussing “worldviews.” We are in good agreement in as much as you accept established science. Likewise, I’ve already admitted there could be a god, so we are not disputing Theism vs. Science. What then are we disputing? As far as I can tell, the dispute lies between Science and your fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Am I wrong? You still have not explained why you reject the possibility that God could have created the Big Bang. Many Christians accept the age of the universe and the Big Bang. E.g. Dr. Hugh Ross. Are you saying that they are all wrong? If so, your argument is not just with me and science, but also with all the other Christians who interpret the Bible differently than you. So how is anyone supposed to determine which interpretation is true if not by science? Look at the fruits of Bible interpretations. Two thousand years of contrary interpretations, ten thousand denominations, and twenty thousand false predictions of the date of the return of Christ! Who would put Bible interpretation, a mere weaving of words, above real science established on demonstrable facts?

    Great chatting,

    Richard

  16. James Mckenzie
    Posted August 17, 2015 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    Hello Richard,

    You said:
    —-“Do you challenge the field equations of General Relativity? Can you understand, let alone refute, this equation?”—–

    I do not have to challenge general relativity. The science behind general relativity does not need to be challenged. The implications of general relativity and how it relates to the big bang model does need to be challenged because the implications are not good science.

    You said:
    —–“Do you reject the Penrose-Hawking Singularity theorem that follows from this equation? Do you reject the evidence (first discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929) that the universe is expanding?”——-

    I also do not need to challenge the theorem that follows the equation. The singularity model is already being challenged and debated within the main stream scientific community. I do not reject that the universe is expanding. there is good evidence and this is observable and measurable science. The fact that an expanding universe means that the big bang occurred is a bad assumption. I have already given you reasons that the science behind the theory of natural unguided processes has several processes and steps that do not work.

    You said:
    —–“There may not even have been a singularity since it is likely that quantum effects would take over at that scale. But no one knows because we don’t have a theory of quantum gravity yet. And so once again, we see that you argument is nothing but the God of the gaps. The only place for your god is the land of darkness, superstition, and ignorance. There is no place for him in the realm of knowledge and observable facts.”—–

    You even admit that there may not be a singularity. How can the science for a big bang and a singularity be so “Massive” but it might not be so? I would argue that a universe that demonstrates design, laws, order, seasons, and is suitable for life has more “place” for a God/designer than just the land of darkness and unknown. But you certainly think it is okay to add a man made theory/story that avoids sharing the practical nut and bolt problems and just focuses on spreading the philosophical story without the full disclosed scientific supported. You find 3 points that line up nicely with the theory and that settles it for many.

    You said:
    —-“Yes it does! It has motivated countless Christians to reject well-established science like cosmology and evolution for no reason other than because it contradicts the ridiculous mythological cosmology of the Ancient Near East that was incorporated into the Bible.”—–

    then i said: Much of good science and research and discovery done today is not affected by our philisophical position….

    then you said:
    —–“I agree that believing in God would not necessarily hinder science, but it certainly has led to the irrational rejection of established science by thousands of believers.”—–

    I love how you corrected yourself later in your post. In a way, you admit the only difference is that the only thing being rejected is the philosophical position and conclusions. I have given practical rational reasoning to question and reject the big bang model. so I look forward to hearing your additional scientific support for the big bang.

    You said:
    —–“As for Isaac Newton, he rejected the Trinity. Will you appeal to him as an authority in that case too, or are you cherry picking when to apply your appeal to authority? (That would be a double fallacy, of course.)

    i appealed to more people than Newton. I appealed to people who agree with the big bang model even though they admit they lack real support. Newton is a good example because he did great scientific work and made advancements being a Christian. His view on the trinity is not relevant to this conversation, but I will address your accusation on cherry picking. I do not understand the standard of agreeing with everything might have believed in order to reference someone as an authority on his contributions to science. If I held you to the same standard, you would lose most of all your supporters for the big bang model since many accept a multiverse. So if you reject the multi-universe concept then you disagree with the main stream of scientists as well. So do you cherry pick parts of a theory to propose only the parts you like?

    You said:
    —–“I have dug much deeper than you could imagine James. I have degrees in Mathematics and Physics, with a couple years of graduate work towards a Ph.D. in Quantum Physics (which unfortunately I never completed). Likewise, I have educated myself in the philosophical questions relating to theism, science, epistemology, ontology, and so forth. I doubt there is even one significant Christian argument I have failed to review … and refute. You certainly have not presented anything that I have not seen before. I sincerely hope you will continue the conversation and expose any errors you see in my response, and admit the errors I have exposed.”——

    I wonder if your opinion has changed at all. I do not expect you to change your position. You have a theological, emotional problems to work through. Your rejection of God and acceptance of the big bang is not based on scientific evidence. I also wonder if through all your digging you have heard the problems that I have presented. If you say, and offer no solution, then you accept that you put your faith in a theory with multiple scientific problems and not just gaps but huge canyon problems. If unguided natural processes cannot produce stars and planets, I wonder what hope is there for a theory.
    I am looking forward to hearing your refute.

    James

  17. Posted August 17, 2015 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    Can you explain how the big bang can be the consequence of general relativity? I do not think this is what you meant to write. At least I hope not although you may be repeating or misquoting some secular scientist illogical argument.

    I already explained this in my article and you ignored it. So let me ask AGAIN:

    Do you challenge the field equations of General Relativity? Can you understand, let alone refute, this equation?

    Do you reject the Penrose-Hawking Singularity theorem that follows from this equation? Do you reject the evidence (first discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929) that the universe is expanding?

    You really need to answer these questions if you want anyone to believe your assertions pose anything like a serious challenge to modern scientific theories.

  18. James Mckenzie
    Posted August 17, 2015 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    I suggest you read my entire post before you start responding in part. I give my reasons for rejecting the big bang. You may have to read in full before responding. I may answer your questions later.

    James

  19. Posted August 17, 2015 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    Physics recognizes four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force) But according to the big bang model, when did these forces form? Before or after the big bang? The big bang model says they formed after.

    Not true. The Big Bang model doesn’t say anything about what came “before” because we can’t know anything about that. It might not even be a meaningful question because it could be that time itself “began” with the Big Bang.

    Why do you think you can prove God by appealing to human ignorance? We’ve only known about DNA, Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics for around a hundred years! And you think that our ignorance of our origins is proof for Allah, Zeus, or Yahweh? That’s nothing but the failed God of the Gaps argument.

  20. Posted August 17, 2015 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    When people who accept creation and God as their worldview assert that the big bang cannot be true because something does not come from something,

    This is your fundamental error. The Big Bang theory says NOTHING about what, if anything, came “before.” The question might not even be meaningful any more than asking what is “north of the north pole.”

    You have been repeating this error over and over and over again. The fact that some physicists have SPECULATED about how the universe could (possibly, maybe), have come “from nothing” has NOTHING to do with the Big Bang per se. It could have come from a parent universe we know nothing about. It could be eternal inflation. Etc., etc., etc. You really need to study up on this point. It is a profound error that saturates all your posts.

  21. Posted August 17, 2015 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    When people who accept creation and God as their worldview assert that the big bang cannot be true because something does not come from something,

    Oh … so you deny that God created the universe from nothing? LOL

  22. Posted August 17, 2015 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    I repeat. The big question is which worldview is more logically consistent with itself. Supporters of the big bang say that science and only natural causes and explanations belong in a legitimate cosmology, but they break their own rules to allow plausibility where there are gaps. Creation however assumes the supernatural exists, that God is eternal, and that this universe came by a creator and designer. Forgetting theology for the moment and what the Bible says about God, which worldview to explain the natural phenomena is more consistent with itself?

    And I repeat – this has nothing to do with “worldviews.” I already admit the possibility of some sort of “god.” We cannot “forget” the Bible because that is the god you profess, and the only reason you reject science is because it contradicts your interpretation of the Bible.

    The idea of an “eternal” god makes no sense because an eternal god (outside of time) could not create time because that would mean time already existed (since creation is an act that entails change, and change entails time). This is just another example of how theism is fundamentally incoherent.

  23. Posted August 17, 2015 at 8:53 pm | Permalink
    And this irony is amplified by the fact that the laws of the universe have proven to be absolutely trustworthy, whereas God has been proven to be absolutely untrustworthy, as explained in my article Is God Trustworthy? The Root of Religious Delusion.

    Now you are breaking away from a philosophical discussion on origins based on scientific observations to add your distasteful opinion on theology. Your opinion is noted, but I think to debate theology and God’s reasons for doing things here is getting off topic. But I think it is good note that for one who claims science to be on the side of the big bang and logic and reasoning, you are the one who is failing to bring up adequate scientific evidences for your side and you are also the one who breaks off on an emotional driven theological attack.

    That God is not trustworthy is a demonstrable scientific fact.

    I am not “breaking away from a philosophical discussion on origins based on scientific observations” – our discussion has been nothing like that. You reject science because of your fundamentalist interpretation of the Christian Bible, and so it is more than relevant for me to point out the utter inconsistency of your position, given that the Bible declares God is trustworthy when in fact he is not. Science it trustworthy. God is not. That is a demonstrable fact.

    Sounds like your problems with God and creation are less scientific but are more theological in nature.

    Ha! Not true. My problems with your god is that the Bible is no less a scientific than a moral abomination.

  24. Posted August 17, 2015 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    Also, just saying that the laws of the universe have proven to be trustworthy is stating what every informed person accepts and knows no matter what side of the argument he stands on (creation or big bang). The real argument is which framework makes the most sense based on the evidence we see around us. You can dodge this debate and/or question or you debate and answer it with evidence.

    I don’t “just say” that the laws of the universe have proven trustworthy. Every person living in this modern world with cell phones, computers, planes, cars, medicine, etc., etc., etc. know it is true by observation.

    God is absolutely untrustrorthy. There is no greater proof of the delusional nature of religion than the fact that a billion Muslims proclaim Allah is trustworthy while a billion Christians so NO! It is Yahweh who is trustworthy … all the while both prove themselves to be absolutely untrustworthy. See my article Is God Trustworthy? The Root of Religious Delusion

  25. Posted August 17, 2015 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

    What I actually said was that there is no observable phenomenon that requires a designer to explain. Everything we can actually observe obeys natural law. The only place for any designer would be in the dark region of human ignorance such as the origin of life.

    Your statement is worded in such a way that is narrow minded and is avoiding considering what may be apparent and obvious. It does not work in a debate. I could use the same tactic on the big bang theory. There is no observable phenomenon that requires a big bang theory to explain. It would be better to list actual natural phenomenon and demonstrate which are better explained with a big bang model and which are not as well explained by a designer/creation model.

    It’s not narrow minded at all. It’s perfectly clear. The idea of a “designer” is radically inconsistent with everything we see around us. There is no direct evidence of any kind for any “designer.” Everything we can see follows NATURAL LAWS that can be stated in mathematically precise terms like F = ma, etc. Your “designer” speculation is nothing like that. There is no direct evidence of any kind, and worse, even if it were true it would tell us nothing. It would give us no knowledge. It would not give us the ability to predict the trajectory of a rocket to the moon, or to design a better computer. Your hypothesis of a “designer” is nothing but pure, ignorant creationism masquerading as science, which makes it ten times as repulsive. Science is the pursuit of truth. Your religion is the opposite.

  26. Posted August 17, 2015 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    I do not have to challenge general relativity. The science behind general relativity does not need to be challenged. The implications of general relativity and how it relates to the big bang model does need to be challenged because the implications are not good science.

    Your words make no sense. The singularity is a consequence of the equations of general relativity. It logically follows from the equations. If “the implications are not good science” then there must be saying something is wrong with the equations of general relativity.

  27. Posted August 17, 2015 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    You even admit that there may not be a singularity. How can the science for a big bang and a singularity be so “Massive” but it might not be so? I would argue that a universe that demonstrates design, laws, order, seasons, and is suitable for life has more “place” for a God/designer than just the land of darkness and unknown. But you certainly think it is okay to add a man made theory/story that avoids sharing the practical nut and bolt problems and just focuses on spreading the philosophical story without the full disclosed scientific supported. You find 3 points that line up nicely with the theory and that settles it for many.

    Your entire religion is a “man made” superstition based on complete ignorance of primitive people! And you think it superior to modern science? Wow.

  28. Porky Pig
    Posted August 18, 2015 at 7:41 am | Permalink

    “Science is trustworthy.”

    Nope. Science is broken.

    Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

    Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis.
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915-most-scientific-papers-are-probably-wrong/

    Editor In Chief Of World’s Best Known Medical Journal: Half Of All The Literature Is False:
    “Science has taken a turn towards Darkness”

    In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

    Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

    “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (source)
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/5451305

    A summary of the evidence that most published research is false
    http://simplystatistics.org/2013/12/16/a-summary-of-the-evidence-that-most-published-research-is-false/

  29. Posted August 18, 2015 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    “Science is trustworthy.”

    Nope. Science is broken.

    Ha! That’s ridiculous. It’s like saying Mathematics is broken because a lot of people are sloppy thinkers and make mistakes with numbers. None of those papers you cited show any problem with science per se, but rather the sloppy practice of it. And none of them say anything about the exact sciences such as physics and chemistry which we use on a daily basis and which have proven exceedingly trustworthy.

    The titles of those articles are extremely misleading because they are not talking about science in general, but rather errors that can creep in with statistical studies based on small samples and inadequate controls. Here is how Horton put it:

    The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

    My statement stands. The established results of science are exceedingly trustworthy. People trust their lives to planes, trains, automobiles, modern medicine, and ten thousand products of science on a daily basis. It is the precise opposite of all the gods humans have trusted throughout history. Those gods are nothing but vanity. Not one can be trusted.

  30. James Mckenzie
    Posted August 18, 2015 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    Hello Richard,

    ——-The Big Bang does not necessarily imply that the universe came from “unguided natural causes.” ——–
    I am not sure if I get your comment. How can the universe come about through the big bang model by anything but unguided natural causes? Isn’t that the point of the big bang model, to demonstrate how (in theory) the universe and ultimately us could have come into existence through natural processes implying no designer or guided processes were necessary? Are you merely admitting that it is possible that some kind of unnamed designer could have used the big bang?

  31. James Mckenzie
    Posted August 18, 2015 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    ——Why do you say that the Big Bang is inconsistent with your position? Is it because you deny the universe could be billions of years old? Many Christians think the Big Bang fits with Genesis. Why do you disagree?——-

    I disagree for both hermeneutics and scientific reasons. The only way you arrive at a position that says God (the God of the Bible) created the universe using the big bang is bad science and bad hermeneutics. There is plenty of evidence that supports the earth, universe etc is not billions of years old. If you focus on one method (radiometric dating), you get billions of years (and distant starlight, but that does not help a big bang supporter because no one knows under the big bang model how stars came about in the first place, it is only a problem for a young universe). But if you look at other measurable dating methods, the universe appears to be much younger than billions of years old. These are not my assertions as you seem to think. These other methods are well known by all but are rejected or minimized because they do not give the data that they want to hear. Period. For instance, all the incoming photos on Pluto suggest that the dwarf planet is much younger than previously expected to be. It was expected to have been hit by multiple asteroids and debris. But to suggest that Pluto could be only thousands of years old does not fit the evolution, big bang time scale, (even though it does fit the measurable evidence) so now they say that Pluto may only be 1 million years old. They originally thought 4 billion years old. How can a theory be so trustworthy if they were a 1,000 times off? Are they relying on science to base their theory or more presupposition? According to Nebula theory of planet and star formation as applied to our own solar system, all of the planets should have formed about the same time. So will this come up in the meetings and talks about Pluto? It will probably not. The media does not hit on such issues.
    I also reject that God used the big bang for it causes bad hermeneutics. The only way people like Hugh Ross, whom I have listened to hear out his opinions, is if he breaks the rules of hermeneutics and reads into the text what is not there. He focuses on one word yom (day) for instance and how it can be used to referred to ages or long undesignated periods of time and runs with it. This is not an open, arbitrary choice of “which interpretation you like the best.” To come up with this interpretation, he has to deny or ignore all the other literary markers in the text that define the word yom in the text to a literal 24 hour period day. After each day of creation, it says there was evening and there was morning. This strongly rules out the idea that yom (day) is open to mean long ages of time. But Hugh Ross is determined to compromise his hermeneutics to make himself more open to main stream scientific discussion. That is all that it is. It is compromise and peer pressure. The Pope has done it and so has many others including Hugh Ross. Truth is not accountable for people’s compromise and error. Sorry, try another point.
    But as I have already said, there are KNOWN problems with planets forming, stars forming on their own under the big bang model. Right now, nobody knows how the first stars and planets formed at all.

  32. James Mckenzie
    Posted August 18, 2015 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    1 —–“Do you challenge the field equations of General Relativity? Can you understand, let alone refute, this equation?”
    2 “You really need to answer these questions if you want anyone to believe your assertions pose anything like a serious challenge to modern scientific theories.”
    3 “Do you reject the Penrose-Hawking Singularity theorem that follows from this equation? Do you reject the evidence (first discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929) that the universe is expanding?”——

    1 Can you tell me two things? Why is it necessary for me to understand fully and refute the equation? The equation deals with General Relativity not proof of the big bang. You have already said that science is not in the business of proving things. The second thing is how do you think this equation proves the big bang? And if it doesn’t, then why does it help the big bang so much when there are more problems than positive points. I have only counted 3 positive points for the big bang while I can count over 20 negative points against it. You are a mathematician. Which is greater, 3 (general relativity, microwave background, redshift) or 20+? Are there other positive points to support the big bang or does 3 mean massive evidence now a days?
    2 Your next statement is quite appalling. I repeated other MAIN STREAM scientist’s assertions of problems with the big bang model. These were NOT MY CALCULATIONS!! These same guys know the equations that you posted and they STILL have the same objections. So do you simply think you have the right to deny Stephen Hawking’s objections and assertions of problems just because I do not fully understand an equation? I may as well say your theological objections to God are not valid because you do not have the level of theological training and education as I do. If you do not know what the Parousia is or what dispensationalism is when it relates to the Bible, then no one will take your theological objections seriously. How idiotic of me would that be? But to me, that is what you have done. Your theological objections or questions or concerns are valid to point out, now granted they may not be valid to support your conclusions, but they are valid to discuss regardless of your knowledge of all theological doctrines. I brought up real, measurable problems for the big bang model that come after the big bang as a consequence of accepting the big bang model. You can either accept that there problems and say we have more gaps, or you can refute that they are not real problems at all. Keep in mind that you would be disagreeing with main stream scientists not with creationists or me.
    3 I already answered that I do not deny that the universe is expanding. This is good measurable science. I do not see how an expanding universe is not congruent with a creationist view. Can you tell me how an expanding universe puts doubt on a designer or the creationist view? You seem to confuse something here and make a faulty of comparison. Measurable and testable science is reliable and good. It is the conclusions that come from the good science that are not always trustworthy, good, and right. General relativity and red shift do little for proving the big bang model when there is the horizon problem, the flatness problem, the inflation problem, the problem of star formation, the problem of planetestimals, and the hypocrisy of strong theory and the pseudoscience of the mutiverse. I could not have made up these objections. They are MAIN STREAM scientist objections.

    James

  33. Posted August 18, 2015 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    I am not sure if I get your comment. How can the universe come about through the big bang model by anything but unguided natural causes? Isn’t that the point of the big bang model, to demonstrate how (in theory) the universe and ultimately us could have come into existence through natural processes implying no designer or guided processes were necessary? Are you merely admitting that it is possible that some kind of unnamed designer could have used the big bang?

    Hey there James,

    I’m glad you are engaging me on this point. It seems to be the core of your confusion. The Big Bang Model is a consequence of General Relativity. It has nothing to do with any presupposition about whether or not a God designed the whole thing. Have you never heard of the Fine Tuning Argument? The whole point of that argument is that the Big Bang was DESIGNED by God. Get it? You’ve been tilting at windmills. You’ve been attacking the very evidence that the most sophisticated Christians use in support of theism.

    Great chatting,

    Richard

  34. Posted August 18, 2015 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    Why do you say that the Big Bang is inconsistent with your position? Is it because you deny the universe could be billions of years old? Many Christians think the Big Bang fits with Genesis. Why do you disagree?

    I disagree for both hermeneutics and scientific reasons. The only way you arrive at a position that says God (the God of the Bible) created the universe using the big bang is bad science and bad hermeneutics.

    There is plenty of evidence that supports the earth, universe etc is not billions of years old.

    That’s what I thought. You reject modern science because it contradicts the mythological cosmology written by utterly ignorant and superstitious primitive men. Wow.

    Thanks for letting us all know where you are really coming from.

  35. Posted August 18, 2015 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    But if you look at other measurable dating methods, the universe appears to be much younger than billions of years old. These are not my assertions as you seem to think.

    I didn’t think they were your assertions. It’s obvious you did not make them up yourself. They are the typical lying propaganda spewed forth by corrupt creationists.

    There is no greater irony than people lying in the name of Jesus, whom they claim to believe is the “Truth.” The whole world of Christianity is utterly corrupt. If you want to know what I’m talking about, here are a few examples:

    Ergun Caner’s Crimes against God and the Global Community

    2013 New Year Reflections: How Integrity led me into and drove me out of Evangelical Christianity

    Statement from Liberty To Lie University (with Annotations)

    I could give hundreds of similar examples.

  36. Posted August 18, 2015 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    I also reject that God used the big bang for it causes bad hermeneutics. The only way people like Hugh Ross, whom I have listened to hear out his opinions, is if he breaks the rules of hermeneutics and reads into the text what is not there. He focuses on one word yom (day) for instance and how it can be used to referred to ages or long undesignated periods of time and runs with it. This is not an open, arbitrary choice of “which interpretation you like the best.” To come up with this interpretation, he has to deny or ignore all the other literary markers in the text that define the word yom in the text to a literal 24 hour period day. After each day of creation, it says there was evening and there was morning. This strongly rules out the idea that yom (day) is open to mean long ages of time. But Hugh Ross is determined to compromise his hermeneutics to make himself more open to main stream scientific discussion. That is all that it is.

    So if the days are literal, how do you get your million of years which (if I recall correctly), you mentioned in a previous post?

  37. Posted August 18, 2015 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    Truth is not accountable for people’s compromise and error. Sorry, try another point.

    And who is the arbiter of truth? You? Your private interpretation? Why should anyone believe the Bible? It is filled with contradictions, errors, absurdities, and moral abominations attributed to God. Why would anyone believe it? Can you give any justification for your belief?

  38. Posted August 18, 2015 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    But as I have already said, there are KNOWN problems with planets forming, stars forming on their own under the big bang model. Right now, nobody knows how the first stars and planets formed at all.

    So your “solution” to the “known problems” is mere magic? Your imaginary Xulu Gawd said “Abracadabra! Let there be stars!” That’s it?

  39. Posted August 18, 2015 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    Can you tell me two things? Why is it necessary for me to understand fully and refute the equation? The equation deals with General Relativity not proof of the big bang. You have already said that science is not in the business of proving things.

    Why is it necessary for you to understand the science that you ignorantly reject in favor of demonstrably false superstitions written by primitive men?

    Wow. Thank you for demonstrating how religion destroys the mind of believers.

  40. Posted August 18, 2015 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    Why is it necessary for me to understand fully and refute the equation? The equation deals with General Relativity not proof of the big bang. You have already said that science is not in the business of proving things.

    For the same reason you need to understand arithmetic before you can “refute” the fact that 1 + 2 = 3.

    The fact that science is not in the business of “proving” things has nothing to do with the mathematical proofs that relate to mathematical equations like the Field Equations of General Relativity. The fact that I have to explain such elementary facts demonstrates, yet again, that you are utterly ignorant of the most basic elements of science. You really need to quit pretending that you know anything about real science. The only thing you “know” is the ludicrous propaganda spewed forth by corrupt creationists.

  41. Porky Pig
    Posted August 19, 2015 at 1:30 am | Permalink

    “Nope. Science is broken.

    Ha! That’s ridiculous.”

    Oh puh-lease. Science is in crisis and your precious physics is leading the way. Two words: string theory. It’s the same everywhere. Your precious Darwinian evolution is just as broke. Two words: Horizontal gene Transfer. Even New Scientist can see the writing on the wall:

    “UST suppose that Darwin’s ideas were only a part of the story of evolution. Suppose that a process he never wrote about, and never even imagined, has been controlling the evolution of life throughout most of the Earth’s history.”
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527441.500-horizontal-and-vertical-the-evolution-of-evolution/?full=true&print=true

    Fancy that, only part of the story. Get more here\
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/horizontal_gene098531.html

    And so on, and etc, in every discipline. Don’t even get me started on “climate science”, the most busted of all.

    Fact is, you are a creature of blind faith Richard. When you were a Christian, Christianity was perfect, you were the smartest guy on the internet, and everybody else was an idiot. Now, it’s all about Science for you. Science is perfect, you are the smartest guy on the internet and everybody else is still an idiot. Plus ca change…..

    Science is broken. Humans are flawed. Our brains are tiny boxes of mush in an infinite cosmos. We know nothing. Start there.

  42. Posted August 19, 2015 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    Oh puh-lease. Science is in crisis and your precious physics is leading the way. Two words: string theory. It’s the same everywhere. Your precious Darwinian evolution is just as broke. Two words: Horizontal gene Transfer. Even New Scientist can see the writing on the wall:

    I have no idea what you think you are talking about. I doubt you have a clue yourself. String theory does not represent any kind of “crisis” for physics, let alone science in general. It does not cast any doubt on the tried and true results of science that we prove a trillion times every day with our cars, cellphones, and computers. And neither is horizontal gene transfer any kind of crisis in the theory of evolution. It is merely another possible mechanism for the genetic variability that is required for evolution through natural selection. Your comments are utterly empty of any meaning.

    And so on, and etc, in every discipline.

    Yeah, right. There are big challenges to Ohm’s law and the second law of thermodynamics. It’s a miracle that cars, cellphones, and computers work at all given that the basic laws of physics are all in “crisis” and about to fall.

    Fact is, you are a creature of blind faith Richard. When you were a Christian, Christianity was perfect, you were the smartest guy on the internet, and everybody else was an idiot. Now, it’s all about Science for you. Science is perfect, you are the smartest guy on the internet and everybody else is still an idiot. Plus ca change…..

    Not true. I never said that “Christianity was perfect” and I never presented myself as “the smartest guy on the internet.” On the contrary, I have consistently made it clear that I don’t have all the answers and that there is nothing special about me. When I was a Christian, I explicitly gave God the credit for what I saw as an amazing design that “He put in His Word.” I never took credit for anything. And now I’ve explicitly exposed my own errors in articles like Debunking Myself: What A Long Strange Trip It’s Been and Debunking Myself: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. I have gone into great detail about how I deluded myself with cognitive biases and errors. Would an arrogant man publicly expose his own errors like I have?

    Likewise, I have never said that “science is perfect.” Your comments are riddled with blatant errors and absurdities. I suppose that’s why people like you think that I think I’m so smart. You write crap that is so stupid and indefensible it makes my rational response look like a work of genius by comparison.

    plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose – indeed!

  43. Josef Sefton
    Posted August 19, 2015 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

    Let us revere our God; for He is the LORD.

    Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You deaf and mute spirit, I command you, come out of him and do not enter him again.” See Mark 9:25

    Let us show we love the LORD by preaching the Gospel to the poor.

    Why does usaved man remain unsaved?
    Zechariah 7:11 answers this question:

    “But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing.

    Unsaved man serves gods, the work of man’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell.
    Psalms 115:6

    They have ears, but they cannot hear; They have noses, but they cannot smell;
    Daniel 5:23

    Unsaved man is in gloom and darkness!
    Unsaved man exalts himself against the Lord of heaven.

    He has praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood and stone, which do not see, hear or understand But the God in whose hand are his life-breath and all his ways, he has not glorified.

    He needs to repent of the works of his hands, so as not to worship demons, and the idols of gold and of silver and of brass and of stone and of wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk!
    Revelation 9:20

    

  44. Josef Sefton
    Posted August 20, 2015 at 5:49 am | Permalink

    Why are Richard and Rose unable to see that the very person they
    write against is the most loving person of all?

  45. James
    Posted August 20, 2015 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    Hey Richard,

    Apparently you are unable to read. Your hatred for christian faith has hindered your ability to read. Look at who I quoted in my objections to science theory. I did not quote Ken Ham or other “christian” appologetics. I quoted main stream scientists who support the big bang model.

    So you believe that just because red shift and general relativity tell us the universe is expanding that HAS TO MEAN THE UNIVERSE STARTED FROM A SINGULARITY? Can you explain that? You said it is a consequence. Can you elaborate? A 99% consequence? A shot in the dark consequence? The best we have right now consequence? How do you know you are not repeating what secular physicists and astronomers are saying?

    You also presume because my interpretation of the universe corresponds to what the Bible says that i am behind the times or unevolved in my acceptance of “truth.” But the truth about the big bang is it all story, philosophical input, interpretation, and filled with “we do not know at all.” So if i reject the bible because it just says god created it. What is my other option? Hydrogen just did it somehow. We do not know how stars formed, they just did. We do not know how the huge giant gas planets formed. They just did. Move on and accept it. We do not know how any of the building blocks came about, elements. How does an atom go to hydrogen. No one knows. That is only the belief, story because hydrogen is the most likely. But i gain nothing by switching beliefs. The big bag theory leaves me in the dark just as much as a creation belief. At least with creation, it makes more sense why things work, why there is order, why there is a purpose to our existence, why there is something rather than nothing at all.

    Meanwhile, you should work on your reading skills. The problem with star formation and planet formation is not a creationist argument. It is printed in secular main stream textbookoks, science journals, and books. Purhaps you should do some more digging.

    James

  46. James Mckenzie
    Posted August 20, 2015 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Hello Richard,

    Let me clarify. I said, “The problem with star formation and planet formation is not a creationist argument.”
    I will say that the problem did not originate or was dreamed up by creationists. Certainly creationists will mention these “problems” to point out the flaws in the big bang model. But creationists can only use these arguments in the first place because the supporters of the big bang realized that they are there and wrote about them. The problems are mentioned in Nature, Science journals, peer reviewed sources, Scientific American, and other respected sources within the main stream science community. So please do not repeat again that the objections and missing gaps to star and planet formation are not “real” objections and problems, or they are just garbage from creationists.

    You have a knack for twisting other people’s words against them or for misinterpreting them. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that I was not clear. When I say that the big bang model is not scientific and says that things come from no where, you said that I should reject creation because God is said to have created from nothing according to the Bible.
    But your point is moot when you understand the big picture.
    1. You cannot reject the Bible for saying a being creating them and then they appear from nothing is not scientific. So therefore, I reject it. But then turn around and say the big bang model is based on science. NO, the universe is expanding is based on science. Everything else, including how stars formed, planets formed, atoms get to hydrogen, galaxies formed etc is all story telling and “we do not really know.” They say we just have to accept that they came about somehow.
    2. What I call God creating from nothing is consistent with what I believe. I believe that God is powerful and able to create from nothing supernaturally. I do not try to shy away from supernatural origins. The big bang model denies a supernatural origin, a designer, and leaves no room for either. The big bang model and its supporters claim that all can come about from nothing through natural processes (which they do not know where they come from either).
    3. So you cannot reject creationism for breaking science rules, when your own supported theory breaks its own science rules. At least, I admit God’s creation is not scientific. It makes sense that brilliant minds cannot figure out how a powerful being created everything. If hydrogen created it all, I would think we could have figured out hydrogen by now, being more “evolved.”
    So to answer your lol point, remark question, yes, I do believe God created from nothing. But don’t reject that just to accept that “stuff” came from nothing anyway.

    James

  47. Posted August 20, 2015 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    Apparently you are unable to read. Your hatred for christian faith has hindered your ability to read. Look at who I quoted in my objections to science theory. I did not quote Ken Ham or other “christian” appologetics. I quoted main stream scientists who support the big bang model.

    So you believe that just because red shift and general relativity tell us the universe is expanding that HAS TO MEAN THE UNIVERSE STARTED FROM A SINGULARITY? Can you explain that? You said it is a consequence. Can you elaborate? A 99% consequence? A shot in the dark consequence? The best we have right now consequence? How do you know you are not repeating what secular physicists and astronomers are saying?

    Hey there James,

    Apparently you are the one with an inability to read. I have repeatedly explained that the Big Bang is a mathematical consequence of Einstein’s field equations. This was proven by the singularity theorems of Penrose and Hawking. If you disagree, then all you need to do is demonstrate the error in their mathematics. I get the impression you don’t understand the meaning of the word “theorem” in a mathematical context. It refers to a result (consequence) that follows by necessity from other propositions (such as the field equations).

    The fact that you don’t understand these elementary facts relating to General Relativity makes your rejection of it beyond absurd. It is pathetic. It reveals how religion corrupts the minds of believers by encouraging them to arrogantly exalt their ignorance above the entire scientific community, as if their primitive superstitions were the very truth of God.

    Richard

  48. James
    Posted August 24, 2015 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    Hello Richard,

    I think we are still talking past each. Neither one of us seems to realize the weight and value of our side of the argument. I get that the big bang theory is a mathematical consequence of general relativity and singularity theorems. But what i do not get is the so what factor, which i will explain. Correct me if i am wrong, but all i am understanding from what i read is that a big bang is matheimatically predicted based on general relativity, red shift, and cosmic microwaves. But creating and solving math problems, like word problems, works well when you can put in your own values and solutions. But real world word problems only have a practical application and only provide a real life solution if you plug in all the real world values we see. If i could prove with math that a defendant could have been at the scene of the crime, that does not prove the defendant committed the crime. It only demonstrates that he could have committed the crime based on a time and math. There may be other factors to consider.
    In the big bang model, other factors have already been considered. The horizon problem, and the formation of the first stars and planets are a few of several known problems recognized by main stream scientists. The big bang predicts different things than we actually do not see either including monopoles. It has been my point all along that the big bang is only based on good science when you consider points A, B, C. But when you look at other points like D-W, the model has no sound conclusions or solutions to provide explanations for what we see.
    So going back to the defendant time math issue, let us say that the defendant had the time to be at the scene of the crime when the crime took place. This does not prove that he did it, and if we look at other factors like no one else who was there remembers seeing the person there, ever. Then the math used to prove that he “could” have been there is now rendered moot. It is useless.
    This is how i feel about the connection of general relativity and the big bang. I see the other problems that have no solution as rendering this mathematical consequense moot. If there were not other problems, then the math would have a better point to consider for me.
    There is also the philisophical point. What basis do we have to assume that a mathematical equation (extrapolated backwards), is the right equation? What else do we see in life that expands and we can extrapolate backwards back to a singularity, including to no source. A balloon does not start from a singularity. Everything we can see and witness growth and expansion has a source, and is a natural process already in place that shows function and order. We can extrapolate backwards the growth of a plant, tree to a seed. But that does not tell us where the seed came from. A seed is also not a singularity. We can witness the growth of a child in a womb. A child also does not start without a definite cause and it comes from a zygote (if my memory is correct), not a singularity.
    So based on what we see around us, growing and forming in less time than millions and billions of years and nothing from a singularity, what is the philosophical basis for assuming that the entire universe started from a singularity? You say a mathematical consequense of some guy in a room. I have no doubts about general relativity’s use to understand and measure what we see today and how it moves and functions, but to say math is a good strong basis to say where it all came from is lacking to me. I am afraid that you have been fed this stuff from main stream journals and main stream science media when the reality is that the main stream scientific community hasn’t a clue. But since the big bang model is the only naturalistic model they have, they will keep it. There is also no way to verify the math is correct. Being right on paper is different than being proved corresponding to the real world. Internal logical consistency is the only thing i see math related to the big bang and string theory achieving. I am going to need more.

    I hope you see better where i am coming from.

    James

  49. Josef Sefton
    Posted August 24, 2015 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    The ways of Christ Jesus are ways of pleasantness, and all His paths are peace.

    He is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon Him and happy is every one that retaineth Him.

    The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just and His secret is with the righteous.

    Surely Our LORD scorns the scorners: but He gives grace unto the lowly.
    The ways of Christ Jesus are ways of pleasantness, and all His paths are peace.

    He is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon Him and happy is every one that retaineth Him.

    The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just and His secret is with the righteous.

    Surely Our LORD scorns the scorners: but He gives grace unto the lowly.

  50. Josef Sefton
    Posted August 24, 2015 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    Richard, don’t forget God’s law; but let your heart keep His commandments:

    For length of days, and long life, and peace, can they add to you.

    Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:

    So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.

    Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto your own understanding.

    In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths.

    Be not wise in your own eyes: fear (hallow) the LORD, and depart from evil.

    It shall be health to your navel, and marrow to your bones.

  51. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted August 25, 2015 at 2:38 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    If I am not mistaken, the Big Bang was confirmed almost a quarter of a century ago by COBE and data collected by NASA’s WMAP satellite. So it’s old hat!

    And Fred Hoyle’s steady state model and his other “bogus-arguments” proffered by creationists were debunked long ago! LOL.

    We can all speculate, but why do they (creationists and theists) try to discredit inflation? Obviously to muddy the waters garner publicity? IMO General relativity tells us that inflation of sorts is a must!!

    If I am not mistaken, the Big Bang was confirmed almost a quarter of a century ago by COBE, data collected by NASA’s WMAP satellite, and many ground and balloon-based experiments (such as Degree Angular Scale Interferometer, Cosmic Background Imager, and Boomerang). So it’s old hat!

    Newer experiments, such as QUIET and the Atacama Cosmology Telescope, are trying to measure the polarization of the cosmic microwave background. These measurements are “expected to provide further confirmation of the theory as well as information about cosmic inflation, and the so-called secondary anisotropies”

    It’s long since resolved by Professor Hawking (and by Sir Roger Penrose), by declaring that “the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and [is not imposed on it from outside]…Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 14 billion years ago.

    One More Thing…

    More generally, we are learning more and more every day about the neural brain-basis of consciousness- what goes on in the brain when you have a conscious experience- down to itty bitty details: why one thing looks redder or tastes saltier than another, and countless other details of perception, memory, and emotion. The part that remains a mystery is why the purely subjective aspect of experience should exist at all. That really isn’t a scientific problem and may not even be a coherent question- since, by definition, pure subjective conscious-experience has no observable consequences. It is possible that the existence of subjective first-person experience is not explainable by science.

    When cognitive neuroscience completes the story of how the brain works and predicts every last itch, every last nuance of color and sound in terms of the activity of the brain, one can still wonder why it feels like something to see and touch and taste. My own hunch is that this unsatisfied curiosity may itself be an artifact of how our brains work. It may be a question like “What occurred before the Big Bang?,” or “What’s outside our finite universe?” The puzzlement may come from a mismatch between our ways of thinking and knowing and the nature of reality as revealed by our best science.

    Then the speculative “metaphysical and religious questions” about its origin become totally-meaningless and merely betray mistaken preconceptions, rather like asking “what kind of cheese comprises the moon?”

    Our brains are organs that think and know in particular ways, and if they cannot come to grips with the discoveries of our best modern cience (such as the discovery that brain activity causes subjective experience), that may just be our problem, a limitation of our own common-sense intuition in fully appreciating the lessons of our science.

  52. Josef Sefton
    Posted August 25, 2015 at 2:54 am | Permalink

    I think too many people think that they can feed from Science and be
    fulfilled. What is the truth? Only Jesus, who is the truth, can fulfill us.
    He has words of life that can fulfill us, for He is the eternal Word of God.

  53. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted August 25, 2015 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    James, I’ve got to add that quoting Sir Fred Hoyle is a Riot!

    Hoyle’s calculations are worse than ridiculous! LOL You can find debunkings of them all over the Internet. See, for instance, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html. Not to mention Kauffman’s work, which is far more modern than Hoyle’s, and Kauffman is an actual biologist, unlike Hoyle who was a physicist.

    His calculations, as I have mentioned, utterly neglect the parallel reactions of life all over the planet, selection processes, the self-organization of autocatalyzing chemical networks, and all kinds of oAnothether concepts. It also ignores the other point I made before, which is that there are *many* ways of producing polypeptides; when you change the calculation from “producing this specific biomolecule” to “producing a biomolecule”, it is an entirely different matter.

    I suspect others like Denten and Quastler have the same problems, since all creationist probability calculations I’ve seen make the same naive assumptions. As for Dawkins, he most certainly does not agree; he is probably the world’s most vocal critic of your position. Have you really read Dawkins?

    Another thing is, Chemicals do not require outside intervention to interact with each other.

    Scientists don’t have all the answers, they have questions….only fundamentalist bible-whores and bible-thumpers make that extraordinary claim.

    I”ve not met ANYONE with a real scientific background that didn’t at least accept that the theories of evolution, coupled with the mountains of physical evidence in support of those theories, gave a compelling explanation for the extraordinary diversity of life on Earth. The ultimate test of ANY scientific theory is how well it explains what we see in the observable universe – and, like it or not, evolution is the theory that most successfully does so today.

    If a better theory comes along, evolution will be replaced by it. However, there isn’t much sign of a superior alternative today. I challenge you to bring up a single thing that could not be explained in some other (simpler and more scientific) way.

    And people who challenge evolution are dismissed as fools because they overwhelmingly are fools. Fools with a poor undertanding of what they challenge, a poor understanding of the arguments they try to use against it and a fundamentalist religious agenda. Intelligent design is not science. Evolution is. If and when any of you have a better theory about how the biological diversity we see around us came about, a theory that fits the evidence, then the world will listen. Until that time I suggest you back off and reconsider your religious stance.

    Our existence is not evidence of a supreme theistic-being, one can either choose to believe that there is a God, or that there is not a God, it has nothing to do with science.

    There IS no ‘Theory of Intelligent Design’, unlike the Theory of Evolution. After many years of questioning, I have yet to see any ID proponent articulate an actual theory that doesn’t involve ‘and then god’s magic happens.

  54. James Mckenzie
    Posted August 25, 2015 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    Hello Svpia-Bpvmt777,

    Welcome to the conversation.

    “And people who challenge evolution are dismissed as fools because they overwhelmingly are fools.”
    This is circular logic. Can you please define fool?

    If a better theory comes along, evolution will be replaced by it.”
    So you want me to accept evolution/ big bang because there is no other theory yet? That makes sense.

    “There IS no ‘Theory of Intelligent Design’, unlike the Theory of Evolution. After many years of questioning, I have yet to see any ID proponent articulate an actual theory that doesn’t involve ‘and then god’s magic happens.”
    Your comments blend with truth and distortions with great artistry and double standards. You reject the notion of intelligent design and a god because it is not scientific. Point taken. You have made it clear that one just has to accept that the “designer” brought it into existence somehow. Point taken.
    But can you tell me, what actual verifiable and testable knowledge do I gain by accepting the big bang? I gain just a different story of I do not know. How does something come from nothing? We don’t know. Where did the first stars come from? We do not know. We theorize instead. It is unjustified story telling, not science. How did planetesimals larger than a meter stick to each gradually to make bigger planetesimals and eventually become planets? How did these planets also overcome the migration problem? Main stream scientists recognize this as an unsolved mystery. Did you know that was a mystery? Why do they not tell you this on NOVA and the discovery channel? Why do they tell you that the only mystery we need to solve is the very beginning? But they tell you “Just accept that’s how it happened.” So if all you can do is retort that belief in a god is not scientific and where did god come from, that is moot, because your own theory is then unscientific based on your own rules. We both are in the dark on understanding the very beginning. So it makes sense to have a world view that best fits the evidence we see around us and what we observe. We see seasons and order, not natural random chaos. We see intelligence. You can say all you want about chemicals and what we “know” about them. But we do not know why they work at all in the first place and where the information came from to tell them to function that way. You can wait a million years and get a bunch of dots on a page that read a paragraph in braille. That is believable to some degree. It is a long stretch, but believable. But it takes intelligence to assign value to those dots. The fact that natural processes can move them in arrangements means nothing if they have no assigned value, no instructions on what they mean and how to read them. To me, it makes more sense to stick with the question of where did God come from and say that His intelligence made us and the instructions for us to function. Or we can go with your theory that says, we do not why and how the chemicals did what they did, but we know that they did, that is all that matters. Well, maybe all that matters is knowing that God made them. I gain or loose nothing but a philosophical point of view is the only difference. I am also not ashamed to call my beliefs faith. It is subjective. The hypocrisy that bothers me is that your beliefs and “i do not knows” is called science. It is faith, blind faith at that mixed with good science at times. But the ultimate differences that informed creationists disagree with are philosophical in nature, not scientific. I do not have enough faith to believe in Darwinian evolution.
    So I ask you again, what actual verifiable knowledge do I gain? There are plenty of actual observed phenomenon in our universe that is congruent with a design point of view.

    James

  55. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted August 27, 2015 at 2:36 am | Permalink

    James, it’s all bullshit. You (and all the other asshats…) are full of shit. Interesting that when someone knows subconsciously that they are full of shit, they have to use superlatives like the word “Informed Creationist?” (a Contradiction of terms) would be unnecessary even once if you truly believed what you are saying! LMAO. It is absurd, and focuses your self doubt like a laser beam on your statement.

    Ah, another dumb American squabbling over evolution. It won’t be a pretty future if all we have is a bunch of anti-science and neo-luddite fundamentalist believers, religious-right ranters, conspiracists and bible-bigots, will it?

    IMO Creationists in general are just as rabidly fanatic in their groundless dogmatic-faith and intelligent design pseudo-theory, as say, some of your average Southern Baptist is with regard to his ridiculous fundamentalism, evangelicalism, hyper-literalism, sexist, misogynistic and gender-biased thoughts.

    Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the scientific community knows that evolutionism is a fact. Once again your idea, that a creator came along and just “Did Things” (Godidit!) does not fit the evidence of either the cosmology, genetics or the fossil record. You’re making up more and more elaborate ways to fit a designer or creator into known evidence and failing.

    You just can’t admit that evolution was arrived at on the basis of evidence, not some “secular humanist agenda” or atheist conspiracy by “main stream scientists.” That’s ridiculous.

    The vast super-majority of all scientists in related fields support evolution theory, and in non-related fields do also. Your “informed circle” must be pretty small) As nicely as I can put it– you’re uninformed, if not an outright idiot.

    Really, just having you say ‘Evolution is broke’ tells me that you don’t actually travel in any informed circles. Could you give us some examples of these ‘informed circles.” Please educate yourself about REAL science, and then come back to talk to us about ‘being informed’ and the laws of thermodynamics.

    IMO, it doesn’t make sense to mix science and religion (biblical theism), because I believe religion is based on dogmatic-faith, and that faith is merely believing something to be true without any common-sense, reason, or evidence. If one needs to support their so-called faith with “scientific” evidence, or feels that science infringes on their beliefs, perhaps they should reexamine their faith.

    It is not a scientific viewpoint, to take evidence and discard what disagrees with your preconceived notions. So far evidence has only reinforced and refined what we know about evolution, occasionally pointing out where our theories were inadequate. Nothing so far has been found that contradicts the overall theory. You’re playing the “god of the gaps” game in which verything unexplained is god’s work.

    As the gaps in our knowledge close up your god is forced to a smaller and smaller domain.

    Quit making up stuff, unless creationists are “informed circles” to you. Stop all your Quote-mining…it is the lowest form of debate. Provide some real sources. You made a fool of yourself with all those bad analogies and pasted comments. It is utter nonsense. Proof by assertion and inadequate analogy is not very compelling.

    You don’t know or understand how to directly answer or refute Richard’s challenging question as it relates to the Big Bang from the mathematical consequence of Einstein’s field equations of General Relativity,- and because it is TRUE,- and must be hard you to swallow, you just offer up a bunch of the same old MADE UP CREATIONIST BULLSHIT! So please do not repeat again the pseudo-objections and faux problems to stellar and planet formation garbage from creationists.

    It is beyond absurd…How pathetic. Any scientist not interested in being proven wrong is no scientist! So if disagree, all you need do is simply demonstrate the error in their mathematics, eh.

    But apparently you are unable to read or understand. Also, maybe you should repeat 7th grade English class again. LOL.

  56. Posted August 27, 2015 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

    But can you tell me, what actual verifiable and testable knowledge do I gain by accepting the big bang? I gain just a different story of I do not know. How does something come from nothing?

    The Big Bang says nothing about “something coming from nothing.” I’ve explained this to you repeatedly yet you continue to repeat it. Your ignorance is inexcusable (and as enlightening as it is frustrating).

  57. Posted August 27, 2015 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    How does something come from nothing? We don’t know.

    Your presumed God is “something.” Where did he come from? You don’t know. And apparently, neither does he. Your presumed God is not an explanation of anything.

  58. Posted August 27, 2015 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

    But can you tell me, what actual verifiable and testable knowledge do I gain by accepting the big bang?

    The point is not to “accept” the “Big Bang” as if it were a mere assertion like your religious dogmas. The point is that the Big Bang is the best conclusion we can derive from the scientific evidence. Duh.

  59. Posted August 27, 2015 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    Where did the first stars come from?

    Same place the stars we currently observe forming through natural law. Duh.

  60. Posted August 27, 2015 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    There IS no ‘Theory of Intelligent Design’, unlike the Theory of Evolution. After many years of questioning, I have yet to see any ID proponent articulate an actual theory that doesn’t involve ‘and then god’s magic happens.

    Your comments blend with truth and distortions with great artistry and double standards. You reject the notion of intelligent design and a god because it is not scientific. Point taken. You have made it clear that one just has to accept that the “designer” brought it into existence somehow. Point taken.

    His comments are a lucid articulation of painfully obvious truth. You admitted as much with your two admissions of “point taken.” There was no “great artistry” or “double standards.”

    Judge Jones in the Dove case ruled that Intelligent Design is nothing but Creationism repackaged. His judgment was true. It is pure mindless crap. You have not presented any evidence in support of it. All you offer is word salad that you copy and paste from utterly corrupt creationist websites. Nothing could be more pathetic. You didn’t even try to refute his assertion that “There IS no ‘Theory of Intelligent Design’” and that he has not seen “any ID proponent articulate an actual theory.” His words are true and you have written nothing to prove them wrong.

  61. Posted August 27, 2015 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    How did these planets also overcome the migration problem? Main stream scientists recognize this as an unsolved mystery. Did you know that was a mystery?

    And assertions that Allah, Yahweh, or Zeus did it by magic “explains” that mystery? What is wrong with your brain?

  62. Posted August 27, 2015 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    We both are in the dark on understanding the very beginning.

    Correct. So why are you obsessed with it? It is absurd in the extreme to suggest that unsolved problems in modern cosmology gives credence to the existence of Zeus! What is wrong with your brain?

  63. James
    Posted August 29, 2015 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    Hello Richard,

    We are still talking past each other and adding insults like a ten year old does not get anyone anywhere.

    We both are in the dark on understanding the very beginning.

    Correct. So why are you obsessed with it? It is absurd in the extreme to suggest that unsolved problems in modern cosmology gives credence to the existence of Zeus! What is wrong with your brain?

    Why am I obsessed with it? Why is anyone and everyone obsessed with it? Why is it so important for you to convince others that my view point is wrong and yours is right? All of mankind including me has to believe something about his origin. Everyone, including 3 and 4 year olds ask those questions of why and where and how. What anyone says about the beginning is pure ideology and philosophical, it is not based on science. Saying the big bang is based on science is only valid if you only look at 3 points, if you look at other points, it fails to measure up to pure science.

    I asked you what can we observe in our world today that expands and then extrapolated backwards goes to a singularity. You say nothing.

    How did these planets also overcome the migration problem? Main stream scientists recognize this as an unsolved mystery. Did you know that was a mystery?

    And assertions that Allah, Yahweh, or Zeus did it by magic “explains” that mystery? What is wrong with your brain?

    It goes both ways. Just because there is a mystery in how God did it does not mean a gap of the theory can just be inserted just to say we do not know. Adding what is wrong with your brain does not help matters. Just because I do not accept your viewpoint does not prove there is something wrong with my brain. Intelligent people learn to communicate and solve problems of lack of communication. But I cannot make lemonade with prune juice. All you say are empty words of what I say does not work. No explanation why it does not work. So we get nowhere.

    But can you tell me, what actual verifiable and testable knowledge do I gain by accepting the big bang? I gain just a different story of I do not know. How does something come from nothing?

    The Big Bang says nothing about “something coming from nothing.” I’ve explained this to you repeatedly yet you continue to repeat it. Your ignorance is inexcusable (and as enlightening as it is frustrating).

    This is a cop out and you know it. If you do not believe there is a god/creator eternal. Then you have to come to grips and something came from nothing unless you believe that what first particle(s) exploded into something were somehow eternal.

    Judge Jones in the Dove case ruled that Intelligent Design is nothing but Creationism repackaged. His judgment was true. It is pure mindless crap. You have not presented any evidence in support of it. All you offer is word salad that you copy and paste from utterly corrupt creationist websites. Nothing could be more pathetic. You didn’t even try to refute his assertion that “There IS no ‘Theory of Intelligent Design’” and that he has not seen “any ID proponent articulate an actual theory.” His words are true and you have written nothing to prove them wrong.

    All the trial did was reject the teaching of intelligent design. This does not make the “evidence” for the big bang model more compelling.
    All your words are empty talk. You know how I know because I can repeat them back to you and they have the same effect. I can say, “You have not presented any evidence in support of the big bang, (why it HAS to be true and why what we see cannot be consistent with a creator). Nothing could be more pathetic. (You just repeat the same things over again). All you do is repeat things off some propaganda main stream science websites or things you read. You did not even try to refute my assertion that there is no evidence of design in our creation. (Are you going to try to tell me nothing looks like it is designed) Even Dawkins tries to use what he calls “bad design” in favor of no designer. Are you going to tell me that Dawkins is a creationist? He is as atheist as they come.”

    You seem to be stuck in a lie that unless something about the cosmos conforms to a theory it is not likely true. So far the only reason I hear that you reject a creator is not from evidence against a creator and there being a creation, but because the creation account does not fit a scientific theory, or it is not one entirely. Why does this matter to you? Something does not need to conform to a mathematical theory or theorem to be true. I could walk into a room with a half eaten cookie and a dog sitting on the floor with chocolate on his face. I do not need an advance science degree to put two and two together. I see evidence of design, order, seasons, things created with a purpose, intelligence, language, the desire to worship. All these things point to a designer. I think there are many scientists hiding from God with science and theory jargon. So what the creationist model does not fit a nice package mathematical formula. Both sides have people saying “we do not know.” All the real science that can actually be used to advance technology in our world works for people believing in God and people who do not. Many of our founding scientists were also Christian. It is obvious that believing in the Bible and/or deity a creator does not limit one from scientific discovery. Otherwise, Issac Newton would not be remembered as the scientist that he is today. There are several scientists who believe in God who have contributed many inventions and advances in our world. Nothing is wrong with the brains of people who see God as the sign of our origin. It is philosophical. But philosophy does not hinder science, it drives it. Whether you are trying to figure out God made this or that or how you think the big bang came about, it is your philosophical view that drives the search. This is true of everyone. When we landed on the moon, it was a big accomplishment. They were also sent to bring back samples and data so we could determine what “theory” of how “we got our moon” is correct. At that time, there were 3-4 theories. Each proponent of his theory was convinced that his was right and that the others were of course wrong. But when they gathered data from the moon, they found evidence that did not support any of the theories.

    James

  64. James
    Posted August 29, 2015 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    Hello, Svpia-Bpvmt777

    “As the gaps in our knowledge close up your god is forced to a smaller and smaller domain. ”

    Can you please educate me on what these gaps are or are you just repeating empty words?
    Have scientists finally figured out why the micro cosmic background is too evenly dispersed across the universe and how it does not fit the big bang model?

    Ah, “informed creationist” is not a superlative. Words like most and smartest are superlatives. If it has a most in front of it or a “est” at the end, that is a good sign. But teach me more English, I enjoy a good laugh. There are good informed creationists who have real science doctorate degrees who know about science than you or I combined. Then there are those who read a few books are more pastors who try hard. But before you retort back quickly, there are plenty of informed people who accept evolution and the big bang with little actual research. They are spoon fed from text books what to accept and what they there to think is true. It is just as much indoctrination as any religion. I picked up a biology text book at a “Christian school.” It teaches evolution as most main stream textbooks do. It says that people doubt evolution still but pretty much everyone has accepted it. Instead of just saying the evidence for it and against it and letting people decide, they brainwash students just to accept it.
    I watched a video titled “why evolution has to be true.” The guy on the video is no doubt intelligent and knowledgeable. But when he discussed vestigial organs as “evidence” of evolution, he mentioned the yoke sac in child development in the womb. He said that this sac is evidence of evolution that was passed on and no longer serves a purpose. But he is so wrong. The yoke sac provides nourishment for the child, not fetus, until the placenta forms. The guy was either ignorant, lying, miss-spoke, or was too busy repeating “empty evolution” evidence pages to look up the real truth himself. Sad what people do to convince others of their ideology.

    James

    James

    James

  65. James
    Posted August 29, 2015 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    And always and never are superlatives too.

  66. Posted August 29, 2015 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    All your words are empty talk. You know how I know because I can repeat them back to you and they have the same effect. I can say, “You have not presented any evidence in support of the big bang, (why it HAS to be true and why what we see cannot be consistent with a creator). Nothing could be more pathetic.

    Not true! You cannot say that I have “not presented evidence in support of the Big Band.” That would be a blatant lie. I have presented mountains of evidence that you cannot even begin to understand, let alone refute. All you do is repeat the ludicrous crap from corrupt creationist websites that lie in the freaking name of Jesus. Nothing could be more pathetic or perverse.

  67. Posted August 29, 2015 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    You seem to be stuck in a lie that unless something about the cosmos conforms to a theory it is not likely true.

    What are you babbling about? I have said nothing that would justify such an absurd assertion. I have presented evidence and you have ignored it. You obviously have no understanding of the most basic elements of General Relativity. You reject it only because it contradicts the ludicrous superstitions of primitive iron age goat herders that you take as the very “Word of God.” Nothing could be more absurd, or pathetic.

  68. Posted August 29, 2015 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    So far the only reason I hear that you reject a creator is not from evidence against a creator and there being a creation, but because the creation account does not fit a scientific theory, or it is not one entirely.

    Not true. I reject the mythological cosmology of the Bible because it is obvious absurd and contrary to reality. Duh.

  69. Posted August 29, 2015 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    I see evidence of design, order, seasons, things created with a purpose, intelligence, language, the desire to worship. All these things point to a designer. I think there are many scientists hiding from God with science and theory jargon.

    That “jargon” is called “scientific nomenclature.” You see “design” because you are radically ignorant of the most basic elements of science. This is obvious because serious Bible believing scientists had their faith challenged by the results of science. Only the ignorant fools think that science is mere “jargon.”

  70. Posted August 29, 2015 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    So what the creationist model does not fit a nice package mathematical formula. Both sides have people saying “we do not know.”

    There is no “creationist model.” There is only the blind moronic creationist claim that “Gawd did it.” That’s it. That’s all you offer as an “explanation.” Your beliefs are no different than those of the Muslims, Mormons, or children who believe in Santa Claus.

  71. Posted August 29, 2015 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    There are several scientists who believe in God who have contributed many inventions and advances in our world. Nothing is wrong with the brains of people who see God as the sign of our origin.

    So what? I’ve already admitted that there could be some sort of God required to explain things we can’t explain. I’ve explained this to you many times. Why do you keep repeating this point?

    But the fact that some sort of God may be required to explain things is totally irrelevant to the conversation because no one knows if a God actually is required. It is a moot point. And worse, it wouldn’t justify your belief in Yahweh because we know he can’t exist because he has contradictory properties. And it certainly would not justify your belief in the ludicrous doctrines taught in the Bible about a young earth created in six days and all the other ridiculous crap like a flood and all that. I have proven you wrong on a dozen points and you simply ignore what I write.

  72. Posted August 29, 2015 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    It is obvious that believing in the Bible and/or deity a creator does not limit one from scientific discovery. Otherwise, Issac Newton would not be remembered as the scientist that he is today.

    I’ve never said that “believing in the Bible and/or deity a creator” in an age of ignorance (like the time Isaac Newton lived) would “limit one from scientific discovery.” The problem is that you ignorantly reject modern scientific facts merely because they contradict the ludicrous cosmological mythology taught in the Bible. That’s the problem. You reject science in favor of blind, ignorant, absurd, religious dogma.

  73. Posted August 29, 2015 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    Nothing is wrong with the brains of people who see God as the sign of our origin.

    I never said anything like that. You are ignoring the reasons I have given.

  74. Posted August 29, 2015 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    Can you please educate me on what these gaps are or are you just repeating empty words?
    Have scientists finally figured out why the micro cosmic background is too evenly dispersed across the universe and how it does not fit the big bang model?

    Oh, so you don’t even know about inflationary cosmology?

  75. Posted August 29, 2015 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    There are good informed creationists who have real science doctorate degrees who know about science than you or I combined.

    I’ve never seen one that was legit.

  76. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 2, 2015 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    James,

    Oh, my Bad! I apologize. (Gotcha point taken.lol.)

    Yes, Spanish superlatives are typically formed with the suffix -est (e.g. healthiest, weakest) or the word most (not recent, not interesting). One. preposition, near, also has uperlative form, as in Find the restaurant nearest your house.

    I was simply using it in the English sense of an “exaggerated and figurative-mode of expression.”

    I think that is a given YOU were obviously using the word “Informed” (an adjective) and impling the greatest: as the in the highest and best in quality; in the superlative sense of the word, eh.

    Do you deny that?

    Just where are all the “good informed” creationists who have real science doctorate degrees and who know about science than you or I combined? I’m curious, do the people “with a real scientific background” agree on an alternative “Theory” to evolution? Good luck finding that many scientists of any name and who think evolution is hogwash.

    (You just repeat the same quack-things over again).

    All you do is propagate the creationist mantras and conspiracy-theories of a “secular humanist agenda” or “atheist conspiracy” by propagana “main stream scientists.” That’s all ridiculous. Things you Believe!

    I mean even the Pope’s scientific advisor doing astronomical research, where the Church had to acknowledge that evolution and the big bang are no longer myths. I guess better late than never!

    Is the Pope and the Catholic Church also part of the Conspiracy and “Agenda?” Hmmm…

    “Informed” Creationist! LMAO. First, Creationism is the only thing dead in Informed circles. Researchers have jointly discovered RNA Interference – gene silencing by double-stranded RNA. Try reading the advanced information about that breakthrough and see how many times it refers to evolutionary implications, and then tell me that evolution is broke or dead!

    An informed audience asked intelligent questions. You are “Uninformed” and Denies all of the most basic discoveries and pertinent basic facts:

    COBE, the data collected by NASA’s WMAP satellite, and many ground and balloon-based experiments (such as Degree Angular Scale Interferometer, Cosmic Background Imager, and Boomerang).

    The primary observations that the universe is expanding emerged between 1910-1930; The CM background radiation was first observed in the1965 Penzias and Wilson at a temperature of 2.7 kelvins; The Singularity Theorems by Profs. Hawking and Sir Penrose made between 1965-1968. etc, etc.

    Do you deny and refute these?

    Richard: “Oh, so you don’t even know about inflationary cosmology?”

    Speaking of Inflation…As I said earlier, I think General relativity tells us that “Inflation” of sorts is a must IMO! But Mr. “Informed Creationist” Denies and Denies all of the most basic discoveries and pertinent basic facts! LOL.

    By the way, Nature is full of complex systems, so a few proteins folding in just the right way on one planet out of trillions of stars in the known universe hardly seems unreasonable.

    And don’t babble on about “irreducible complexity;” that’s just a creationist-buzzword designed to sound scientific but meaning “we don’t feel like imagining how this would have come to be.” LOL. Complexity arises from simplicity all the time. Observe how evaporating water, set to spin from the rotation of the earth, becomes a hurricane etc.

    Snowflakes are far more complex than drops of water, yet they occur all the time. Why? Due to interactions with the sun, air, and water on our planet, we have this nifty process called climate or ‘weather’, where heat energy and water vapor are circulated all around the planet, forming complex patterns in a myriad of forms, from lightning to clouds to snowflakes. There are many other forms of ‘simple’ complexity being created around us constantly.

    There is no law or even a proper theory that requires ‘articulated design decisions’ for weather, evolution, or any of the other processes around us. All they take is energy, and we get it from the sun in abundance.

    ‘Irreducible Complexity’ is a farce. Intelligent Design is a farce. It has no science behind it, and everytime one of these creationists hiding as a scientist brings it up, they are quickly shot down by real scientists all around them. Everytime they point to an example and say ‘See? Irreducible Complexity!’, they’re shown to be wrong. Bacterial flagella, the blood clotting cascade, the eye, the immune system, even something as simple as mousetraps!

    Michael Behe himself had to admit in court that none of his examples either showed IC or ruled out evolution as described in the neo-darwinian

    Search for articles referring to ‘Evolution’, and compare it to articles referencing ‘Irreducible Complexity’. You -might- find half a dozen that mention IC, and all of them showing how it’s wrong. You’ll find tens or even hundreds of thousands of real, peer-reviewed studies, each one validating or explaining yet another tiny piece of the Theory of Evolution.

  77. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 2, 2015 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    If creationalism is equally valid as evolution as a scientific theory, which creator should be taught? Judeo/Christian? Hebrew? Hindu?

    You ignore basic discoveries and factual evidence in favour of your own religious dogmatic-beliefs, which you do!

    There are no serious scientific studies that have found any problems with the underlying theory of the big-bang and evolution. If you actually had any then this debate would be over and evolution would be thrown out and you would win the argument.

    Fact is you can’t produce scientifically valid studies supporting your viewpoint because they don’t exist!!!

    It frustration that you won’t listen, that you spout off your nonsense arguments over and over, refuse to actually tackle criticism in a logical way or even address the points against you and the repeat your flawed assertions.

    I personally can see no way that anyone can deny evolution…overall evolution is the most logical explanation – the true workings of the universe are mysterious, but a trial and error basis for genetics makes sense. We do forget how many creatures die off and are extinct every day – which is just a normal part of nature’s random trial and error.

    It may seem amazing how complex things are, but it also makes sense that random cells frequently reproducing and competing would evolve into complex creatures. Think dinosaurs.

    Makes sense, prior to the asteroid the best survival mechanism was to have monsters that got bigger and bigger with more oxygen rich environment, the most relentless huge was most well adapted to survive. Creatures developing other instincts weren’t able to live long enough to see those traits flourish. Post-asteroid it seems the human ancestor was a shrewd little rodent-like creature that could scavage for food and use innovation to live, rather than brauns.

    The Theory makes so much sense it hurts. If a creature or species is not fit for survival, it will die. Genetic traits that are well adapted to the existing environment (including ecosystem, climate, predators, food supply), will continue to persist through successful offspring.

    But the environment on this planet, though relatively stable has undergone massive changes over short periods of time on several occasions, and these are the periods where we see the most speciation in the fossil record.

    It should also be considered that your transistory creatures do in fact exist, classic examples including the lung-fish, amphibians in general, archaeopterix, and how about the platypus. Lets not forget about embryology… yes, you had gills for a few weeks in your mother’s womb.

    Additionally, transitory creatures would most commonly exist in these transitional periods. Look up the whole eon, era, period, epoch breakdown, called the geologic time model. The timeline is demarcated by significant events that drastically transformed life on the planet (like a meteor impact or an ice-age), and after such an event, a new emergence of biodiversity flourished in this new, significantly different environment. Relatively rare genetic traits that were previously unsuccessful would rapidly dominate the gene pool if they suddenly became successful in the new environment. Old species die out, new ones emerge, very quickly, and exist for very long periods, whereas transitional periods are comparably short.

    You deliberately cloud the waters with stupid and repetetive creationist arguments that we get into a situation like we have today where children are taught this nonsense in some areas because of misguided religious intent.

    Get a clue, that’s not science, that’s theistic nonsense. Seriously, you are the one with an “Agenda.”

    It is a small proportion of fundamentalists that have this particular major malfunction. Most “somewhat readonable” Christians around the world have no issue with evolution. The heads of the anglican and catholic churches both accept this. Especially since the theory of evolution has nothing to do with either the origins of the universe or life, only how life changed since it’s initial forms.

    Those like YOU are trying to conflate the theory of evolution with origin theories and secret agendas of secularism and atheism, which is absurd. People like YOU do not and are trying to turn the issue into some sort of jihadi holy war.

  78. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 2, 2015 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

    Sorry for the few typos and misspelled words. lol.

  79. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 2, 2015 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    With such ignorance, it’s little wonder that Creationism flourishes amongst the deluded bible-thumped! LOL.

    This is just so much ludicrous religious verbiage – I don’t believe in Theism or primitive late Iron Age sky-fairy stories, so it’s just silly to bring them into an argument with me that is supposedly about scientific evidence and theory.

    Many religions have a crappy creation myth and cosmogony…so what? Who gives a scrap! Only ignorant Goober Americans and other Third-World people are creationists anymore. Don’t tell me you didn’t know that. LOL.

    Well, “all humans, indeed, all mammals,” are synapsids. Thus:

    In most vertebrates, the powerful muscles that close the jaw attach to the top of the skull and must pass through a space in the bones of the skull to reach the jaw. Synapsids have one such space; diapsids have two. You can feel how your own chewing muscles pass through a space in your skull (the temporal opening) by placing your hand against the side of your face and biting down. The chewing muscles pass underneath a bony bridge (the zygomatic arch), which is found in all mammals and in their extinct relatives in the Synapsida.

    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/synapsids/synapsidamm.html

    Of course, the synapsids evolved from amphibia, which evolved from lobe-finned fish. You can read about which “markers exist in humans today” of that ancestry, here:

  80. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 2, 2015 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
  81. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 3, 2015 at 5:56 am | Permalink

    James,

    It is the job of science to evaluate and refine models. It is true that there is much that we do know, and that fact that we are able to make accurate predicitions based on our models suggests that those models are fairly correct. When something happens that doesn’t fit the model, we go back and try and find out why, and build a better model. I suppose I am prone to overstate my point.

    All of your arguments are based on nothing but the naked assumption that complex things can’t happen by themselves. You don’t have evidence for any such assumption. Forget the past, do you think those organisms are obeying something other than natural law *right now*? If so, what is the evidence that *right now* supernatural interventions are taking place to maintain the interactions between organisms? If not, we have demonstrated that natural law can support complex interactions.

    If you want to know how basic molecules form more complex structures, well, its simple really… just chemistry and physics… adhesive and cohesive forces, polar charges, the fact that matter wants to exist in the lowest possible energy state, the fact that our planet is bombarded with high energy particles all the time… okay, so its not simple, but it happens all the time.

    We may never have conclusive knowledge of how the first life formed, although we have some good ideas. We certainly do have proof beyond all reasonable doubt that all life on Earth evolved from single-celled organisms.

    Of course, creationists make their living from unreasonable doubt.

    Where exactly do you think the Hand of Gawwd let go and biochemistry let go? Do you think that cells can reproduce on their own? Can new species form on their own, or were all of them created? From what? God altering existing organisms, or just poofing new ones into existence?

    No, it’s arrogant to postulate a designer in one’s own image when there is no evidence that anything other than natural processes have been at work

    Do you simply believe that it was created by God specifically, according to kinds, not via the evolutionary process.

    Oh, are your a by “Kind” creationist. So, we didn’t start out with single-celled life, we started with “kinds” of organisms pre-formed and designed. So, what were the original “kinds” that first populated the Earth? Were there cat and dog kinds, for instance, or was there a combined canine-feline kind that later led to the cat and dog species?

    The planet is only about 4.5 billion years old, anyways…The processed took so long, and required such a specific set of criteria for it to occur, and these criteria continued over a very long period of time.

    The criteria are “enough heat to support chemical reactions, and a supply of chemicals”. Just what do you think happened to the early Earth that would have destroyed life? We have plenty of evidence that life on Earth has survived global catastrophes for billions of years. If anything, the simpler life survives easier; a global catastrophe may wipe out complex organisms, but bacteria are incredibly hardy.

    I’m sorry, but your daddy-creator, if he exists, is malevolent. We came from “animals”, that’s what the latest evidence is pointing to. YOU are the one who has decided against evidence that we don’t. The more we learn the more the theory of evolution is supported by evidence.

    There is no evidence of design anywhere. And I mean evidence, not “gut feeling that all these things I don’t understand must have been made by someone”. Yes, we all have strong ideas. Some are supported by actual evidence though.

    You should also at least know what evolution is before we start arguing about it, you seem to think it covers everything from the big bang to abiogenesis!

    Geesh…James, evolution is one of the most logical descriptions of factual observations… pure science in fact. Observe, hypothesize, question, test, refine etc. This is a theory that has undergone hundreds of years of scrutiny and is still unrefutable.

    Shouldn’t we demand and need to look for concrete falsifiable-proof that there is a supernatural woo-woo demiurge or daddy-creator. Where is this mass of evidence for a creator you speak of?

    So you’re saying that the concept that the universe is theistic “designed” to support human life, supports creationism and belief in an intelligent creator?

    Hugh Ross gives 154 narrow, mandatory parameters for the fine-tuning of the conditions on earth to support life, and lists 226 references.

    Fine-tuning is actually evidence *against* supernaturalism, not *for* it. See here: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html

    Anthocentric arrogance regarding the intentions of a hypothetical supernatural entity is amusing, but not even a rhetorical.

    We’re intelligent enough to understand all kinds of processes that we can’t recreate ourself. We can’t make stars, planets and galaxies, but we can understand how they formed. It’s precisely our understanding of evolution that tells us that we *can’t* do that. We might be able to fabricate cells ourselves someday, but that’s irrelevant: if we want it to happen the way it happened on Earth, we have to wait a very long time!

  82. Jesus is risen
    Posted September 5, 2015 at 7:30 am | Permalink

    Do I simply believe that the world was created by God? Absolutely I do.

    Commentator, a personal testimony is very powerful! The personal testimony of Jesus is totally trustworthy. Why would you not base your life on His true testimony?

    Your view that the creator is bad is false. Being righteous and just doesn’t make a person bad! Your creator is good! He is love! Badness isn’t an attribute of love.

  83. Posted September 5, 2015 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    Here;

    http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0812/features/fish_out_of_water.shtml

    Great article. It shows how evolution is the central fact of biology. The evidence is utterly pervasive and persuasive. What kind of arrogance is implied by those who reject it without knowledge?

    You can watch the documentary based on the same book called Your Inner Fish on NetFlix or Amazon. It was very well done.

  84. Posted September 5, 2015 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    Commentator, a personal testimony is very powerful! The personal testimony of Jesus is totally trustworthy. Why would you not base your life on His true testimony?

    We don’t have the “testimony of Jesus.” All we have are conflicting stories made up by a writers of the religious tracts known as the “Gospels.” How are they any different than the stories made up by the followers of Joe Smith?

    Joseph Smith refutes the validity of the “testimony of Jesus.” He made up his religion out of whole cloth less than two hundred years ago. Now there are millions of Mormons. If he could do that in an age of telegraphs, photographs, newspapers, and fact checkers, how much easier would it have been for people like him to make up a religion in the first century when everyone was a thousand times more ignorant, gullible, and superstitious? And besides that, religion is not looking for skeptical fact checkers, but rather gullible believers. Joe Smith refutes the validity of the “testimony of Jesus.” There is no reason any should believe the stories made up about either Jesus or Joe Smith.

  85. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 5, 2015 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    Jeez, but which specific “God-of-the-Gapsc reator Deity or Demiurge?

    There could be many sorts of deities that might exist. I guessing yours happens to be very powerful and rather inscrutable (and is intended to be a model of a generic Judeo-Christian-Islamic sort of deity, though believers are welcome to disagree and propose–and justify–their own interpretations of their favorite deity).

    However, there are many other sorts of deities that might be postulated as being responsible for the existence of the universe. There are somewhat more limited deities, such as Zeus/Jupiter, there are deities that share their existence with antagonistic deities such as the Zoroastrian Ahura-Mazda/Ahriman pair of deities, there are various Native American deities such as the trickster deity Coyote, there are Australian, Chinese, African, Japanese and East Indian deities, and even many other possible deities that no one on Earth has ever thought of. There could be deities of lifeforms indigenous to planets around the star Arcturus that we should consider, for example.

    Now when considering a multiplicity of deities, say D1,D2,…,Di,…, we would have to specify a value of the likelihood function for each individual deity, specifying what the implications would be if that deity were the actual deity that created the universe. In particular, with the “fine-tuning” argument in mind, we would have to specify P(F|Di&L) for every i (probably an infinite set of deities). Assuming that we have a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of deities, we see the hypothesis ~N revealed to be composite, that is, it is a combination or union of the individual hypotheses Di (i=1,2,…). Our character set doesn’t have the usual “wedge” character for “or” (logical disjunction), so we will use ‘v’ to represent this operation. We then have

    ~N = D1 v D2 v…v Di v…
    Now, the total prior probability of ~N, P(~N|L), has to be divvied up amongst all of the individual subhypotheses Di:

    P(~N|L) = P(D1|L) + P(D2|L) + … + P(Di||L) + …

    where 0<P(Di)<P(~N|L)<1 (assuming that we only consider deities that might exist, and that there are at least two of them). In general, each of the individual prior probabilities P(Di|L) would be very small, since there are so many possible deities. Only if some deities are a priori much more likely than others would any individual deity have an appreciable amount of prior probability.

    This means that in general, P(Di|L)<<1 for all i.

    Now when we originally considered just N and ~N, we calculated the posterior probability of N given L&F from the prior probabilities of N and ~N given L, and the likelihood functions. Here it would be simpler to look at prior and posterior odds. These are derived straightforwardly from probabilities by the relation

    Odds = Probability/(1 – Probability).
    This yields a relationship between the prior and posterior odds of N against ~N [using P(N|F&L)+P(~N|F&L)=1]:

    P( N|F&L) P(F| N&L) P( N|L)
    Posterior Odds = ——— = ———- x ——-
    P(~N|F&L) P(F|~N&L) P(~N|L)

    = (Bayes Factor) x (Prior Odds)
    The Bayes Factor and Prior Odds are given straightforwardly by the two ratios in this formula.

    Since P(F|N&L)=1 and P(F|~N&L)<=1, it follows that the posterior odds are greater than or equal to the prior odds (this is a restatement of our first theorem, in terms of odds). This means that observing that F is true cannot decrease our confidence that N is true.

    But by using odds instead of probabilities, we can now consider the individual sub-hypotheses that make up ~N. For example, we can calculate prior and posterior odds of N against any individual D_i. We find that

    P( N|F&L) P(F| N&L) P( N|L)
    Posterior Odds = ——— = ——— x ——-
    P(Di|F&L) P(F|Di&L) P(Di|L)
    This follows because (by footnote 2)

    P(N |F&L) = P(F| N&L)P( N|L)/P(F|L),

    P(Di|F&L) = P(F|Di&L)P(Di|L)/P(F|L),
    and the P(F|L)'s cancel out when you take the ratio.

    Now, even if P(F|Di&L)=1, which is the maximum possible, the posterior odds against Di may still be quite large. The reason for this is that the prior probability of ~N has to be shared out amongst a large number of hypotheses Dj, each one greedily demanding its own share of the limited amount of prior probability available. On the other hand, the hypothesis N has no others to share with. In contrast to ~N, which is a compound hypothesis, N is a simple hypothesis.

    As a consequence, and again assuming that no particular deity is a priori much more likely than any other (it would be incumbent upon the proposer of such a deity to explain why his favorite deity is so much more likely than the others), it follows that the hypothesis of naturalism will end up being much more probable than the hypothesis of any particular deity Di.

    This phenomenon is a second manifestation of the Bayesian Ockham's Razor discussed in the Jefferys/Berger article (cited above).

    In theory it is now straightforward to calculate the posterior odds of N against ~N if we don't particularly care which deity is the right one. Since the Di form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of hypotheses whose union is ~N, ordinary probability theory gives us

    P(~N|F&L) = P(D1|F&L) + P(D2|F&L) + …

    = [P(F|D1&L)P(D1|L) + P(F|D2&L)P(D2|L) + …]/P(F|L)
    Assuming we know these numbers, we can now calculate the posterior odds of N against ~N by dividing the above expression into the one we found previously for P(N|F&L). Of course, in practice this may be difficult!

    However, as can be seen from this formula, the deities Di that contribute most to the denominator (that is, to the supernaturalistic hypothesis) will be the ones that have the largest values of the likelihood function P(F|Di&L) or the largest prior probability P(Di|L) or both. In the first case, it will be because the particular deity is closer to predicting what naturalism predicts (as regards F), and is therefore closer to being a "God-of-the-gaps" deity; in the second, it will be because we already favored that particular deity over others a priori.

  86. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 5, 2015 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    Some Notation

    First, some notation. We introduce several predicates, (statements which can have values true or false).

    Let L=”The universe exists and contains Life.” L is clearly true for our universe (assumption a).

    Let F=”The conditions in the universe are ‘life-Friendly,’ in the sense described above.” Ross, in his arguments, certainly assumes that F is true. So will we (assumption b). The negation, ~F, would be that the conditions are such that life cannot exist naturalistically, so that if life is present it must be because of some supernatural principle or entity.

    Let N=”The universe is governed solely by Naturalistic law.” The negation, ~N, is that it is not governed solely by naturalistic law, that is, some non-naturalistic (supernaturalistic) principle or entity is involved. N and ~N are not assumptions; they are hypotheses to be tested. However, we do not rule out either possibility at the outset; rather, we assume that each of them has some non-zero a-priori probability of being true.

    Bayesian Ockham’s Razor discussed in the Jefferys/Berger article (cited delow).

    Bayesian Ockham’s Razor [Jefferys, W.H. and Berger, J.O., “Ockham’s Razor and Bayesian Analysis,” American Scientist 80, 64-72 (1992)]. The point is that N predicts outcomes much more sharply and narrowly than does ~N; it is, in Popperian language, more easily falsifiable than is ~N. Under these circumstances, the Bayesian Ockham’s Razor shows that observing an outcome allowed by both N and ~N is likely to favor N over ~N. We refer the reader to the cited paper for a more detailed discussion of this point.

    Aside from sharply limiting the likely actions of the deity (either by making it less powerful or asserting more human knowledge of the deity’s intentions), we can think of only one way to avoid this conclusion. One might assert that any universe with life would appear to be “life-friendly” from the vantage point of the creatures living within it, regardless of the physical constants that such a universe were equipped with. In such a case, observing F cannot change our opinion about the nature of the universe. This is certainly a possible way out for the supernaturalist, but this solution is not available to Ross because it contradicts his assertions that the values of certain physical constants do allow us to distinguish between universes that are “life-friendly” and those that are not.

    And, such an assumption does not come without cost; whether others would find it satisfactory is problematic. For example, what about miracles? If every universe with life looks “life-friendly” from the inside, might this not lead one to wonder if everything that happens therein would also look to its inhabitants like the result of the simple operation of naturalistic law?

    And then there is Ockham’s Razor: What would be the point of postulating a supernatural entity if the predictions we get are indistinguishable from those of naturalistic law?

  87. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 5, 2015 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    Hey Jeez,

    Atheism and non-belief doesn’t lead to “no conscience and no fellow feeling” any more than religion does.

    It just simply means that I don’t believe a primitive creator God exists; it doesn’t imply anything about your spirituality, morals or values, other than I don’t get them out of a strictly dogmatic-religious context.

    Non-believers, atheists, agnostics, sceptics * *are not* a threat to to you or society. Care to explain all the good that theistic-religion and Bible-bigots have done over the centuries of years? Holy Crusades, suicide bombing, culture-wars, socially conscious acts like those. Oh Grand and lovely! LOL.

    And what’s more, let me make this very clear, I do not think you could EVER prove that dogmatic-faith and mere belief in god leads to a better society than reliance on established fact. Witness the massive development and improvement of the west since religion was largely thrown off as a basis for knowledge.

    And even then, if you could prove that, which you can’t, it wouldn’t matter in a discussion of facts anyway.

    Evolution is not a “force”or “religion” for anything or secret agenda, it is fact, the theory of evolution is a set of hypotheses about how that occurs.

    If anything it’s less divisive than religion, showing how closely everything is interrelated, let alone the miniscule genetic variation amongst humans.

    So Please keep your dogmatic-religion and morals away from reality and fact. Your simplistic assessment of people’s motivations when they don’t “believe” is bigoted and offensive! When one does not believe in some sort of almight sugar-daddy protector or a life we should be struggling to make this life as good as possible for everyone irregardless.

    Evolution does not equate with atheism. There are people of all faiths who recognize that we evolved from other species. Just because evoution is true they think (incorrectly) that it automatically then means that God doesn’t exist!

    I don’t believe that! I’m only “A-Theist” in the strictest sense of that word. I would actually describe myself more specifically ad a strong Anti-Theist.

    But they aimply from the outset that it is accepted that anyone who puts creedence in this evolution thing is both godless and amoral. That is the prejudice.

    Progress, Science and religion do not need to be absolutely at odds, it is only when people make an creationist argument out of nothing and then deliberately cloud the waters with stupid and repetetive arguments that we get into a situation like today.

  88. Jesus is risen
    Posted September 5, 2015 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    a personal testimony is very powerful! The personal testimony of Jesus is totally trustworthy. Why would you not base your life on His true testimony?
    Richard, why do you persist in writing without doing any research? The words of Jesus are His testimony! His testimony can’t be refuted by man. Can you explain to the world how a faithful witness who never sinned can have a flawed testimony?
    Richard, basic logic shows what you are teaching, like the other commentator, is false.
    There is every reason to believe the Bible because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. You two need to stop mucking around, for there is an awesome God to get to know!

  89. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 7:10 am | Permalink

    Hey Bejeesus risen,

    What the hell are you Babbling on about? You just keep droning like a bible-bot repeating and uttering the same inarticulate and unrecognizable words.

    Wow. If you could write more than horseshit, I might be interested in your point of view. But considering you’re a hack…personally, I prefer to receive my grace “free from horseshit.”

    I do despair at those Believers who prefer to switch their brain off before doing anything else. So rather than try and convince or educate the Section-8 “believer,” I think we all should be working hard to instead commit them.

    The trouble is: You folks are deadly serious. What a total-waste! LOL.

    Promotion of the xtian fundamentalist psychosis and retarded way of thinking. Filling children minds with dangerous anachronistic idiocies aka neurological horse excreta.

    Is there some reason that I should be extra-nice to deluded people who are pushing a dangerous theology? Why do I want to persuade these people?? I know we shouldn’t make fun of other people’s suffering…waaahhhhhh!!!

    IMO Better just to leave them to their self-delusion, while the rest of us work with decent intelligent people to make the world a better place. Seriously, it’s a waste of time trying to educate people who don’t really have the inclination for it.

    The misinformation, frauds, lies, deluded irrational fantasies presented adding the psychosis infected parents constantly drilling on their children minds the retarded beliefs would only guarantee that America will have another xtian-psychotic, retarded, stinking generation and politicians in the years to come. Oh how Marvelous! LOL. :-D

    I’m outta here, 32-Skidoo!
    Hey Bejeesus risen,

    What the hell are you Babbling on about? You just keep droning like a bible-bot repeating and uttering the same inarticulate and unrecognizable words.

    Wow. If you could write more than horseshit, I might be interested in your point of view. But considering you’re a hack…personally, I prefer to receive my grace “free from horseshit.”

    I do despair at those Believers who prefer to switch their brain off before doing anything else. So rather than try and convince or educate the Section-8 “believer,” I think we all should be working hard to instead commit them.

    The trouble is: You folks are deadly serious. What a total-waste! LOL.

    Promotion of the xtian fundamentalist psychosis and retarded way of thinking. Filling children minds with dangerous anachronistic idiocies aka neurological horse excreta.

    Is there some reason that I should be extra-nice to deluded people who are pushing a dangerous theology? Why do I want to persuade these people?? I know we shouldn’t make fun of other people’s suffering…waaah.

    IMO Better just to leave them to their self-delusion, while the rest of us work with decent intelligent people to make the world a better place. Seriously, it’s a waste of time trying to educate people who don’t really have the inclination for it.

    The misinformation, frauds, lies, deluded irrational fantasies presented adding the psychosis infected parents constantly drilling on their children minds the retarded beliefs would only guarantee that America will have another xtian-psychotic, retarded, stinking generation and politicians in the years to come. Oh how Marvelous! LOL. :-D

    I’m outta here, 32-Skidoo!

  90. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 7:18 am | Permalink

    Sorry for the typo repit…was editing.

  91. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    But I guess it can’t be said enough…lol.

  92. MichaelFree
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    Svpia-Bvmt777,

    Are you a Freemason (your logo)?

    Are you a Luciferian or a Satanist (your name)?

    What is a better way to think about the world and our methods of interaction with it, our words and our deeds, “do what thou wilt”, or “do unto others as you would have done unto you”?

    You can say what you want about Christians and how they raise their children, and even mention, hopefully jokingly, about committing them, but one can never take from modern Christianity that they generally raise their children to be truthful and peaceful people, a benefit to the world, and not a cancer. Most Jews, Christians, and Muslims are good people.

  93. MichaelFree
    Posted September 6, 2015 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    The bible god is a transgressor. It’s god does deeds that we ourselves, as human beings, are obliged not to do if we are followers of goodness. Deeds such as thefts, physical assaults, rapes, murders, torture, and slavery. Their god violates the human body and the human bodies physical belongings. He is a liar, a thief, and a murderer (violater of the human body).

  94. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 2:19 am | Permalink

    No, I wasn’t joking! Some (or rather many) of them probably should be Section-8 committed and receive state-sanctioned psychiatric treatment.

    Well, I apologize for some of my over-the-top comments. I guess were all guilty of that. I’m not perfect by any means.

    I’d like to think that no one is beyond redemption. I guess my real frustration is the pain of seeing a sane world trying to be replaced with an insane one…We MUST all on do our collective-best to stop all of this hatred and division and mind-killing insanity by all means necessary.

    But sometimes I feel like my hear is going to explode when I read some of the totally-insane posts…they could drive a person to Planet Crazytown! A ravaging horde and heard of crazy people trying to convince
    each other how wonderful their twisted and destructive religious-delusions are. I say thin the heard! LOL.

    I always try and make it practice of Open Apologizing with true regret- and when I do reset on it..

    Am I a Freemason (my logo)? No.

    Are you a Luciferian or a Satanist (your name)? No.

    To be clear, the particular “Horseshit” i’ve been speaking of is the sort of manichaean-like (or augustinianism) “world-hating,” “Flesh-Hating” fundamentalist type Christianity (X-tianity or Dualist-“X”), with it’s psychosis, cult of unreality, creationism, fakery, quackery, supernaturalism, hyper-fundamentalism, literalism, Sola fide/scriptura, (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), bibliolatry, anti-liberty, anti-modernist, anti-intellectualism, anti-progress, anti-secularism, anti-humanism, anti-flesh, anti-sex, and Anti-Woman!

  95. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 3:19 am | Permalink

    One More Thing… I also realize that these sorts of comments can quickly become explosive and inflammatory. I guess i’ve said too much ready! LOL. :-D

    As I see it, Life is short and we do not unlimited amounts of time and energy to waste on utter trivialities, pimitive superstition-traps and religious-dogmas, mental-distortions and prisons, and every other kind of insane pitfall our fellow crazy citizens expect you to spend your whole life falling into.

    How is it possible to make progress if people constantly reject the reality observed every minute of their lives for an alternate reality described by unknown authors a few thousands of years ago? It is beyond me.

    Some of the comments are outstanding. The main point that most seem to have missed, while the arguments of enlightenment towards reason common-sense are simply great, they unfortunately fall on deaf ears. No, I will repeat that, No amount of logic will ever convince a believer or creationist of the error of their ways.

    You (we) are dealing with people that are absolutely convinced and maytag brainwashed in their belief and in their primitive theism and god. If I told people that my dog talks to me, tells me to give to the poor, donate my time and do other altruistic things, people would assume that I am insane, harmless, but insane. But if you tell people that you talk to god and he/she/it tells you the same thing, then people nod and go about their business.

    So, apparantly listening to an invisible ‘entity’ is more sane than listening to one’s dog!

    No matter how well presented some of the great comments in here are with regard to, if not creationism than I.D. the believer’s default position STILL is to a supernatural entity. So if one chooses to believe in a supernatural entity then anything is, was and will always be possible. No research, study or understanding is necessary.

    But for those with a more rational bent and concommitant open mind the world, and the universe, is a fantastical place which operates on laws and rules we have only recently begun to parse.

    P.S. Anyway, hope you all have a happy Labour Day!

  96. MichaelFree
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Svpia-Bpvmt777,

    You said:

    “No, I wasn’t joking! Some (or rather many) of them probably should be Section-8 committed and receive state-sanctioned psychiatric treatment”.

    Well there you go Svpia, you just proposed to physically assault Christians and to enslave them into a mental facility because of their beliefs. What you propose is transgression, it is criminality.

    I don’t know how old you are, I don’t know if you’ve done much living, if you’ve ever lost a loved one, if you’ve ever been really oppressed in the world. or if you’ve ever done anything of real substance in the world. Anyone with a sane mind would never propose what you propose. What you propose to do to my innocent Christian neighbors who do their very best everyday to get by in the world and to build a good life for themselves, their family, and for their community, is completely unacceptable, and if ever attempted, would be extinguished, at least in America, where we are genuinely free to believe however we want to believe, and have the means to enforce it. What you propose is no different than a religionist proposing that atheists be rounded up and put into mental hospitals because of their beliefs. You and crazy religionists go round and round your transgression merry go round and yet don’t see that you transgress. You’re blind, you’re deaf, you know nothing, and then you contemplate the origin of the Universe, when you don’t even know your place in the world.

    Then you have the nerve to say this, revealing your hypocrisy in its fullness:

    “We MUST all on do our collective-best to stop all of this hatred and division and mind-killing insanity by all means necessary”.

    You say:

    “Thin the herd”, and laugh about it, revealing your childishness and utter corruption.

    Anything else you say on this site without addressing your transgression is worthless and meaningless.

    Take care.

  97. MichaelFree
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    I said:

    “Anything else you say on this site without addressing your transgression is worthless and meaningless”.

    It should read:

    “Anything else you say on this site without addressing your transgression. if it’s more of the same bullshit, it’s worthless and meaningless”.

    Take care.

  98. Josef Sefton
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Welcome back Michael. It’s correct what you write
    about the commentator who only wants to hate
    his neighbor.

  99. Josef Sefton
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    America is a very lawless country, so what happened in
    Germany could happen there.

  100. Josef Sefton
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Why would someone use a masonic logo and have thinking
    that is masonic and then deny that he or she is a mason?

  101. Josef Sefton
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    If anyone hates their neighbor they are failing to glorify the author of life.

  102. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    Ok, Calm down Michael…(loosen your sphincter)…yes, of course I was just b.s.-ing, joking and kidding around with you in “Jest.” (Geesh.)

    But I do apologize for my “transgression” and leading you on like that. My bad! That was not very nice, offensive and totally uncalled for. Mea culpa.

    Yes, those were some really crazy and Over-the-top comments! That “Thin the heard” comment was as an “exaggerated expression.” And then I “Laughed” because I was obvious being silly and *not* serious about it.

    Sorry I offended you and putting you through all that.

    Take care,
    Later.

    .

    Ok, Calm down Michael…(loosen your sphincter)…yes, of course I was just b.s.-ing, joking and kidding around with you in “Jest.” (Geesh.)

    But I do apologize for my “transgression” and leading you on like that. My bad! That was not very nice, offensive and totally uncalled for. Mea culpa.

    Yes, those were some really crazy and Over-the-top comments! That “Thin the heard” comment was as an “exaggerated expression.” And then I “Laughed” because I was obvious being silly and *not* serious about it.

    Sorry to put you through all that.

    Take care,
    Later.

    Ok, Calm down Michael…(loosen your sphincter)…yes, of course I was just b.s.-ing, joking and kidding around with you in “Jest.” (Geesh.)

    But I do apologize for my “transgression” and leading you on like that. My bad! That was not very nice, offensive and totally uncalled for. Mea culpa.

    Yes, those were some really crazy and Over-the-top comments! That “Thin the heard” comment was as an “exaggerated expression.” And then I “Laughed” because I was obvious being silly and *not* serious about it.

    Sorry to put you through all that.

    Take care,
    Later.

  103. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 7, 2015 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

    Sorry for the repits. I’m typing and editing the comments from my phone note book and then pasting
    to the comments window…and screwed it up. Well, I think i’ve caused enough trouble here and wornout my welcome. So you all have a good one!

    I won’t let the door hit me on the way out. LOL.

    Best Regards,
    73.

  104. MichaelFree
    Posted September 8, 2015 at 12:36 am | Permalink

    Svpia-Bpvmt777,

    Just so we get the sequence straight:

    1)

    I said:

    “You can say what you want about Christians and how they raise their children, and even mention, HOPEFULLY JOKINGLY, about committing them, but one can never take from modern Christianity that they generally raise their children to be truthful and peaceful people, a benefit to the world, and not a cancer”.

    2)

    Then you said:

    “No, I wasn’t joking! SOME (OR RATHER MANY) OF THEM probably should be Section-8 committed and receive state-sanctioned psychiatric treatment”.

    3)

    So I explained why it was wrong.

    4)

    And you replied:

    “Ok, Calm down Michael…(loosen your sphincter)…yes, of course I was just b.s.-ing, joking and kidding around with you in “Jest.” (Geesh.)”

    And added:

    Sorry to put you through all that.

    5)

    And my reply:

    “No, I wasn’t joking!” means “No, I wasn’t joking!”.

    I’m glad you recognize that committing people because of their beliefs is not a good or acceptable thing to do. That makes me feel good.

    Take care.

  105. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted September 8, 2015 at 3:59 am | Permalink

    Hey Michael,

    You took seriously “that which I had intended in jest, but also in which I was trying to get sone serious points across. I obviously failed miserably in that task and was done in very poor taste.

    Also keep in mind that I do have a wicked sense of humour which you weren’t aware of and had no way of knowing. Sometimes I don’t think beforehand, react and let my passions get the best of me. I do have a nasty temper and am not proud of that either.

    I was angry and got carried away as it were with all the b.s. of colorful-language and exaggerated-expressions, but all subtlety was not apparent and elusive.

    Yes I did say, “I wasn’t joking!” and about “committing people because of their beliefs,” which meant you had every right to take it that way! No arguments there. So game and match-point taken.

    I regret all those gross and offensive comments. I was clearly in the wrong and way out of line.

    Again I just want to apologize to You, Richard and anyone else.

    Glad you feel better,
    Take care.

  106. MichaelFree
    Posted September 8, 2015 at 4:55 am | Permalink

    Svpia-Bpvmt777,

    I understand. What I pointed out in no way diminishes anything you have written or may write later, however now I better understand what you’re actually writing.

  107. Josef Sefton
    Posted September 8, 2015 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    This is exactly what unsaved man does. He continually lives dishonorably before His holy God.

    He vents the hatred and bitterness in his heart and then claims he is just joking. He is in need of divine healing, but he hides behind the mask of understanding notation that he considers important and delights to label everyone primitive or akin to a moronic robot. Only he knows, apart frlom His maker, what drugs he uses or doesn’t use.

    Will unsaved man decide to come clean and welcome the Lord to teach him? The opportynity is there, but he will not take it if he continues to mock God’s children and spurn their advice to study the holy Bible!

  108. James
    Posted September 8, 2015 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    Hello,

    Interesting you say this Svpia,

    “It is the job of science to evaluate and refine models. It is true that there is much that we do know, and that fact that we are able to make accurate predictions based on our models suggests that those models are fairly correct. When something happens that doesn’t fit the model, we go back and try and find out why, and build a better model. I suppose I am prone to overstate my point.”

    A “model” predicted Pluto to be 4.5 billion years old. Now they are saying that Pluto could be as “young” as a million. Some model, it was more than a 1,000 times off. It makes me wonder how off the “model” is in other areas. Or do you deny that recent photos of Pluto show significant evidence that the dwarf planet is much younger than thought? But where did the million number figure even come from? From actual evidence or from a preconceived idea that Pluto could not possibly be younger, say in the thousand’s of years old. Is there anything on Pluto that makes it at least a million years old? Or are they just saying that? Could it be even younger? That would sound like Bible teaching and not science. So we will just say million because by comparison it looks much younger.
    How about Jupiter’s moon or Saturn’s moon? There are many examples of why a 4.5 billion old solar system does not match the evidence. But a preconceived notion, model, reigns today, not looking at the evidence objectively. Uranus does not even spin the right way based on the leading model that suggests how our solar system formed. You know what the experts say about Uranus’ rotation: an asteroid “must have” hit it. Is there any evidence of this asteroid collision? no, in fact, there is much evidence to suggest such an asteroid has never hit Uranus. Uranus has a very consistent orbit. You would think that such an asteroid collision that would be big and severe enough to alter the rotation of a Planet would actually cause the Planet to also have a less than consistent orbit. Tisk Tisk, story telling to match the evidence with a model theory. That is all it is. If you think I am making this stuff up or just copying and pasting from a creation website, look it up for yourself on one of your favorite stomping grounds. You will probably hear things like, it is an interesting mystery. Sounds like theory of the gaps.

    You said:
    “We’re intelligent enough to understand all kinds of processes that we can’t recreate ourself. We can’t make stars, planets and galaxies, but we can understand how they formed. It’s precisely our understanding of evolution that tells us that we *can’t* do that. We might be able to fabricate cells ourselves someday, but that’s irrelevant: if we want it to happen the way it happened on Earth, we have to wait a very long time!”

    Educate me then. How did the first stars form? How did the first planets form?

    I know there is much more to comment on. But I will not be able to do it all so quickly, if ever at all. It might be best to stick with the key important points and differences.

    James

  109. James
    Posted September 8, 2015 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

    Richard and Svpia,

    I will make something clear from the get go. I am not hear to get you to believe the Bible and believe in the God of the Bible. I cannot make someone believe as much as I can make someone gulp the water in front of his face. I would like to convince you that your support of evolution and the Big bang rely on assumptions, leaps of faith, conclusions based on preconceived ideas, and theories and story telling.

    There is a big loss of translation, meaning, and value. When you say the big bang and evolution are based on good science, in your head, you know you are right because you see the good science. But please understand this clearly. THIS IS IMPORTANT. There is a big loss between what is the actual good science evidence and what is the actual good conclusions from that evidence.
    Examples: there are plenty:
    Big bang is based on a mathematical consequence that the universe is expanding and has inflated. There is good evidence that the universe is expanding. Yes, this is the good evidence part I was talking about. The bad conclusion is that an extrapolation backwards means the universe therefore had to start from a singularity because it is expanding. This is what I do not get. You say you keep explaining it to me, but saying mathematical consequence is not an adequate explanation. I could say this balloon was negative 12 centimeters because of a mathematical consequence based on the known expansion rate of the balloon now. But I would need more than just your word of a mathematical consequence being true on paper to think a balloon could be a singularity much less a universe. This is the leap of faith I was talking about. Just because something works mathematically on a board or paper does not mean or certainly proof that is how it happened in real life.
    You had asked me if I was aware that our universe is inflating or has inflated in the past. I am aware. I also know that the particle inflaton is a made up particle that has no evidence of its existence. I also know that no ones knows how once inflation starts it stops. Clarification: inflation was dreamed up to solve the problem of evidence not fitting the big bang model. The solution was that the universe must have inflated faster at some point in the past than it is today. So do not try to tell me that the universe’s inflation rate is constant. But the problem is that the inflation “solution” creates its own problems. How did the inflation slow down or stop? Nobody knows. So why should I accept a theory of a gap just to reject my god of the gap? I would dare say my worldview has fewer gaps than yours does.

    The article link about evolution is a joke. It gives a bunch of anatomy talks about certain mammals, humans, fish etc. This is not the problem. These facts are able to be demonstrated facts. But the problem is not the science, the problem is the conclusion based on the science. It is pure circumstantial evidence. To say we hiccup because we evolved from a fish is a huge leap in evidence. There was no actual data in there to support such a conclusion. The only support was a preconceived idea that something in our human design is faulty so let us blame the fact we evolved from fish. Then, the article suggests a strong reason why male anatomy evolved from fish, but in the same thought, says that the differences with the woman are quite large. They are not proving anything. They are merely pointing out the similarities and differences of anatomy and making unjustifiable conclusions. The evolutionary model predicted we would find millions of transitional fossils. All we have found are some questionable links that many have PROVEN to be hoaxes. The celocanth (I spelled that wrong) was believed to be a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods because of the little nubs coming out of its body. They were assumed to be feet growing through natural selection. So, it all sounded good until a living celocanth was found unchanged with nubs no closer to feet than the fossil. Now we know that the nubs serve a purpose.

    Say all you want about the big bang and evolution being based on good science. The evidence is good science. But the evidence is not the problem here with the models. The unjustifiable conclusions are the problems. And when the evidence does not match the theory, they do not reinvent the theory. They come up with escape tactics to keep the theory alive, like inflation or string theory, dark matter and energy (just to explain why things behave like they shouldnt), or vestial organs (as a sign of evolution instead of a real sign of evolution transitional fossil missing links)

    I believe the evidence supports what the Bible says. We find distinct kinds, families. From one family, we can get many species from speciation. Natural selection is a real thing that is observed. Most speciation does not millions of years. Otherwise, what are the odds that we would be seeing it within a human generation. Let that point sink in for a minute. How come the only speciation we see are within a kind? We see lots of adaptation and natural selection within a kind. This is what the actual evidence tells us. What the evidence does not tell us is if these adaptations are enough to bridge one species into another classification or family. We simply do not have enough evidence to validate this. The only real retort I ever hear why we do not see speciation from one kind to another is that is takes a long time. It is an unrealistic requirement to expect a speciation from one kind to another kind to be witnessed within our life time. I call bologna. We see lots of speciations and all of them are within a kind. So again, theory or not, God or not, if we throw out any preexisting theology or theory, the evidence by itself says that specication happens within a species family. Did you know a new species can just be one adaptation or mutation? How does that fit with the story that the BIG mutations took millions of years? It doesn’t How did ape A outlive ape B even though the theory says ape B to Z must have out survived ape A in order to evolve into humanoid A. If ape b-z 300,000 assumed generations to quote the theory, are each better adapted for life which is why nature selected them and not the former, then why do we have the former living with us today, no where near a human? The evidence does not fit the story.
    The actual observed evidence lines up with creation. There were created kinds that speciated from there into more distinct species.

    James

  110. MichaelFree
    Posted September 8, 2015 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

    Josef’s words, just like the bible, have two horns like a lamb (good) but he speaks like a dragon (evil). Basically these are his words translated: Svpia is going to hell when he dies where God will torture his soul for eternity. Here’s a visual: Jesus is standing over Svpia with a can of gasoline and a match, and then he lights him on fire, and watches him as he screams in pain, and then Jesus looks at the world and says to bow to him or you will end up the same way. This Jesus demon then has the nerve to say that he is love and truth, as he admonishes us to love our neighbors. It’s one of the biggest mind-games ever played on humankind. “Torture” is acceptable to God’s children according to Josef. I guess I’m not one of God’s children, and can never be, because I know that torture is evil, and my God (truth) is not evil.

    Take care.

  111. Jesus is risen
    Posted September 9, 2015 at 12:30 am | Permalink

    Michael, why do you volunteer to speak falsely about the Jesus of the Bible, just because you think He can somehow change His nature! Michael, the risen Lord is love!

    He can’t behave demonically, so stop misrepresenting Him! Do you still not grasp that people like me and you sometimes fail to glorify Him? Do you still not grasp that He can decide to reward or punish His creation?

    Michael, stop siding with man over Your sinless creator. Reread some of the tremendous commentaries you used to write and start afresh to desire to trust and obey the risen Lord wholeheartedly! Ask holy God for the strength to truly trust and obey Him!

  112. Posted September 15, 2015 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    I believe the evidence supports what the Bible says. We find distinct kinds, families. From one family, we can get many species from speciation. Natural selection is a real thing that is observed. Most speciation does not millions of years. Otherwise, what are the odds that we would be seeing it within a human generation. Let that point sink in for a minute. How come the only speciation we see are within a kind?

    James, your words are meaningless because you have never given a precise definition of the word “kind.” It has absolutely no scientific meaning whatsoever. It is not part of the taxonomic ranks used in scientific classification of life: domain, kingdom, phylum, order, family, genus, species. So once again, you appear to be rejecting science of which you are utterly ignorant. It looks like you are rejecting it without any reason except that it contradicts the blind superstitious dogmas of your religious book written by primitive men thousands of years ago. Nothing could be more absurd, or pathetic. You apparently do not understand even the most elementary definitions of the terms used in the science that you ignorantly reject!

    So let me get this straight. Are you saying that hummingbirds, ducks, eagles, flamingoes, swallows, vultures and ostriches all evolved from a single “bird-kind” less than a million years ago? Seriously? Can you present any evidence supporting such a crazy idea? Here is the avian tree of life (source). Note the time scale. Note the wide variety of species. Please explain how such data could support your claims.

  113. Posted September 15, 2015 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    I will make something clear from the get go. I am not hear to get you to believe the Bible and believe in the God of the Bible. I cannot make someone believe as much as I can make someone gulp the water in front of his face. I would like to convince you that your support of evolution and the Big bang rely on assumptions, leaps of faith, conclusions based on preconceived ideas, and theories and story telling.

    Don’t be ridiculous James. You could easily make me believe anything you have real evidence for. The speed of light? I measured that myself in my physic lab in college. The acceleration of gravity? I measured that too. The problem is not that I refuse to believe in God or the Bible. The problem is that you have no evidence supporting those beliefs, and there is a mountain of evidence contradicting them.

    If you want to convince me that evolution and the Big Bang “rely on assumptions, leaps of faith, conclusions based on preconceived ideas, and theories and story telling” all you need to do demonstrate some basic understanding of the science and show where it has gone wrong. You have not come close to doing anything like that. Let me explain (yet again):

    Big bang is based on a mathematical consequence that the universe is expanding and has inflated.

    Not true. You got it wrong again even though I’ve explained it many times. The Big Bang is a consequence of the Field Equations of General Relativity coupled with the evidence of expansion. If you reject the Big Bang, then you need to refute the field equations and the singularity theorems of Penrose and Hawking that follow from them. How many times have I explained this to you? You are demonstrating, yet again, that you do not understand even the most basic elements of the science you reject.

    There is good evidence that the universe is expanding. Yes, this is the good evidence part I was talking about.

    And what about all the evidence that supports the field equations? And what about the cosmic background radiation? There is a lot of evidence supporting the Big Bang. You need to read my post again and deal with the evidence I presented in it.

    The bad conclusion is that an extrapolation backwards means the universe therefore had to start from a singularity because it is expanding. This is what I do not get. You say you keep explaining it to me, but saying mathematical consequence is not an adequate explanation.

    It most certainly is an explanation. It’s known as the Penrose Hawking Singularity Theorem. Look it up. Educate yourself.

    I could say this balloon was negative 12 centimeters because of a mathematical consequence based on the known expansion rate of the balloon now. But I would need more than just your word of a mathematical consequence being true on paper to think a balloon could be a singularity much less a universe. This is the leap of faith I was talking about. Just because something works mathematically on a board or paper does not mean or certainly proof that is how it happened in real life.

    The mathematics has been tested in real life. That’s part of the scientific method. It’s called “experiment.” If you think the Field Equations of General Relativity are wrong, then all you need to do is prove it! What could be simpler? I’ve explained this many times, and yet you continue to repeat the same error. You appear to be truly incorrigible.

    Richard

  114. Posted September 15, 2015 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    How come the only speciation we see are within a kind? We see lots of adaptation and natural selection within a kind. This is what the actual evidence tells us. What the evidence does not tell us is if these adaptations are enough to bridge one species into another classification or family.

    James, your words will remain pure gibberish until you define what you mean by kind, classification, species, and family. Do they have any relation to the scientific taxonomic ranks of domain, kingdom, phylum, order, family, genus, species?

    Nothing could be more absurd than to reject an advanced, established, modern science when you do not even understand the most basic terms taught to children in elementary school.

  115. James
    Posted September 16, 2015 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    Nice to see you replied. I believe i defined kind as family, but maybe i didnt or maybe i did not make it clear. So, i will say on record that the closest human assugned taxonmy to kind is family.

    But now that the definition and the parameters are set, maybe now you can engage the lack of evidence for evolution all evolving from a singularity. The actual obersable evidence supports multiple kinds, families that adapted and changed to different species.

    I find it odd you reject the notion that so many birds could have come from one spcies in a creation philosophical model, but yet that is what is proposed in evolution theory. The only difference is time required, the belief of starting species, and more made up intermediates and missing links.
    I think i should clarify an empty assertion from you though. I never said that ALL birds evolved from one species anyway. Are there not several classified bird families? No one really knows for sure how many original bird species there may have been. Just like no one knows how to speculate how many intermediate made up links of birds there are. So theory of the gap or god of the gaps? I do not see much difference. The only real difference is the ideology and guessing you allow and insert in the gaps. One has god, a creator, one has to have lots of missing links and has to ignore that there is not evidence at all for all these links. (Except for a handful of questionable specimen found) anyone can stretch a fossil to say what they want it to say, within a certain means of course. No one is completely absurd or unreasonable.

    James

  116. James
    Posted September 16, 2015 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    You said the mathematics have been tested in real life. Can you demonstrate how they have been tested in real life to the effect that they verify the universe had to come from a singularity or at least it is likely that it came from a singularity.

    James

  117. Posted September 16, 2015 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    You said the mathematics have been tested in real life. Can you demonstrate how they have been tested in real life to the effect that they verify the universe had to come from a singularity or at least it is likely that it came from a singularity.

    James, any child could find the “real life tests” that support the mathematical equations of General Relativity in a few seconds. Just Google “evidence general relativity” and read the first page returned (link). Here is the evidence listed there:

    1 Classical tests
    1.1 Perihelion precession of Mercury
    1.2 Deflection of light by the Sun
    1.3 Gravitational redshift of light
    2 Modern tests
    2.1 Post-Newtonian tests of gravity
    2.2 Gravitational lensing
    2.3 Light travel time delay testing
    2.4 The equivalence principle
    2.4.1 Gravitational redshift
    2.5 Frame-dragging tests
    3 Strong field tests: Binary pulsars
    4 Direct detection of gravitational waves
    5 Cosmological tests

    There is a mountain of evidence supporting the field equations. The singularity is a mathematical consequence of those field equations coupled with the evidence for expansion. Does that answer your question?

    Richard

  118. James
    Posted September 17, 2015 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    I see your list. I watched videos last night about “evidence for the big bang.” I really do want to understand the position and basis. But all i ever see is evidence for an ecpanding universe. How i understand the big bang theory, and a guy in a video who clearly supports the big bang said the same thing, that if our universe is expanding then it is assumed that at some previous point, everything was closer together. I do not have a problem with that logic. But i fail to understand why the assumption that everything was a singularity. That is where i am lost. And all i see is an assumed conclusion not based on real science. All of those above “tests” just prove we have an expanding universe or any other measurable truth about our universe that is congruent with a non big bang. They do not require a big bang. Tell me if i am wrong. How many of those tests above absolutely require a singularity, 13.8 billion years ago big bang?
    Let me ask this way. Where is the control? How do we know the math only works with one set of assumed values put into the equation? Solve for xy=z You have to either know two of the 3 values or insert values for 2 of the 3 to get the third. But maybe the math is just internally consistent with itself. People might say, see 10×4=40 so the math works out. But maybe we assume the wrong values. 20×2=40 also checks out mathmatically. Where is the control for the value of time, expansion rate (the assumed inflated expansion rate, and the starting size of the universe? Has the question even been discussed? Or do we just assume the values we are looking for?

  119. Posted September 17, 2015 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    But i fail to understand why the assumption that everything was a singularity.

    I’ve explained this many times. It is not an “assumption.” It is a consequence of the Field Equations of General Relativity, as proven in the Penrose Hawking Singularity theorem.

  120. Maxwell's Ghost
    Posted September 18, 2015 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    “If you reject the Big Bang, then you need to refute the field equations and the singularity theorems of Penrose and Hawking that follow from them.”

    Hawking now rejects the notion of a singularity.

    “Hawking’s singularity theorem is for the whole universe, and works backwards in time: in Hawking’s original formulation, it guaranteed that the Big Bang has infinite density. Hawking later revised his position in A Brief History of Time (1988) where he stated that “there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe” (p50). This revision followed from quantum mechanics, in which general relativity must break down at times less than the Planck time. Hence general relativity cannot be used to show a singularity.”

    Actually, it seems no one takes them (the Penrose Hawking singularity theorems) serious anymore apparently.

    “There are several different singularity theorems, pioneered by Hawking and Penrose. One of them says that singularity theorem says that all expanding cosmologies like our own have to begin with a singularity. Roughly speaking, it says that if there is only gravity and no antigravity, then tracing the universe backwards in time there is no way to stop it from crunching down to zero size. Hence there must exist an initial singularity (at least somewhere, perhaps everywhere).

    However, this Hawking-Penrose theorem uses something called strong energy condition, which says that the repulsive antigravity from tension is not allowed to be greater than the gravity from energy. It turns out that the strong energy condition can be violated by lots of different types of otherwise reasonable physics theories. In particular, it was violated during inflation, and it is violated by the cosmological constant today. So no one really takes this theorem very seriously anymore.”

    http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-ii-singularity-theorems/

  121. James
    Posted September 18, 2015 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    Yes, i am aware that many in main stream question and challenege the singularity concept. I am not sure if Richard has even ackoledged this. To me, the field equations only provide a possiblity that works on paper. Richard has not demonstrated how the actual values get inserted into the equation prove a singularity and require one.
    Most of the “real life” measurable evidence is for the definite expansion of the universe. No one doubts this. But the mystery is the origin. The good science of today does not prove the origin. Just repeating that it is a mathematical consequence sounds like empty talk to sound like it has more weight than it really does. So if creationists come up with some equations for when and how God created the universe and the math works out and no one can refute it, that does not prove that God did it. The math becomes moot no matter how good and solid the math. I am not sure if Richard understands this or not. The math working is moot when it comes to origin. We agreed early on in the conversation that the same science that controls, governs, and makes our universe run is not what was necesaarily used in its origin and creation. We use different methods for building a computer than we do for using one. We use different methods for preparing food than we do eating it. I do not see the relevancy of there being a mathmatical consequence.
    All i do hear is a classic bait and switch. One says there is lots of evidence for the big bang, and when they start giving “all the evidence” for the “big bang,” they list the evidence for an expanding universe. The expanding universe is the main support only in theory for the big bang. There is no actual evidence for a universe being a singularity. The universe must have been smaller in the past since it is expanding currently. But this does not tell us the original size. This is a bait and switch. Are you even aware of this reality? Am i either missing something or did you fall for empty talk and bait and switch too? Can anyone actually insert actualy real life values into the field equations that require there to be a singularity? That alone sounds absurd since Hawking himself now doubts the singularity. Maybe Richard knows more than Hawking. Lol

    James

  122. Posted September 18, 2015 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    Hawking later revised his position in A Brief History of Time (1988) where he stated that “there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe” (p50). This revision followed from quantum mechanics, in which general relativity must break down at times less than the Planck time. Hence general relativity cannot be used to show a singularity.”

    That’s exactly what I said in the article at the head of this thread. To quote myself: “That’s why all physicists acknowledge that the known laws of nature break down at the singularity. And that’s why we can only speak of what happened after the Big Bang. We simply don’t know anything about the singularity itself. There may not even have been a singularity since it is likely that quantum effects would take over at that scale. But no one knows because we don’t have a theory of quantum gravity yet.

    The dispute is not about the fine point of whether or not there was a actual singularity of infinite density in the beginning. The point that James rejects is that the Big Bang is the best fit to the scientific evidence. Do you agree with him?

  123. Posted September 18, 2015 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    Yes, i am aware that many in main stream question and challenege the singularity concept. I am not sure if Richard has even ackoledged this.

    And that’s why it is impossible to talk with you James. I explicitly explained that there may not have been an actual singularity because of quantum effects in the article that was addressed to you. You even acknowledge this fact on August 17 when you said “You even admit that there may not be a singularity.” You don’t understand the physics even when I explain it and worse, you don’t even remember the things that you yourself have said.

    Your rejection of science that you don’t understand is simply ridiculous.

  124. Posted September 18, 2015 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

    To me, the field equations only provide a possiblity that works on paper.

    That’s utterly absurd James. The field equations explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. The field equations explain the deflection of light by the Sun. The field equations explain the gravitational redshift of light. The field equations explain gravitational lensing. The field equations explain light travel time delay. Etc. etc. etc.

  125. Posted September 18, 2015 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    The math becomes moot no matter how good and solid the math. I am not sure if Richard understands this or not. The math working is moot when it comes to origin. We agreed early on in the conversation that the same science that controls, governs, and makes our universe run is not what was necesaarily used in its origin and creation.

    If I see a ballistic missile following a parabola, I can use the mathematics of physics to trace its origin. If you know the equations you can see what must have happened in the past because the current trajectory is a CONSEQUENCE of the mathematical equations that govern the motion of the missile. You just don’t seem to understand this basic fact.

    Now it is possible, of course, that a magic sky god could have tossed the missile. My calculations couldn’t tell me that. It’s also possible that the missile was farted out the ass of an invisible pink unicorn which is about the level of your argument that “gawd did it.”

  126. Posted September 18, 2015 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    All i do hear is a classic bait and switch. One says there is lots of evidence for the big bang, and when they start giving “all the evidence” for the “big bang,” they list the evidence for an expanding universe. The expanding universe is the main support only in theory for the big bang.

    That is utterly absurd James. The primary evidence is the field equations which are supported by many independent measurements. It is strongly confirmed by the cosmic background radiation which fits the predicted blackbody curve to a higher precision than any scientific observation in history. There is no excuse for you ignorance on these points, because I have explained them to you over and over and over again.

    There is no actual evidence for a universe being a singularity.

    Our dispute is not about the singularity per se. The issue is the Big Bang. I have presented a mountain of evidence over a span of months in discussion with you and you have not refuted a word of it. And worse, you have yet to show even an elementary understanding of basic science.

  127. Posted September 18, 2015 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    The universe must have been smaller in the past since it is expanding currently. But this does not tell us the original size. This is a bait and switch.

    There is no “bait and switch.” The size of the early universe is determined by following the equations backwards in time, just like when we use Newton’s law to determine where a ballistic missile must have come from. Of course, our conclusions could be wrong if there were a Cosmic Gorilla who grabbed all the galaxies and stopped them from following the equations. If you have evidence for something like that, please share.

  128. Posted September 18, 2015 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    Can anyone actually insert actualy real life values into the field equations that require there to be a singularity? That alone sounds absurd since Hawking himself now doubts the singularity. Maybe Richard knows more than Hawking. Lol

    The real absurdity is that you are rejecting science that you cannot even begin to understand.

    You don’t even understand the difference between the concept of a singularity and the concept of the Big Bang. And worse, you don’t understand that Hawking’s doubt about an actually infinite singularity was in no way contrary to the evidence for the Big Bang (of which he is fully convinced). Your ignorance of these basic facts is utterly inexcusable.

    If you want to quote Hawking, here’s one for you” “There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” LOL. And Einstein agreed, saying: “For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.

  129. Jesus is risen
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    The Bible isn’t a fairy story for people afraid of the dark. People who refuse to come out of living in the dark will not willingly come to Christ Jesus.

    Multitudes of unsaved peple put their trust in fairy tales. They show by their writings that they trust science more than Their maker.

  130. Jesus is risen
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    There is nothing childish about hungering and thirsting after truth, for this is God’s will!
    Every human being ought to do this! The sinless Son of God was a real person who is worthy to be hungered and thirsted for. He is worthy to be followed and worshipped. He is worthy to “leave all” for to follow, for He Is the Teacher of teachers.

  131. Jesus is risen
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    Decide to be a wholehearted searcher for the author of truth!

  132. James
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    The universe is not like a missile. Your anaolgy is flawed. The universe is not on a one way path trajectory. The universe expands more like a balloon. But nothing about the current expansion rate tells us the original size. Sorry, all your talk confirms you only have empty assertions. Cannot say more now.
    Oh, And you didnt answer my question. Of those tests u listed, how many absolutely require a singularity billions of years ago? Have a nice day

    James

  133. Posted September 19, 2015 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    The universe is not like a missile. Your anaolgy is flawed. The universe is not on a one way path trajectory. The universe expands more like a balloon. But nothing about the current expansion rate tells us the original size. Sorry, all your talk confirms you only have empty assertions. Cannot say more now.

    There is no flaw in the analogy. In both cases, we know the laws governing the behavior of the physical system and so can extrapolate backwards in time to determine the earlier condition. The fact you don’t understand the analogy demonstrates, yet again, that you are radically ignorant of the most basic elements of science.

    You demonstrate your ignorance again when you say “nothing about the current expansion rate tells us the original size.” The extrapolation to the past size is not based merely on the current expansion rate. It is based fundamentally on the field equations, as I’ve explained many times. The fact that you continue to repeat this error even after it has been repeatedly exposed and explained suggests that you are truly incorrigible and/or wilfully ignorant.

    Your assertion that the universe is not a “one way trajectory” is irrelevant gibberish. The point is that the expansion is governed by the field equations just as the motion of the missile is governed by Newton’s equations. In both cases, the prior condition can be determined by the equations of motion and the current condition.

  134. Posted September 19, 2015 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    Oh, And you didnt answer my question. Of those tests u listed, how many absolutely require a singularity billions of years ago? Have a nice day

    James, is there no bottom to the abyss of your confusion? I’ve never said that the singularity was “absolutely required.” On the contrary, I explained (in my original post addressed to you, and again in the comment stream) that there may not have been an actual singularity of infinite density because of quantum effects at that Planck scale. But that says nothing about the reality of the Big Bang, as also I’ve explained many times. There is a lot of evidence for the fact that the universe started in a very small hot dense state. It doesn’t matter if it was a true singularity of infinite density (as predicted by classical general relativity) or just a tiny dot on the order of Planck’s length (as may be predicted by quantum theory of gravity). That’s not the point. The point is that all the evidence points to the Big Bang and you have never written anything that challenges any of the evidence. On the contrary, everything you have written demonstrates, in spades, that you are radically ignorant of the evidence. You understand nothing of which you speak.

  135. Jesus is risen
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

    1 John 4:8
    8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

    1 Corinthians 13
    4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
    5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
    7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
    8 Love never fails.
    3 And now abideth faith, hope, charity (love), these three; but the greatest of these is charity (love).

    When we link 1 John 4:8 and 1 Corinthians 13 together we can gain a correct insight about God’s character.

    What a blessing it is that we have the opportunity to honour, magnify and serve the name of such a perfect, pure, compassionate Creator.

    Perfect Love Casteth Out Fear (1 John 4:18)

    Truly God’s perfect, cleansing love can cast out all forms of fear that can beset a human being to his hurt.

    As we diligently and sincerely seek God to honour Him He will purify us!
    Truly God ought to be the love of our life now and for eternity! Precious friends, additionally, let’s praise God daily as the person who makes love grow!

    1 Thessalonians 3:12 “And may the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all, just as we do to you,

    Truly God is our joy, strength and life and His gracious love is tender. nurturing, truth and love strengthening !

  136. Posted September 20, 2015 at 7:34 am | Permalink

    When we link 1 John 4:8 and 1 Corinthians 13 together we can gain a correct insight about God’s character.

    What a blessing it is that we have the opportunity to honour, magnify and serve the name of such a perfect, pure, compassionate Creator.

    Your assertions are blatantly self-contradictory. On the one hand, the Bible says that love does no harm while on the other it says that its gawd inflicts infinite harm on all the people he will cast into hell. You can’t have it both ways. And this is but a hint of the depth of evil the Bible attributes to its gawd. There is nothing “loving” about a gawd who commands his people to murder women and children. There is nothing loving about a gawd who endorses slavery, genocide, and sexism.

    But all this is off topic anyway. This thread is about the Big Bang and the foundation of science. Please stop spamming my blog with the incoherent dogmas of your religious cult which you never even try to justify. If you want to justify your claims, then great – we can have a conversation. If all you do is mindlessly repeat them like a typical cult member, then I will just delete them.

  137. Jesus is risen
    Posted September 20, 2015 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

    It’s sad, Richard, that you now think that it is wiser to search for truth in other places than where you can learn from Your creator. When I share wisdom with you, you should recall that you used write sensibly on many occasions. Are you now so rebellious that you are prepared to reject first principles?

    Where is the searcher? Where is the searcher for Christ Jesus? Richard, life has no enduring merit without a desire to explore for the person who witness that He is the truth. Search for Him, for He is worthy to be wholeheartedly searched for.

  138. James
    Posted September 21, 2015 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    Hello Jesus is risen,

    I appreciate what you are trying to do. You are proclaiming the Bible as truth in an attempt to reach people like Richard and others viewing this thread. While I believe the truth that you proclaim, Richard does not is quite clear. His lack of belief is not based on his lack of what the Bible says and does not say. Reminding him what the Bible says is not helping him.
    I disagree with Richard on a lot of things, but I will say that he right about the topic and point of this thread. It is getting off topic. Please discuss theology on another thread.

    And some personal advice for you Jesus is Risen. You can take it or leave it. If what you are doing does not work, try something different or move on. Even Jesus told His disciples that if they were not received where they traveled, they were to shake the dust off their shoes and move on. There are other people who need to hear the truth of the gospel. And there are other people who will listen to what you might have to say. It may be time to pray and ask if it is time for you to shake the dust off your feet with Richard.
    I am here to learn and gain perspective and learn the rebuttals of the debates at large. I also want to point out Richard’s double standards. After I have said all that I know to say, I will leave no matter the outcome as well. But for now, there is still more to discuss. But I am not just saying the same things over and over again. Richard and I may be speaking past each other at times, but we are not just repeating things for the sake of repeating them.
    Please do not offense to this. I mean no offense. It is just food for thought advice.

    James

  139. James
    Posted September 21, 2015 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Jesus is Risen,

    The fact that Richard was warped and twisted two major theological concepts such as the love of God and the justice of God is quite an extensive topic. But again, the topic should not be discussed here in this thread about science. Feel free to listen in on this topic once Richard engages my post on a different thread regarding theology. We may want to rap up this discussion first before engaging in another one though. I do not know Richard’s thoughts about keeping up two discussion threads.

    James

  140. Jesus is risen
    Posted September 21, 2015 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    James, first of all I am not Jesus is risen, but I am teaching that the sinless Son of God is risen!
    James, have you demonstrated that you love the Lord? Have you shared an audio clip, a picture, a video, a witness, heartfelt prayer?
    James, if you think you will help Richard, Rose and Michael and their readers by discussing matters that are not related to the Gospel you are deceived!

    James, stop mucking around with totally unimportant subjects! Do you really think that what you write about the Big Bang has any enduring importance?

    And James, isn’t it my decision with how much time and effort I decide to reach out to the unsaved?
    James, have you any understanding of how important a soul is? Do you ever consider that the sinless Son of God died a substitutionary death for you and me?
    James, the Lord doesn’t want us to give up on the lost. Do you understand anything about Him, James?

  141. Posted September 21, 2015 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

    The fact that Richard was warped and twisted two major theological concepts such as the love of God and the justice of God is quite an extensive topic.

    Don’t be absurd James. I neither warped nor twisted anything. It is your religion that has perverted your morality to think that the infinite evil of eternal suffering in hell is a well-deserved punishment for the “sin” of not believing the dogmas of your cult. And worse, you fail to see that no loving being could inflict infinite suffering. Your dogmas are both morally perverse and logically incoherent.

  142. Posted September 21, 2015 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    James, first of all I am not Jesus is risen, but I am teaching that the sinless Son of God is risen!

    Reine, James was referring to the name “Jesus is Risen” by which you chose to identify yourself. That’s how comments streams work.

    Why do you keep changing your name? Sometimes it’s Joseph Sefton. Sometimes its Bible Believer. Sometimes is Reine Gnade. Please choose one name and use it consistently so people can know who they are talking to or about.

  143. Posted September 21, 2015 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    It’s sad, Richard, that you now think that it is wiser to search for truth in other places than where you can learn from Your creator.

    It is sick and pathetic, Reine, that you are so brainwashed as to think merely claiming your cult is true makes it so. You don’t even try to justify the ludicrous absurdities you constantly spew here on my blog. You just repeat them like a braindead religitard robot. You show no self-awareness of any kind.

    When I share wisdom with you, you should recall that you used write sensibly on many occasions. Are you now so rebellious that you are prepared to reject first principles?

    More pathetic gibberish. You say I wrote “sensibly” only because what I wrote agreed with your religious dogmas.

    What “first principles” are you talking about? That I must believe in the Book of Mormon? That I must believe in the Quran? That I must believe in the Catholic version of the Bible? What the hell are you babbling about?

  144. MichaelFree
    Posted September 22, 2015 at 1:07 am | Permalink

    How would the existence of a multiverse affect what is known about the Big Bang?

    How would it affect current scientific understanding of evolution if it was found out that human beings are not native to Earth?

    Fun video from George Carlin about religion:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE

  145. Josef Sefton
    Posted September 22, 2015 at 1:31 am | Permalink

    God is love. Why do you fall over first principles?
    Iñvite Him to teach you and stop
    making false assumptions about Him.

  146. Posted September 22, 2015 at 6:01 am | Permalink

    God is love. Why do you fall over first principles?

    Because that “first principle” is directly contradicted by other descriptions of God found in the Bible. Nothing could be more simple or obvious. How is it possible that I need to explain it to you? Why is it that you have no answer?

  147. Jesus is risen
    Posted September 22, 2015 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Richard, believes somehow that there is something contradictory about the LORD who reveals Himself in the holy Bible. He teaches that the LORD who teaches that He is love is untrustworthy.
    Richard then quotes from the Bible to announce that His Maker is less moral than He is.

    Let’s look more closely at his thinking, for he claims I have no answer to what he writes!

    The sinless Son of God taught, in the first person form, that the Father and He were one! Applying Richard’s “logic” to this situation he would have to maintain that He is more moral than the only person who has lived sinlessly in human flesh.
    Anyone who compares the words and deeds of Richard with the words and deeds of the good Shepherd can see that he has been deceived.

    Dear readers, no man will ever be more moral than the Author of life!

  148. Posted September 22, 2015 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    Richard, believes somehow that there is something contradictory about the LORD who reveals Himself in the holy Bible.

    There is no “Lord who reveals Himself” in the Holy Bible any more than there is an “Allah who reveals Himself in the holy Quran.” Both are obviously made up by humans who wrote those books. And both books are filled with flaws and gross immorality. Or what? Do you advocate killing babies like your “loving” gawd commanded?

    He teaches that the LORD who teaches that He is love is untrustworthy.

    There is no greater delusion that to say that “God is trustworthy.” If you disagree, then please name one thing that anyone can actually trust God to do for them in this life. You know you can’t, because if you could you would have proof he exists. If God were half as trustworthy as the average garbage man there would be no doubt about his existence. I explain more in my article Is God Trustworthy? The Root of Religious Delusion.

    Richard then quotes from the Bible to announce that His Maker is less moral than He is.

    Not true. I quote from the Bible to show that the people who wrote it created an immoral god in their own image.

    Let’s look more closely at his thinking, for he claims I have no answer to what he writes!

    Ha! Yes, that is what I claim and everyone reading can see it is true. Even you fellow Christian James admonished you for constantly repeating your mindless crap without even trying to give a rational answer.

    The sinless Son of God taught, in the first person form, that the Father and He were one! Applying Richard’s “logic” to this situation he would have to maintain that He is more moral than the only person who has lived sinlessly in human flesh.

    Your logic is ludicrous. You merely assert that Jesus was sinless when you don’t even know if he existed at all outside of the story book you pretend is the “Word of God.”

    Anyone who compares the words and deeds of Richard with the words and deeds of the good Shepherd can see that he has been deceived.

    I have said genocide is immoral. The Bible has Jesus approving of Yahweh’s genocide. Anyone who rejects genocide is therefor morally superior to Jesus as described in the Bible.

    Dear readers, no man will ever be more moral than the Author of life!

    There you go again. Declaring that your personal delusion is the “Author of Life.” You sound just like any other blind fundamentalist – Mormon, Muslim, whatever.

  149. James
    Posted September 29, 2015 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Hello,

    Boy! Aren’t we off topic a bit. There are a few things I could respond to and get further off track. There are also some comments I may choose to ignore all together because they do not help at all even though I tempted to defend myself for what I said and why I said it. But something tells me my defense will fall on non understanding ears and will thus be wasted.

    So I move on or rather move back to what Richard and I were previously discussing.

    Richard,

    It seems that we are near reaching an impasse on our “science/foundations/philosophical/beginning of the world argument. You seem bent to tell me that a mathematical consequence is all I should need to trust the theories and field equations. I am trying to tell you that a field equation that works on paper does not dictate or prove what happens in real life. While I admit I do not understand the field equations frontwards and backwards, your inability or lack of agreeing to explaining them to me further does not help me. Furthermore, you have not demonstrated that you understand them enough to understand the weight of your own justified or not justified argument and position. It is one thing to say that I know long division and I know that x/y=Z, the long division proves it. But just as a teacher would want a student to demonstrate that he/she actually “knows” the math and would expect the student to show his work, I also am curious if you could show “the work.” Instead of just copying and pasting some graphic of an equation, can you demonstrate and explain how the real life values are inserted into the equation and how the values correspond to the big bang theory at large (time and starting point).

    Bottom line, I want you to see your double standard, Richard. You start off that the theory is right unless I or someone else can prove or demonstrate that it is wrong. You also say that your acceptance of the big bang theory is based on science, but you and I know both know the actual good science used as evidence for the big bang do not require or proof a big bang. There is no proof for the big bang, only circumstantial evidence.
    But at the same time, you say that the Bible is wrong and God should not be taken to likely exist unless there is demonstrated evidence. I have no concrete evidence that the God of the Bible is real and that His Word is true, I have basis for that evidence. But your starting position for God is that He is not real unless there is reliable evidence or proof. You make fun of creation because it does not sound scientific even though endless energy from no where and with no cause is about as scientific as God did it. When it comes to the actual mechanics of how and why they work and do what they do, no one really knows.

    Why are you so easily accepting of the big bang theory without any real concrete evidence but not God?
    You might ask me the same thing. This is the normal rebuttal of an atheist. It goes like this: why am I so accepting of God and not the big bang? But there is a problem with your rebuttal. Your starting and accepted position is pushed that yours is of science and mine is of faith. But in reality, your position is of faith as well. You require an element of faith to accept the big bang theory.

    Your rebuttal would have so much more significance to me if you admitted we are debating one acceptance, assumption, faith versus another. But your position has always been “I have the science and you have absurd faith” Nobody knows how the first stars formed, nobody knows where biological life came from, nobody knows how planets formed around stars without colliding into each other and into the star. Nobody knows why there is something rather than nothing. You cannot just mock a Christian for using a catchall phrase like “God just created it.” When you say, it just evolved, it just naturally selected that way, it just… It is a double standard.

    Now, if you were to admit that your theory has an element of faith required, then we can debate which position sounds more logical, congruent, is more consistent with itself etc. And if you think the big bang is more consistent and logical, I can say, okay for you. But if you try to tell me that you reject the Bible because I cannot prove it is true it is not scientific at points but your entire theory is, I say bologna. I am calling your bluff out.
    So please understand, you can hold to any position you want to and realize that you are blindly accepting something by faith. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot reject the Bible because it requires faith and accept science saying that it does not require faith.

    The heavens “do” declare the glory of God and the earth shows His handiwork. Psalm 19:1

    You can believe that a being created it all and has out smarted everyone. Or you can believe that hydrogen and helium somehow came into existence from energy and took over from there, out smarting everyone today observing all that has been formed, for no reason.

    James

  150. Posted September 29, 2015 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>