Scientific explanations for creation

@InfraBlue,

Perhaps my exposition was at first unclear. But I think I have straightened it out. The assertion was meant to be one way. The Creator uses the means he created. But discovering those means does not prove his existence.

You may ask why I believe if I can't prove with epistemological certainty. I'd have to say I take into consideration a huge amount of anecdotal evidence. (Hebrews 11:1)

0 Replies

@neologist,

sorry neo but Im not that interested to go back beyond what a post actually says to draw some further meaning. I learned all this from my own boring posts about rocks and evolution. Those that are interested will read em all, those that aint, wont.
Put me in that second group for this subject

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

When did that happen?
After Newton?

Mostly after Darwin bcause most "natural philosophers" were usually clergy to begin . When Darwin's work ascended, it began "the culture wars"

There are more atheists an agnostics in the geo sciences than in most others. The "Warm Fuzzy Feeling" that religion supplies is still an important draw for many folks

0 Replies

@at kishore,

As far as I know, we don't know what happened before the big bang or even what caused the big bang. The scientists with the best educated guesses are the Cosmologists, so if you are truly looking for answers you ought to read articles and books by them. It almost sounds like you are talking about Deism, where God started he universe and created the laws that allowed galaxies, stars, solar system, & ultimately us to form, but then did not intervene after that. As far as the science is concerned, there really isn't any evidence that a God was involved (& the science is really what matters.) But if you just want to have fun exploring it unscientifically, there are 1,000's of origin myths (Greek, Roman, Hindu, Native American etc.) that you could explore.

0 Replies

Maybe being "out there" face-to-face with the universe gives astronauts a perspective on things that we earth-bound mortals don't experience-

On Christmas Eve 1968 the crew of Apollo 8 quoted from Genesis as they orbited the moon- "We are now approaching lunar sunrise and, for all the people back on Earth, the crew of Apollo 8 has a message that we would like to send to you- "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

"God bless you"
-Neil Armstrong in TV broadcast from Apollo 11 thanking the spacecraft builders and technicians

And when Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon the following year they left a plaque inscribed with "Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon. July 1969 AD". (AD means 'year of our lord')

John Glenn (astronaut) once said from space- "To look out at this kind of creation out here and not believe in God is to me impossible, it just strengthens my faith"

And astronaut Roger Chaffee said of the view of Earth- "The world itself looks cleaner and so much more beautiful. Maybe we can make it that way, the way God intended it to be"

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Maybe being "out there" face-to-face with the universe gives astronauts a perspective on things that we earth-bound mortals don't experience-

On Christmas Eve 1968 the crew of Apollo 8 quoted from Genesis as they orbited the moon- "We are now approaching lunar sunrise and, for all the people back on Earth, the crew of Apollo 8 has a message that we would like to send to you- "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

"God bless you"
-Neil Armstrong in TV broadcast from Apollo 11 thanking the spacecraft builders and technicians

And when Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon the following year they left a plaque inscribed with "Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon. July 1969 AD". (AD means 'year of our lord')

John Glenn (astronaut) once said from space- "To look out at this kind of creation out here and not believe in God is to me impossible, it just strengthens my faith"

And astronaut Roger Chaffee said of the view of Earth- "The world itself looks cleaner and so much more beautiful. Maybe we can make it that way, the way God intended it to be"

All you're saying is "smart people said there's a God, so it must be true." Listing testimonials isn't an argument.

1 Reply

Quote:

Brandon said re astronauts: All you're saying is "smart people said there's a God, so it must be true." Listing testimonials isn't an argument.

On the other hand "smart" people such as Dawkins say "There's probably no God" so shall we ignore him too?
Incidentally, "probably" is not a very scientific statement, does he mean a 10 percent chance, or 50 percent or what?
Note he dare not say "There's DEFINITELY no God".. Smile

Dawks and his chums paid £150,000 (241,000 US dollars) to have these adverts plastered on Brit buses (google 'atheist buses')-

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/atheistbus.gif

0 Replies

Quoting someone isn't the slightest argument for or against, unless you are simply presenting the other person's argument. Nothing you prove about Dawkins' virtues or flaws is an argument for or against the existence of God.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

I don't think so.

These statements were made by people who have experienced something which almost no one on earth, throughout our entire history, has experienced.

It has nothing to do with how smart they may be.

Their reactions are not proof that God exists, but they are not the equivalent of a smart atheist saying that he does not.

The distinction is quite clear.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I don't think so.

These statements were made by people who have experienced something which almost no one on earth, throughout our entire history, has experienced.

It has nothing to do with how smart they may be.

Their reactions are not proof that God exists, but they are not the equivalent of a smart atheist saying that he does not.

The distinction is quite clear.

You cannot prove that God exists or anything else about the nature of the universe by quoting someone. Only by showing that some feature of the world doesn't easily admit another explanation can you prove something about it. In ancient Rome, people probably claimed that statues of Zeus spoke to them.

0 Replies

This is an atom. Did it just blink into existence in the void or what?

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/atom-classic_zpsc236b502.jpg~original

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Atoms are complex and ancient structures. They didn't blink into existence any more than baboons did. They evolved. But at the much smaller quantum scale virtual particles blink into and out of existence all the time.

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

This is an atom. Did it just blink into existence in the void or what?

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

This is an atom. Did it just blink into existence in the void or what?

Your argument seems to be, "because it's complicated, it must be magic." This is a false conclusion.

0 Replies

But atoms are made of something solid, so how did that "solid something" suddenly appear in the empty void? Where did it come from?

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

But atoms are made of something solid, so how did that "solid something" suddenly appear in the empty void? Where did it come from?

The fact that you don't know the explanation or that I don't, doesn't mean it's magic. Things are able to be complicated without being magic. I do think, though, that if you take Physics classes and work your way up to Inflationary Cosmology, they have some of those answers. However, complicated simply doesn't equal magic. Once upon a time, people didn't know where rain came from.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

But atoms are made of something solid, so how did that "solid something" suddenly appear in the empty void? Where did it come from?

Atoms are mostly empty space. The electron shell is really a probability cloud and the solidity which we feel at our scale is actually the electromagnetic force interacting between the electron clouds.

And Protons themselves are made up of Quarks and since electromagnetism doesn't function at that scale our very definition of "solid" loses context.

And as Brandon noted, even if we follow this chain of information all the way down to a level at which we have no data, it still doesn't, and never would, imply that magic was the next piece we were missing. In science, the answer is never going to be magic. Never. If you want to make up an argument outside of science then you can say whatever you want, but you shouldn't waste your time trying to support it with a scientific argument because by definition your argument is just going to crash and burn at the end.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Romeo Fabulini wrote:
But atoms are made of something solid, so how did that "solid something" suddenly appear in the empty void? Where did it come from?

Atoms are mostly empty space. The electron shell is really a probability cloud and the solidity which we feel at our scale is actually the electromagnetic force interacting between the electron clouds.

And Protons themselves are made up of Quarks and since electromagnetism doesn't function at that scale our very definition of "solid" loses context.

He's going to end by asking how "something" could come from nothing. The answer is that just because it's complicated, that's no reason to think it's magic.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

He's going to end by asking how "something" could come from nothing. The answer is that just because it's complicated, that's no reason to think it's magic.

I know. I modified my post to include your comments.

0 Replies

Quote:

Rosborne said: Atoms are mostly empty space..The electron shell is really a probability cloud...Protons themselves are made up of Quarks..

But where did the electron shell, protons and quarks come from in the first place?
At what point did they suddenly blink into existence in the void?

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

But where did the electron shell, protons and quarks come from in the first place?
At what point did they suddenly blink into existence in the void?

Our data goes back to the moment of the Big Bang. Beyond that we don't have any data. But no matter what happened before that, the scientific explanation is never going to be magic. And if you want to guess that it was magic then that's fine but don't waste your time trying to justify it with a scientific argument because science never ends in magic.

0 Replies

Scientific explanations for creation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know