Scientific explanations for creation

@fresco,

Friend, you were nothing when HE created you. Why can't HE create you again when your DNA exist somewhere in some form?

Or you come in this world with your own choice, a gender and face of your own choice? Will you leave with your choice?

2 Replies

@ssami8,

You didn't answer his question. You're just attempted the standard, feeble-minded theist trick of insisting that someone prove you wrong. If you assert that these is a god, you have the burden of proof. No one has to prove you are wrong.

0 Replies

@ssami8,

Egregious question begging--the question is whether or not there is a god, whether or not there has been a "creation." You're just assuming the case, rather than establishing it.

0 Replies

@ssami8,

Do you deny that the concepts of "nothing", "time" and "creation" are all human constructs ?
For example, you don't seem to have a clue about the physics of space-time and how Einstein showed that the sequencing of events depends on the observer's reference frame. Nor do you understand that "causality" has no scientific or philosophical status. It is merely an assumed mechanism postulated by humans when discussing an explanatory paradigm. To me and countless others, your "God" is merely the ad hoc big controller who fills the gaps that humans have temporary difficulty in "explaining".

But you are not going to accept any of that are you, because you have been socially conditioned into accepting a psychological comfort zone more appropriate to chauvinistic medieval dessert tribesmen that 21st century free thinkers. In the mythical scenario of your "God" asking you and your c0-religionists what you did for 21st. century humanity as a whole, I would love to know what your answer might be !

0 Replies

Has science explained how a typical atom like this came into existence yet?
There seem to be just three possibilities-
1- It has always existed.
2- It blinked into existence out of nowhere on its own initiative.
3- It was created by what we call a God.
So which is it?

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

3 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Has science explained how a typical atom like this came into existence yet?
There seem to be just three possibilities-
1- It has always existed.
2- It blinked into existence out of nowhere on its own initiative.
3- It was created by what we call a God.
So which is it?

Formed after the Big Bang in ways that are well understood to people who study these things. It also depends on whether you are talking about hydrogen or the heavier elements. The heavier elements were formed by fusion in stars. But I am aware that you can simply choose another scientific question that they don't actually know the answer to yet. So, because some scientific questions have not yet been answered, or even may not be knowable to our puny brains, you are going to accept an ancient account, written by our primitive pre-scientific ancestors, without a particle of evidence to support any of it. The lack of an explanation for every single question doesn't imply magical explanations.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Has science explained how a typical atom like this came into existence yet?
There seem to be just three possibilities-
1- It has always existed.
2- It blinked into existence out of nowhere on its own initiative.
3- It was created by what we call a God.
So which is it?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Formed after the Big Bang in ways that are well understood to people who study these things. It also depends on whether you are talking about hydrogen or the heavier elements. The heavier elements were formed by fusion in stars. But I am aware that you can simply choose another scientific question that they don't actually know the answer to yet. So, because some scientific questions have not yet been answered, or even may not be knowable to our puny brains, you are going to accept an ancient account, written by our primitive pre-scientific ancestors, without a particle of evidence to support any of it. The lack of an explanation for every single question doesn't imply magical explanations.

To be fair, the Bible makes no attempt to explain the Periodic Table to folks whose main concern was the dinner table. It was written so the least sophisticated of us could understand why we have war and crime and sickness and death.

Jesus made this observation we should be aware of:

Quote:

(Matthew 11:25) . . .“I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes."

So, can someone be just too smart?

I don't think that's the real problem.

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

look up nucleosynthesis, both stellar and man made. We can create elemenst up to a certain weight in accelerators (weve not yet managed to develop a plasma of a few trillion degrees C).
Stellar nucleosynthesis is a ort two part process that takes very light qeight elements and particles an, by stellar fusion, creates the heavy weight elements.
e see abundances of these elements in various segments of the universes spectra

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Actually heavy elements WERE NOT made in the inflation. They came later

I don't believe we need gods here. The evidence of stellar nucleosynthesis can be read in spectra from deep space in "Star clusters" where new stars were being born waay before the time we got their pictures

1 Reply

See what I mean?

0 Replies

Quote:

Romeo asked: Has science explained how a typical atom like this came into existence yet?
Brandon replied: Formed after the Big Bang in ways that are well understood to people who study these things.
Farmerman also replied: We can create elemenst up to a certain weight in accelerators

Nah guys, I ain't buying whatever you're selling!
For an atom to be created there must have been ingredients floating around in the first place to make it, which brings us back to square one and I can ask- "Where did the ingredients come from?"
Shakespeare's King Lear sums up the flaw in your argument- "Nothing can come from nothing".. Smile

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

...So, can someone be just too smart?

I don't think that's the real problem.

His suggestion that just because science hasn't answered every question, we must accept a fairy tale written by primitives millennia ago was bad logic.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Quote:
Romeo asked: Has science explained how a typical atom like this came into existence yet?
Brandon replied: Formed after the Big Bang in ways that are well understood to people who study these things.
Farmerman also replied: We can create elemenst up to a certain weight in accelerators

Nah guys, I ain't buying whatever you're selling!
For an atom to be created there must have been ingredients floating around in the first place to make it, which brings us back to square one and I can ask- "Where did the ingredients come from?"
Shakespeare's King Lear sums up the flaw in your argument- "Nothing can come from nothing"..

So speaks the expert on the physics of cosmology. Science has explanations for much of this already, whether you understand it or not. But if you are skeptical because the logic isn't tight enough to suit you, then surely you won't want to accept an ancient book written by primitives without a particle of evidence for any of it. By the standards of evidence you're describing, the Bible would be laughed out of the room.

1 Reply

Quote:

Brandon said: an ancient book written by primitives

Think "modern" mate.. Smile

The Bible is simply a collection of eyewitness accounts of close encounters between humans and offworld beings.
Jesus said:-"I know where I came from and where I am going, but you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.....you are of this world, I am not of this world...I'll tell you things hidden since the creation of the world" (John 8:14/ 8:23, Matt 13:35)

So he was a sort of Klaatu..

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/rennie-blackboard_zpsea5116e4.jpg~original

And got the same reception as Klaatu..

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/klaatushot_zps44a0c011.jpg~original

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Neither of you really get it. The Bible was not written as a scientific treatise. Why should it have been?

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

So he was a sort of Klaatu..

So you believe in Klaatu too?

Youre kind of losing the argument by your dumb default positions ya know.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

STELLA!

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

You tell us that physics isn't good enough because it hasn't answered every question and then conclude that you should accept an ancient text without a scrap of evidence for any of it. If the conclusions of physics aren't airtight enough for you, then the Bible shouldn't rate a second's attention.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Neither of you really get it. The Bible was not written as a scientific treatise. Why should it have been?

When I'm to decide what is a true explanation of the universe, I would rather accept centuries of knowledge accumulated by the scientific method, than some ancient book with no evidence to support its accuracy.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

When I'm to decide what is a true explanation of the universe, I would rather accept centuries of knowledge accumulated by the scientific method, than some ancient book with no evidence to support its accuracy.

Sorry.

There have been no additions to the Bible for some time. We have to dig into what's already there. Roman numerals instead of calculus. But II is still 2.

1 Reply

Scientific explanations for creation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know