Science, Atheism, Theory, Fact - Definitions, Meanings, and More

[Jquestionmark]

This (see thread title) became a major point of contention in a thread I started, and wasn't terribly relevant to the thread it was happening in. So, lets do it here. I'm not going to start the ball rolling in a major way, but I feel the note we should start on is pretty self evident based on the origin of this thread:

Creationism - theory? myth? Talk about it.

Science/Atheism - belief system(s)?

Hypothesis/Theory/Fact - what are they/what do those words mean and how do they relate to each other, science, and creationism

Don't feel obligated to talk about all of them at once. If you're talking about a specific one, though, try to make it clear.

Here is one thing I want to be adamant about in this thread: you need to show your sources. If you're not willing to quote dictionaries, articles, philosophers, scientists, what have you, I wouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously. Because this is something of a free for all on these topics, you need to show who said what and why your definition of a term is what it is - if not, people will think you're just making it up on your own.

Also (though this should go without saying), no being a dick/personal insults. If someone is wrong, explain why, but try not to be an ass while you do it.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Creationism seems to be an ideal topic for me. This is a much better way of debating theism vs atheism as it goes back to the beginning of time rather than the future, which in a lot of ways is the direction we should be going anyways if we are to come to some deeper understanding.

Now the literal definition of creationism is the conceptualization that all of existence was brought about by God, but I am not aiming for any side. However, I am going balls out on my conceptualization, as this thread bars none and it's about time one such as this exists. I'm pumped.

~Here it goes~

Science describes the beginning of existence in many different ways. There's the ever so popular big bang theory that is obviously correct in scientific terms. We see the universe expanding from a central point, gravity eventually folds back on itself and everything moves back to the center. Boom! It happens all over again.
It fails to explain where all this matter came from. However, the theory makes no claims of being the beginning of existence. It only states the cycle of our universe.

Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
This is a law, but it is also a paradox. The reasoning is because if something cannot be created, it cannot exist. So where did our universe come from?

There are many things that try to explain this. String theory is one I particularly love. But does any rationale truly negate the idea of creationism? I want to know what the latter has in this respect, as I know a lot about physics and am ready to bring out the flaws as well as the ingenius logic of it.

This is my starting argument.

 

[GalaxyFlare]

Ding ding ding Round 1!!!

Yes a cycle or even the same type of event that caused our Universal construction to begin, its true there are only theories about the causes of this construction, not all make sense or fill the "rules" of contemporary fundamental quantum field theory.

Gruj im sure we have this conversation before?

So why does the universe have to have been created by a God or Supreme Being?

Its true the construction of this Universe is elegant from the efficiency in the Electrostatic ring found in Nuclei to the expanding influence of Dark energy at huge intergalactic distances.

I understand you point about no theory being able to truly say that the Universe was NOT created by a Divine being, but I say this to that: God is a man made creation used for the some purpose when science was anathema and Knowledge was forestalled for splendor and growth of a religion based worship.

And since Science has gone onto prove more and provide more insight into the universe
than a singular book and or any piece of Dogmatic literature, Creationism is just another example of people trying to venerate there unnecessary religion into the public focus once again.

Instead of removing the need for Religion some seek to usurp the findings of Scientific discovery to and use to there religions advantage, Creationism is a perfect example of this happening.

When Galileo first tried to demonstrate the fact the Sun does not revolve around the earth you know who he tried to prove it to? the local priest or whatever, but as soon as the priest observed a fact that was contrary to there religion he branded Galileo a lier and an infidel.

Creationism is rubbish and it offends me, as a man and as a human that people will still try this kind of crap for the advent of there god and religion.

Placing your God at the front of everything once more after having been disproved through methodical research is the lowest and most offensive thing any religion could do,
now ive gone and repeated myself.

No god created the universe.

 

[Jquestionmark]

I will do my best to keep my answers clear, and concise.

Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
This is a law, but it is also a paradox. The reasoning is because if something cannot be created, it cannot exist. So where did our universe come from?

This is the best place to start. I apologize if I'm assuming incorrectly, but I take this to mean that you agree with the statement "Matter is neither created nor destroyed."

So, lets just list some questions that point out issue with God (Christian God, to be specific) being the creative force:

- Why can it not have occurred by a natural event? Is the supernatural required to explain this?

- How does this provide evidence for there being only one God?

- Does it provide evidence that God still exists?

- Why would a benevolent being create a universe then fabricate details within that universe to make it appear to be older (if we're talking literal creationism)?

- And, my favourite one of all: If the matter needs an explanation for its origin, so does the God that created it. What made God?

There are many things that try to explain this. String theory is one I particularly love. But does any rationale truly negate the idea of creationism?

Science isn't trying to disprove creationism (and likely never will), because it is trying to follow the information we have available to find an actual answer to how the universe came to be. Disproving creationism will likely never be on the to do list for science.

The problem with creationism is that it is either based on a book of stories from long long ago (and an attempt to prove those stories to be true), or it provides an explanation that is no better than any other. It's a cop out, straight up Flying Spaghetti Monster quality imagined excuse. There was no basis for creationism when it was conceived, it was simply made up, and they're trying hard to find a basis after the fact.

Due to the above issue (book/excuse), I'd have to class it as a myth. Science may still be attempting to explain how things started, but at least it's trying to follow the evidence to the explanation, instead of taking an explanation and warping evidence to it.

Theories take large bodies of information (facts, laws, other theories, hypotheses) and combine it into a coherent whole. Random House Dictionary: Theory - 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Collins English Dictionary: Theory - 5. a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms. Creationism just doesn't fit the definition.

Also, creationism is mainly fighting against evolution, which is hilarious. Evolution makes no attempt to explain either the origins of life or the origins of the universe. Creationism offers no explanation for the evolutionary events we have witnessed (because it is not a theory? yeah, probably).

 

[Jquestionmark]

For instance, one can say that all swans are white. This becomes a theory if all swans anyone can find are white, and no one has seen a black swan. This may even be called the Law of White Swans. However all it takes is ONE black swan to disprove this theory - the theory would immediately have to be abandoned or modified.

Nice definitions/clarifications. I go with a slightly different definition of theory, but same basic idea.

When I use the term "Law" I'm talking about a popularly accepted theory. Like in your swan example, the popular acceptance/continued inability to find a black swan leads to the use of the term law instead of theory, but laws are not independent of theories.

 

[GalaxyFlare]

Laws are not absolutes.

They are defined for certain situations to be and are transmutable as the need arises, science is not set in stone its very nature make/needs it to be flexible for further advancement in any direction.

So please dont miss understand when i say laws as being the way things are, they are the observed boundaries by which we judge occurrences on any scale whether Macro or micro subatomic or Fermionic scales.

Flexibility exist in science, and rules are made to be broken anytime.

Also the Graviton...........see Gruj about that one

This isnt a Pic thread but this will clear up any problems in the Future(which is where we should looking)

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Gruj im sure we have this conversation before?

A few times actually

Before I start again on the earlier discussion, I agree with Acer and Dragonbyte. Science is very literal and it's definitions are usually exact. A law is a rule set by a governing authority, it is not the primary attribute of the governing authority itself. Newtons laws of gravity, for example, are laws at our scale. But at the sub-atomic scale, they do not exist. All laws become paradoxes at some point or another when something else is discovered, yet they cannot be discounted as laws because they are true and infallible in a granted setting.

Anyways,, (yes, I color coded stuff lol)


The idea that matter cannot be created or destroyed remains a law despite one huge thing on quarks.
There are several different kinds of quarks which, in the right combinations make up protons, neutrons and so on.
If these quarks are combined a certain way, they can literally destroy each other- or they can create more matter.
This is where the idea of anti-matter comes into play. If a small anti-matter bomb went off, most of it's matter would turn to energy and some would literally vanish from existence. There's a lot of skepticism as to how significant it is, as even small amounts of anti-matter is very hard to make and has not been found naturally.
The significance of anti-matter is closely examined with how existence began. All it would take is a few of the right quarks and boom! We have an entire universe of matter and energy.

Which brings me to another thing- the blue statement above^^^

There's a lot of theory about matter and energy being the same thing. Generally speaking, matter is only 'knots' of energy. This is necessary for any unification theorist, like me

To declare that all existence came from a single source, unification must be the key. Most of physics is largely bent on this concept. For example, we unified the forces of electricity and magnetism- electromagnetism. But for less specific ones, you could go with all the elements being unified through the idea that they are only different constructs of the same elementary particles, or time and space unification (which still stands impressively unless elementary 'graviton' particles are discovered)
If we find that gravitons do exist, we will be able to work towards unifying gravity with the other forces, which has been the crux of physics for a good long time now as there is no current explanation for gravity other than Einstein's Relativity.

Nonetheless, even if we are to unify all the forces and whatnot, we would still be at a loss to how existence began. We would have essentially only come to understand the workings of it. Creation would still be an inquiry. Even with it only taking a handful of quarks to spring everything into reality, they to have to abide by the same laws of other matter.
This is where things such as string theory come in. In string theory, time is only one of many other dimensions. A given universe without time simply has no beginning or end.
But for this to work, dimensions have to interact with time to create a universe like the one we live in, as the nature of ours demands it.
This brings the idea of dimensional 'strings' that loop and collide, creating universes where they intersect.
This can help explain phenomena such as quantum leaps, where electrons disappear and pop up somewhere else instantly. We could introduce another dimension:
Hyperspace
In hyperspace, the 4th spatial dimension, you could see all sides of a 3D object at once. Accordingly, you could also go from one side of that object to the other without traveling around it.

Despite how extraordinary this is, it will take an extraordinary amount of time to prove/disprove. These theories are made because physicists know the dead end that eventually awaits them if they don't. It will take a theory such as this to find the origin of existence, there's just no way around that. And until that happens, how can a divine god be discounted?
One thing to take into consideration is the idea of divinity. It is not a 'natural' construct as we define it. What I feel it really comes down to is that it's just as hard to imagine a divine god as it is to imagine divine reality, so why count one out?

 

[Jquestionmark]

A few times actually

Before I start again on the earlier discussion, I agree with Acer and Dragonbyte. Science is very literal and it's definitions are usually exact. A law is a rule set by a governing authority, it is not the primary attribute of the governing authority itself. Newtons laws of gravity, for example, are laws at our scale. But at the sub-atomic scale, they do not exist. All laws become paradoxes at some point or another when something else is discovered, yet they cannot be discounted as laws because they are true and infallible in a granted setting.

Newtons "laws" of gravity are known to be incorrect. They have been proven to be incorrect. The reason we still use them is because it's easier to comprehend and calculate things using these rules on a scale that comes up on a regular basis for humans. There is no paradox: they are incorrect theories that still have accurate/usable math. That's why general relativity replaced them: it was able to resolve some of the problems we discovered.

Laws are not infallible in any setting. They are only theories that have gained adequate popularity.

Anyways,, (yes, I color coded stuff lol)


The idea that matter cannot be created or destroyed remains a law despite one huge thing on quarks.
There are several different kinds of quarks which, in the right combinations make up protons, neutrons and so on.
If these quarks are combined a certain way, they can literally destroy each other- or they can create more matter.
This is where the idea of anti-matter comes into play. If a small anti-matter bomb went off, most of it's matter would turn to energy and some would literally vanish from existence. There's a lot of skepticism as to how significant it is, as even small amounts of anti-matter is very hard to make and has not been found naturally.
The significance of anti-matter is closely examined with how existence began. All it would take is a few of the right quarks and boom! We have an entire universe of matter and energy.

Which brings me to another thing- the blue statement above^^^

There's a lot of theory about matter and energy being the same thing. Generally speaking, matter is only 'knots' of energy. This is necessary for any unification theorist, like me

To declare that all existence came from a single source, unification must be the key. Most of physics is largely bent on this concept. For example, we unified the forces of electricity and magnetism- electromagnetism. But for less specific ones, you could go with all the elements being unified through the idea that they are only different constructs of the same elementary particles, or time and space unification (which still stands impressively unless elementary 'graviton' particles are discovered)
If we find that gravitons do exist, we will be able to work towards unifying gravity with the other forces, which has been the crux of physics for a good long time now as there is no current explanation for gravity other than Einstein's Relativity.

Nonetheless, even if we are to unify all the forces and whatnot, we would still be at a loss to how existence began. We would have essentially only come to understand the workings of it. Creation would still be an inquiry. Even with it only taking a handful of quarks to spring everything into reality, they to have to abide by the same laws of other matter.
This is where things such as string theory come in. In string theory, time is only one of many other dimensions. A given universe without time simply has no beginning or end.
But for this to work, dimensions have to interact with time to create a universe like the one we live in, as the nature of ours demands it.
This brings the idea of dimensional 'strings' that loop and collide, creating universes where they intersect.
This can help explain phenomena such as quantum leaps, where electrons disappear and pop up somewhere else instantly. We could introduce another dimension:
Hyperspace
In hyperspace, the 4th spatial dimension, you could see all sides of a 3D object at once. Accordingly, you could also go from one side of that object to the other without traveling around it.

While very interesting, this does nothing to show that Creationism is a valid idea. I'm going to bring some of it up again in a little bit.

Despite how extraordinary this is, it will take an extraordinary amount of time to prove/disprove. These theories are made because physicists know the dead end that eventually awaits them if they don't. It will take a theory such as this to find the origin of existence, there's just no way around that. And until that happens, how can a divine god be discounted?

Please show some evidence that physicists are building their hypotheses and theories on the desire to continue their work instead of basing them off of information found in the natural world/other supported theories.

I didn't say we need to discount a divine god. I'm just saying there are these issues:

- Why can it not have occurred by a natural event? Is the supernatural required to explain this?

- How does this provide evidence for there being only one God?

- Does it provide evidence that God still exists?

- Why would a benevolent being create a universe then fabricate details within that universe to make it appear to be older (if we're talking literal creationism)?

- And, my favourite one of all: If the matter needs an explanation for its origin, so does the God that created it. What made God?

It's also worth noting, that you yourself stated that the universe could occur naturally, without the need for magical beings to form it:

The significance of anti-matter is closely examined with how existence began. All it would take is a few of the right quarks and boom! We have an entire universe of matter and energy.

One thing to take into consideration is the idea of divinity. It is not a 'natural' construct as we define it. What I feel it really comes down to is that it's just as hard to imagine a divine god as it is to imagine divine reality, so why count one out?

Please define divine as you are using it. I get "Divine –adjective 1. of or pertaining to a god, especially the Supreme Being. 2. addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred. 3. proceeding from God or a god." when I look it up, and I'm not sure how reality coming into existence on its own would relate to divinity. Personally, it's very hard for me to imagine a being with as many plot holes as the Christian God as opposed to a reality occurring by natural processes. Perhaps we are simply defining "divine" in different ways.

 

[Emyunoxious]

If you only read one line from this post, make it the bold sentence from the quote at the very end.

-----

I don't even know where to begin to reply to any of the claims made in this topic. I don't... uh...

Actually, fuck that. I'm not doing anything else tonight.

Let's start with the first reply, work our way through all the claims made in this topic, and then finally give definitions, meanings, and more about the topics in the original post.

So! In the beginning, there was this gem:

Creationism seems to be an ideal topic for me.

Oh, darling, me too.

This is a much better way of debating theism vs atheism as it goes back to the beginning of time rather than the future, which in a lot of ways is the direction we should be going anyways if we are to come to some deeper understanding.

I don't understand what this means at all. Please clarify.

Science describes the beginning of existence in many different ways. There's the ever so popular big bang theory that is obviously correct in scientific terms. We see the universe expanding from a central point, gravity eventually folds back on itself and everything moves back to the center. Boom! It happens all over again.

That's not how the Big Bang Theory works at all.

There was no central point: the Big Bang happened EVERYWHERE. It was the universe.

The whole "gravity eventually folds back" shit is not a part of The Big Bang Theory at all. That's the Big Crunch, a hypothetical end of the universe.

This multiple Big Bang thing you've got here isn't a part of the Big Bang at all.

...

I wanted to just ram through this thread, but I guess this isn't going to work. I'll end up writing an essay 50 screens long, and nobody, least of all me, wants that.

So, let's just do definitions.

Science/Atheism - belief system(s)?

Atheism is debatable, but I'll do that one later.

Science is a method of gaining information. It is not a belief system in any way.

Hypothesis/Theory/Fact - what are they/what do those words mean and how do they relate to each other, science, and creationism

Summary:

• A fact is an observation. It is the least knowledge that can be had, and is the least exciting part of science.
• A hypothesis is a an educated guess about how a system will react to a given stimulus, based on facts.
• A theory is an explanation for how a system works. It summarizes hypotheses. It can be said to be the highest class of scientific knowledge, as it has been subjected to more criticism and testing than any other.
• A law is a generalization about a system. A law differs from a theory in that a law says what happens, and a theory says how.

A THEORY NEVER BECOMES A LAW
A THEORY NEVER BECOMES A FACT

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fact

"Scientific Fact

An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final). [A fact is synonymous with the term] observation [which are] facts learned by observing. Example: he reported his observations to the mayor."


http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

"Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different."

"Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes."

"Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably."

Creationism - theory? myth? Talk about it.

Alright, new definition.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/myth

"Myth
A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc."

Keeping in mind the previous definitions, this is a very easy question to ask: Is creationism falsifiable?

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the second greatest of all unfalsifiable claims: Russell's Teapot.

I'll let Bertrand "B-Rock" Russell explain it himself, if you are unfamiliar.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Bertrand Russell

This is the same as creationism. It is impossible to devise a test that would disprove it, so it is therefore not even a hypothesis.

However! Creationism does attempt to explain natural phenomena, and it is entirely fueled by faith.

Creationism is a myth.

Creationism is not a theory.

Creationism is not even a hypothesis.

Don't feel obligated to talk about all of them at once. If you're talking about a specific one, though, try to make it clear.

Oh, honey, I think I can take them all at once.

There are no such thing as "laws" in physics. Even the "laws" of thermodynamics are nothing more than theories. There is nothing in physics which is presumed to be 100% truth or face - or indeed in all of science.

I'm going to have to have to disagree with you there. There are laws in science, as I explained in my previous post. Laws aren't presumed to be 100% truth. That's not their purpose. They are simply generalizations, statements.

Let's use the example of the laws of thermodynamics.

The zeroth law of thermodynamics provides a basic definition of empirical temperature based on the principle of thermal equilibrium.
The first law of thermodynamics mandates conservation of energy and states in particular that the flow of heat is a form of energy transfer.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases, or, equivalently, that perpetual motion machines are impossible.
The third law of thermodynamics concerns the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature, and implies that it is impossible to cool a system to exactly absolute zero.

Those are not theories, as they do not explain how these systems work.
Those are not hypotheses, as they are not, in themselves, providing means for tests. However, they are all testable.
Those are not facts, as they are not single observations.

They are laws, because they say what happens, without explaining how.

For instance, one can say that all swans are white. This becomes a theory if all swans anyone can find are white, and no one has seen a black swan. This may even be called the Law of White Swans. However all it takes is ONE black swan to disprove this theory - the theory would immediately have to be abandoned or modified.

This is a wonderful analogy, but I worry that maybe saying "this may even be called the Law of White Swans" is too vague, considering the previous sentence.

The Law of White Swans, in this case, is that all swans are white.
The Theory of White Swans, then, would be an explanation of how all swans are white. Now, discounting the fact that this is a fictional theory, this would likely deal with the history of the species, and what caused the species to become wholly white. Logic would dictate that this coloration must afford some sort of benefit to the species, and therefore would proliferate in the group.

This theory, funny enough, is the Theory of Evolution.

Another example which involves experimentation would be the boiling temperature of water. You could boil water a million times, and each time it boils at the exact same temperature. You may then say you have a theory that water boils at X temperature. However all it takes is water to boil at a lower temperature once (for instance at high altitude) and this theory/law is disproven.

Again, it is a law that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit, 100 degrees Centigrade if you're a filthy fucking communist.

The theory related to this is the kinetic theory of gases.

The best example of this we still use today is the law of gravity. We actually know the theory of gravity is flawed - in fact, it was called the law of gravity when einstein explained how it was wrong through relativity. Even today we know that on certain scales (very small) Gravity is wrong. We also do not understand the method of action for gravity - we have not been able to find the particle or field which causes the effect of gravity.

They are still called the laws of gravity because they are still scientific laws. Gravity breaks down in very small scales, but on larger scales, Newton was astonishingly accurate. It's not the universal theory it used to be, but it's hardly been discounted.

Gravity is still what keeps you on this planet. It's still a law.

So if science isn't right, then how is it any "better" than or different from religion?

The answer is in the very basis of science - that science will constantly attempt to prove itself wrong. Any scientific breakthrough must be judged by a group of the scientists peers. He must detail exactly what steps he took to reach his conclusion - steps which will be repeated by other scientists to see if they gain the same results. Experiments and tests will be performed to attempt to disprove the breakthrough. If a theory is impossible to disprove through testing, then THOUGHT experiments will be used (see: Schrodingers Cat) which the scientist must that show his theory can account for.

These are all great things about the scientific method, I agree, but I think you're missing the main part.

SCIENCE FUCKING WORKS.

It is in that way, above all others, that science is different than religion. There are no applications of religion.

So, let's say that creationism is right, and evolution is wrong.

How can you explain the changes in viruses, yearly?

How do you explain the shared amino acids between all living things?

How do you explain similar systems in distinct species without them being related?

How do you explain the process of extinction?

How do you explain fossils?

How do you explain vestigial organs?

How do you explain literally any subject of biology that evolution has an answer for?

Evolution is the backbone of modern biology. Without it, nothing makes sense. Creationism... frankly, doesn't make any fucking sense, even on its own, but especially not in the context of literally everything else we do know about biology.

Just... just fucking watch this everybody: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150096252820098&set=t.503870097&ref=nf

"That's the ballpark value to civilization. [...] I know, you can almost hear him sputtering already. 'But that's not fair! You're comparing religions to something that can actually achieve results!' Yeah, that's right. Science, bitches. It works. [...] Science is not used to prove science. Science is just a methodology that is found to have a track record of success in producing models of predictive utility about reality. [...] Indeed, it's so successful that it's not just that it has no peer or rival, it's genuinely in a class of its own. There is simply no other methodology that can compete with it in its ability to deliver the goods."

 

[GalaxyFlare]

Again, it is a law that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit, 100 degrees Centigrade if you're a filthy fucking communist.

The theory related to this is the kinetic theory of gases.

As far as i know that about 450 kelvins

Whyd you have to go and say all that? Im just gonna say "Yes, I agree with all this"

The thing I wanna discuss is the pre-eminent theory of..............Universal mechanics and construction topographical nature over the first few 1-200 million years of the Universe.

So which is it?

String Theory or Quantum Loop Gravity? and any others that I havent listed.

I prefer QLG over String theory simply for its more elegant explanation of the flow of Space/time and its none reliances on extra Dimensional influences, yeah I dont explain everything but then again neither does String theory.

So anyway I went off topic there

Early Universe systems are hard to predict, the nature of anti matter and its 1+1 matter constituent annihilating to become the basis of our space/time and the formation of the fundamental forces at play in the early days, going below separation energy levels to form into other forces.

The creation of Quarks and anti-Quarks and the rapped cooling of the forces and the myriad of ways a series of particles split of to form sub groups of Hadrons and leptons
forming the first matter particles.

I could go on here, but now I realise there is no real point to my post and I was just rambling...........fuck it, Im toasted

 

[Ultima Snake]

hmmm this is a bit of an expansive subject really but it is a good question. Where did we originate, how did all begin and how did life start in the first place. but the one thing to think about is this, everything that has a beginning must one day come to an end. i know this was said in the matrix but there is a point there i think. i do believe that further study of the planet and the universe will one day bring answers to this but i do not know weither to believe it will happen within our life time. will the answer come to late though for humanity to celebrate.

 

[Emyunoxious]

EDIT: Just bringing these up because when differentiating between law and theory (or observation vs explanation) you seemed to imply a law (or observation) could not be proven false.

Did I? I apologize, that's obviously not correct.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[GalaxyFlare]

You are KILL EVERYONE AROUND YOU?

Awkward

Have you seen the screwy shapes they say the universe is?
like a pine cone or a large donut, and all this membrane bullshit really is just unnecessary.

Theories are good but you need to know when to step back and just look at the maths and say........."yeah l done gone tooo far".....with out the ability to directly observe phenomenon, maths is an excellent tool gain the missing link, but l think some theories are just ego building and redundant beyond a certain point.

This again is just a personal point of view.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Woah this thread boomed since my last post. With that being the case, quoting everything I want to post is a chore I'd rather not take on. Instead, I will talk generally on most of the things that have been brought up.

First, I want to simplify thermodynamics.
Hot and cold is only the acceleration/deceleration of atoms. They interact with each other and cause particles to ricochet and such. Depending on the 'recipe' of particles, things such as water not heating above boiling point become possible. There are not enough of certain particles to accelerate each other. This is why gasoline goes KABOOM! when one spark hits it. It's particle recipe is set for chaos.
Absolute zero is impossible, because an atom has to completely stop. Every attempt to make an atom literally freeze has failed.
This does, however, remind me of one of my favorite paradoxes:
"At any given point in time, an object is actually at rest."

I have used the term paradox a lot, so just to be thorough, I will give the definition because their is a general misconception of it.
Paradox- a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true.

Anyways, the laws of thermodynamics are laws because they are infallible in a granted setting. Just like Newton's laws of gravity, they may not exist in the quantum-world, but they are relevant on our scale. This is an important note on what defines a law. Laws do not define every counterpart of reality. Thus, a law is always true within it's boundaries.

Questions posted by Emyunoxious

How can you explain the changes in viruses, yearly?

Evolution. This does not mean over a billion years of it.

How do you explain the shared amino acids between all living things?

Amino acids are vital in protein, which are essential for any living thing. The ingredients for life are somewhat specific.

How do you explain similar systems in distinct species without them being related?
This does not prove a billion year legacy of evolution. And really, how many necessary variations can there be?

How do you explain the process of extinction?
Survival of the fittest. This has nothing to do with anything.

How do you explain fossils?
Certainly not with half-baked theories. There is no proof as to what their ages are. Carbon dating has a mere half-life of 5700 years, which is a theoretical concept in itself. The 'age' of a fossil is determined by what it's encased in. A theory built on theory within an observable thing. This is why I find the whole idea ridiculous.

How do you explain vestigial organs?
Evolution. These organs only need 10000 years or so to be rendered vestigial.

How do you explain literally any subject of biology that evolution has an answer for?
Evolution is only great to the extent that it's stuck up it's own ass. Very little of it is unchallenged, and it's theory built on theory nonetheless. It's an embarrassment to science when taken as far as some evolutionists convey it.

Questions posted by Jquestionmark

- Why can it not have occurred by a natural event? Is the supernatural required to explain this?
The difference between supernatural and natural becomes obsolete when trying to account for the beginnings of existence, because whatever started it has the affinities of divinity whether it is god or not.

- How does this provide evidence for there being only one God?
There only being one god is impossible to determine. Only the concept of divinity holds speculation. However, there is only one specific god spoken of in most religious text.

- Does it provide evidence that God still exists?
You mean, did he vanish from His existence, or did He just turn his back on us? I don't know how to answer this.
- Why would a benevolent being create a universe then fabricate details within that universe to make it appear to be older (if we're talking literal creationism)?
This is simple.

The age of of any elementary particle is impossible to determine. They are the building blocks of matter. How is it that we gauge how old something is? Comparison.

If nothing was fabricated to be 'old', there would be no fossil fuels, diamonds, etc., and the earth would be too volatile for life. Every chunk of lead would still be uranium, volcanoes would engulf many parts of the world.

Take these two base facts and think about it..

- And, my favourite one of all: If the matter needs an explanation for its origin, so does the God that created it. What made God?
This is also simple. It's called divinity.
Either way, scientists will have to accept that whatever the origin of existence may be, there will be no logical construct of where it came from.

Acer: I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Donuts are awesome
In all seriousness though, string theory is damn absurd in relevance to what we see in our universe, but it is mathematically beautiful. If it's taken too far, it's because of it's math.
String theory and QLG are contradictory to each other, but they both need the graviton.
When they find it, I'll be waiting man

 

[Jquestionmark]

Those of us that have provided definitions have given slightly different ones (significantly different in the case of laws), but given more than enough information to determine just what each of us means. Emyu, your definition of law was pretty different from the others, but I'm going to have to tip my hat to it. For sake of simplicity with having distinct definitions for each term, I'm going with your definition of law.

Thus, a law is always true within it's boundaries.

This statement is completely incorrect. Given all of the definitions so far in this thread, and all of the explanations offered by the various posters, unless you are using a different definition of law that you have failed to provide, this statement cannot be true.

All it takes is one object falling sideways or not falling at all to ruin the law of gravity. Gravity is not always true. It may have always been true, but nothing assures it'll happen the next time. We can fairly reliably expect it to always be true, but it is not "always true."

How can you explain the changes in viruses, yearly?
Evolution. This does not mean over a billion years of it.

This is an unsupported claim. You are providing no explanation for the speed at which evolution occurs, even if it's not relevant to Emyu's question (I believe he was pointing out the issue with the common Creationist claim that all life set on earth was immutable in its type).

How do you explain the shared amino acids between all living things?
Amino acids are vital in protein, which are essential for any living thing. The ingredients for life are somewhat specific.

So are you saying that all life evolved from the same original life, or that a creator powerful enough to create a universe was not powerful enough to create different building blocks for living organisms? Better yet, seeing as Creationism is based on the Bible, doesn't the shared amino acids conflict with 1 Corinthians 15:39?

How do you explain similar systems in distinct species without them being related?
This does not prove a billion year legacy of evolution. And really, how many necessary variations can there be?

Actually, the fossil record seems to imply otherwise. If you have some understanding of evolution's function other than the current information available to science, I'm sure we'd all find it interesting to know about. Please explain in detail.

The variations aren't necessary. Only the beneficial ones survive. Unless evolution works differently than biology today understands it. Please explain how it works, if not as detailed in current science.

How do you explain fossils?
Certainly not with half-baked theories. There is no proof as to what their ages are. Carbon dating has a mere half-life of 5700 years, which is a theoretical concept in itself. The 'age' of a fossil is determined by what it's encased in. A theory built on theory within an observable thing. This is why I find the whole idea ridiculous.

Then how do we determine the age of fossils?

What information do you have that actually shows carbon dating to be inaccurate? I'm assuming you have a reason beyond "it's based on a theory."

Once again, this is an unsupported claim. You need to provide information on why carbon dating is insufficient and how fossils form if not by the currently understood process.

How do you explain vestigial organs?
Evolution. These organs only need 10000 years or so to be rendered vestigial.

Contradiction: Creationism puts the age of the earth at 6000 years. A 10,000 year process can be difficult to carry out in 6000 years.

If evolution is such an incredibly fast process (of course, I'll need to see your explanation for that before I can be too specific), they why has humanity not evolved in recorded history? The rate of change you seem to be implying means humans should have changed significantly by now.

How do you explain literally any subject of biology that evolution has an answer for?
Evolution is only great to the extent that it's stuck up it's own ass. Very little of it is unchallenged, and it's theory built on theory nonetheless. It's an embarrassment to science when taken as far as some evolutionists convey it.

If it's so flawed, by all means, challenge it! I'd love to see some specific details on what's wrong with it... Wait, this seems familiar, allow me to quote myself:

Please, list the flaws. I am interested in seeing what you think they are.

To address the issue of the current number of species on the planet, are you familiar with how species as a whole change into new species (for example, there are no longer cro-magnon or neandertals walking around)? Or how some species go extinct. If possible, I would appreciate if you explain how you think evolution works, because I'm really not sure we're thinking of the same process.

Also, I'm still waiting to see how the theories are, to quote you, "highly irretrievable." Please explain.

I'm also curious how evolution is embarrassing to science. Sure, it's not as practical as germ theory, but I'm missing out on how it's embarrassing.

- Why can it not have occurred by a natural event? Is the supernatural required to explain this?
The difference between supernatural and natural becomes obsolete when trying to account for the beginnings of existence, because whatever started it has the affinities of divinity whether it is god or not.

Since you didn't define divinity, I'll try to take what you mean by it from context.

-It does not refer to supernatural or natural phenomena specifically.
-It is not related to god(s).
-It is not related to physics.
-It exists outside of the known and understood universe.
-It has "no logical construct"

By these points, it seems to only be a generic word for "unknown."

That being the case, let's re-write your statement:

"The difference between supernatural and natural becomes obsolete when trying to account for the beginnings of existence, because whatever started it has the affinities of [the unknown] whether it is god or not."

Unfortunately, saying that we can't be sure the universe came from natural (as we currently understand them) events does not provide any support for it having occurred by a supernatural event. Nor does it provide any evidence that it was not a natural event, it only says what it says: we are not sure.

So, I'll ask again, why can it NOT have occurred by a natural event?

- How does this provide evidence for there being only one God?
There only being one god is impossible to determine. Only the concept of divinity holds speculation. However, there is only one specific god spoken of in most religious text.

Alright, I'm going to list two very intense issues with what you just said.

Issue one: please tell me that you are familiar with any of the following:
-Celtic beliefs (ancient/neo)
-Nordic/Scandinavian beliefs (ancient/neo)
-The enormous variety of Native American beliefs (not even listing all of them)
-Shinto
-Hinduism (depends on the denomination)
-Greek/Roman beliefs (ancient)
-Egyptian beliefs (ancient/neo)
-The enormous variety of Aboriginal beliefs (not even listing all of them)
and I'm already tired of listing them, but those alone are enough to make my point.

The majority of religious text (unless we're defining "religious text" as "Abrahamic religious text") does not support the idea of only one specific god. The majority of religions in the past have been polytheistic. Even the Abrahamic religions have origins in poly/henotheism. Which brings us to issue number two.

Issue two: even the Bible refers to multiple gods.

In its origins, Judaism was henotheistic. That is to say, they worshiped only one god, but acknowledged the existence of many. Why do you think that god demands he be worshiped first in the ten commandments? Why do you think there were so many rules against worshiping other gods?

Lets look at some direct quotes from the Bible:

And God said, let us make man in our image. Genesis 1:26
And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. Exodus 12:12

Those are fun, but what about these:

And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. Judges 2:13
Declare ye among the nations, and publish, and set up a standard; publish, and conceal not: say, Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces; her idols are confounded, her images are broken in pieces. Jerimiah 50:2

Sure, they are making the claim that their god is better (and who wouldn't, everyone wants to have the biggest baddest imaginary friend on the block), but what's important to note is that even the Bible acknowledges other gods.

So no, there is not "only one specific god spoken of in most religious text," not even in the text devoted to him.

- Does it provide evidence that God still exists?
You mean, did he vanish from His existence, or did He just turn his back on us? I don't know how to answer this.

I thought it was pretty clear, but I'll try again. Even if a god created the universe, how does that creation event (which occurred in the past) provide evidence that said god has not died/stopped existing now (in the present)?

To add a couple more dimensions to that question: What evidence does this provide that there is only one god (and the creator of this universe was not one of many "gods")? How would we know it is not mentally deficient by the standards of its species?

- Why would a benevolent being create a universe then fabricate details within that universe to make it appear to be older (if we're talking literal creationism)?
This is simple.

The age of of any elementary particle is impossible to determine. They are the building blocks of matter. How is it that we gauge how old something is? Comparison.

If nothing was fabricated to be 'old', there would be no fossil fuels, diamonds, etc., and the earth would be too volatile for life. Every chunk of lead would still be uranium, volcanoes would engulf many parts of the world.

Take these two base facts and think about it..

What information do you have that implies all of our dating techniques are flawed? I will concede that we cannot date elementary particles, but we can date composite substances (for example: fossils). Unless you have something that disproves dating techniques like carbon dating.

Saying that the earth would be too volatile for life does not give reason for the evidence that shows the earth to be over 6000 years old. It seems to make little sense that a creator powerful enough to create a universe was not powerful enough to make the physical processes function in such a way that substances would not appear to be older than the creation event?

But most important, you yourself are supporting the idea that the way physical processes actually work show the universe to be older than 6000 years. "If nothing was fabricated to be 'old', there would be no fossil fuels, diamonds, etc., and the earth would be too volatile for life." meaning: the way physical processes work means that if the earth was only 6000 years old, we could not be on it. Regardless of what made the universe, this implies that the starting event (god or not) only initiated the "Big Bang," and the earth formed by natural processes, allowing it to cool, life to form, etc. That, or the universe spontaneously formed with physical processes that looked as though they had come to a certain point. It makes no sense for a natural force to do that, and just as little for a creature to do it (they should have initiated processes that functioned on a 6000 year time-span).

- And, my favourite one of all: If the matter needs an explanation for its origin, so does the God that created it. What made God?
This is also simple. It's called divinity.
Either way, scientists will have to accept that whatever the origin of existence may be, there will be no logical construct of where it came from.

There's still a problem with this, though: what made the "divinity"? Or is it turtles all the way down?

Some food for thought for people in here and to stick with the original discussion intent of the thread: are there any current religions that would qualify as theories? If so, why?

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Alright, there a few things that are, admittingly, becoming quite irritating for me. Because this is a theological discussion, I will give these few things one last go, and then I'm moving on with the broader subject.

Laws
Newton's Laws of Gravity, for example, are infallible in their setting. If you are on the ground and you suddenly jump in the air, you will fall back down. There is nothing that will prevent this. It's as simple as that. On our scale and setting, this is our law of gravity.
There is a reason why there is no 'law of white swans'. Otherwise, anything could be a law.
This is semantics taking a nose-dive into insanity.

Natural & Supernatural
When it comes to the origins of time/space/matter, these two terms bear no differences. The beginning of existence, stated by the big bang theory, was an infinitely small, super dense singularity that suddenly expanded, creating all of existence, including space itself. There is no way of knowing where this singularity came from, only that it came to be.
Think about what affinities something must have to be deemed natural or supernatural.
The terms become obsolete in the matter of where existence came from, and it is essentially something science will never answer. If there is such thing as a law, that is the king of all of them.

Now that I've stated where I stand on all that, back to the discussion

seeing as Creationism is based on the Bible, doesn't the shared amino acids conflict with 1 Corinthians 15:39?

That verse in no way venturing upon an idea that they are not of the same elementary materials. It is simply saying they are different in their constructs. The Bible is not a biology book, a lot of it does not need to be examined literally.
The beast from the sea is the anti-Christ, for example. The book requires a certain amount of depth, something that most atheists clearly lack to the point where it's almost annoying.

You are providing no explanation for the speed at which evolution occurs, even if it's not relevant to Emyu's question (I believe he was pointing out the issue with the common Creationist claim that all life set on earth was immutable in its type)

Do I really need to explain that viruses change rapidly, some being so fast that they change soon after we finally make vaccines?
Creationists do not believe life on earth is immutable. This is a ridiculous misconception. God said that animals reproduce according to their kind. This is in the book of Genesis, not hidden away in some deep corner of the Bible. It does not imply anything about evolution.

So are you saying that all life evolved from the same original life, or that a creator powerful enough to create a universe was not powerful enough to create different building blocks for living organisms?

I haven't been taking a side. I've only been speaking in the best interest of logic throughout the whole thread.

No, God would surely be powerful enough to create whatever He wanted.
And yes, if He made life, He made them with the same building blocks so that there would be a cycle of nature.

the fossil record seems to imply otherwise

There is no need to post the rest of the context_
Not to be condescending, but I don't care what it implies to be honest. And this is why:
The fossil record is a record based upon the theoretical dating of whatever the fossils are encased in. Somehow the given stratum of where a fossil was located is enough to claim the fossils age, or even the encasing itself. The key phrase here is 'theory built on speculation of yet other combined theories'. Evolutionists are forced to belly-flop into geology and quantum physics and still to little avail.
In laymans terms: fossil records don't mean shit as of right now

If you want to challenge it, I will be happy to get into all the specifics. It's actually something I wouldn't mind doing in lieu of where this debate is going, though I'm obviously not fond of the subject.

Creationism puts the age of the earth at 6000 years.

This is based soley on the genealogy of the Bible. The entire timeline from Adam and Eve to Jesus is thought to be roughly 4000 years. The New Testament adds another 2000 years.
4004 BC is actually the exact time of Adam and Eve according to the chronology.
We as a species have had no need to drastically evolve. Sharks, according to evolutionists, have been around for millions of years. We are the dominant species of Earth, but yet we still change in little ways. We are considerably taller than we used to be. Girls asses are getting bigger, our pinky toes are starting to curl, among other things. And this is all over the course of a couple centuries.
But since fossils seems to be the crux of all this seeing how they are the only thing that remains of then and now, I will fully explain my rationale on all of it as well as evolution the next time I post. I can guarantee you will find a significant amount of holes in the concepts of both despite your enthusiasm.


And I just want to clear this last thing up before I finish this post:

In its origins, Judaism was henotheistic. That is to say, they worshiped only one god, but acknowledged the existence of many. Why do you think that god demands he be worshiped first in the ten commandments? Why do you think there were so many rules against worshiping other gods?

The Isrealites made a golden calf from their melted jewelry and began worshiping it as Moses climbed the Mount Sanai to obtain the Commandments.
1000's of years before Christ. In ancient, barbaric times when common people were relatively stupid. Judaism was Moses' religion, not theirs. He served the exodus and converted them to it.

 

[GalaxyFlare]

Anyone care to have a stab at explaing how Superfluids are helping scientist understand the inner workings of high density structrures like nuetron stars?

Why dont l do it? coz its 105 am

Plus l wanna see if we can have an actual enlightnening discussion in this thread?

Who ever explains it and withstand scrutiny gets REP+ coz you guys are all........................ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzZZzzzzz

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Anyone care to have a stab at explaing how Superfluids are helping scientist understand the inner workings of high density structrures like nuetron stars?

I will be more than happy to oblige. This will be my break from creationism, because I know it's gonna get extreme

Superfluid matter has no viscosity. If you put a superfluid into a cup that so much as had one molecule-size hole at the bottom, the liquid would pour out. Or if you left it there long enough, the liquid would eventually climb the sides of the cup and pour out. If you stirred the fluid, it would never stop spinning.
This is all due to the lack of friction between the atoms. These traits are noticed with helium gas when it is extremely cooled into liquid form.
Since hydrogen and helium are strong counterparts, it becomes palatable that superfluids become a strong influence in the density of neutron stars. With temperatures around -400 degrees, these stars can be super dense because of the lack of friction that repels the atoms from each other. Thus, gravity has no force to contend with.

This is the rounded interpretation of it. Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense, as the basic logical idea of collapsed stars and black holes has to do with the compaction of matter.

Atoms are 99 percent empty space and stars are giant nuclear bombs that constantly violate that space. Add that in with superfluidity and great density,, and you got yourself a nice, solid theory

 

[Jquestionmark]

Laws
Newton's Laws of Gravity, for example, are infallible in their setting. If you are on the ground and you suddenly jump in the air, you will fall back down. There is nothing that will prevent this. It's as simple as that. On our scale and setting, this is our law of gravity.
There is a reason why there is no 'law of white swans'. Otherwise, anything could be a law.
This is semantics taking a nose-dive into insanity.

This is not a matter of semantics. Here's some semantics, the definition of semantics: "the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc." Other posters have clearly defined Law, and your use of it here fits none of the presented definitions. Let me be very clear: When you jump there is no 100% guarantee that you will fall back down. There is nothing to prevent it that we know of, but that does not mean no such force or situation exists. It only means we have not observed it yet. I'll put it in all caps to increase the likely-hood that you read it: THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT A LAW WILL ALWAYS OCCUR. If you know of a reason that gravity will always happen, I invite you to explain it. Otherwise, I think the rest of us will assume that it is not a guaranteed event.

You are making the claim that there exists nothing that can contradict gravity. Saying there is absolutely nothing or absolutely something runs directly counter to science (which came up with the law of gravity), so show your proof for the absolute condition of gravity.

Natural & Supernatural
When it comes to the origins of time/space/matter, these two terms bear no differences. The beginning of existence, stated by the big bang theory, was an infinitely small, super dense singularity that suddenly expanded, creating all of existence, including space itself. There is no way of knowing where this singularity came from, only that it came to be.
Think about what affinities something must have to be deemed natural or supernatural.
The terms become obsolete in this, and it is essentially something science will never answer. If there is such thing as a law, that is the king of all of them.

That is quite the claim. But, since this appears to be a matter of faith for you, I'll let you to your opinion, and I'll just say that as of yet it seems we don't know if we'll ever find out where the universe comes from. Maybe we will, maybe not.

seeing as Creationism is based on the Bible, doesn't the shared amino acids conflict with 1 Corinthians 15:39?

That verse in no way venturing upon an idea that they are not of the same elementary materials. It is simply saying they are different in their constructs. The Bible is not a biology book, a lot of it does not need to be examined literally.
The beast from the sea is the anti-Christ, for example. The book requires a certain amount of depth, something that most atheists clearly lack to the point where it's almost annoying.

Three things - First, is not something constructed out of its elementary materials?

Second, so you're saying that the Bible is a work of historical fiction? You are saying: "a lot of it does not need to be examined literally." If it is not literal (especially in maxims issued by god, which are arguably the most important part), then how can we be sure any part of it is literal or correct? You seemed to be making the claim that the Bible is a historically accurate work, but now you're saying parts are metaphors? How do we know which parts? We have evidence against some parts of it being historically accurate, so should we not take those parts literally (eden, the flood, the plagues)? Or do you have some secret method for decoding which information is accurate and which is not? The Bible is a work of religion, and not a work of biology or history. So why would we take it as historically accurate if we're not to take it as accurate regarding biology?

Third, I never said I was atheist. Regardless of if I am or not, the labels which identify me aren't relevant to any of what we've been talking about. More importantly: if you're going to insult people (even if you're doing it as subtly as possible), please just stop posting. Ad hominem is not a valid argument technique ("The book requires a certain amount of depth, something that most atheists clearly lack to the point where it's almost annoying." is a fine example of ad hominem. You're trying to bolster your side by implying that atheists lack the ability to understand information on multiple levels. You took a different quote, one that is obviously metaphorical and the literal or metaphorical state of its meaning is not debatable {unlike something that talks about the composition of humans and how it compares/contrasts to animals}, and used that as an example instead. Combo Straw-man and ad hominem. Very poor technique, sir.).

You are providing no explanation for the speed at which evolution occurs, even if it's not relevant to Emyu's question (I believe he was pointing out the issue with the common Creationist claim that all life set on earth was immutable in its type)

Do I really need to explain that viruses change rapidly, some being so fast that they change soon after we finally make vaccines?
Creationists do not believe life on earth is immutable. This is a ridiculous misconception. God said that animals reproduce according to their kind. This is in the book of Genesis, not hidden away in some deep corner of the Bible. It does not imply anything about evolution.

I should clarify on the matter of evolution - I was referring to the length of the process in general (the gradual shift from wolf to whale, for example), and not the rate of change in viruses.

I was simply noting that some Creationists do believe that life is immutable in its type. So, no, it's not a ridiculous misconception unless you turn the phrase "common Creationist claim" (a claim among some Creationists, but not all) into the phrase "something _all_ Creationists believe/argue for" (which is not what I stated). I try to do my best to make it clear when I'm analyzing and reinterpreting things you said - please give me the same respect.

So are you saying that all life evolved from the same original life, or that a creator powerful enough to create a universe was not powerful enough to create different building blocks for living organisms?
I haven't been taking a side. I've only been speaking in the best interest of logic throughout the whole thread.
No, God would surely be powerful enough to create whatever He wanted.
And yes, if He made life, He made them with the same building blocks so that there would be a cycle of nature.

The best interest of logic does not seem to be constantly making unsupported claims. But that's just my opinion.

the fossil record seems to imply otherwise

There is no need to post the rest of the context_
Not to be condescending, but I don't care what it implies to be honest. And this is why:
The fossil record is a record based upon the theoretical dating of whatever the fossils are encased in. Somehow the given stratum of where a fossil was located is enough to claim the fossils age, or even the encasing itself. The key phrase here is 'theory built on speculation of yet other combined theories'. Evolutionists are forced to belly-flop into geology and quantum physics and still to little avail.
In laymans terms: fossil records don't mean shit as of right now

I'm going to have to correct you on that statement: fossil records don't mean shit to you as of right now. You have yet to provide any information that disagrees with them other than your claim that they are absurd. That is, due to lack of evidence, an unsupported claim.

If you want to challenge it, I will be happy to get into all the specifics. It's actually something I wouldn't mind doing in lieu of where this debate is going, though I'm obviously not fond of the subject.

Creationism puts the age of the earth at 6000 years.

This is based soley on the genealogy of the Bible. The entire timeline from Adam and Eve to Jesus is thought to be roughly 4000 years. The New Testament adds another 2000 years.
4004 BC is actually the exact time of Adam and Eve according to the chronology.
We as a species have had no need to drastically evolve. Sharks, according to evolutionists, have been around for millions of years. We are the dominant species of Earth, but yet we still change in little ways. We are considerably taller than we used to be. Girls asses are getting bigger, our pinky toes are starting to curl, among other things. And this is all over the course of a couple centuries.
But since fossils seems to be the crux of all this seeing how they are the only thing that remains of then and now, I will fully explain my rationale on all of it as well as evolution the next time I post. I can guarantee you will find a significant amount of holes in the concepts of both despite your enthusiasm.

I have asked for this repeatedly, but you either ignore the request or say you will get to it in the future. You ignore all of the parts of my posts that you cannot pretend you instantly defeat with your baseless opinions. I request logic, reason, evidence, and you fail to provide at any turn. I'm not even drawing science into the vast majority of this (I'm leaving that to Emyu), and keeping it to pure and simple reasoning, and you're ignoring my requests, attempting to insult me, others that disagree with you, and anyone who labels themself as atheist, and constantly acting totally assured in your position while not even providing justification for it.

I'm not seeing any need to challenge anything. You are acting as though you know some magic formula for disproving evolution and dating techniques. I literally am begging you to show us how you have disproven theories backed up by countless hours, days, and years of research performed by experts in their disciplines. As someone who loves science, any genuine evidence is able to impact my views and cause me to re-assess my understandings. But you have provided no evidence, no reasoning, nothing that could hope to convince anyone that you are correct. You are constantly making assertions without providing so much as the reasoning for how you arrived at them (other than saying it's obvious). Please, for the love of any deities that you or anyone may or may not believe in regardless of if they exist or not, back up SOMETHING you have said. I want so very badly to understand the workings of the world in greater depth, and if the theories that I've seen backed up with untold amounts of evidence are incorrect, I want to see the evidence that shows them to be wrong. Then again, maybe, like any good theory that actually hits close to reality, new information can be incorporated instead of destroying it. But we can never know if you never bring any of these things to light.

And I just want to clear this last thing up before I finish this post:

In its origins, Judaism was henotheistic. That is to say, they worshiped only one god, but acknowledged the existence of many. Why do you think that god demands he be worshiped first in the ten commandments? Why do you think there were so many rules against worshiping other gods?

The Isrealites made a golden calf from their melted jewelry and began worshiping it as Moses climbed the Mount Sanai to obtain the Commandments.
1000's of years before Christ. In ancient, barbaric times when common people were relatively stupid. Judaism was Moses' religion, not theirs. He served the exodus and converted them to it.

What?

Christ has nothing to do with henotheism. I specifically stated that the origins of Judaism lie in henotheism. Two of the four quotes I provided occur after Exodus, and the golden calf incident has nothing to do with my argument.

You aren't even responding to what I said in my prior post. I'm not even sure what point you are making, because I was talking about religions believing in/religious texts talking about multiple gods. I was addressing your claim that "there is only one specific god spoken of in most religious text." and I don't actually see any claims you make that are relevant to this in the statements you provided. I'm not sure how to define what you were just doing, but I'm going to go with a combination of Straw-man (arguing against something other than the information I posted and the claim I made) and Red Herring (trying to distract by talking about something else).

If you disagree that Judaism had origins in henotheism, do some research, look into what people (especially historians, cultural anthropologists, theologists) have said about it, and provide some reasoning/evidence.

______________________

Sir, I've done my best to keep cool and be civil, all while you make baseless claims, throw insults at a group of people that I'm not necessarily a part of, and constantly use logical fallacies.

If you are unwilling to engage in a rational argument, I won't trouble you any further. I engage in argument in the hopes that I will gain new information and insight out of it, but you are completely unwilling to entertain any of my requests.

You are definitely entitled to your opinions regarding evolution, dating techniques, the origin of the universe, the immutability of gravity, the historical accuracy of the bible, etc. I will not belittle your beliefs, but must make it clear that by definition, they are only that: beliefs. As you provide no evidence for them, I can only come to the conclusion that there is no evidence, and those beliefs have no place in science or other non-faith based ways of assessing the world. Unsupported as your claims are, they do not fit definitions such as theory, law, or fact.

I would like to say it has been a pleasant experience debating with you, but your desire to disrespect, obfuscate, and refuse to "show your work" has made this anything but.

If you become willing to engage in rational argument, without the use of ad hominem, straw man, red herring, and outright ignoring over half of the information being presented, I will be here. I would gladly continue discussion with you so long as you can avoid these issues I have mentioned. I will continue to respond and discuss ideas with other posters, but until you begin making clear, fallacy free, rational arguments, I must decline to engage in discussion with you.

I hope to see something I can respond to in the near future. Otherwise, my most sincere apologies.

- Jquestionmark.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

There are a few things I really want to settle before I continue with the broad discussion.
First, atheists have a natural tendency to be insulting when their beliefs are compromised in the slightest, just like theists. Agnostics do not feel the need to insult anyone unless they are insulted first. I am practically a one man army on this entire thread, and have been straw-manned, ridiculed, and taken abroad on every single word I have posted. This is an indirect insult in itself, as I feel intuitiveness is being replaced by brash argument.
Second, it insults my intelligence to see the Bible being treated like a science book when it clearly isn't and used against me every time the term Bible is mentioned.
So when I say that that most atheists clearly lack a certain amount of depth, the phrase being an insult is heavily misguided. It is more an observation than anything. And in lieu of what I stated above, it seems that there is obviously some degree of truth to it.
Things such as this being used to in debate concur:

And God said, let us make man in our image. Genesis 1:26
And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. Exodus 12:12

The Bible is quite clear from beginning to end the concept that God created man in His own image, and that he will judge any who deny him as the one and only God. If you must declare than that He is talking of other existing Gods, you must declare that He did not make man and all of existence.
You have posted a straw man argument. Everything you say in accordance of it is also, by extension, a straw man argument.

This is the logic I have been playing at through the course of the thread. In physics, the standard model of atoms only works if there are variables. But it is practical, even if it may not answer the other phenomena of physics.
Divine works do not need to speak the language of science, as it needs nothing to prove itself. Quoting texts from the Bible to attack it's own claims is quite asinine, and will not stand in any debate. Religion has the luxury however to question scientific claims, because science is designed to compete not only with other claims, but it's own as well.



EVOLUTION
The base of scientific intrigue on the advancement of life sits on a mighty mountain built on natural selection. Through natural selection, a species either adapts or becomes extinct.
This sounds really convincing when you look at a cat or a wolf. They have every aspect of a a survivor. Their prey either becomes extinct or learns to survive. A rabbit becomes really good at running. His legs become built for speed. Their ears become larger to be wary of predators. They maintained with the advancement of cats and wolves. They survived.
Again, it sound really convincing in a specific setting.

Which sets the stage for this argument:
I'm a dinosaur. My arm is turning into a wing. This in no way advances my survival affinities. I have no use for this, it only mars my performance.
Millions of years later, I have come back from the dead to see my descendants scour the skies. What take of evolution explains why my species has evolved into birds? Why would any creature even undergo a process to obtain wings if it did not help them from the start?

Natural selection has it's own follies, and evolution is built on this concept.


It is believed that since their are so many variations of species and species themselves, massive evolution must be true nonetheless. This, to, is likely an inaccuracy and evolutionists try to hide this in every way.
There are many missing links between species. Humans, for example, have many things distinct with apes, monkeys, etc.
Evolutionists line up the most promising skeletons of past human-like animals and say that this must be the evolution of man, filling in massive evolutionary gaps with theoretical creatures to account for their differences.

Evolutionary links are not only theoretical, but patched with even more theory to be made true.


Single-cell organisms.
According to evolutionists, this was a chanced happening brought on by something such as:
Lightning struck a pond of water. With the right ingredients of life (water, energy, carbon, etc.) molecules gathered and miraculously formed life.

This should be relatively simple to accomplish, but cannot be done in even the most sophisticated laboratory.

The basis of life beginning itself is compromised.

Mars.
Mars has been shown by evolutionists to have had at some point all the ingredients and conditions for life. Yet there are no trace of life anywhere. No fossils, structures, anything.
Not only that, it becomes more and more likely every day that we are alone. Unless there is vast conspiracy going on which us normal people are unaware of (another subject for another time), we can safely conclude that it may not be mere coincidence that we are alone here, alive on Earth.

Creationism gains appeal.

These things simply cannot go ignored, and in no way should evolution be considered more likely than creationism.
It really just comes down to what flavor you like more.