Somewhat interesting video about the Big Bang.

[Lbm]

Doubt he will earn the £££ Dawkins has or any where near it.

The continued run of evolutionary books make vast sums of money.

 

Now as we are getting into a objective and more fair minded outlook, surely the place to be would be would be listening to Dawkins and Lennox arguing out their points. Such a DVD exists, called "The God Delusion" debate. Richard Dawkins, scientist, author, and atheist, VS John Lennox scientist, author and theologian, both pretty equal eductaion wise, friends, who dont slag each others beliefs out of respect, alough they do crack the odd well pointed joke to one another. Both of Oxford Uni

The debate is chaired by a senior USA judge. 112 mins, made in 2007.

Be warned, Dawkins admits "we have no idea how the universe started", which is a long throw from what he was saying 10 years before, but honest of him never the less.

Dawkins answers do go on a bit, but thats his form.

How does it turn out? you can watch and make your own mind up.

 

And to those firing snide comments my way in this thread, considered sectarian on this side of the pond, cut it out, as i could respond with taunts of eugenics, Galton etc, but that just lowers my reasoning to your level.

 

My objective outlook remains, I still look on a regular basis at the "evolving" (ha ha i used it) debate as science continues to learn, stumble and re learn in every direction.

 

I however was saddened to read "Slaughter of the dissidents" volume one by Dr Jerry Bergman which highlights the career destroying antics of the pro Darwin eduction and scientific workplaces who openly discriminate against the Darwin doubters.

 

BTW the most senior Darwin doubters were once big time Darwin belivers, very well scientifically educated, and now authors of many books.

 

The main difference between creation science and evolutionary science that i have noticed is evolutionary science is more loaded with assumptions, not hard facts, and despite the geological evidence of a global flood, choose to ignore it completely.

 

If thats what rocks their boat then so be it. I find most opponents of creation science know little about it, and subjectively dismiss it, without proper investigation. This is a similar situation with the pro and anti amalgam debate. Very interesting one it is.

 

I stay open minded, thats why i still read both sides of the argument.

 

A polite post sir.

 

One thing though, aren't creationists facts about the Earth's origins and age etc also somewhat dubious?

 

6000 years old etc...where are the hard acts to back this one up?

[Chiefgroover]

A polite post sir.

 

One thing though, aren't creationists facts about the Earth's origins and age etc also somewhat dubious?

 

6000 years old etc...where are the hard acts to back this one up?

 

 

Now that's very very fair and decent question.

 

It's based on geological evidence & human history, (line of kings, Jewish records etc).

 

I'm no John Lennox, but here goes a few pointers in the differences deducted from the same scientific evidence.

 

The Evolution model - 1. Naturalistic origin of all things. 2. Net basic increase in complexity over time. Unlimited vertical change. 3. Earth history dominated by uniform events. Neo catastrophism.

 

The Creation model - . 1. Supernatural origin of all things. Design, purpose, interdependence, information. 2. Net basic decrease in complexity over time. Limited horizontal change. 3. Earth history dominated by catastrophic events.

 

predictions of the evolution model. - 1. transitional forms. 2. beneficial mutations. 3. things getting better. 4. new species.

 

predictions of the creation model. 1. separate, distinct kinds. 2. intelligent design in nature. 3. tendency= for decay. 4. extinction of species.

 

Aging methods are very controversial. 14C has certain ally come under fire, and is a "theory based" method. uniform decay is assumed, not proven.

 

Basically both use the same data, but creationists try to leave out the theory and work with where possible what they can prove. Dating rocks has showed many cracks in its theory.

 

Without getting into a whole debate, I can see where both sides come to, I just am tired of the evolutionary subjective closed mind, which when cornered for an answer just extends time periods to make it sound more believable. That backed with nobody's ever produced a credible transitional fossil (even dawkins admits this), of which the majority should be, tells a tale in itself.

 

It would be easy to get very excited about the Evolutionary tale, fascinating it is, but you cant prove it any more than the creationists view. I opt for the one with the least assumptions. However it's a very politically incorrect thing to do, and those who dare to object to evolutionary things will be chastised for it, how be it by those who work on "accepted theory".

"Young earth" by John D Morris Ph.D, covers everything from radio scope dating, geology, and human history. A good read if you want to know the other view point.

Generally I find little assumptions behind the creationists view. However both evolution and creation need a certain amount of faith as you may never be able to prove without the shadow of a doubt either.

[Dave]

what does creation science mean ??

[AlexJames]

:rlol::rlol: until snot comes out of my ears!

 

Ever heard of potential energy? It is a very VALID scientific term. As far as it is being used here well that is a different theory....

 

True, there has to be some creation 'thing' which put it all together at some point in the universe, however I don't believe it is the human derived deities that are responsible for it.

 

When I was talking about potential, i wasnt talking about potential energy, i was talking about the potential that the woman was talking about... not even gonna reply to Rorschach.

[Chiefgroover]

science based.

[Dave]

The Creation model - . 1. Supernatural origin of all things-- GOD????

[tbourner]

I opt for the one with the least assumptions.

 

For me it's a case of foundations though, the evolution theory is based on known science, the bricks and mortar are there but we haven't figured out where to put the bathroom yet. With the creation theory the whole foundation is a leap of faith - some big white bearded man in the sky just made it with a click of his fingers - so you've only got a bungalow to build, and there's less bricks and mortar so it's gonna be easier to find the bathroom, but you're building it on top of a cloud!

[Chiefgroover]

For me it's a case of foundations though, the evolution theory is based on known science, the bricks and mortar are there but we haven't figured out where to put the bathroom yet. With the creation theory the whole foundation is a leap of faith - some big white bearded man in the sky just made it with a click of his fingers - so you've only got a bungalow to build, and there's less bricks and mortar so it's gonna be easier to find the bathroom, but you're building it on top of a cloud!

 

If you take another look at the so called "known science" behind evolutionary thinking, you will find its "commonly accepted theory" and not based on hard fact at all.

 

It's amazing how over time theory becomes referred to as fact as certain peers work is considered the definitive.

 

Moving past the first few moments of the universe, which neither can actually hard fact prove, look at all the evolutionary thinking and the major flaws in it, so many assumptions based on old methods that were theory based.

 

It's the done thing in evolutionary circles to shoot down any other line of thought without proper investigation, which I can see from the comments in this thread there is a pre concieved and very wrong idea on creation science, in the same way some confuse operational science with historical science.

 

It would be easy for me to come on here and say "hey Darwin was right" and endorse the line of thinking that goes with it, be one of the boys and trendy in outlook. But having read as much on the subject as i have i just cant accept that line of thinking any more as there is just too much theory preached as hard fact.

A perfect example of that is carbon dating 14C, the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore the dating system. This amount varies with the suns activity, the earths passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the galaxy.

overall, the earths magnetic field has been decreasing, so more 14C is being produced than in the past, which makes things look older than they really are. The industrial revolution didnt help either. A global flood also effects the reading. In recent tests 14C has been considered not reliable after 2200years, so evolution is back to unreliable dating.

Evolution falls down on dating, as its "we believe it's millions of years old", the animal kingdom, where are the transitional fossils? an issue alone which makes many people turn away from evolutionary thinking where it falls flat on its face on that subject which is always glossed over like a good politician (if such a thing exists lol).

To quote Richard Dawkins from one of his books "I refuse to accept any explaination that would include a God". Now thats subjective thinking for you if there ever was which equals bad science.

Rather than take my word for this debate, watch the Dawkins vs Lennox debate, and make your own objective decision.

Dawkins is smart, but he is subjective. They both are more expert than us, so why not leave it that two of the heavyweights can be seen to battle it out for everyone to see.

The ultimate debate would be Dawkins vs Ham, which AFAIK Dawkins has declined, but will hopefully take up in the future. That i really want to see as they would be the two biggest names on the planet on each field, I would hope Dawkins would not be his usual illogical, inconsistent self. When will Dawkins be brave enough to take the challenge thrown down by Ham? hopefully sooner rather than later. Ham offered it to be on live TV.

[stevie_b]

If you take another look at the so called "known science" behind evolutionary thinking, you will find its "commonly accepted theory" and not based on hard fact at all.

 

It's amazing how over time theory becomes referred to as fact as certain peers work is considered the definitive.

 

That's always the way with the physical sciences. Pure Mathematics (if done properly) is the only 100% rigorous science, because it's so abstract. For example, Pythagorus' Theorem will always be true from this point until the end of time.

 

If anyone's interested in the difference between scientific proof and mathematical proof, I'd recommend you read the first couple of chapters of Fermat's Last Theorem: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fermats-Last-Theorem-Simon-Singh/dp/1841157910

[martini]

There is no God.

[tbourner]

If you take another look at the so called "known science" behind evolutionary thinking, you will find its "commonly accepted theory" and not based on hard fact at all.

 

I didn't say it was hard fact, nothing is hard fact (especially if you even consider the indirect realists views I mentioned earlier), I just said it was known science which as you say is the commonly accepted theory. All of everything we create is based on commonly accepted theory, we wouldn't have electricity and plastic if we didn't put faith in commonly accepted theories.

Similar to you choosing the creationist viewpoint because it has less assumptions in it (but one big one IMO), I choose the evolutionary viewpoint because it is based on 'commonly accepted theories'.

 

And anyway, I've said I'm an evolutionary creationist.

[R Black]

A theory, tends to be accepted for as long as it fits into a known model.

So theories are open to evolve if not change totally, depending on future learnings. As for the possibility of diety's, as science learns more and more, there become more and more unanswered questions,ie (the big bang theory fits all we know at present, but how you come to have a big bang from nothing, if there is such a thing(nothing) is not really known) which does leave lots of room for diety/s as it is the easiest answer to us at this time, not Necessarily correct though (all imho)

[tbourner]

Nothing only means nothing in terms of what we can comprehend though. What about if all that existed before us was a more powerful being, who decided to create the big bang for a laugh? Evolution and everything we believe then followed, but it was all started by a higher power.

Hence; evolutionary creationism.

[RedM]

Being a dyslexic agnostic insomniac I often lay awake at night wondering if there really is a Dog.

[stevie_b]

Nothing only means nothing in terms of what we can comprehend though. What about if all that existed before us was a more powerful being, who decided to create the big bang for a laugh? Evolution and everything we believe then followed, but it was all started by a higher power.

Hence; evolutionary creationism.

 

Good post. So as the saying goes, there was a Big Bang but God lit the fuse. That's kind of where I am too.

[benkei]

Theories are just educated guesses using whatever evidence we have. As we find more evidence - the theory may change. We accpet the fact that we really don't know for sure what happened. I'm happy to accept that no one really knows, and may never know. I don't think it really matters in the grand scheme of things. We're still here, and we still keep killing each other,a nd we probably will continue to do this until we all meet our demise at our own hands.

But creationists believe they know what happened because someone told them thousands of years ago. Didn't we used to believe the world was flat too? But evidence and theories prooved that wrong. Believing in a god IMO is outdated. No offence intended to any believers, as you are fully entitled to belive what you like. But don't creationists have very little evidence to back up their beliefs, and replace it with faith? Whatever happened to burning witches too? Another oudated tradition!

[Ric]

but does it take off? even though the belt is going the other way?

[RedM]

Time for a curveball.

 

What is the point of God?

 

Let's face it. God has, arguably, neglected to leave any proof of His existence. He fails daily to do anything even remotely Godlike in order to prevent bad things happening to good people. He failed at populating an entire universe with beings that could worship him. Heck, he didn't even make that many habitable planets.

 

So what is the point of God? It's like having an employee who, even if he deigns to come to work, does sweet FA while there. Can he really be malicious, attention seeking and workshy?

[R Black]

Time for a curveball.

 

What is the point of God?

 

Let's face it. God has, arguably, neglected to leave any proof of His existence. He fails daily to do anything even remotely Godlike in order to prevent bad things happening to good people. He failed at populating an entire universe with beings that could worship him. Heck, he didn't even make that many habitable planets.

 

So what is the point of God? It's like having an employee who, even if he deigns to come to work, does sweet FA while there. Can he really be malicious, attention seeking and workshy?

 

Uber simplistic if somewhat accurate:p

[tbourner]

And he's a fascist!!

[Ewen]

I believe the answer lies somewhere between Ben Stiller and Pangolins. Bad press, terrible track record, unbelievable manifesto. Nice architecture mind you, and some of those Christian women are goddam hot.

[JustGav]

Time for a curveball.

 

What is the point of God?

 

Let's face it. God has, arguably, neglected to leave any proof of His existence. He fails daily to do anything even remotely Godlike in order to prevent bad things happening to good people. He failed at populating an entire universe with beings that could worship him. Heck, he didn't even make that many habitable planets.

 

So what is the point of God? It's like having an employee who, even if he deigns to come to work, does sweet FA while there. Can he really be malicious, attention seeking and workshy?

 

Interesting point, and I will look into Ernie's books as it sounds very interesting, but I'm of the opinion that God/relevant deity is simply there for people to explain or enhance the events and reasons for their lives.

[Mike]

I can't believe that molecules combine to create species and environments?! A man in the sky with a big white beard must have made it!

 

..and if you don't believe me, well then you'll go to a very bad place when you die (but I can't prove it). So you'd better start believing my dribble!

[Snooze]

Evolution has been witnessed and reproduced in laboratory conditions.

Evolution itself is a fact. Even the pope admits that evolution occurs!

It's only the hardcore wackos that continue to deny it these days.

 

Darwin's theory, on the other hand, IS sketchy - the concept of evolution through beneficial random mutation can be virtually disproven statistically. Whilst experiments seem to indicate that mutation is a factor in evolution, it is pretty much evident that it cannot be the ONLY factor.

 

It's a shame that many people can seem to distinguish the two.

Just because we don't know how evolution works, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

We don't really know how gravity or even light works either, so following the same reasoning, you'd have to disbelieve them too!

 

Edit: I also don't see why creationism and evolution should be considered mutually exclusive - they clearly don't have to be. It smacks of people just wanting to have an argument about religion where one doesn't really exist.

[Chiefgroover]

As I was saying, nobody forces their ideas on others like evolutionists, blind sectarian hatred of non evolution belivers.

Funny enough I just cant believe that out of nothing there was a big explosion that caused all of what we see, and the time it happened just gets billions further away every year or two lol, guess I will rot in the ground with the monkeys dawkins once thought I evolved from, even though he now just calls them cousins.

Evolution, a fairy tale preached like its the truth by people making a load of money out of it. Theory and assumption, nothing more, scientists pipe dream of ultimate learing but still a fabrication of self delusion.

Anyone who wants to believe the theory of Evolution, go ahead, it's a free world, if it rocks your boat.