Log In | Register
This video takes aim at the top ten bogus creationist arguments listed below.
1. Carbon Dating isn't accurate enough to determine the age of the earth or fossils... then its a good thing that we have many other methods of highly accurate radiometric dating that ALL tell us the earth is 4.54 Billion years old
2. Proving evolution... prove magical space fairies exist.
3. If we came from Monkeys, why do monkeys still exist? The American colonies came from Europe... why does europe still exist?
4. Human Eye is too complex if not intelligently designed... sure... just ask the octopus.
5. Atheism is a religion... just like not-smoking is a habit.
6. Scientist X is a christian... so what? Isaac Newton thought he could turn lead into gold with magic.
7. Life too unlikely if left to CHANCE... as opposed to magical space fairies?
8. This is a christian nation... since when?
9. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... science fail.
10. Hitler was an atheist. That's funny. Hitler didn't seem to think so.
Top Ten Creationist Arguments Debunked
Article Source: YouTube- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (31)
Great article and video. yes i believe the earth is as old as science says and I believe what the Bible says at Genesis 1:1. And I believe Mr hawking may think so ,too.
Last week some creationists celebrated an apparent triumph: Legendary physicist Stephen Hawking used the word "God', possibly not in vain. The utterance allegedly occurred at an international "state of the universe" conference to celebrate the 70th birthday of the world's most famous living scientist. Creationist saw Hawking's comments as an admission that God was needed to create the universe.
And they were particularly gleeful about a subsequent story in New Scientist Magazine headlined "Why Scientists Can't Avoid a Creation Event." That piece called the substance of the conference "the worst presents ever," referring to the failure of several theories attempting to explain the origin of the cosmos. The story set off a round of virtual chest-thumping. One writer said it raised the "thorny question of how to kick start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator." Another site "Creation Revolution," wrote a gloating piece under the headline, "Cosmologist forced into 'in the beginning.' "
The New Scientist story did imply that the physicists were bumping up against the Almighty. It even quoted Hawking seeming to admit that science can never explain the beginning of the universe without God: "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God." so are creationists rushing in where cosmologists fear to tread?
Hawking is inaccessible--his neurological condition,ALS,makes all but the slowest communication impossible--but I was able to reach the two scientists accused of coming to the conference bearing "the worst presents ever." One of them, MIT cosmologist Alan Guth, said he did not get the impression that Hawking or anyone else was giving up on a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. Guth certainly is not, and he thought Hawking's God quote was probably referring not to the state cosmology but to some specific ideas. Guth said Hawking has consistently embraced a picture of the universe that has no beginning, despite its apparent expansion from a big bang.
As Hawking described in "A Brief History of Time," there's a way to think about space and time in a configuration so that the beginning of the universe is like the South Pole--you can't go any farther south. That defies intuition but it's oddly consistent with the laws of physics. Guth and the other alleged bearer of bad presents, Alex Vilenkin of Tufts University, had been working on another approach to understanding the universe--a concept called eternal inflation. Guth is famous for inventing the regular version back in the 1970s, a concept that changed the way cosmologists think. Inflation, he said, is a process by which a patch of space smaller than an atom expands at extreme speeds and blows up into the entire observable universe. Inflation explains several aspects of the universe astronomers have observed, including the distribution of galaxies and features of cosmic microwaves that permeate the universe.
In eternal inflation, everything we see with our most powerful telescopes is but a bubble that expanding within something bigger. This bigger thing may give rise to infinite bubble universes as it expands for all eternity. That does not explain the origin of that little speck of space that became our universe. Guth and Vilenkin hoped they could show that eternal inflation would not only go on forever, but would have always gone on in the past--that it would be eternal in both directions.
But as they continued to explore the implications of the theory, they found it required a definite beginning.
Vilenkin presented the failure of a beginningless eternal inflation at Hawking's 60th birthday party in 2002. He was back at the 70th party with more evidence that eternal inflation needs a good beginning.
Still, he said it was news to him if that made Hawking change his mind about the need for an almighty God. There's no problem with a beginning, he said. "Historically people were uncomfortable because they didn't know what caused the beginning--it seemed to required something outside of physics. ... Now we know there is a possibility of a natural creation of the universe," through the laws of quantum mechanics, something can come from nothing. Guth agreed. "We don't have a solid theory of how the universe originated," he added, "but that doesn't mean we have to invoke a deity."
- 2 votes
Creationist saw Hawking's comments as an admission that God was needed to create the universe.
This is the what I know hawking stated -
- The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.
I'm not familiar with any statement you're referencing.
One writer said it raised the "thorny question of how to kick start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator."
...and how does one get around the thorny question of who created the creator? And who created the creator who created the creator... ad nauseum?
Current science is on solid ground regarding what we know of the Big Bang and subsequent events. Your last paragraph is right on!
Stories of creation by gods are simply that...stories.
- 4 votes
And who created the creator who created the creator... ad nauseum?
JackOL,
Have you no conception of the word 'eternal'? It means always having existed and always continuing to exist.
So before time and space, the universe, the laws of physics, etc: GOD is Eternal.
There is no logical need for anyone to have created the Creator since He has always been, even before anything was, and will always be, even after the Universe should cease to be.
If you are capable of grasping the concept. Eternal. It is among the divine attributes of Deity along with Omniscience, Omnipotence.
Any failure or refusal to grasp the concept on your part, does not invalidate that being so.
- 1 vote
There is no logical need for anyone to have created the Creator since He has always been, even before anything was, and will always be, even after the Universe should cease to be.
There is nothing logical about that either.
Any failure or refusal to grasp the concept on your part, does not invalidate that being so.
It's invalidated because it's based on nothing more than dogma and nothing factual or empirically supported.
- 3 votes
Any failure or refusal to grasp the concept on your part, does not invalidate that being so.
RoR: The most significant difference between what you are saying about the origin of the universe and what we are saying boils down to you basing everything you know about the universe on an ancient collection of supernatural and paranormal based beliefs from a time that pre-dates recorded history.
Atheists like myself have decided that we need to keep searching through the use of science, even if we never find a satisfactory answer for everything because settling on superstition and unverifiable claims passed down from a pre-literate culture just doesn't fit the bill for being verifiable.
Look... dude. Both books of the bible were full of tales of magic, demons, lakes of fire, talking snakes, super-human powers, angels, giants, nephilim, etc
If you can't tell, just by default, that those kinds of stories belong in the science fiction aisle and not in the great cosmos of things that are considered REAL, then I doubt there is any burden of proof you would ever accept from an online conversation.
At this point, we're carting out Carl Sagan and you're carting out pre-history versions of comic book characters.
Seems like a disproportionate burden of proof to me.
- 3 votes
When I see the power and magnificence of a volcano, I don't think, "someone did that". I think, large forces did that. So when I see the universe, I wonder what natural events collided to make that occur. Multi-verse string theory answers that far better than any "God" idea, and without the 'intelligence from nothing' problem of a god.
- 2 votes
Nearly the entirety of this article was quoted without the quote tags in #1:
http://articles.philly.com/2012-01-23/news/30655896_1_cosmologist-universe-creationists
Please use quote tags unless you were the author.
---
Here is a quote:
To overly simplify the concept:
0 (nothing) = -1 + 1
Something from nothing.
- 1 vote
Mark, sorry, but I hope you read my #2 blog. OK. I am not computer savvy. will not get all things right. again forgive me. thanks.
When I see the power and magnificence of a volcano, I see meaning, I see purpose and hence I recognize a designer mind behind. However I wouldn't stupid enough to jump into a conclusion that this mind is a low level mind like a human mind which is subjected to the influence of emotional self interests.
However I wouldn't stupid enough to jump into a conclusion that this mind is a low level mind like a human mind which is subjected to the influence of emotional self interests.
So.... God is a communist?
I see meaning, I see purpose
What meaning and purpose do you see?
Sure, you can install fake purpose into anything. You can always spout some complete garbage like, "It's purpose is to show God's power" or "It's purpose is in the ripples it makes in the world, changing little things we cannot comprehend to achieve a greater purpose we aren't aware of". But that's clearly not evidenced in the volcano. That same kind of BS can be used to put purpose and meaning in a pile of horse crap on the side of the road.
Seeing God in everything is really wanting to see God, so you put him in everything. It's lying to yourself, plain and simple.
When I see the power and magnificence of a volcano, I see meaning, I see purpose and hence I recognize a designer mind...
... human mind which is subjected to the influence of emotional self interests.
The question is do you see your own human emotional self interest involved in your awe of natural events?
- 4 votes
"the power and magnificence of a volcano"<--after a simple sentence like this, someone still asked what meaning and purpose.
Ain't that funny?
"the power and magnificence of a volcano"<--after a simple sentence like this, someone still asked what meaning and purpose.
Ain't that funny?
Are you commenting while high? Volcanoes occur on other planets. They are impressive in their power and magnificent in their appearance. They have no purpose or meaning. they are a geologic discharge.
- 1 vote
What baffles me is that it seems for many the issue of God has less to do with scientific discovery than an effort to prove He is not needed as an explanation. That is, it isn't that science says God is not necessary, which it doesn't, it's that some attempt to use it that way. It's as if for them, science isn't about discovery but rather, disproving. Why?
Why are some so dead set against there being a God? I wonder what their problem with such a thing could really be. I have yet to see a scientific reason why both science and God cannot coexist (as I personally believe they do, with science being subject to God). What is it exactly about the concept of God that seems to upset some so?
Is it really that they think God is not needed to explain the universe? That one has always amazed me. It may be their opinion but not one supported by science. Science may tell us the mechanics of why a planet orbits a star but not why mass attracts mass. Only that it does. That is, they can't tell us what gravity is and why mass has it. Even so, it is taken as proof that God is not needed to explain the orbits of the planets.
In one sense, it's true. A belief in God is not necessary to predict the exact position of Mercury one year from now. It's a fairly straightforward mathematical equation, now. One any desktop computer can calculate with the correct software. Yet look at what we're actually saying here. Because we can calculate it, God isn't necessary. This, however, overlooks or ignores so many unanswered questions about why we can do this.
One such question would be, why is every electron in existence exacly identical to every other electron? No matter how far you take the decimal, every electron is exacly the same. We don't know, but because they are, we're able to predict the postion of Mercury a year from now.
Ultimately, the question I have is why not a belief in God concerning science? Why can't there be a God that gave the electron the properties it has or gives the property of attraction to mass? Why is it that some reject this possibility? It certainly isn't something implied by science.
- 1 vote
Ultimately, the question I have is why not a belief in God concerning science? Why can't there be a God that gave the electron the properties it has or gives the property of attraction to mass? Why is it that some reject this possibility?
Okay - sure, I can agree on some level there's no purpose to completely rejecting a 'possibility.'
However, there's also no purpose to including the possibility of God.
Suggesting a God gave the electron properties does absolutely nothing for the understanding of electrons. It is in no way testable and it adds nothing to our knowledge about the concepts involved.
The real reason for not including it is that the belief is unscientific. Any conclusion reached through such a belief would be, by definition, unscientific.
- 2 votes
Actually not quite. First of all I must point it out despite it may offend some people if not all. Your worldview is always related to your level of mind. A lesser mind will never able to realize something beyond his current level.
'Electron' itself is already a meaning and in an extend can lead to other purposes. Otherwise there wouldn't be the word electron in first place. As we study th world around us, we identify these meanings, we utilize these meanings, and this is what make us a mindful being.
As of the possibility of god, in mathematics, the chance that none of you actually exist is way way higher than god. After all how many words or characters in this web page is nevertheless countable.
Being testable is another laughable argument. Can you test 'idea' 'purpose' 'will' 'effort' 'intention' all these properties which define a mind. It has been this way does not guarantee it must always be this way. May I remind you the difference.
The reason that so many people are so dead set against the belief of god ironically I believe has something to do with religions like Christianity. It is a universal law and in eastern philosophy called it yin yang. A way the world trying to balance itself hence it can run ever and forever. In a nut shell when there are people pushing making forcing people believe in something, it creates an anti force, making other people to against it.
Suggesting a God gave the electron properties does absolutely nothing for the understanding of electrons. It is in no way testable and it adds nothing to our knowledge about the concepts involved.
The real reason for not including it is that the belief is unscientific. Any conclusion reached through such a belief would be, by definition, unscientific.
It is this very attitude which I speak of when I say I am baffled. I am not saying that to belittle your words or your beliefs. I just don't understand why you limit yourself so or upon what authority you've chosen to limit yourself.
Specifically, your use of the word "unscientific", as if science were the creator and purpose of existence. Personally, I love science. If I had my life to do over again, I think I'd prefer to have been some sort of scientist. I love discovering how things work. If I were King of the United States, scientists would be the rock stars of our nation.
Even so, I know that my love of science is a love of discovering how things work. At the same time, I recognize that science does little, if anything, to improve the spirituality of our lives. By quality of life, I'm not speaking of how science has given us the washing machine, thereby making that chore so much easier. I'm speaking about what gives us rich, fulfilling lives. The latest tech in computer graphics doesn't do that. It might be neat, but it doesn't really define our lives.
So, when someone says it's "unscientific" I have to ask, so what? Who says it has to be?
Passion, degree or profession in science does not mean you know science according to atheist. Einstein was a theist. Newton was a Christian. Former director of the human genome project Francis Collins is a Christian.
As of the possibility of god, in mathematics, the chance that none of you actually exist is way way higher than god.
Okay - and I said there's no real reason to purpose to rejecting it as a possibility.
The question that follows is what that possibility might matter in a given situation for our understanding.
Being testable is another laughable argument. Can you test 'idea' 'purpose' 'will' 'effort' 'intention' all these properties which define a mind.
Isn't the field of Psychology designed to *test* these concepts, or at least study them through human behavior? Primarily through observation and communication, a common ground can be developed to exchange thoughts on the individual experiences on such topics?
It has been this way does not guarantee it must always be this way.
Okay - and if a deity concept eventually becomes objectively addressable in any meaningful way, let's do it.
I just don't understand why you limit yourself so or upon what authority you've chosen to limit yourself.
Limit myself in what way?
I don't discount the *possibility* of a deity - I just find there's nothing more than the mere possibility worth addressing about it.
Specifically, your use of the word "unscientific", as if science were the creator and purpose of existence.
I've never connected science to a creator or purpose of existence - I've connected it to a way to study and understand our existence and reality. If a topic can't be objectively studied in any way, it ends up being unscientific.
I honestly don't know why you're concerned science as defining our lives or affecting the spirituality of a person's life.
So, when someone says it's "unscientific" I have to ask, so what? Who says it has to be?
What do you suggest "scientific" should be?
- 1 vote
Lol not that science itself always means philosophical truth. Reason I already explained. Whether psychology, since you brought it up, is science is subjected to philosophical debate. Arr, Philosophy, another useless term. I know what atheist would think as Hawking made a bold statement in his new book, philosophy is dead, he said, lol.
"atheism is the most daring of all dogmas"
-G K Chesterton
Passion, degree or profession in science does not mean you know science according to atheist.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.
Any given person may 'know science' - what's more at question is whether the work in question that someone does is actually science.
Einstein was a theist. Newton was a Christian. Former director of the human genome project Francis Collins is a Christian.
And what about their beliefs were actually involved in the science they did?
- 1 vote
I just don't understand why you limit yourself so or upon what authority you've chosen to limit yourself.
Limit myself in what way?
I don't discount the *possibility* of a deity - I just find there's nothing more than the mere possibility worth addressing about it.
I suppose that is what baffles me. You admit the possibility of God but find it not worth adressing? why? To me, that's akin to playing with a bright shiny object without ever wondering how it got there. If God is possible, one would think the implications would be staggering.
Specifically, your use of the word "unscientific", as if science were the creator and purpose of existence.
I've never connected science to a creator or purpose of existence - I've connected it to a way to study and understand our existence and reality. If a topic can't be objectively studied in any way, it ends up being unscientific.
And unscientific is bad in some way?
I honestly don't know why you're concerned science as defining our lives or affecting the spirituality of a person's life.
Because it doesn't define our lives or spirituality. It only defines our physical reality. Even so, many determine God does not exist because they believe there is no scientific reason as to why He must. They act as if the physical determines the spiritual. It can affect it, but even then, not everyone will react the same. This is because we are not the physical meat that carries our spirits around. We go much deeper than just physical. It's in that realm God is proven, but because it isn't subject to science, they (not necessarily you) pretend that's all there is.
Also, none of what I've said in any post here is directly aimed at you. I was speaking generally of people with a certain general attitude. I'm not trying to harass you or something. Nor am I trying to push God on you. I'm simply stating how I see things and how baffling it is to me the unconcern for God that some have. How you live your life is your business, not mine.
So, when someone says it's "unscientific" I have to ask, so what? Who says it has to be?
What do you suggest "scientific" should be?
Sorry, forgot to address this one. And sorry again for putting that badly. What I meant was closer to "What's so bad about it if it is unscientific?"
I suppose that is what baffles me. You admit the possibility of God but find it not worth adressing? why? To me, that's akin to playing with a bright shiny object without ever wondering how it got there. If God is possible, one would think the implications would be staggering.
Sure the implications could be staggering - but there's honestly nowhere to go with the idea.
There's nothing to look at or examine suggesting that possibility is probable.
And unscientific is bad in some way?
For me, it means it isn't objectively observable. So why should I waste time on it?
They act as if the physical determines the spiritual. It can affect it, but even then, not everyone will react the same. This is because we are not the physical meat that carries our spirits around. We go much deeper than just physical. It's in that realm God is proven, but because it isn't subject to science, they (not necessarily you) pretend that's all there is.
But how do you know the spiritual exists? What is it subject to instead of science?
- 1 vote
Do you read New Scientist Magazine? The piece I wrote was from the Philadelphia Inquirer 1/30 2012 reporter Faye Flam. At Hawking's 70th birthday party.
but do you see what their theory needed, "a beginning". when they went back toward the past with their idea they went back only so far and they would need a fresh start, something or someone to "begin" the inflation of their theory. It just did not do it on its own.
- 1 vote
#2 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:14 PM ESTWhat I find funny is that god can't be a scientist. The concept is not religious at all. God brought all things into existence. what newton, einstein and others was to come to an understanding of what is going on around us. what was all ready there. decoding our DNA, WOW, what a marvel, but man would believe time and chance put it together. why? because it would offend many to give such credit to a religious figure. but if may surprise people that god is not such a figure.
Man has advanced and thinks they have grown beyond the one who created. Like capt. Kirk told Apollo "We have grown up." We have Ipads and computers, global access to each one so when we look back in time we down grade man to an ape man without intelligence, back in the bronze Age it is mostly said. We beat our chest because of our modern accomplishments and think we have achieved, but nothing has been gained. nothing. we are still growing old and dying...death is still an enemy that man can never defeat. yet, he will give in and say this is all man has; to live and die; make way for the next generation.
Man a marvelous creation with a brain that is never fully used, a body if healthy could keep replacing cells indefinitely. why live for 70 -80 years or even 125 years if science has anything to do with it. why in the conditions here now with strife and war? greed and no love among people of nations? It seems death would be a reasonable choice. There has just has to be more.
- 1 vote
#4 - Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:09 PM ESTEver reach into a bag of M&M's and discover its empty when you could swear there should be more left inside of it?
Just because you want something to be true because you desire it, doesn't mean that it is true.
Not a single thing of what you just said is based on any kind of fact and is therefore completely unreliable. I might as well ask a small child to explain their beliefs about the creation of the world.
At what point do you just grow up and stop pretending that you know answers to questions based on a book written by tribal savages thousands of years ago?
You can invoke scripture until your mouth falls off but NONE of that matters remotely.
People embrace science because it delivers results. Religion only delivers fantasies that are occasionally useful but mostly not
- 3 votes
you said it yourself ,chris. science delivers results. What results? From all the history that we know what has man done that has achieved eternal greatness. with this science. what? I got 250 odd something channels on TV. before my Dad died he only was able to get 10 at the most, did not know about a cellphone or the advancement in the computer. so what/ diseases have been taken out, but other strains are even more potent now. this has nothing to do with scripture, one human being to another. man can not rule in peace over another. people rise up to remove rulers that are oppressive but the ones that come into power are no better. the basic ills of man are not addressed by other people, by this science you speak of, but I should just live and be satisfied with life. live my days to the fullest and then expire. leave the rest to the next generation and let it go on and on and on. this is what science has for mankind? that maybe some innovation will come along by man and do better for us. that is fantasy. and i quoted not one scripture. we as a species can not survive left along to ourselves, you know it science knows it. man is too prideful to accept it. too hardheaded. no amount of science will every keep us alive forever, will stop death. i am glad that for now i have the freedom to believe in the hope i do, because i believe there is something better for mankind. not no rapture or going to heaven, or going to hell. these are not things taught in that ancient book. but there was a "good news" spoken about in there, a"few" would find out about it because it would on a "cramped and narrow path." another thing chris, in my comment in #4 that you replied to I again did not quote scripture, do not put words or infer what i have done. i do not do that when i write on this site and i wish for the same courtesy. the truth and nothing but the truth. even if we disagree. have a blessed day. SELAH!
#5 - Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:20 PM ESTFrom all the history that we know what has man done that has achieved eternal greatness. with this science. what?
It seems to me that you're taking a whole lot of stuff for granted.
You want to see what science has done for humanity?
Go live in the bush down in South America. Don't brush your teeth. Don't wash your clothes. Don't use soap. Don't take antibiotics when you get an infection. Don't go to the dentist. Don't take medication of any kind, ever and live amongst people who don't have cars, plumbing or water treatment facilities; walk or swim there.
Drink milk only from cow's utters. Don't use a cow that has had antibiotic shots. Eat only what you kill, or grow out of the ground using only seeds, fish out of the water and use hand-made hand tools to do all of it.
Even the Amish utilize science. Theirs just stopped in the 17th century.
Science has given us nearly everything good that humanity has.
Humanity can't be trusted to watch after itself? I agree on that point, but, unfortunately, that's all people have ever had to rely on.
Part of overcoming frailty is acknowledging that we are frail and admitting uncomfortable truths. Things like, yes, we really are all alone in the universe.
Collectively, all ideas are man's ideas, unless you bring non-human animals into the discussion.
No one is suggesting that your freedoms be removed. I'm arguing against creationism as a viable or realistic belief. I'm not suggesting making any of it illegal or something similarly draconian.
we as a species can not survive left along to ourselves, you know it science knows it.
Sure, we're all going to die here in this solar system. There really isn't anything any of us can do.
It's really only a matter of time. Eventually everything in the universe will experience heat death.
Whether it happens soon at the hands of madmen or sometime in the distant future via natural disaster, nobody gets out alive.
- 1 vote
#6 - Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:16 PM ESTi have done those things i do kill what i eat, im a hunter i dont need science for that, to have the amenities of live plumbing and things of that nature is not advancements. People living and being happy and safe while doing it would be a better advancement than any thing else. people not so angry, greedy would be an advancement. yes, we are alone but not without hope. at least i am not without hope.this world and creation did not get here by chance. if man can build and improve on many of the things he has learned from nature where did those things come from? if the things man designed needed a designer why does not the thing they studied need a designer? No, it is said it only needed time and chance to come into existance. No, i do not believe that. our planet is to perfectly made with lifeforms of great beauty to have just happen chanced. a brain that i will never get to utilize fully in my life time because i will not live long enough? no way this is acceptable. it makes no sense. people today do not keep anything, it has become a disposable society. but i believe we were "created" to live forever. i do. so i could enjoy this planet and all of its wonder, with those of ma family in 'peace and security'. in perfect health, using this brain to the fullest. there is one verse in that book that people do not like or believe, but i do; and it says this "For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the true God the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited: I am Jehovah, and there is no one else."(Isa 45:18) that scripture gives me hope about why this planet is here and no fear about the future, so then all his other promise will come true. we have a way of getting out alive because that iswhat he wanted from the beginning.
#7 - Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:14 AM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
