[De Maria]

This is related to my nothing from nothing thread.

Some scientists claim that science can only accept that which can be reproduced in the lab. But that seems far from true. Lets examine some well known theories.

Take the Big Bang theory. Here's a definition from a science website. It is the same as what I was taught as a child in public school:

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.
Big Bang Theory

And take the theory of evolution and abiogenesis for another:

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are obviously assumptions which science accepts as truths. No one can produce something from nothing in the lab or anywhere. And no one can produce life from non life.

Yet the theories based on these obviously false assumptions are now passed on as facts.

Sincerely,

[Donna Mae]

Very true. It's so sad that these lies are being taught as truths.

[michealb]

I don't know how many times that you have to be told that the web site you are looking at are wrong before you understand. Web sites can be wrong it happens, kind of like how priests can molest children they shouldn't but it happens.

Evolution is the theory of how from the first replicating organism diversified and evolved. I always recommend the good people at Berkeley to explain evolution in a correct and easy to understand way. Here is their web site and the definition of evolution from their web site. Stop using the web site you have and use Berkeley one they have the entire theory correct on their site.
Understanding Evolution
"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."

For the Big bang I suggest you read the article from the University of Michigan they have a very good article that explains it very well. It even points out a few holes in the theory(oh my). Here is the web site and a highlight from the site.
THE BIG BANG
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

If you want to question theories good for you, science is about questioning theories but you should at least understand the existing theories and the evidence behind it. Otherwise you are wasting your time and appear to be uneducated.

[NeedKarma]

Very true. It's so sad that these lies are being taught as truths.

Many feel the same about the bible Donna.

[Choux]

1. If there was a god as depicted in the Bible who created the Universe out of nothing, THEN **THERE WAS NEVER NOTHING**... there was always god.

2. Evolution is **not** about the origin of life from non-living matter.


I really get tired of Christians lying about science. How morally bankrupt can they be?

[spitvenom]

I can't believe people site Wikipedia as a real source!!

[NeedKarma]

His other source is a no-so-cleverly disguised site devote to the bible and intelligent design. It links to content like this: Intelligent Design
And this: Who Wrote The Bible?

Whenever someone feels the needs to register domain names like that versus having subdomains/subdirectories off the main domain (i.e. http://www.allaboutgod.com/bigbang) then there is some deception at work. This is often seen in MLM schemes.

He is passing the domain off as a definitive scientific reference when its owners actually professs the following:

ABOUT US
We write compelling websites that reach out to skeptics, seekers, believers, and a hurting world with powerful evidence for God and the Good News of Jesus.

We believe truth transforms lives. Therefore, we place our content on the first few pages of the most popular search engines in the world. That way, when people seek answers on the Web, we're there with the truth at the top!

[De Maria]

I don't know how many times that you have to be told that the web site you are looking at are wrong before you understand. Web sites can be wrong it happens, kind of like how priests can molest children they shouldn't but it happens. ....
If you want to question theories good for you, science is about questioning theories but you should at least understand the existing theories and the evidence behind it. Otherwise you are wasting your time and appear to be uneducated.

Are you saying that Science does not now and never has taught that the universe came from nothing?

Are you saying that Science does not now and has never taught that life on this earth evolved from non living matter?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

His other source is a no-so-cleverly disguised site devote to the bible and intelligent design. It links to content like this: Intelligent Design
and this: Who Wrote The Bible?

Whenever someone feels the needs to register domain names like that versus having subdomains/subdirectories off of the main domain (i.e. http://www.allaboutgod.com/bigbang) then there is some deception at work. This is often seen in MLM schemes.

He is passing the domain off as a definitive scientific reference when its owners actually professs the following:

1. Its not my domain.
2. All you have to do is Google the either evolution or the big bang and you will see that the explanations I presented are accurate.
3. Essentially, what Michealb is doing is pitting one scientist against another. However, I think I can prove that most scientists once believed and continue to believe that the universe came from nothing and that life evolved from non life.
4. Whether they once believed or continue to believe those unverifiable theories is proof that science violates its own standards, since science purports to contain only quantifiable, testable data.

So, let the discussion continue.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[michealb]

Are you saying that Science does not now and never has taught that the universe came from nothing?

Science isn't one person or even one group of people. So to say that science does or doesn't say something is impossible to do. All I can say is that current widely accepted theory doesn't state that the universe came from nothing. Have people that called themselves scientist been wrong in the past absolutely without question. Could we still be wrong absolutely without question. Should we teach the theories that support the evidence the best at the time they are being taught absoutely without question.

Are you saying that Science does not now and has never taught that life on this earth evolved from non living matter?

I'm saying that there are many competing theories about how life came into existence from non-living matter. While I know of a few that sound reasonable and fit the evidence well. Until more work is done we don't have a solid theory that fits all the evidence yet. We may never be able to prove one theory over the other in this particular case. Abiogenesis may also be what prevents evolution from becoming a complete law versus a theory. It's okay we know we don't have all the answers yet but we will continue to study and refine our theories and maybe even find new ones.

[templelane]

Hi, I can't discuss the big bang as I am not a physicist and do not know let alone understand the maths behind the thoery. All I know is a little red shift theory.

As for the thoery of evolution. You can see evolution everyday in and out of the lab. The AIDs virus and other viruses are really good examples as they replicate and evolve so fast. That's why you need a new 'flu shot every year. The virus has modified itself to evade our defences via a process of genetic recombination and selection. You can see it in animals that have been separated to live on different parts on an island, it starts with genetic drift and ends up with two species who are completely adapted to their environment and cannot interbreed.

Evolution has been inferred, seen, recorded and recreated. Saying it doesn't exist is like saying cars can't move because I don't understand or have ever seen an internal combustion engine work.
“I'm smart, I don't understand this therefore it must be God!”

As for abiogenesis, yeah they've done loads of experiments on that causing the building blocks of life such as RNA, amino acids and even simple polypeptides to emerge from nothing but chemicals put under conditions replicating those at the beginning of the earth.

Just because I've never seen a black swan doesn't mean they don't exist. Considering faith without seeing is something you're taught by the bible you're not very good at it.

In science theories are based on facts and evidence, peer review, and testing of hypothesis. No one claims it to be the undying truth, it is just the best model we have to date. Sometimes theories held for years are overturned in a heartbeat when new evidence comes along. The closest I've ever seen to that in religion is the pope saying actually your right we made up the whole limbo thing unbabtised babies do go to heaven!

I know I'll never convince you otherwise of you beliefs and I'm not even going to try. But could you refrain from using ignorance as a position to argue from?

[Capuchin]

I guess you made this topic because you didn't believe me in the other thread, I'm glad that more of the scientifically minded members have replied here and backed up what I said.

Just one question, Why is this in religious discussions? - There seems to be nothing religious in your question, perhaps it would be better suited to a science board.

[ordinaryguy]

He's trolling. Let him be.

[De Maria]

I guess you made this topic because you didn't believe me in the other thread, I'm glad that more of the scientifically minded members have replied here and backed up what I said.

Lol!! How does that song go? You're so vain. No this song is not about you.

Look at the dates of the OP. They are both my threads. I started the nothing from nothing thread in response to Roblobster's illogical challenge on another thread.

I let that slide for a while because I had to go out of town and I was engaging other people on other websites, as well I believe as TJ3 on this website.

I recently rejoined the discussion and engaged you because you were there.

I started this one much after listening to a scientist whom I don't know say that he couldn't believe anything that could not be proved in the lab. Then he said that since the existence of God could not be proved in the lab, he couldn't believe that God existed. Which led me to wonder how many things could actually be proved in a lab.

Just one question, Why is this in religious discussions? - There seems to be nothing religious in your question, perhaps it would be better suited to a science board.

Because I am proving the illogical position of concluding that God does not exist based on bad science which contradicts its own standards and can't even address the question because it doesn't have the evidence.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

He's trolling. Let him be.

That's what all you atheists say. Yet you are the ones that come to the religious threads and put down our faith. You won't find me on the atheist threads putting down your beliefs or lack there of.

So, between you and I, it is you who more closely fits the description of troll.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

Hi, I can't discuss the big bang as I am not a physicist and do not know let alone understand the maths behind the thoery. All I know is a little red shift theory.

Knowing one's limitations is a good thing.

As for the thoery of evolution. You can see evolution everyday in and out of the lab. The AIDs virus and other viruses are really good examples as they replicate and evolve so fast. That's why you need a new 'flu shot every year. The virus has modified itself to evade our defences via a process of genetic recombination and selection. You can see it in animals that have been separated to live on different parts on an island, it starts with genetic drift and ends up with two species who are completely adapted to their environment and cannot interbreed.

Did I claim that the entire theory of evolution was wrong? Or, like the other atheist before you, are you jumping into this discussion debating against your assumptions rather than what I've actually said.

Evolution has been inferred, seen, recorded and recreated. Saying it doesn't exist is like saying cars can't move because I don't understand or have ever seen an internal combustion engine work.
“I’m smart, I don’t understand this therefore it must be God!”

I challenge you to find any statement in which I have denied the possibility of evolution.

As for abiogenesis, yeah they've done loads of experiments on that causing the building blocks of life such as RNA, amino acids and even simple polypeptides to emerge from nothing but chemicals put under conditions replicating those at the beginning of the earth.

Have they proven it?

Just because I've never seen a black swan doesn't mean they don't exist. Considering faith without seeing is something you're taught by the bible you're not very good at it.

Are you saying that you believe in God although you haven't seen him. Or do you just believe in black swans?

In science theories are based on facts

I think I've proven that much information such as the existence of nothing before the Big Bang and the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter is illogical speculation passed off as science.

and evidence,

Provide evidence that there was nothing before a point in space appeared that exploded for no apparent reason. Go ahead, reproduce that event in the lab.

Produce life from non living matter in the lab.

Then you'll have evidence to prove your theories. Otherwise you are speculating or believing the wild speculation of others.

peer review, and testing of hypothesis.

Yeah right. How do you test the explosion of a point in space 15 billion years ago? If the hypothesis of life from non life has been tested, it has failed every test to this day. Yet the theory persists.

No one claims it to be the undying truth

No. But they deny that anything else could be true except their version of the truth which is based on nothing but speculation.

, it is just the best model we have to date. Sometimes theories held for years are overturned in a heartbeat when new evidence comes along. The closest I've ever seen to that in religion is the pope saying actually your right we made up the whole limbo thing unbabtised babies do go to heaven!

The Pope never said such a thing.

I know I’ll never convince you otherwise of you beliefs and I’m not even going to try.

Good idea.

But could you refrain from using ignorance as a position to argue from?

I'm certain I'm not the one arguing from ignorance.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

Science isn't one person or even one group of people.

True.

So to say that science does or doesn't say something is impossible to do.

Ok. I'd have to agree. But there are generally accepted theories which become like fads though out the years.

All I can say is that current widely accepted theory doesn't state that the universe came from nothing.

Widely accepted? I agree. In some circles.

In others circles the idea that nothing existed before the Big Bang remains in vogue.

And those that don't believe that version believe that a point in space existed before the Big Bang.

And those that don't believe that believe that another universe existed before the Big Bang and it collapsed causing the Big Bang.

And guess what? None of those "theories" are provable. They can't be tested, there is no evidence to support them.

Its very much like the guy that went out into the wilderness and heard a bunch of howls and yowls and was convinced that it was the Big Foot.

They see something in a telescope and make wild speculations. But they can't prove any of it. Yet they claim they are producing scientific facts.

Have people that called themselves scientist been wrong in the past absolutely without question.

Agreed.

Could we still be wrong absolutely without question.

Agreed.

Should we teach the theories that support the evidence the best at the time they are being taught absoutely without question.

But not exclusively. Because, as you agreed, it might be wrong. The previously held theory might come back in vogue. Other theories which are not widely held might be held in higher favor in the future.

And the theory which is held as the best theory at the time should be taught as theory, not fact. Unless of course, it is proven true.

This is done in other subjects because people learn from history and from other people's mistakes.

For instance, the theory of evolution is a theory. It could be proven wrong at any time. Yet, any challenge to it, like say, the theory of Intelligent Design is not permitted

The stock answer is, "we can't test the existence of God." But you can't test the existence of a point in space 15 billion years ago. You can't test the existence of another universe which collapsed and created this universe. Yet many accept these ideas and deny the most logical idea of all, the existence of God.

Because any person who finds something like a watch on the ground does not assume that it happened by accident. They conclude immediately that it was created by some intelligent form. But, they see things a million times more wonderful all around and they conclude that they came to be as a result of random events?

I'm saying that there are many competing theories about how life came into existence from non-living matter. While I know of a few that sound reasonable and fit the evidence well. Until more work is done we don't have a solid theory that fits all the evidence yet. We may never be able to prove one theory over the other in this particular case. Abiogenesis may also be what prevents evolution from becoming a complete law versus a theory. It's okay we know we don't have all the answers yet but we will continue to study and refine our theories and maybe even find new ones.

In the meantime scientists and science teachers refuse to hear that abiogenesis and evolution may not be true. And they exclude the possibility of the existence of God based on non-verifiable, non-testable information which is passed on as science.

It doesn't make sense.

[templelane]

Right, I really don't see playing verbal gymnastics with you as a productive way to utilise my time. Here are some news reports about what I was talking about with the pope and limbo, I feel I should have supported my claim earlier.
Limbo consigned to history books - Times Online
BBC NEWS | Magazine | How can limbo just be abolished?
When you have read the papers and studied the evidence personally and still find fault in the hypothesis I will be willing to discuss evolution and abiogenesis with you. Creationist scientist throw out much better arguments than you are trying to and they are valuable to talk to as they aid the integrity of science and make sure those extra experiments are preformed to tuck in any loopholes. For that I thank them. As for this debate I'm out.

Anyway michealb is much better at his than I'll ever be ;)

[michealb]

Because any person who finds something like a watch on the ground does not assume that it happened by accident. They conclude immediately that it was created by some intelligent form. But, they see things a million times more wonderful all around and they conclude that they came to be as a result of random events?

Evolution isn't random and until you understand that you will not understand evolution.

Evolution is random changes that are then SELECTED by the ability for that change to be passed on. Your watch doesn't get to play the selection game because it is what it is it can't change. If life was static then it too would require a designer but it's not static. It changes to fit its environment. Saying that evolution doesn't work because a watch requires a designer just shows that you need to learn more about the theory from a reputable location not a site that is promoting a theology.

[N0help4u]

Many feel the same about the bible Donna.

True but the point is why can people accept the Big Bang theory of nothing coming from nothing and yet use the same reasoning to discredit God creating?


Limbo along with quite a few church beliefs are nothing more than man made tradition.