Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Science is evidence-based. The Big Bang is a collection of preposterous unscientific stores!

Stories.   If you want to sum up Darwinism in one word?  Stories.  Stories are fine to read to kids at night.  They make for rotten science!

I do own the Answers Book series and have subscriptions to the magazine, newsletters and technical journals produced by the Answers In Genesis Organization and I do own the book from which this chapter is taken.   This is from the New Answers Book 2.   

Let me also say that I am trying to get the average reader to understand Darwinism and long-age hypotheses for what they are - stories.  What fools people is that Darwinist will say something like "the Snortosaurus lived 250 million to 200 years ago, evolving a longer and longer nose structure until it became Pinocchiosaurus and eventually made adaptive changes that led to the modern Woodpecker."   But they do not know that Snortosaurus lived 250 million years ago or 5,000 years ago.  The cannot even begin to prove that it 'evolved' into Pinocchiosaurus, it is simply a story they tell.   Then of course the mythological transition from dinosaur to bird is another set of stories.   Darwinism is stories.  When they tell you something, ask them to prove it.  You'll get more stories.

ID science has proved by observation of living creatures and reproducible tests than today's organisms had to be designed.  This is empirical science at work.   Darwinists try to deflect the argument by saying that ID scientists are just Creationists, which is a ad hominem and meaningless dodge.   No matter if they are Druids, what does the science say?   It says there are countless irreducible systems and symbiotic relationships and the basic components of life cannot form into life because of various chemical barriers, not to mention totally impossible statistically.   Based on observable real science, ID is correct and Darwinism is toast.  

When it comes to utterly implausible stories, the Big Bang guys take the cake.   Okay, they get half the cake. All the Darwinist who pretend that "abiogenesis" and "chemical evolution" are just new names given to experiments concerning the Law of Biogenesis, a long established and tested law that life does not come from non life.  Yeah, I said it again but it is true.   They just tell more stories.  They begin with nothing and then, voila, there is a "singularity" which contains all time and space and energy and matter.   Although it cannot actually explode, it does, by no known means.   The story then becomes all sorts of impossible things happening as all laws of nature are thrown away and frankly what we are talking about is a miracle only missing the Cause of the miracle.   Creationists have a First Cause.   Darwinists have nothing. So if I was a college professor and asked my students to give me a plausible beginning to the Universe, I would give all the Big Bang papers an "F" unless an unfound genius or very sharp Christian is in the class.

by Dr. Jason Lisle

The “big bang” is a story about how the universe came into existence. It proposes that billions of years ago the universe began in a tiny, infinitely hot and dense point called a singularity. This singularity supposedly contained not only all the mass and energy that would become everything we see today, but also “space” itself. According to the story, the singularity rapidly expanded, spreading out the energy and space.

Big Bang

Radar - The Big Bang is a complete bust...for a companion piece to this story read Summary of Big-Bang Creation Story by Ashby Camp.

It is supposed that over vast periods of time, the energy from the big bang cooled down as the universe expanded. Some of it turned into matter—hydrogen and helium gas. These gases collapsed to form stars and galaxies of stars. Some of the stars created the heavier elements in their core and then exploded, distributing these elements into space. Some of the heavier elements allegedly began to stick together and formed the earth and other planets.

This story of origins is entirely fiction. But sadly, many people claim to believe the big-bang model. It is particularly distressing that many professing Christians have been taken in by the big bang, perhaps without realizing its atheistic underpinnings. They have chosen to reinterpret the plain teachings of Scripture in an attempt to make it mesh with secular beliefs about origins.

Secular Compromises

There are several reasons why we cannot just add the big bang to the Bible. Ultimately, the big bang is a secular story of origins. When first proposed, it was an attempt to explain how the universe could have been created without God. Really, it is an alternative to the Bible, so it makes no sense to try to “add” it to the Bible. Let us examine some of the profound differences between the Bible and the secular big-bang view of origins.

The Bible teaches that God created the universe in six days (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). It is clear from the context in Genesis that these were days in the ordinary sense (i.e., 24-hour days) since they are bounded by evening and morning and occur in an ordered list (second day, third day, etc.). Conversely, the big bang teaches the universe has evolved over billions of years.

Days vs. Millions of Years
The Bible says that earth was created before the stars and that trees were created before the sun.1 However, the big-bang view teaches the exact opposite. The Bible tells us that the earth was created as a paradise; the secular model teaches it was created as a molten blob. The big bang and the Bible certainly do not agree about the past.

Many people don’t realize that the big bang is a story not only about the past but also about the future. The most popular version of the big bang teaches that the universe will expand forever and eventually run out of usable energy. According to the story, it will remain that way forever in a state that astronomers call “heat death.”2 But the Bible teaches that the world will be judged and remade. Paradise will be restored. The big bang denies this crucial biblical teaching.

Biblical Future vs. Big Bang Future

Scientific Problems with the Big Bang

The big bang also has a number of scientific problems. Big-bang supporters are forced to accept on “blind faith” a number of notions that are completely inconsistent with real observational science. Let’s explore some of the inconsistencies between the big-bang story and the real universe.

Missing Monopoles

Most people know something about magnets—like the kind found in a compass or the kind that sticks to a refrigerator. We often say that magnets have two “poles”—a north pole and a south pole. Poles that are alike will repel each other, while opposites attract. A “monopole” is a hypothetical massive particle that is just like a magnet but has only one pole. So a monopole would have either a north pole or a south pole, but not both.
Particle physicists claim that many magnetic monopoles should have been created in the high temperature conditions of the big bang. Since monopoles are stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable search efforts, monopoles have not been found. Where are the monopoles? The fact that we don’t find any monopoles suggests that the universe never was that hot. This indicates that there never was a big bang, but it is perfectly consistent with the Bible’s account of creation, since the universe did not start infinitely hot.

The Flatness Problem

Flatness Problem
Another serious challenge to the big-bang model is called the flatness problem. The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced with the force of gravity; this condition is known as flat. If the universe were the accidental by-product of a big bang, it is difficult to imagine how such a fantastic coincidence could occur. Big-bang cosmology cannot explain why the matter density in the universe isn’t greater, causing it to collapse upon itself (closed universe), or less, causing the universe to rapidly fly apart (open universe).

The problem is even more severe when we extrapolate into the past. Since any deviation from perfect flatness tends to increase as time moves forward, it logically follows that the universe must have been even more precisely balanced in the past than it is today. Thus, at the moment of the big bang, the universe would have been virtually flat to an extremely high precision. This must have been the case (assuming the big bang), despite the fact that the laws of physics allow for an infinite range of values. This is a coincidence that stretches credulity to the breaking point. Of course, in the creation model, “balance” is expected since the Lord has fine-tuned the universe for life.

Inflating the Complexities

Many secular astronomers have come up with an idea called “inflation” in an attempt to address the flatness and monopole problems (as well as other problems not addressed in detail here, such as the horizon problem). Inflation proposes that the universe temporarily went through a period of accelerated expansion. Amazingly, there is no real supporting evidence for inflation; it appears to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated conjecture—much like the big bang itself. Moreover, the inflation idea has difficulties of its own, such as what would start it and how it would stop smoothly. In addition, other problems with the big bang are not solved, even if inflation were true. These are examined below.

Where Is the Antimatter?

Consider the “baryon number problem.” Recall that the big bang supposes that matter (hydrogen and helium gas) was created from energy as the universe expanded. However, experimental physics tells us that whenever matter is created from energy, such a reaction also produces antimatter. Antimatter has similar properties to matter, except the charges of the particles are reversed. (So whereas a proton has a positive charge, an antiproton has a negative charge.) Any reaction where energy is transformed into matter produces an exactly equal amount of antimatter; there are no known exceptions.

The big bang (which has no matter to begin with, only energy) should have produced exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and that should be what we see today. But we do not. The visible universe is comprised almost entirely of matter—with only trace amounts of antimatter anywhere.

This devastating problem for the big bang is actually consistent with biblical creation; it is a design feature. God created the universe to be essentially matter only—and it’s a good thing He did. When matter and antimatter come together, they violently destroy each other. If the universe had equal amounts of matter and antimatter (as the big bang requires), life would not be possible.

Missing Population III Stars

The big-bang model by itself can only account for the existence of the three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium). This leaves about 90 or so of the other naturally occurring elements to be explained. Since the conditions in the big bang are not right to form these heavier elements (as big-bang supporters readily concede), secular astronomers believe that stars have produced the remaining elements by nuclear fusion in the core. This is thought to occur in the final stages of a massive star as it explodes (a supernova). The explosion then distributes the heavier elements into space. Second- and third-generation stars are thus “contaminated” with small amounts of these heavier elements.

If this story were true, then the first stars would have been comprised of only the three lightest elements (since these would have been the only elements in existence initially). Some such stars3 should still be around today since their potential life span is calculated to exceed the (big bang) age of the universe. Such stars would be called “Population III” stars.4 Amazingly (to those who believe in the big bang), Population III stars have not been found anywhere. All known stars have at least trace amounts of heavy elements in them. It is amazing to think that our galaxy alone is estimated to have over 100 billion stars in it, yet not one star has been discovered that is comprised of only the three lightest elements.

The Collapse of the Big Bang

With all the problems listed above, as well as many others too numerous to include, it is not surprising that quite a few secular astronomers are beginning to abandon the big bang. Although it is still the dominant model at present, increasing numbers of physicists and astronomers are realizing that the big bang simply is not a good explanation of how the universe began. In the May 22, 2004, issue of New Scientist, there appeared an open letter to the scientific community written primarily by secular scientists5 who challenge the big bang. These scientists pointed out that the copious arbitrary assumptions and the lack of successful big-bang predictions challenge the legitimacy of the model. Among other things, they state:
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.6
This statement has since been signed by hundreds of other scientists and professors at various institutions. The big bang seems to be losing considerable popularity. Secular scientists are increasingly rejecting the big bang in favor of other models. If the big bang is abandoned, what will happen to all the Christians who compromised and claimed that the Bible is compatible with the big bang? What will they say? Will they claim that the Bible actually does not teach the big bang, but instead that it teaches the latest secular model? Secular models come and go, but God’s Word does not need to be changed because God got it exactly right the first time.


The big bang has many scientific problems. These problems are symptomatic of the underlying incorrect worldview. The big bang erroneously assumes that the universe was not supernaturally created, but that it came about by natural processes billions of years ago. However, reality does not line up with this notion. Biblical creation explains the evidence in a more straightforward way without the ubiquitous speculations prevalent in secular models. But ultimately, the best reason to reject the big bang is that it goes against what the Creator of the universe himself has taught: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.


  1. The sun and stars were made on Day 4 (Genesis 1:14–19). The earth was made on Day 1 (Genesis 1:1–5). Trees were made on Day 3 (Genesis 1:11–13). Back
  2. Despite the name heat death, the universe would actually be exceedingly cold. Back
  3. Small (red main sequence) stars do not use up their fuel quickly. These stars theoretically have enough fuel to last significantly longer than the estimated age of the (big bang) universe. Back
  4. If a star has a very small amount of heavy elements, it is called a “Population II” star. Population II stars exist primarily in the central bulge of spiral galaxies, in globular star clusters, and in elliptical galaxies. If a star has a relatively large amount of heavy elements (like the sun), it is called “Population I.” These stars exist primarily in the arms of spiral galaxies. The (hypothetical) Population III star would have no heavy elements at all. Back
  5. The alternatives to the big bang that these scientists had suggested are equally unbiblical. These included a steady-state theory and plasma cosmology. Back
  6. E. Lerner et al., An open letter to the scientific community, New Scientist 182(2448):20, May 22, 2004. Available online at Back
If secular scientists cast their critical eyes on Darwinism and Anthropic Global Warming, they would take both these fairy tales to task as well.   I am glad they are hammering away at the preposterous assumptions and fudge factors of the Big Bang.   Hope they looking into Darwinism and AGW next!

Trust me, I have more evidence that falsifies the Big Bang coming.   But what is already presented should already convince you.   Unless you think ignoring the laws of science and closing your eyes and let random actioin build everything somehow fits into the definition.  More to come.   Again, keep looking into Darwinism and identify the stories!


Jon Woolf said...

As long as you keep citing the Bible as evidence, you aren't doing science.

AmericanVet said...

That is pretty stupid, Jon. The Bible is a historical document and it was written. Darwin wrote documents, shall we toss out everything you say because you base your premises on his thoughts?

See how whenever I bring observable science to the forefront the Darwinists scamper? They cannot fight on that ground.

Jon Woolf said...

The Bible is a historical document

No, it's not. Please spare me the jabbering about how some parts of the Bible correlate to some extent with known history, and therefore every word in it must be true. The writers of the Old Testament incorporated known history for the same reason that Gone With The Wind incorporated known history: to give their fictional tales some verisimilitude. The writers of the New Testament barely bothered to make their stories sound plausible; they were out to establish themselves as a viable religion, and any means justified that end.

The theory of evolution is based on known facts and reasonable inferences from the. Creationism isn't.

Jon Woolf said...

See how whenever I bring observable science to the forefront the Darwinists scamper? They cannot fight on that ground.

[snicker.wav] Seems you've forgotten (yet again) who can explain the evidence and who can't.

What's the YEC explanation for the no-young-isotopes phenomenon, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for paleosols, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for the sequential nature of the fossil record, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for weathered and scavenged fossils, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for the anomalous distribution of living organisms, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for fossiliferous strata in Large Igneous Provinces, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for genetic anomalies such as the 'stuck-together' human chromosome #2, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for genetic bottlenecks ... or rather, the lack thereof in 99+% of living organisms, save for a very few glaring examples like the cheetah?

Why aren't dolphins and ichthyosaurs ever found together, Radar?

Why aren't rhamphorhynchoids and neornithines ever found together, Radar?

How did dogwoods and sycamores outrun brontosaurs and pterosaurs to higher ground, Radar?

How do we get fossil formations that preserve multiple layers of dinosaur and bird nests, obviously nesting colonies from several different years, in the middle of the geologic column?

For that matter, why do we find entire nests of dinosaur eggs preserved perfectly in situ, complete with brooding parent, when everyone knows that eggs float in water?

How did we get magmatic intrusions in between layers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock?

As always, no answer was the sad reply...

AmericanVet said...

No, Jon, I have answered all of these. I will not keep answering them again.

Notice that most of them or even all of them are not foundational questions. You see, Jon, Darwinist cannot even come up with a Universe, an organism, anything at all. You have no starting point. If this was the Indy 500 you'd have the uniform and the sponsors but no car.

Secondly the Bible writers made prophecies in advance of events. Daniel, for instance, foretold things happening many hundreds of years later. His prophecies concerning the coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem were known and studied by Jews long before Christ came and other prophets like Isaiah also foretold of Christ. Isaiah was already written and being copied by scribes before Cyrus became King. Many of the prophets told the Children of Israel that their sins would cause them to be taken away from their homes and their kingdom to be destroyed but that a return to reestablish that home and kingdom could come with repentance. That is exactly what happened. There is no getting around the fact that the writers like Ezekiel and Jeremiah were writing before the Babylonians took over their lands and had the majority of Jews then scattered amongst the Babylonian holdings.

In fact, Daniel was among the first Jews taken and as a very bright young man was selected by the King, Nebuchanezzer, to become a student of the ways of Babylon along with the other brightest young Jews. But Daniel and his faithful cohorts refused to give up their beliefs and wound up converting the King to a belief in the God of Creation.

As the prophets had said, Israel and Judah was no more. But also as they said, the oppressors then many years later had mercy on the Jews and let them return to their homelands, rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and also the Temple. Ezra and Nehemiah are accounts of the return and rebuilding.

There is too much documentation of Bible prophecies being fulfilled to be ignored. Beyond that, the peoples and accounts of Bible history have been verified by digs in the region over the last couple of hundred years. While secular archaelogists doubted the existence of some peoples and places mentioned in the Bible, the Bible has time and again been verified by archaelogy. They have found bricks without straw made in Egypt during the time of Moses. They found the Hittites, which were thought to be nonexistent. No, Jon, the Bible keeps winning these debates which is why it is still the basis for Christianity and is still considered a handbook for archaelogists in the region.

highboy said...

"The writers of the Old Testament incorporated known history for the same reason that Gone With The Wind incorporated known history: to give their fictional tales some verisimilitude. The writers of the New Testament barely bothered to make their stories sound plausible; they were out to establish themselves as a viable religion, and any means justified that end."

You've completely lost any credibility you may have thought you had to speak intelligently about the Bible with that statement. Just Luke himself was a better historian than most alive today, and you have never come up with a plausible argument against the Bible's reliability regardless of how often its been discussed. In terms of ancient history, the Gospels are more reliable than most biographies written in secular history books. The earliest biography of Alexander being a prime example.

AmericanVet said...

Highboy, Since I have been pulling the rug out from under Darwinism they have to make desperate comments to try to take the reader away from the evidence. For instance, Jon's long list which I have answered already. It is deceptive for him to publish it again now that it is answered but he is doing it hoping that newer readers have not seen the answers.

I won't re-answer all of that long list of questions. For those of you new to the site, remember this:

1) The Flood was a year-long catastrophic event in terms of the rapid subduction of tectonic plates, volcanic activity, the water eventually overcoming even the mountains and for months the entire Earth was covered with water. A flood of this magnitude is needed to product formations like the Tapeats which Darwinists rename depending on location but actually spans continents.

In the first 40 days as the waters were overcoming land, many of the most mobile and large creatures found land to stand upon. Dinosaurs laid eggs in quantity and moved on in contradiction to normal egg-laying behavior. We see a lot of dump and run egglaying that probably happened during the first 40 days. We also see lots of tracks of dinosaurs made in water and you can see their prints changing from normal to just barely touching ground before finally the water is too high and the tracks disappear entirely. We've reproduced this phenomenon using a miniature flood machine and small amphibians and lizards.

Massive floating mats of mostly vegetation were formed. We know this is where all or almost all of the amber fossils came from. Many animals would have had temporary reprieves on such mats but only insects and microorganisms and plants were able to ride out the entire storm.

So the Flood had an stage of rising waters, then a stage of complete flooding and a stage where the waters began to settle into deep cavities as the land began to rise above the waters while the ocean floors deepened, producing a world where the continents looked like puzzle pieces that would fit together - because of rapid plate subduction.

AmericanVet said...

But what Darwinists ignore and the public doesn't think about is the post-Flood epoch. When the new continents were exposed and the water of the ocean was warmer, then more moisture was going into the air and thus, precipitation. Therefore constant snowfalls produced glaciation and moreso in the Northern Hemisphere because more land mass, naturally. The continent at the South Pole has the fossils from the Flood but it has been covered in snow and ice since shortly after the Flood and will remain so. In the North the glaciers formed and covered much of the North and we now can see they were the result primarily of snowfall plus some water that was released from hydroplate activity or trapped on the ground when the land emerged. Glaciation then began to melt as the temperature of the Earth began to normalize and the complex pattern of meteorological balance fell close to normal.

Giant lakes and/or seas were formed and, when a dike broke the water was released to catastrophically form such magnificent features as the Hells Canyon and the Grand Canyon. The American West is full of mesas and badlands and canyons formed by three processes in some pattern - the original run-off of water, the dike breaks of giant glaciation lakes and the release of water from water-soaked sedimentary rocks which some call hydroplate activity.

Scavenged fossils are obviously animals trapped and then exposed while still flesh rather than being fossilized. They could have been formed during the indutatory phase of the Flood and they can also be found post-Flood. Sudden storms many years after the Flood had abated could trap massive animals like a Mammoth in loess storms and preserve them and also preserve animals killed, partially exposed and eaten, then buried and captured in fossil form.

Darwinists don't want you to know that it is not just Mammoths that are found as flesh rather than fossil, but dinosaur flesh has also been found. This is because the Flood took place about 4300 years ago and the massive sedimentary rocks are a testament to a massive catastrophic Flood event and the dynamic world of the Post-Flood era.

Man and animal were released near the equator. They then spread throughout the globe in both horizontal and vertical ways, if you will. Observed science has proved that speciation can be very rapid within kind, so great changes in the forms of animals as conditions change is a design concept not evolution. So the animals released from the Ark were capable of great variation and did vary tremendously during that time. Looking at grass and Poecilia reticulata we find that we can trace multitudes of varieties to one starting kind. Also the PR (guppies) were tested and found to vary to conditions in amazingly rapid fashion, as I have posted on this blog.

AmericanVet said...

So when you look at fossils, when you look at living creatures now, you must consider how they are put together. How are they made? Is there a possibility that they happened by chance? No.

The Biblical account is coherent and explains both the world of flora and fauna but also the landforms seen on Earth and under the sea. It accounts for the miraculous existence of existence and life and information. Naturalistic materialism cannot even get started, let alone explain the world today. It is an appeal to creation ex nihilo without a first cause. This is in opposition to the very naturalistic laws Darwinists claim to adhere to and is a logical fallacy from the start.

Anonymous said...

2 things, Radar,

1) No you have not answered Jon's questions. Not even close. Nice try though. There's a reason why you don't provide any links to your supposed answers.

2) Goddidit is not an answer. It is meaningless.


AmericanVet said...

Canucklehead? BS!

I did answer Jon's questions and God did it is a better answer than nothing did it.

Anonymous said...

Another nice try. Sorry Radar, links or it didn't happen. Other than "goddidit", why don't you pick just one from Jon's list above and give us an answer in your own words right here?

By-the-way, the only person talking about "nothing" on this blog is you.

And for the millionth time, evolution has zero to do with abiogenisis. Which is why some christians (although not real christians, according to you) and theists actually support evolutionary theory. The fact you can't seem to get this simple idea through your apparently thick skull is the reason why so many commenters deduce that you're actually pretty stupid. In fact, your blog and your constant stroking of your own ego, reminds me of the guy with the small penis that constantly tells his palls how huge it is. Me thinks thou doth protest too much?


AmericanVet said...

Canucklehead -Projective Identification is a problem when a person sees their most serious defects or faults in another person and projects them onto that other person. Your anger and antipathy being so illogical and personal you might want to consider whether you are subject to that?

Consider that this blog contains a huge amount of information which can be searched for using the search tool. My job is to continue to post information and those who cannot find it armed with such search tools are probably incapable of understanding the arguments anyway.

Most of Woolf's questions presume a circumstance that I do not agree with, that is, that the Earth has been here for long ages and that the fossil record in the sedimentary rocks are in total many millions of years. Whereas I assert that the entire sedimentary rock layering of the Earth is catastrophic and resulted from the Flood and post-Flood events.

Abiogenesis is an unscientific work-around to fool people into thinking that it does not connect with Biogenesis and that is untrue. Biogenesis is tested, verified, falsifiable and has been accepted by the science world long ago. Abiogenesis is a desperate attempt to figure a work-around by people seeking to prop up a worldview despite evidence, rather than because of it.

I have not said that believing in evolution means you cannot be a Christian and I have made that abundantly clear. What I have said is that Darwinism/evolution/whatever you want to call it is inconsistent with Christianity logically. So there are plenty of illogical Christians out there, no doubt many of them in agreement with BioLogos and whereas it may not cost them their Christianity, the watered-down version they profess will not last. When there is no original sin there is no way Christ can atone for it. If death came before mankind then the Bible is wrong. If the Bible is wrong then Christianity loses the foundation upon which it stands. So if people decide to continue to believe in theistic evolution, their children will likely just subtract the empty theistic portion and abandon Christianity altogether.

Anonymous said...

Lame. We've all been calling you on your own psychological projection for years. In fact, you probably learned the term from your commenters (you're welcome) So, you have anything new to hurl my way?

And "Anger"? from me? Where? As I'm sure you are aware, you're the resident "ranter" here bud, not me.

And I've said it before but, the idea that you wont (cant) provide links to your various "devastating" arguments relative to Jon's questions, and evolution in general, is also really telling. And not in a good way. You simply don't want to look or provide links because all of the opposition posted in the comments section make you, and your silly arguments, look really bad. Every time. They are the practically the same questions every time. You'd think you might be able to keep track of where you put your "answers".

Finally, you say "if people decide to continue to believe in theistic evolution, their children will likely just subtract the empty theistic portion and abandon Christianity altogether." Man, wouldn't that be great?


AmericanVet said...

So I take a break and Canucklehead is at it again. No, I did not learn "projection" from commenters, I took Psych in college. Common terms like transference and projection are well known by most people who went to college after high school. I was just suggesting you are projecting when you are ranting at me, as I really don't sound much like the guy you seem to be arguing with.

It is not my fault if you cannot digest my answers. Some Darwinists cannot really wrap their heads around the following:

Naturalism is a worldview and not a default for science. In fact most of our modern scientific disciplines were begun by Christians or at least firm Theists.

ID is not identical to Creationism and their assertions often include references to time scales familiar to Darwinists but their work is all in the present doing what is observable, testable and repeatable. They also work on reverse-engineering of organisms to determine how they may have become what they are. They have all sorts of worldviews over there at the Discovery Institute.

Apparently P.Z.Myers is unable to comprehend the arguments people make concerning his beliefs about stages of gestation and particularly the theoretical Pharyngula stage which is apparently not common to all vertebrates after all, let alone a magic moment when all embroyos appear to be the same. He does not hear what the argument actually is, so bound up in his particular beliefs. That is part of the reason I made that last post; Evolution = Where censorship and incivility are welcome? How can this change?

I do not often do any ranting at all. Opining, yes, but ranting rarely. In that way my readers can be fairly certain I am posting reliable information. They may not like it or agree with it but they know it came from a scientific source and so the critical thinkers among them can confidently wade in.

I cannot imagine what happened that made you so angry at God and so hopeful that Christians would just disappear. But it seems a lot of Darwinists are like that so you are not alone.

Anonymous said...

RE: "Naturalism", are you speaking of Methodological naturalism or Metaphysical naturalism? And do you still not understand the difference?

Just as a refresher, from Wikipedia,

Metaphysical Naturalism, also called "ontological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism", is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling.

While Methodological Naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.

So, please show me/us some evidence where "modern scientific disciplines" or even those old-timey christian scientists, for that mater, utilize anything but methodological naturalism. Just give me one example. Just one.

I'll be waiting over here.... forever.


Anonymous said...

And, for the umpteenth time. Not believing in something imaginary does not mean that you hate that imaginary thing. In fact, the idea that I hate god because I don't believe in him/her/it makes absolutely no sense. You know, because I don't believe that him/her/it exists in the first place. Non belief is the default position. Serious indoctrination, or "bottoming out" (like you did) are required in order to keep up such silly positions.

And I in no way said that all christians need to disappear, you creep. Not sure where you got that anyway, since your quote makes up most of my statement. What a weird thing to say on your part. Anyway, I simply stated that I thought it would be a great thing if people started abandoning christianity (you know, more than they already are).


AmericanVet said...

Yes, forever is likely. Scientists like Bacon and Newton and Maxwell believed God created and expected therefore to find logical systems that could be investigated and that reliable results could be expected. This is not a likely result from chaos, which is the foundation of Darwinism, that all of the Universe is a happy set of random coincidences. In such a world very orderly laws of science would not be expected. So the belief in a Creator was a condition upon which the first real scientists depended in order to make their time spent investigating seem worthwhile.

It is not possible to test something in a supernatural way unless you are supernatural. But where you go wrong is in assuming that, since we can only test within our four-dimensional world, therefore we can only include that world in our conclusions. This is a serious error.

Suppose you live in Anderson, Indiana and you decide to investigate automobiles. You could certainly learn how they work, but if you limited your world to Anderson, Indiana then how would you explain their existence? You would either understand that they were designed and manufactured elsewhere OR you would begin making up stories about how automobiles in Anderson began as a series of explosions in the city junkyard or something like that.

This is where naturalism fails. It limits your explanations for phenomenon and organism and scientific law alike to only natural causes. Thus, epic fail! Newton and Von Braun and Maxwell and Kepler and similar believing scientists knew that God created, they simply wanted to find out how things worked and how they could be harnessed for man's purposes. Naturalism has handicapped science because we have so many of them looking for answers in the wrong places and wasting a lot of valuable time and money doing it!

AmericanVet said...

See, Canucklehead, you are escalating the name-calling and personal attacks. That indicates anger. Just saying...

Anonymous said...

Unbelievable. You still dont get it. Tell us how the scientists you mention were not methodological naturalists. Point to where they incorporate the supernatural into their work. If you can't, their belief in god is moot. Meaning god/religion played no role in their scientific endeavors. And you have the gall to call Jon a mind reader.

And seriously, you're the one that insinuated that I wanted all Christians to "disappear". Which I merely though (completely non-angrily, I might add) was creepy.