Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-05-2015, 05:38 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
Blink

Facepalm

Consider

Creationist: "How did the universe form?"

Atheist: "don't know, there are some interesting theories based on observable scientific theories....but, perhaps we will never know."

Creationist: "Ahah! Then GODDIDIT"

Atheist: "which fabricated, made up god is that?...and how do you know...truly?"

Creationist: "Because you see, I have this little book with all of the answers!"

Atheist: "That book is largely disproven, and either way it was written by man. Man created god in his own image...again...which god, and how do you know?"

Creationist: "It just HAS to be god, disprove god or accept him!....Fail and burn in hell!"

Atheist: " Yeah......just because we don't have all of the answers to the big questions of life, and perhaps we may never have them, doesn't mean we have to make up answers, simply because we fear not knowing....remember fear is the engine which fuels religion. On that basis of thought, I propose that Uranus is hollow, and full of little purple men who ride unicorns. They feed these unicorns magic beans, so that the unicorns fart fairy dust. This fairy dust is collected and boiled in the great sky cauldron...then bottled in invisible bottle rockets that are catapulted through space to earth...and these bottles shatter upon entering the earth's atmosphere and upon a human's birth, form its soul. Now you see, all this time you were seeking the truth...and all this time it was in URANUS."

Creationist: "god!"

Atheist "sigh."

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 16 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
13-05-2015, 05:46 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  This is a paper I wrote debunking the "science creation". It elicits my concerns and why I can't possibly truly be an Atheist.

Sorry for the formatting... It didn't paste correctly from Word.



The Inherent Weaknesses of Evolutionary and Cosmological Science

The most zealously disputed matter encompasses the vital questions of where we came from and how we got here. The disagreement occurs between advocates of deity creation, and secular science explanations. Many evolutionists, cosmologists, and their avid followers claim that the belief in a creator can be discarded based on the overwhelming scientific evidence. Although, there are many problems with the secular argument, including: the legitimacy of mainstream astrophysics, the inability to explain the fundamental building blocks of life, humans’ tendency to change and/or omit scientific theories, the obvious inconsistent and desperate theories in cosmology, and the unexplainable origins of complex biological systems.

First of all, it must be made clear that the field of astrophysics often uses entirely inconceivable methods, yet it is still predominantly found in the major scientific magazines. Scott, who is the author of the Electric Sky: A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy, explains yet another possibility to the origin of matter. More importantly, the first half of the book attempts to expose the field of astrophysics, which he believes is riddled with conjectures and “intangible…validity.” He regards disciplines such as astrophysics as pseudoscience due to its inability to support claims with empirical data: the conclusions are not validated by a grasp of the physical laws of this universe, but rather with theories that are reliant on the hypothetical mathematical models fabricated by scientists with influential power. Since they cannot test a large portion of their theories empirically, due to observing 14 billion years post-factum, the theories are only standing upon the opinion of other likewise thinking scientists. Such positions are “popularized [in] Scientific American, Discover, and National Geographic” (Scott), by which of course sets the standard for magazines and online articles. Apposing theories, like Scott’s, disagree with existing ones and therefore are not popularized. It would also suggest that data that questions, contradicts, and points to a creator would also be under scrutiny. This means that mainstream science should, by no means, imply there is no evidence indicating the opposite. All in all, it is naïve to definitively believe in publicized scientific views because they are both untestable and verified solely by scientists in the same field, with similar humanistic beliefs.

One of the leading problems with evolution roots from the very start of the formation of life. For life to arise, atoms need to gather and arrange in such a way for amino acids to form, then arrange into proteins, and finally into peptides. After this incredibly complex process, which evolution cannot explain (and is a large topic/branch in itself), an inorganic molecule was believed to evolve. To propose how inorganic (without life) molecules could be converted to organic (life) naturally, in 1953, Stanley Miller conducted an experiment that created organic molecules by using chemical processes. He claimed that he kept the experiment constant at specific variables that were consistent with early earth’s environment. The experiment was successful in the creation of 15-20% of organic molecules, but research now indicates that the variables were not consistent with the updated model of early earth. Overwhelming variables such as irrelevant atmosphere (e.g. hydrogen and nitrogen levels), irrelevant conditions (e.g. cooling, energy from the sun, and photosynthesis), low yield of molecules, wrong forms of amino acids, the formation of proteins, and RNA synthesis reveal the experiment is invalid (Peet). At the time, this was a breakthrough in evolutionary science; however, now it is deemed incredibly flawed. No such experiment with concrete findings has been successful on the hypothesis to this day.
This is just one example of how our growing knowledge of science has and does hurt preexisting evolutionary theories. It also indicates that we might be blind to see the flaws in our theories today. In fact, the Miller-Urey experiment belongs to a large group of discovers that were later disregarded. A few examples of falsified theories include: Earth as a disk, phrenology, Einstein’s static universe theory, Pons’ nuclear fusion, luminiferous aether, phlogiston theory, and Earth being the center of our solar system (Scientist)–the list goes on. What does this say about present day theories? What will we discover in the future that will abolish existing theories today? Has the world done our generation of scientists a favor and freed them from this recurring human flaw? It’s not likely.

With recent headlines in the news reading, “Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning” (ScienceDaily) and “Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened” (Lunz), it always keeps us reminded that theories are relative and never provide a resolution. Conflicting propositions on the side of the Big Bang, as well as ones against it, leave us wondering if it’s right, wrong, or if it’s neither of these choices. Obviously the latter option is not reasonable, though it sure seems appetizing given the cluster of conflicting information.

Yet another and also dominant explanation for the existence of the universe is known as the “Multiverse Theory.” It entails that our universe is just one of an infinitely vast selection of universes. Cosmologists reason that there are too many fine-tuned variables found on earth (e.g. the Fibonacci Sequence continuously found in nature), and more importantly in the universe, that would occur solely by chance. They have discovered dozens of physical constants that are essential to our function of life–if they were even off by a bit, the universe would not function correctly and life or matter would not exist (Wolchover). For example, the ratio of electrons to protons (fine tuned by 10^37), ratio of electromagnetic force: gravity (10^40), expansion rate of the universe (10^55), and mass density of the universe (10^59) were unexplainable coincidences (Ross).

In 2012, more wariness emerged when the discovery of the Higgs particle unraveled yet another highly unlikely constant that seemed to fit our universe and ours alone. Out of this, they discovered the “cosmological constant,” which is a number that “has to be enormously fine-tuned [10^120] to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance (Wolchover).” This number is so unimaginably precise that it leads cosmological scientists to believe this could not possibly happen by mere chance with a singular Big Bang-another case of an abolished theory.
Wolchover, the writer of the Scientific American article, explains their initial reasoning behind the argument by stating:

“Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.”

It seems as though this is a desperate attempt to deny their utter uncertainty of how our universe started. In order to justify the Multiverse theory, which originates from the indication of a higher power, they create hypothetical mathematical models to express how it could happen. Evidently, as knowledge of our universe increases, scientists have a harder time conceptualizing their preexisting theories and need to resort to even more abstract leaps, with the transition of the Big Bang to the Multiverse Theory as one example. The dominant Multiverse theory is concerning because it is built upon the logical reasoning of scientists, rather than empirical data, pulled from the universe being perfectly sustainable. This is a direct example of the pseudoscience that Scott and others expose. To hold such a theory requires an equal amount of faith, if not more, as theism because it is also unobservable (by scientific means). Should uneducated people blindly submit this pseudoscience promoted by scientists and popular media? If cosmologists believe this, among all things, how can we trust any alternate theory they propose? It’s doubtful this will be the final consensus, though it truly unmasks their uncertainty and their capability to pull “evidence” from unobservable data.

(Note that this is not a belief held by a small group of scientists; it is accepted by the finest of physicists today. Professors from University of Columbia, University of California, Tufts University, and the University of Cambridge are just a few among the many who do–even the well known, Stephen Hawking.)

If the image of modern day science based on mathematical models and unseeing observation appears broken, there is tangible science out there without the use of imagination. Charles Darwin is the father of and also the most notable figure in evolutionary science today, known for his book, The Origin of Species. Michael Behe, a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania and well-known author, challenges Darwin’s writing which states, “‘if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (Behe).’” Darwin wrote his book in 1859, so he did not know all of these advances in science today (e.g. genes and DNA – fundamental aspects of his theory that would completely change his conclusions). Behe damages the authenticity of his book by directly contradicting his statement above by the concept of “Irreducible Complexity.” He explains that it is when a “single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." This includes examples such as the bacterial flagellum (a “microscopic motorboat”), the ATP synthase molecule (molecular energy for the cell), and the Cilium (a “molecular vacuum cleaner [in the throat]) (Behe).” As Darwin said, it is significant because evolution can’t explain how these extremely complex tools in biological systems can somehow evolved to function over a course of 14 billion years. No amount of time is sufficient for these systems to evolve, because even if one of these systems starts to add on bits and pieces in order to perform a task (evolutionary process), there are hundreds of other parts with tasks that are essential to sustain its life. This would result in an endless, repeating cycle of death, preventing evolution from even beginning. As of now, evolutionists cannot explain these phenomena. In fact, the essential building blocks that make up these complex systems are still an enigma, with the Miller-Urey experiment as just one example.
To put irreducible complexity into perspective, the picture below depicts the newly discovered interacting pieces of the flagellum, which all need to be present at the same time in order to function.


[Image: flagellum.png]


(This is not the only substantial evidence of a higher power; there are hundreds of well-supported concerns that only several books could do them justice. A notable example is Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, by Stephen Meyer. Irreducible Complexity was only emphasized to debunk Darwin’s contingent statement.)

It is imperative to realize that we cannot worship both sides: it is either scientific laws behind the existence of our universe (or universes) and life, or a higher power. It is our duty and favor to us as individuals to honestly evaluate the authenticity of both. Secular pseudoscientists are constantly insisting on new theories that we cannot understand yet. It is a faulty pursuit that insists we know the answers for everything, or will know in the soon future. Furthermore, unless you can genuinely believe that these modern scientific assertions are reasonable, it can’t be wise to invest your belief in it. Given all of this, and the equal in integrity evidence that suggests otherwise, the real question should ask who we came from, not how we got here.












Works Cited
Behe, Michael J. "Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference: Behe, Michael." C.S. Lewis Society. Cambridge University, 1994. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Behe, Michael. “Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum.” Digital image. Evolution News, 15 Mar. 2011. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Davidson, Michael W. "Molecular Expressions Cell Biology: Animal Cell Structure - Cilia and Flagella." Cilia and Flagella. N.p., 13 Dec. 2004. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Lunz, Stephen. "Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened." IFLScience. 10 Feb. 2015. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Peet, John. "The Miller-Urey Experiment." Truth in Science, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Ross, Hugh. Dr. Bang Refined by Fire. Pasadena: NavPress, 1998. Print.
Scientist. "10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked." Famous Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
“Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning.” ScienceDaily. N.p., 18 Mar. 2014. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Scott, Donald E. The Electric Sky Book. Introduction. Mikamor Publishing. Portland: Mikamor, 2006. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Wolchover, Natalie. "New Physics Complications Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis." Quanta Magazine, 1 June 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

You are hesitant to trust modern science--but yet you fully accept a book that talks about a firmament, magical storehouses of hail and snow, a talking serpent and donkey, demons as the cause of illness, flying chariots and horses, and a sun that passes through the underworld as evidence of *science*?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like jennybee's post
13-05-2015, 05:50 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
I agree with you, OP. You are not smart enough to be anything but a creatard.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2015, 05:52 PM (This post was last modified: 13-05-2015 08:45 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  This is a paper I wrote debunking the "science creation". It elicits my concerns and why I can't possibly truly be an Atheist.

Sorry for the formatting... It didn't paste correctly from Word.



The Inherent Weaknesses of Evolutionary and Cosmological Science

The most zealously disputed matter encompasses the vital questions of where we came from and how we got here. The disagreement occurs between advocates of deity creation, and secular science explanations. Many evolutionists, cosmologists, and their avid followers claim that the belief in a creator can be discarded based on the overwhelming scientific evidence. Although, there are many problems with the secular argument, including: the legitimacy of mainstream astrophysics, the inability to explain the fundamental building blocks of life, humans’ tendency to change and/or omit scientific theories, the obvious inconsistent and desperate theories in cosmology, and the unexplainable origins of complex biological systems.

First of all, it must be made clear that the field of astrophysics often uses entirely inconceivable methods, yet it is still predominantly found in the major scientific magazines. Scott, who is the author of the Electric Sky: A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy, explains yet another possibility to the origin of matter. More importantly, the first half of the book attempts to expose the field of astrophysics, which he believes is riddled with conjectures and “intangible…validity.” He regards disciplines such as astrophysics as pseudoscience due to its inability to support claims with empirical data: the conclusions are not validated by a grasp of the physical laws of this universe, but rather with theories that are reliant on the hypothetical mathematical models fabricated by scientists with influential power. Since they cannot test a large portion of their theories empirically, due to observing 14 billion years post-factum, the theories are only standing upon the opinion of other likewise thinking scientists. Such positions are “popularized [in] Scientific American, Discover, and National Geographic” (Scott), by which of course sets the standard for magazines and online articles. Apposing theories, like Scott’s, disagree with existing ones and therefore are not popularized. It would also suggest that data that questions, contradicts, and points to a creator would also be under scrutiny. This means that mainstream science should, by no means, imply there is no evidence indicating the opposite. All in all, it is naïve to definitively believe in publicized scientific views because they are both untestable and verified solely by scientists in the same field, with similar humanistic beliefs.

One of the leading problems with evolution roots from the very start of the formation of life. For life to arise, atoms need to gather and arrange in such a way for amino acids to form, then arrange into proteins, and finally into peptides. After this incredibly complex process, which evolution cannot explain (and is a large topic/branch in itself), an inorganic molecule was believed to evolve. To propose how inorganic (without life) molecules could be converted to organic (life) naturally, in 1953, Stanley Miller conducted an experiment that created organic molecules by using chemical processes. He claimed that he kept the experiment constant at specific variables that were consistent with early earth’s environment. The experiment was successful in the creation of 15-20% of organic molecules, but research now indicates that the variables were not consistent with the updated model of early earth. Overwhelming variables such as irrelevant atmosphere (e.g. hydrogen and nitrogen levels), irrelevant conditions (e.g. cooling, energy from the sun, and photosynthesis), low yield of molecules, wrong forms of amino acids, the formation of proteins, and RNA synthesis reveal the experiment is invalid (Peet). At the time, this was a breakthrough in evolutionary science; however, now it is deemed incredibly flawed. No such experiment with concrete findings has been successful on the hypothesis to this day.
This is just one example of how our growing knowledge of science has and does hurt preexisting evolutionary theories. It also indicates that we might be blind to see the flaws in our theories today. In fact, the Miller-Urey experiment belongs to a large group of discovers that were later disregarded. A few examples of falsified theories include: Earth as a disk, phrenology, Einstein’s static universe theory, Pons’ nuclear fusion, luminiferous aether, phlogiston theory, and Earth being the center of our solar system (Scientist)–the list goes on. What does this say about present day theories? What will we discover in the future that will abolish existing theories today? Has the world done our generation of scientists a favor and freed them from this recurring human flaw? It’s not likely.

With recent headlines in the news reading, “Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning” (ScienceDaily) and “Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened” (Lunz), it always keeps us reminded that theories are relative and never provide a resolution. Conflicting propositions on the side of the Big Bang, as well as ones against it, leave us wondering if it’s right, wrong, or if it’s neither of these choices. Obviously the latter option is not reasonable, though it sure seems appetizing given the cluster of conflicting information.

Yet another and also dominant explanation for the existence of the universe is known as the “Multiverse Theory.” It entails that our universe is just one of an infinitely vast selection of universes. Cosmologists reason that there are too many fine-tuned variables found on earth (e.g. the Fibonacci Sequence continuously found in nature), and more importantly in the universe, that would occur solely by chance. They have discovered dozens of physical constants that are essential to our function of life–if they were even off by a bit, the universe would not function correctly and life or matter would not exist (Wolchover). For example, the ratio of electrons to protons (fine tuned by 10^37), ratio of electromagnetic force: gravity (10^40), expansion rate of the universe (10^55), and mass density of the universe (10^59) were unexplainable coincidences (Ross).

In 2012, more wariness emerged when the discovery of the Higgs particle unraveled yet another highly unlikely constant that seemed to fit our universe and ours alone. Out of this, they discovered the “cosmological constant,” which is a number that “has to be enormously fine-tuned [10^120] to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance (Wolchover).” This number is so unimaginably precise that it leads cosmological scientists to believe this could not possibly happen by mere chance with a singular Big Bang-another case of an abolished theory.
Wolchover, the writer of the Scientific American article, explains their initial reasoning behind the argument by stating:

“Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.”

It seems as though this is a desperate attempt to deny their utter uncertainty of how our universe started. In order to justify the Multiverse theory, which originates from the indication of a higher power, they create hypothetical mathematical models to express how it could happen. Evidently, as knowledge of our universe increases, scientists have a harder time conceptualizing their preexisting theories and need to resort to even more abstract leaps, with the transition of the Big Bang to the Multiverse Theory as one example. The dominant Multiverse theory is concerning because it is built upon the logical reasoning of scientists, rather than empirical data, pulled from the universe being perfectly sustainable. This is a direct example of the pseudoscience that Scott and others expose. To hold such a theory requires an equal amount of faith, if not more, as theism because it is also unobservable (by scientific means). Should uneducated people blindly submit this pseudoscience promoted by scientists and popular media? If cosmologists believe this, among all things, how can we trust any alternate theory they propose? It’s doubtful this will be the final consensus, though it truly unmasks their uncertainty and their capability to pull “evidence” from unobservable data.

(Note that this is not a belief held by a small group of scientists; it is accepted by the finest of physicists today. Professors from University of Columbia, University of California, Tufts University, and the University of Cambridge are just a few among the many who do–even the well known, Stephen Hawking.)

If the image of modern day science based on mathematical models and unseeing observation appears broken, there is tangible science out there without the use of imagination. Charles Darwin is the father of and also the most notable figure in evolutionary science today, known for his book, The Origin of Species. Michael Behe, a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania and well-known author, challenges Darwin’s writing which states, “‘if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (Behe).’” Darwin wrote his book in 1859, so he did not know all of these advances in science today (e.g. genes and DNA – fundamental aspects of his theory that would completely change his conclusions). Behe damages the authenticity of his book by directly contradicting his statement above by the concept of “Irreducible Complexity.” He explains that it is when a “single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." This includes examples such as the bacterial flagellum (a “microscopic motorboat”), the ATP synthase molecule (molecular energy for the cell), and the Cilium (a “molecular vacuum cleaner [in the throat]) (Behe).” As Darwin said, it is significant because evolution can’t explain how these extremely complex tools in biological systems can somehow evolved to function over a course of 14 billion years. No amount of time is sufficient for these systems to evolve, because even if one of these systems starts to add on bits and pieces in order to perform a task (evolutionary process), there are hundreds of other parts with tasks that are essential to sustain its life. This would result in an endless, repeating cycle of death, preventing evolution from even beginning. As of now, evolutionists cannot explain these phenomena. In fact, the essential building blocks that make up these complex systems are still an enigma, with the Miller-Urey experiment as just one example.
To put irreducible complexity into perspective, the picture below depicts the newly discovered interacting pieces of the flagellum, which all need to be present at the same time in order to function.


[Image: flagellum.png]


(This is not the only substantial evidence of a higher power; there are hundreds of well-supported concerns that only several books could do them justice. A notable example is Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, by Stephen Meyer. Irreducible Complexity was only emphasized to debunk Darwin’s contingent statement.)

It is imperative to realize that we cannot worship both sides: it is either scientific laws behind the existence of our universe (or universes) and life, or a higher power. It is our duty and favor to us as individuals to honestly evaluate the authenticity of both. Secular pseudoscientists are constantly insisting on new theories that we cannot understand yet. It is a faulty pursuit that insists we know the answers for everything, or will know in the soon future. Furthermore, unless you can genuinely believe that these modern scientific assertions are reasonable, it can’t be wise to invest your belief in it. Given all of this, and the equal in integrity evidence that suggests otherwise, the real question should ask who we came from, not how we got here.












Works Cited
Behe, Michael J. "Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference: Behe, Michael." C.S. Lewis Society. Cambridge University, 1994. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Behe, Michael. “Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum.” Digital image. Evolution News, 15 Mar. 2011. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Davidson, Michael W. "Molecular Expressions Cell Biology: Animal Cell Structure - Cilia and Flagella." Cilia and Flagella. N.p., 13 Dec. 2004. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Lunz, Stephen. "Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened." IFLScience. 10 Feb. 2015. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Peet, John. "The Miller-Urey Experiment." Truth in Science, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Ross, Hugh. Dr. Bang Refined by Fire. Pasadena: NavPress, 1998. Print.
Scientist. "10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked." Famous Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
“Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning.” ScienceDaily. N.p., 18 Mar. 2014. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Scott, Donald E. The Electric Sky Book. Introduction. Mikamor Publishing. Portland: Mikamor, 2006. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Wolchover, Natalie. "New Physics Complications Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis." Quanta Magazine, 1 June 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.

So it's nice to see that basically all your god is, is a "gap-filler" as you (as of yet), have no better explanation. That is not, according to Christian Theology, what "faith in God" is. So you're fucked, theologically, and scientifically, as Behe (and his ilk) is one of the world's foremost fools. I will provide all sorts of evidence for that in a bit, when I get back from my tennis match. "Creation" is a meaningless term, (as Dr. Sean Carroll schooled WLC during their debate"). The prior conditions do not allow for use of that concept, (which obviously you are too much of a newbie to even get). You're about to have your ass handed to you. But, meanwhile, have a nice evening.
Tongue ... Weeping ... Drinking Beverage

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-05-2015, 05:55 PM
Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
So.... You come to an atheist site to tell us you're not an atheist.

You been drinking?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Clockwork's post
13-05-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
OK, got my laptop. Let's take a closer look at this.

(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  The Inherent Weaknesses of Evolutionary and Cosmological Science

The most zealously disputed matter encompasses the vital questions of where we came from and how we got here. The disagreement occurs between advocates of deity creation, and secular science explanations. Many evolutionists, cosmologists, and their avid followers claim that the belief in a creator can be discarded based on the overwhelming scientific evidence.
No. That is not the claim made. The claim is that theists have not provided any reason to believe there is a god. Hell, they haven't even defined what god IS. It would however be fair to say that most hold that natural explanations sufficiently remove the need for special creation.

Quote: Although, there are many problems with the secular argument, including: the legitimacy of mainstream astrophysics, the inability to explain the fundamental building blocks of life, humans’ tendency to change and/or omit scientific theories, the obvious inconsistent and desperate theories in cosmology, and the unexplainable origins of complex biological systems.

Some of this is out and out lies, if not then you simply don't understand those theories.

Quote:First of all, it must be made clear that the field of astrophysics often uses entirely inconceivable methods, yet it is still predominantly found in the major scientific magazines.


What are these? I have some understanding of physics and of cosmology, and the methods used in these seem perfectly legitimate. What are these inconceivable methods?

Quote: Scott, who is the author of the Electric Sky: A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy, explains yet another possibility to the origin of matter. More importantly, the first half of the book attempts to expose the field of astrophysics, which he believes is riddled with conjectures and “intangible…validity.” He regards disciplines such as astrophysics as pseudoscience due to its inability to support claims with empirical data: the conclusions are not validated by a grasp of the physical laws of this universe, but rather with theories that are reliant on the hypothetical mathematical models fabricated by scientists with influential power.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

The field of modern cosmology relies on basic physics, which CAN be validated in the lab. All of our information on modern cosmology is based on this. We can verify the physical models we have through experimentation and make guesses (hypotheses) about what we should see in the universe if those physics held constant through the universe. We could be wrong, and the observations could show that. But they don't.

Quote: Since they cannot test a large portion of their theories empirically, due to observing 14 billion years post-factum, the theories are only standing upon the opinion of other likewise thinking scientists. Such positions are “popularized [in] Scientific American, Discover, and National Geographic” (Scott), by which of course sets the standard for magazines and online articles. Apposing theories, like Scott’s, disagree with existing ones and therefore are not popularized. It would also suggest that data that questions, contradicts, and points to a creator would also be under scrutiny. This means that mainstream science should, by no means, imply there is no evidence indicating the opposite. All in all, it is naïve to definitively believe in publicized scientific views because they are both untestable and verified solely by scientists in the same field, with similar humanistic beliefs.

You don't understand how science works. If there was someone who had real evidence to say that the current science was wrong, they would be lauded to the sky. They have presented nothing, and whenever they attempt to push their unsupported ideas without using the proper evidence and with poor methods, they are (rightly) ridiculed for it.

People who are "creation scientists" don't offer evidence for their creator, they just point to gaps in our current understanding and say "god did it." They offer no justification and no way to test their claims. When asked to provide a way to test, in court, they admitted that they would not perform the test since it might not come out in their favor.

These people are dishonest. I have yet to hear a single good argument for creationism or to discredit the current scientific model.

Quote:One of the leading problems with evolution roots from the very start of the formation of life. For life to arise, atoms need to gather and arrange in such a way for amino acids to form, then arrange into proteins, and finally into peptides. After this incredibly complex process, which evolution cannot explain (and is a large topic/branch in itself), an inorganic molecule was believed to evolve. To propose how inorganic (without life) molecules could be converted to organic (life) naturally, in 1953, Stanley Miller conducted an experiment that created organic molecules by using chemical processes. He claimed that he kept the experiment constant at specific variables that were consistent with early earth’s environment. The experiment was successful in the creation of 15-20% of organic molecules, but research now indicates that the variables were not consistent with the updated model of early earth. Overwhelming variables such as irrelevant atmosphere (e.g. hydrogen and nitrogen levels), irrelevant conditions (e.g. cooling, energy from the sun, and photosynthesis), low yield of molecules, wrong forms of amino acids, the formation of proteins, and RNA synthesis reveal the experiment is invalid (Peet). At the time, this was a breakthrough in evolutionary science; however, now it is deemed incredibly flawed. No such experiment with concrete findings has been successful on the hypothesis to this day.

First, this is abiogenesis, not evolution. They are in no way related. Life could have been seeded here and evolution would STILL be true. It would have no bearing on the matter.

Moreover, this IGNORES the massive amount of research done in the past sixty years. It turns out that while Miller's experiment wasn't completely representative it did do what it set out to do, show that organic molecules can arise from inorganic chemicals. Moreover modern scientists have come to find that the more accurate model can provide MORE of the chemicals needed than Miller found in his experiment.

And this isn't the be-all end-all of the study of abiogenesis. There's lipids formed in warm ocean vents, for example. Some believe that the beginning of life comes from a combination of the forces above. Saying that "no evidence has arose since" is a pure LIE. If you want some I'm sure a quick google search will land it for you.

Quote:This is just one example of how our growing knowledge of science has and does hurt preexisting evolutionary theories. all it shows so far is your lack of knowledge if not dishonesty It also indicates that we might be blind to see the flaws in our theories today. In fact, the Miller-Urey experiment belongs to a large group of discovers that were later disregarded. A few examples of falsified theories include: Earth as a disk, phrenology, Einstein’s static universe theory, Pons’ nuclear fusion, luminiferous aether, phlogiston theory, and Earth being the center of our solar system (Scientist)–the list goes on. What does this say about present day theories? What will we discover in the future that will abolish existing theories today? Has the world done our generation of scientists a favor and freed them from this recurring human flaw? It’s not likely.

So your big argument in this one is that "science discarded bad ideas, but it refuses to discard this." So what? Bad science is tossed out, good science is kept. And you aren't being consistent. Above you claim that we are simply ignoring data that conflicts our current theories. Here you say that we have used science in the past to disprove bad scientific theories. So which is it?

Quote: With recent headlines in the news reading, “Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning” (ScienceDaily) and “Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened” (Lunz), it always keeps us reminded that theories are relative and never provide a resolution. Conflicting propositions on the side of the Big Bang, as well as ones against it, leave us wondering if it’s right, wrong, or if it’s neither of these choices. Obviously the latter option is not reasonable, though it sure seems appetizing given the cluster of conflicting information.


You could READ those articles. IIRC the first is about the finding of the cosmic background radiation that is a fingerprint of the first few moments of expansion. And IIRC the second might have involved how the universe might be past infinite. These aren't contradictory. They do require some knowledge of how time and space are related to understand, but they don't contradict each other.

Quote:Yet another and also dominant explanation for the existence of the universe is known as the “Multiverse Theory.” It entails that our universe is just one of an infinitely vast selection of universes. Cosmologists reason that there are too many fine-tuned variables found on earth (e.g. the Fibonacci Sequence continuously found in nature), and more importantly in the universe, that would occur solely by chance. They have discovered dozens of physical constants that are essential to our function of life–if they were even off by a bit, the universe would not function correctly and life or matter would not exist (Wolchover). For example, the ratio of electrons to protons (fine tuned by 10^37), ratio of electromagnetic force: gravity (10^40), expansion rate of the universe (10^55), and mass density of the universe (10^59) were unexplainable coincidences (Ross).

Why would the value of these constants imply a creator? I've never heard a good explanation of this. People just claim it is that way because "if things were different, that would be bad." Fine. If my parents hadn't met I wouldn't have existed either. But they did. Sometimes luck happens. Sometimes constants are fixed, like the value of pi. This doesn't imply a creator, it says that we are creatures that notice patterns.

Quote: In 2012, more wariness emerged when the discovery of the Higgs particle unraveled yet another highly unlikely constant that seemed to fit our universe and ours alone. Out of this, they discovered the “cosmological constant,” which is a number that “has to be enormously fine-tuned [10^120] to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance (Wolchover).” This number is so unimaginably precise that it leads cosmological scientists to believe this could not possibly happen by mere chance with a singular Big Bang-another case of an abolished theory.
Wolchover, the writer of the Scientific American article, explains their initial reasoning behind the argument by stating:

“Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.”

Again, so what? I'm not sure I buy the multiverse theory, but it doesn't really matter. It still doesn't make the idea of a god necessary. It just means we are very lucky.

Quote:It seems as though this is a desperate attempt to deny their utter uncertainty of how our universe started. In order to justify the Multiverse theory, which originates from the indication of a higher power, they create hypothetical mathematical models to express how it could happen. Evidently, as knowledge of our universe increases, scientists have a harder time conceptualizing their preexisting theories and need to resort to even more abstract leaps, with the transition of the Big Bang to the Multiverse Theory as one example. The dominant Multiverse theory is concerning because it is built upon the logical reasoning of scientists, rather than empirical data, pulled from the universe being perfectly sustainable. This is a direct example of the pseudoscience that Scott and others expose. To hold such a theory requires an equal amount of faith, if not more, as theism because it is also unobservable (by scientific means). Should uneducated people blindly submit this pseudoscience promoted by scientists and popular media? If cosmologists believe this, among all things, how can we trust any alternate theory they propose? It’s doubtful this will be the final consensus, though it truly unmasks their uncertainty and their capability to pull “evidence” from unobservable data.

Bull. Fucking. Shit. Again.

The multiverse theory is a way to explain certain phenomena. And it happens to fit into what we know about math and science. All the equations seem to back it up. This isn't a situation where scientists say "we presuppose there is no god, so how do we explain shit?" They honestly want to know how the universe works, and they make explanations to try and understand. They make the best theories they can and test them against observations in the lab or against mathematical models. In either case if the theory stands up to that it is kept for the time being. If not it is discarded. And yes, I said they can and are tested.

Quote:(Note that this is not a belief held by a small group of scientists; it is accepted by the finest of physicists today. Professors from University of Columbia, University of California, Tufts University, and the University of Cambridge are just a few among the many who do–even the well known, Stephen Hawking.)

A misrepresentation. The multiverse theory as you are suggesting is in no way universally accepted. Some believe that this is the only universe. Some don't. We don't know and there is no consensus.

Quote: If the image of modern day science based on mathematical models and unseeing observation appears broken, there is tangible science out there without the use of imagination. Charles Darwin is the father of and also the most notable figure in evolutionary science today, known for his book, The Origin of Species. Michael Behe, a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania and well-known author, challenges Darwin’s writing which states, “‘if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (Behe).’”

Behee is a crook and a liar. Let's look at the rest of the quote, shall we?

Charles Darwin Wrote:IF it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to the theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we take an organ common to all the members of a class, for in this latter case the organ must have been originally formed at a remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.

Quote mining is dishonest. But it's a common tactic among creationists.

Quote: Darwin wrote his book in 1859, so he did not know all of these advances in science today (e.g. genes and DNA – fundamental aspects of his theory that would completely change his conclusions). Behe damages the authenticity of his book by directly contradicting his statement above by the concept of “Irreducible Complexity.” He explains that it is when a “single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." This includes examples such as the bacterial flagellum (a “microscopic motorboat”), the ATP synthase molecule (molecular energy for the cell), and the Cilium (a “molecular vacuum cleaner [in the throat]) (Behe).” As Darwin said, it is significant because evolution can’t explain how these extremely complex tools in biological systems can somehow evolved to function over a course of 14 billion years. No amount of time is sufficient for these systems to evolve, because even if one of these systems starts to add on bits and pieces in order to perform a task (evolutionary process), there are hundreds of other parts with tasks that are essential to sustain its life. This would result in an endless, repeating cycle of death, preventing evolution from even beginning. As of now, evolutionists cannot explain these phenomena. In fact, the essential building blocks that make up these complex systems are still an enigma, with the Miller-Urey experiment as just one example.
To put irreducible complexity into perspective, the picture below depicts the newly discovered interacting pieces of the flagellum, which all need to be present at the same time in order to function.

Would you want the actual video where this is demolished? Because it was done IN COURT. Behee was proven to have no good examples and his best was summarily torn apart.

Quote:(This is not the only substantial evidence of a higher power; there are hundreds of well-supported concerns that only several books could do them justice. A notable example is Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, by Stephen Meyer. Irreducible Complexity was only emphasized to debunk Darwin’s contingent statement.)

This isn't evidence AT ALL. It is simply an argument from lies and ignorance. If you want to prove a god demonstrate god. Don't just insert one because you can't imagine another solution.

Quote: It is imperative to realize that we cannot worship both sides: it is either scientific laws behind the existence of our universe (or universes) and life, or a higher power. It is our duty and favor to us as individuals to honestly evaluate the authenticity of both. Secular pseudoscientists are constantly insisting on new theories that we cannot understand yet. It is a faulty pursuit that insists we know the answers for everything, or will know in the soon future. Furthermore, unless you can genuinely believe that these modern scientific assertions are reasonable, it can’t be wise to invest your belief in it. Given all of this, and the equal in integrity evidence that suggests otherwise, the real question should ask who we came from, not how we got here.

I was right, you don't even bring up any evidence for god. You simply use outdated creationist arguments and lies. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn't know better.

But if you want to talk about god, fine. What is a god? What are the attributes of such a being? How would you define it? What are his abilities and characteristics? How can we test this god directly?

NO god of the gaps, no vague assertions, no bullshit. If you can't answer these then you have no argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 15 users Like natachan's post
13-05-2015, 06:31 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
(13-05-2015 05:04 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  So, you're an Atheist, yet you don't think the universe was created by scientific means? I understand believing this apposed to a deity, but I can't understand how one can disregard both. Explain your views - how did the universe, this world, life, and us come to existence without science or a higher power?

Atheism has nothing to do with how the universe came to be, how life started, or how humans evolved. An atheist may have an opinion on those matters or an atheist may not. It does not matter at all.

An atheist is simply someone who does not believe you when you claim that's there's a god. It's that simple man.

Stop wasting people's time with the same tired "refuted a thousand times" fallacies.

Want to convince an atheist? Start by understanding what atheists and atheism actually are. Then, bring actual hard evident, as opposed to the hilariously bad god of the gap wall of text bullshit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like xieulong's post
13-05-2015, 06:31 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
Anytime something bares resemblance to a "god of the gaps" or "irreducible complexity" argument, I slowly back away from the mental crime scene.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Cosmic Discourse's post
13-05-2015, 06:48 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
I offer you a tale of an amazing story that is a metaphor for this universe and why we exist in this universe compared to another universe in which life might have a greater pressure placed upon it and thus may not be able to thrive as well as we do here.

I give you "The Three Little Pigs"

Each pig made himself a house. The first was made of straw. The second made of sticks and the third made of bricks.
A big bad wolf came along and blew away the house of straw.
He then went to the house of sticks and huffed and puffed and it too was blown away.
When he came to the house of bricks, he discovered that no matter how hard he blew, the house of bricks remained standing.

This universe has the properties it has. It's structure is such that it permits life to arise and sustain itself.
This world we live on is the house of bricks and although there are great dangers to life in the universe, our world helps to protect us from the solar winds and harmful radiation that can end our lives.

If you want to know how the universe rapidly expanded, go study physics and astrophysics and cosmology and astronomy and a host of other sciences.

Start with what we know and explore

Better yet, make some chili and leave it in your fridge for 2 months. You will discover lots of mold.
If you believe that someone created the mold because it's too complex to simply have grown there on it's own, then I can't help you. You are too far gone.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2015, 06:58 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
Too lazy to find the easily located refutations to all of the arguments you've posited?

Willful ignorance.

There is no "I" in "team" but there is a broken and mixed up "me."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheMrBillShow's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: