Atheistic View of Creation

[IntruderLS1]

its because your question is pretty much inherently a theological one. You say the big bang theory is "absurd", so you're pretty much advertising that you think creationism is better. But whatever, it was a joke anyways.

Excuse me? I have said this a hundred times in this thread, I am not doing a creationist vs evolutionist thing. I have not mentioned Him even one time. I want to talk about only ONE theory. If you want to talk about God, you know that I'm always happy to share. Let's just do it in an appropriate thread. I have some major concerns with the science you preach because it stands in defiance of very solid principles. I'm trying to get to the bottom of what must be my ignorance on the subject.

I don't even know why I'm showing all of this to you. You won't accept it anyways because you always want god in the picture. This entire thread I think it just a massive strawman argument.

How did you come to that conclusion again? I've been interested in science longer than you have my friend. I’ve studied this subject for years. I'm VERY open to new thoughts and ideas. Science is supposed to question everything. Why are you taking this personally? You said it wasn’t a religious matter for you.

I don't know all the answers, I admit that, I only post what I know, and what has been proven by science thus far. I'm not a scientist.

You posted that you knew all of the laws of physics. You have posted repeatedly that science has proven evolution and the big bang theory beyond question. As such, I'm only interested in talking about what you claim to know. Why shy away from the discussion? Here I am, ready to listen. Ready to talk science with you on the level you act like you’re on. I’m ready to share ideas about things you tell me are fact.

…

Why you believe what you believe?

 

[All Else Failed]

Excuse me? I have said this a hundred times in this thread, I am not doing a creationist vs evolutionist thing. I have not mentioned Him even one time. I want to talk about only ONE theory. If you want to talk about God, you know that I'm always happy to share. Let's just do it in an appropriate thread. I have some major concerns with the science you preach because it stands in defiance of very solid principles. I'm trying to get to the bottom of what must be my ignorance on the subject.



How did you come to that conclusion again? I've been interested in science longer than you have my friend. I’ve studied this subject for years. I'm VERY open to new thoughts and ideas. Science is supposed to question everything. Why are you taking this personally? You said it wasn’t a religious matter for you.



You posted that you knew all of the laws of physics. You have posted repeatedly that science has proven evolution and the big bang theory beyond question. As such, I'm only interested in talking about what you claim to know. Why shy away from the discussion? Here I am, ready to listen. Ready to talk science with you on the level you act like you’re on. I’m ready to share ideas about things you tell me are fact.

…

Why you believe what you believe?

I meant thermodynamics.

Why do I believe what I believe in? Because evidence backs it up, and it makes the most sense.

 

[IntruderLS1]

So you don't want to talk about this anymore then?

 

[TheOriginalJames]

I still don't know how an atheist is supposed to keep religion out of this when expressing his point of view on how the universe was created.

 

[Breath]

You could explain how the world came to be in the absence of divine intervention.

 

[All Else Failed]

So you don't want to talk about this anymore then?

I guess I'll continue.

 

[All Else Failed]

You could explain how the world came to be in the absence of divine intervention.

I did to the best of my knowledge. Actually, There is a special about this very subject I think tomorrow night on the history channel if anyone is interested.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

You could explain how the world came to be in the absence of divine intervention.

The simple answer to this is there is no way to explain it. It's one of lifes mysteries.

 

[dt3]

I still don't know how an atheist is supposed to keep religion out of this when expressing his point of view on how the universe was created.

Religion shouldn't come into play when an atheist describes how the universe is made.

 

[All Else Failed]

Religion shouldn't come into play when an atheist describes how the universe is made.

But its sort of hard not to when the opposing side thinks its ridiculous and thinks god did it. I understand what you are saying but thats how I see it.

 

[IntruderLS1]

But its sort of hard not to when the opposing side thinks its ridiculous and thinks god did it. I understand what you are saying but thats how I see it.

If you didn't know me, you would have no idea I believed in God from this discussion. You can't keep using that crutch in this thread. I haven't mentioned Him a single time remember. You're talking about HIM infinately more than I am.

You said you wanted to continue. Would you like me to re-post my questions, or would you like to go back and answer them in the order you see as best?

 

[Breath]

Restate the question, so we are reminded.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Religion shouldn't come into play when an atheist describes how the universe is made.

But creationism is a religious view, and to rebutt that religion is a part of it.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[All Else Failed]

If you didn't know me, you would have no idea I believed in God from this discussion. You can't keep using that crutch in this thread. I haven't mentioned Him a single time remember. You're talking about HIM infinately more than I am.

You said you wanted to continue. Would you like me to re-post my questions, or would you like to go back and answer them in the order you see as best?

state whatever you want, try not to restate things I've answered a bazillion times.

 

[IntruderLS1]

But creationism is a religious view, and to rebutt that religion is a part of it.

Just my 2 cents.

The word Atheism in my title was not refering to the quasi religion of Atheism. I was using the word in the technical sense in order to clarify that I wasn't interested in a theology debate. I've asked the mods to change the title, which they responded to pretty much instantly.

I'm sorry I didn't phrase it better the first time. I just don't know how best to say it in a short title.

 

[All Else Failed]

oh geez atheism isn't a quasi religion, come on.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

So you don't want to talk about this anymore then?

I guess I'll continue.

Atta boy. Knew you wouldn't let me down.

BTW, I'm utterly fascinated by all this. Just don't feel I'm as able to comment on the subject as you guys are. Great debate/discussion tho. Kudos.

 

[IntruderLS1]

I guess I'll continue.

Good man!!

oh geez atheism isn't a quasi religion, come on.

LOL I wasn't trying to insult you. I don't know why all this theology debate is making it into the thread. It had to be from the name.

It is my understanding that forms of energy become less complex as they are expelled. How is the universe more complex today than it was on the day of the explosion? I think the proper mumbo-jumbo is entropy. Scientifically speaking, you cannot EVER expect to place the building materials of an item, and randomly distribute them to form a more complex item.

DNA and RNA sequences are almost immeasurably complex. How is it scientifically plausible for these acids to evolve?

If we assume it was somehow possible, (Even though it would take a big jump to do so), how did the Sun in our solar system not destroy these initial building blocks of life instantly? Solar radiation WILL cook them in less than a second if unprotected. Last I checked, instantly is a much shorter period of time than is required for evolution to occur.

The lists you provided claim to have the human ancestry fully mapped, but most know that to be a highly questionable claim, even in evolutionary circles....

Okay, back to origins. You were using the idea of an electromagnetic vacuum to protect the basic building blocks of life through the unstable first x-period of time before life was able to evolve. A kind of molecular stasis field if I’m reading you right. ... The problem I find with this is that for the ‘vacuum’ to release its atoms, energy is required to overcome the negative charges that are holding them in place at the quantum level. The sun would indeed be a great source of energy for this, but the release would be anything but complete or organized. Individual atoms would release as they were properly motivated, and would lose any coding they may have contained while in stasis.

You seem to be frustrated at the thought I do not understand you when you say things evolve to become more complex as time goes on. I do understand what you are saying. Here comes the big word entropy again though. The second law tells us that order is decaying. Energy is being spent and bled off in the universe, usually in the form of heat. To look at micro-evolution of an animal is a poor comparison to the addition of complexity in a strand of DNA. For an animal to adapt to its environment in a different way does not add to the complexity of the total creature. Certain character traits are emphasized though breeding, but the ‘source code’ if you would remains either unchanged, or is simplified through the discarding of useless code.

For an RNA strand to form out of simple materials isn’t possible. I understand that things change and adapt to current environments, but the fragile state of the various amino acids required for development of life could not physically survive the transition process. You’re talking about the addition of million upon millions of ‘bits of data’ in a cell that has no carrier, no shell, no form, and no protection from the elements. It is simply an impossible leap to make the claim that it could do so.

Here we are on life again. LOL My fault. **Clears throat** Creation of the cosmos... The accepted theory is that all matter and energy in the universe were at one point concentrated in a singularity of unknown size. When that singularity went supernova on us, how is it possible that a vastly more complex system came to rise? This is where name callers would say I’m using the watchmaker argument again, but I am not. I am asking a legitimate, scientific question, and I offer no explanation of my own. The accepted laws of physics say this isn’t a reasonable assumption to make. As such, a skeptic MUST question our loyalty to the idea.

In the singularity, all elements had to be forced together in a pressure cooker I would be skeptical we could calculate the power of. What could fuse, would no doubt fuse under that pressure, and what could not would simply pool with like elements and wait for something to happen. When the singularity expanded (I think explosion is a better word, but it isn't important), how did the elements break apart again, and move in equal ways in all directions? ...

Ask any explosives expert, and they'll all tell you that the nails on top of the frag move up, and the nails on the bottom of the frag move down. How is it physically possible for this to not have happened?


FWIW though, elemental decay is textbook. We know how things fall apart.

I'm talking about a cross section of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

 

[All Else Failed]

I answered most of those questions already....

 

[IntruderLS1]

With answers that weren't rebutted post-haste?