Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)

[trdsf]

Of course, the big elephant in the room is this: the obvious interpretation of our observations of the universe is that everything started in what appears to be a Big Bang, that the Earth coalesced from a cloud of interstellar dust about 4.5 billion years ago, that the earliest forms of life arose about 3.5 billion years ago, and that it slowly evolved over the intervening billions of years, eventually ending up with the current world around us.

Now take into account the tortured gyrations Mousetrap does to try to extract scientific meaning from Genesis, especially since Mousetrap implicitly admits that even if they don't believe in it, that reality at least looks like it's vastly older than a few millennia â€" otherwise their delusional desperation to reconcile Genesis with real world observations is unnecessary.

If, in a charitable mood, you decide to entertain Mousetrap's nonsense just for the sake of argument, you are immediately forced to conclude that any god behind that kind of creation must by definition be not merely dishonest, but sadistically dishonest.  The universe definitely looks like it's 13.8 billion years old.  The Earth definitely looks like it's 4.5 billion years old.  Life definitely looks like it's 3.5 billion years old.  Evolution definitely looks like it's the path that led from early self-replicating molecules to all life forms we know about.

A god who would create a universe that so very definitively and consistently looks like the 13.8 billion year old universe as revealed to us by science and that every conceivable observation would lead us to conclude is as we observe it, but in reality is only a few millennia old?  That's no god, that's a demon.  A despicable, lying fiend who deserves contempt, not worship.  A total fucking asshole with no more moral authority than a six year old burning ants with a magnifying glass.

[Cavebear]

Of course, the big elephant in the room is this: the obvious interpretation of our observations of the universe is that everything started in what appears to be a Big Bang, that the Earth coalesced from a cloud of interstellar dust about 4.5 billion years ago, that the earliest forms of life arose about 3.5 billion years ago, and that it slowly evolved over the intervening billions of years, eventually ending up with the current world around us.

Now take into account the tortured gyrations Mousetrap does to try to extract scientific meaning from Genesis, especially since Mousetrap implicitly admits that even if they don't believe in it, that reality at least looks like it's vastly older than a few millennia â€" otherwise their delusional desperation to reconcile Genesis with real world observations is unnecessary.

If, in a charitable mood, you decide to entertain Mousetrap's nonsense just for the sake of argument, you are immediately forced to conclude that any god behind that kind of creation must by definition be not merely dishonest, but sadistically dishonest.  The universe definitely looks like it's 13.8 billion years old.  The Earth definitely looks like it's 4.5 billion years old.  Life definitely looks like it's 3.5 billion years old.  Evolution definitely looks like it's the path that led from early self-replicating molecules to all life forms we know about.

A god who would create a universe that so very definitively and consistently looks like the 13.8 billion year old universe as revealed to us by science and that every conceivable observation would lead us to conclude is as we observe it, but in reality is only a few millennia old?  That's no god, that's a demon.  A despicable, lying fiend who deserves contempt, not worship.  A total fucking asshole with no more moral authority than a six year old burning ants with a magnifying glass.

And that is what creationists and some less thoughtful theists generally think.  I am constantly shocked when people or neighbors I meet at parties or in general conversation suggest that might be a possibility.  There are more of them like that than I would like there to be.

[Baruch]

And that is what creationists and some less thoughtful theists generally think.  I am constantly shocked when people or neighbors I meet at parties or in general conversation suggest that might be a possibility.  There are more of them like that than I would like there to be.

That is pretty naive at your age.  Are you really only 20 years old?  You should have developed more cynicism and a thicker skin by now.  Also less egotism, since even your own shit stinks too.  The world makes you uncomfortable because of the many monkeys in it?  Hopefully you aren't thinking of a final solution for monkey problem.

[Mr.Obvious]

[Baruch]

You might want to edit that, to get rid of the invisible ink ;-)

[Mike Cl]

Before that happens those bones will be dust. :)

[Mousetrap]

Of course, the big elephant in the room is this: the obvious interpretation of our observations of the universe is that everything started in what appears to be a Big Bang, that the Earth coalesced from a cloud of interstellar dust about 4.5 billion years ago, that the earliest forms of life arose about 3.5 billion years ago, and that it slowly evolved over the intervening billions of years, eventually ending up with the current world around us.

Now take into account the tortured gyrations Mousetrap does to try to extract scientific meaning from Genesis, especially since Mousetrap implicitly admits that even if they don't believe in it, that reality at least looks like it's vastly older than a few millennia â€" otherwise their delusional desperation to reconcile Genesis with real world observations is unnecessary.

If, in a charitable mood, you decide to entertain Mousetrap's nonsense just for the sake of argument, you are immediately forced to conclude that any god behind that kind of creation must by definition be not merely dishonest, but sadistically dishonest.  The universe definitely looks like it's 13.8 billion years old.  The Earth definitely looks like it's 4.5 billion years old.  Life definitely looks like it's 3.5 billion years old.  Evolution definitely looks like it's the path that led from early self-replicating molecules to all life forms we know about.

A god who would create a universe that so very definitively and consistently looks like the 13.8 billion year old universe as revealed to us by science and that every conceivable observation would lead us to conclude is as we observe it, but in reality is only a few millennia old?  That's no god, that's a demon.  A despicable, lying fiend who deserves contempt, not worship.  A total fucking asshole with no more moral authority than a six year old burning ants with a magnifying glass.

Let's see what you are claiming.

1. The universe definitely looks like it's 13.8 billion years old.

I agree.

2.  The Earth definitely looks like it's 4.5 billion years old. 

I agree

3. Life definitely looks like it's 3.5 billion years old. 

Realy? I look as old as I am, and do not know of anything that is 3.5 billion years old. Please supply me with evidence.

4. Evolution definitely looks like it's the path that led from early self-replicating molecules to all life forms we know about.

Evolution looks like it dates from 1865 pal.
It is a Theory with zero evidence.

[Mousetrap]

Before that happens those bones will be dust. :)

Please do not wait for me.
I do not want anyone to be convinced of what I hold as true.
On the contrary, I am in an attempt to see what this incredible evidence is that Atheists has to prove the Bible incorrect.
I was proven wanted when I was an atheist.

If anyone should be convinced it is Me.
But so far I am disappointed with the personal and vulgar attacks by the staunchest opposed to the Bible.
But, I love it when I realize that the small descriptions from an "ancient book composed by camel and sheep herders" can keep the ignorant fighting and swearing in realization that this "Mythological" composition was the very source for Science.
You should actually go and google and find out how science was founded and matured on the writings in the Bible.

[trdsf]

Let's see what you are claiming.

The universe definitely looks like it's 13.8 billion years old.  The Earth definitely looks like it's 4.5 billion years old.

I agree.I agree

Even on those two points alone, that's enough to convict any putative deity who created everything 6,000 years ago of being a liar.

Realy? I look as old as I am, and do not know of anything that is 3.5 billion years old. Please supply me with evidence.

Every single science that has anything to say about life and time agrees that life began about 3.5 billion years ago.  Every single one.  If you want to dismiss this, you need to prove physics, chemistry, biology and geology are all wrong, not just handwave at it.  Good luck with that.

Also, I just love the "were you there?" argument.  Were you there six thousand years ago to observe what you claim?

I didn't think so, Captain Hypocrisy.

Evolution looks like it dates from 1865 pal.
It is a Theory with zero evidence.

Are you really that obtuse?  All right, I'll spell it out all the way for you, if you want to play these baby-ass word games.

The theory of evolution dates to 1858, not 1865.  On top of everything else, you obviously don't know how Google and Wikipedia work.  Insert eyeroll and heavy sigh here.  1865 was the year Mendel demonstrated genetics, although the exact biochemical means by which traits were passed down weren't understood until much later.  Proto-evolutionary theory (of varying degrees of sensibility) dates to the ancient Greeks.

One wonders where mankind might be by now had Demokritos' scientific ways prevailed over Aristotelian physics and Pythagorean mysticism.

Evolution is and has been an ongoing process, that began and operated long before Darwin and Wallace formulated their theory -- or do you also think there was no gravity until Newton described it in 1686?  That neon and krypton and xenon didn't actually physically exist until Ramsey and Travers isolated them in 1898?

Evolution is one of the best attested, best supported scientific theories there is.  It has been observed in the laboratory, and in the field, and is clearly demonstrated by the fossil record.

It is the foundation of all modern biological sciences -- or do you go to a faith healer rather than a doctor?  Why do you think the flu shot changes from winter to winter?  That's evolution in action, my poor self-deluding mouse.  If there were no evolution, there would never be a need to change the annual flu shot.

It's not my fault you can't accept reality as it is.

[Mike Cl]

Please do not wait for me.
I do not want anyone to be convinced of what I hold as true.
On the contrary, I am in an attempt to see what this incredible evidence is that Atheists has to prove the Bible incorrect.
I was proven wanted when I was an atheist.

If anyone should be convinced it is Me.
But so far I am disappointed with the personal and vulgar attacks by the staunchest opposed to the Bible.
But, I love it when I realize that the small descriptions from an "ancient book composed by camel and sheep herders" can keep the ignorant fighting and swearing in realization that this "Mythological" composition was the very source for Science.
You should actually go and google and find out how science was founded and matured on the writings in the Bible.

You are aptly named, for you are, indeed, in a trap, even if it is of your own making.  You have convinced yourself into a corner and now pride keeps you there, for you just know you are right.  Don't look at any facts or actual data, no, let's just keep the belief and faith cages working and you can stay in this comfortable trap.  It takes more than just 'to google' to find actual data and facts; one has to learn how to discern (didn't mean to bring up one of your huge failings) between fact and fiction.  But then, fiction for you is much more comfortable and it is really frightening for you out of your trap and cave. 

[trdsf]

Please do not wait for me.
I do not want anyone to be convinced of what I hold as true.
On the contrary, I am in an attempt to see what this incredible evidence is that Atheists has to prove the Bible incorrect.
I was proven wanted when I was an atheist.

If anyone should be convinced it is Me.
But so far I am disappointed with the personal and vulgar attacks by the staunchest opposed to the Bible.
But, I love it when I realize that the small descriptions from an "ancient book composed by camel and sheep herders" can keep the ignorant fighting and swearing in realization that this "Mythological" composition was the very source for Science.
You should actually go and google and find out how science was founded and matured on the writings in the Bible.

Since you have demonstrated an inability to read for comprehension, consider the stray vulgarism a way of getting your attention.  Otherwise you tune out after two or three words and never bother actually responding to points made.  Also, you have demonstrated a tendency to lie about facts, even after being corrected.

In short, if you don't want to be fucking cussed at, stop doing stupid fucking shit.

Also, it's not our job to "prove" the bible "incorrect".  It's yours to prove it correct, if that's what you want to assert.  Hint: you're doing it wrong.  If you want it taken seriously as science, then you should be able to get all your data and evidence together and get it into a peer-reviewed science journal.  You know, like real sciences do.

As it stands, there is not a shred of evidence that the Genesis account is anything more than an Iron Age campfire tale, a made-up story to explain the universe before we learned how to actually observe the universe and explain it ever more accurately.  It stands contrary to everything we observe about the human species, about biology, about geology, about astronomy, and flies in the face of common sense.

You need to come in here with more than made-up bullshit about mudballs and magically changing atmospheres.  Hard data convinces skeptics, not special pleading, dishonesty, and a complete lack of consistency, coherence, and repeatable observations.

The only good thing to come out of all this is that I did not previously know that the cometary water hypothesis was no longer favored.  I was still convinced by the old theory and did not know it had been largely superseded.  I looked it up anyway because unlike you, facts matter to me.  You have demonstrated that they do not matter to you.

Reality is what it is, it's not what I think it should be, and it's damn skippy not what you think it should be.

[Baruch]

So you are Skeletor?  How is He-Man doing these days? ;-)

[Mr.Obvious]

So you are Skeletor?  How is He-Man doing these days? ;-)

He still won't return my walkman.

[Baruch]

He still won't return my walkman.

Another name for Man-At-Arms?

[Munch]

I honestly gave up giving a shit about this guy, I feel you guys are putting to much energy in arguing against someone who can't get out of his bubble and never will.