Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[chi pan]

ok first of all the point of the vidio is to show 2 scientists who have credable degrees argueing the points of creation vs evolution and if you would watch it you would see that both have a good arguement on their side which means creation does have science on it's side or it wouldn't last a second yet alone an hour in a rational debate. second, yes i know the area seams rather big and it's not just earth in that area but mars as well which is why we think at one point mars had life on it. but you have to factor other things as well like look at how the planets spin. mercury and venus both spin far too slow so their days are far too long so even if they were in the good zone, it wouldn't mean anything cuz it gets far too hot in the day and far too cold at night. large plannets like jupiter and saturn spin faster having days less than half that of earth, but the earth spins at the right speed to make the earth warm enough during the day and not make it too cold at night. and it's "lucky for us" we have iron in the earths magnetic core to create a magnetic field around the earth so it can protect us from most all the solar wind from the sun. it's also lucky we have this form of oxygen called ozone that also protects us from radiation. the point is we have so many systems one built on another and some systems that depend on eachother symultaniously in order to work. and you might claim that there's a slight chance that natural events occured to put the simplist organism together but then how was the information put into the dna that gave it how to do the vital functions to survive? it's like saying a computer was programmed without a programmer. laws of thermodynamics state that things in nature don't get better, they get worse. forces of nature most commonly destroy things and have never been shown to create them. the only things in space that stars can create is space crap, possibly new stars, and black holes. and one more thing, all the mutation we've seen ourselves has been harmful to the organism, so then how is mutation good for developement? some mutation is harmless like having an extra finger or toe or an unusual eye color but others like down syndrome and various other kinds of birth defects are harmful. i challenge anyone to find a mutation that has occured in humans that was benifitial in terms of developement, and survival.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, you challenge anyone eh? Look, I don't give a shit if it was a resurrected einstein telling us that jesus christ was his savior. You have to have evidence. Others replicate the experiment. It goes to peer review. These things stand or fall on the evidence, not the credentials of their proponents. You've taken plenty of time to describe well understood things such as feedback loops in nature (perhaps you don't understand how these things could happen, try not to extend your ignorance any farther than your own mind). The only thing I haven't seen is any support for your own position. Is everything you have on this based on bitching and moaning about science, what we don't know (or what you don't know, more accurately)? If that's the case just audit some community college courses. You wont get ay credit, but it won't cost you a dime and the knowledge you walk away with is worth more than the college credit anyway. You're actually supposed to have a working knowledge of these subjects by the time you graduate highschool, so I'm not entirely sure how you ended up in the position you seem to be in.

Pro tip, you're still inserting language that does not belong. "Creation" of a human life doesn't seem much like creation to the things that are consumed to enable this event. All the chickens that lost their lives so that my daughters might live, for example. Similarly, simple lifeforms "destroy" mineral formations in order to survive. We're here by tooth and nail, there is no evidence for anything else, unless you're about to break through the wall and open our eyes. I'll respond to this point by point, but it'll take me a few.

[Minimalist]

creation does have science on it's side or it wouldn't last a second yet alone an hour in a rational debate.

Nor does it. Mouth-breathing morons ranting about fucking god creating the universe 6,000 years ago is "religion" not "science."

[The Grand Nudger]

ok first of all the point of the vidio is to show 2 scientists who have credable degrees argueing the points of creation vs evolution and if you would watch it you would see that both have a good arguement on their side which means creation does have science on it's side or it wouldn't last a second yet alone an hour in a rational debate.

No, it doesn't. People can argue over whatever they like. Again, no such thing as "creation science", only science. If they want to join the party they'll have to stop posting in their own little clubs and produce something of merit. I wish them all the luck in the world, they'll need it.

second, yes i know the area seams rather big and it's not just earth in that area but mars as well which is why we think at one point mars had life on it. but you have to factor other things as well like look at how the planets spin. mercury and venus both spin far too slow so their days are far too long so even if they were in the good zone, it wouldn't mean anything cuz it gets far too hot in the day and far too cold at night. large plannets like jupiter and saturn spin faster having days less than half that of earth, but the earth spins at the right speed to make the earth warm enough during the day and not make it too cold at night.

It doesn't seem big, it is big. Add in all the qualifiers you like, it's looking less and less hospitable to life. Weren't you arguing for a fine tuned universe, sounds an awful lot like you're arguing against it.

and it's "lucky for us" we have iron in the earths magnetic core to create a magnetic field around the earth so it can protect us from most all the solar wind from the sun. it's also lucky we have this form of oxygen called ozone that also protects us from radiation. the point is we have so many systems one built on another and some systems that depend on eachother symultaniously in order to work.

Luck had nothing to do with how our planet ended up with iron. We didn't have anything to do with it either. Luck also has nothing to do with oxygen. The amounts we have are a byproduct of life. A toxic byproduct of life, in fact. We depend upon these systems, they do not depend on each other. Find me human remains that predate the explosion of oxygen in our atmosphere due to the emergence of simple life.

and you might claim that there's a slight chance that natural events occured to put the simplist organism together but then how was the information put into the dna that gave it how to do the vital functions to survive? it's like saying a computer was programmed without a programmer.

What, supernatural events? Care to quantify that? It doesn't really matter how slim the chances are. It's likely that you'll never win the lottery, but someone always does. The information objection? This is such trash I wont even take the time. Google it yourself. Your "creation scientists" are attempting to redefine a word that already has an accepted use, as well as introduce "creation information" which canot be shown to exist. Word games, not science. While you're on about computers programming themselves, google hueristic expressions and emergence. We didn't invent the laws that make computers work, we discovered them. We're operators, not creators, in the purest sense.

laws of thermodynamics state that things in nature don't get better, they get worse.

You're invoking a law that doesn't apply to our system, which is constantly receiving energy from the sun. You're also inserting language like "better", which does belong. That's your own value judgement. Extinct creatures would like to mention that the universe hasn't gotten any better at all.

forces of nature most commonly destroy things and have never been shown to create them. the only things in space that stars can create is space crap, possibly new stars, and black holes.

Fuck me, I guess I don't exist then, since nature isn't in the business of creating anything. Again, the language you've chosen is screwing with you. I wasn't "created" at the moment of my birth or any moment in the history of life. Merely rearranged.

and one more thing, all the mutation we've seen ourselves has been harmful to the organism, so then how is mutation good for developement? some mutation is harmless like having an extra finger or toe or an unusual eye color but others like down syndrome and various other kinds of birth defects are harmful. i challenge anyone to find a mutation that has occured in humans that was benifitial in terms of developement, and survival.

Thusfar, all mutations have been deleterious in the long run (excepting those that are currently in existence..and that's provisional). Dinosaurs had plenty of mutations that allowed them to dominate this rock for a very long time, sadly, those same mutations left them high and dry when the shit hit the fan. By beneficial you mean things like increased enzyme production in saliva to break down wheat or dairy within the last 10,000 years? Increased brain size allowing for more precise motor skills necessary for tool making and tool use? Drift in the spine and hips to better adapt us to upright locomotion? Mutations like that? Guess we'll have to wait and see how it all turns out before we can call them beneficial, since by your challenge I take it you don't think they are? There are creatures that get by without eating wheat or dairy, making or using tools, or walking upright. So I guess it's a wash isn't it?

[chi pan]

you're right, saying who created the universe is not science and cannot be explained scientifically. it's also not scientific to say that God created the universe and that can't possibly be proven nor can any other theory of cosmology due to the fact that we weren't there and don't have a time machine to go back in time and observe this. it is scientific, however, to say that it is most likely that the universe is a creation and so is everything in it. and since it's been so long since the earth's creation, the only way to prove my point scientifically is to prove that "it didn't just create itself." religion is a belief that can't be proven or disproven because all evidence is spiritual and can't be observed physically, but science can be proven or disproven. therefore the only way to prove creation is more likely is to go to your theories and point out what's wrong. those are the facts.

---

"It doesn't seem big, it is big. Add in all the qualifiers you like, it's looking less and less hospitable to life. Weren't you arguing for a fine tuned universe, sounds an awful lot like you're arguing against it.

well you're partially right, i believe the universe was created by an all powerful all knowing being but i do not believe it was created perfectfully. i believe in the bible story that since the fall of man god has made the eath imperfect because it's our temporary home until we die. eventually the earth will end and god will make a new one and it will be perfect but this one is definately not perfect. none of this can be scientifically proven of course just gonna have to wait and see.

[The Grand Nudger]

We don't need a time machine. Don't burn my fields as you beat the drum for retreat. It's not scientific to invoke a creator, of any stripe. You explain what you do not know by way of what you do, not by invoking manufactured concepts based in a predictable bias with no explanatory power whatsoever. It is not scientific to say that the universe was created. That's your religion, nothing more. You could prove your point any number of ways that I can think of, and probably many more that I can't. You've chosen this route because it's all you have. It still doesn't work, mostly because you don't have your own shit straight. There are people who make their living criticizing scientific theories. You aren't one of them, and there's a reason for that. You'd very much like for your religion to get special treatment, to be ultimately unknowable. Well then stick with that, and stop claiming to know anything about god whatsoever, or any of his actions. Up to and including some "creation" narrative. Everything we know could be horribly wrong and that still wouldn't make you right. You should "prove creation" by making a case for creation. I don't think you'd be able to recognize a fact if it bit you in the ass, seriously.

[chi pan]

well according to someone elst on this page who posted a youtube vidio of a scientist talking about the scientific method, the first step is a guess. after that there's experiment, and if the experiment doesn't work, it's wrong. if it does work then it could be right. if a theory can never reach the experiment phase, then all you can do is work out probability. someone could say the moon was made of green cheese, which is rediculous it scientifically can't be proven wrong unless we go there and confirm it's just rocks. when it comes to what's already happened, we can only go by what people have seen and recorded and trust that it's right. beyond that, what humans were unable to record, we can only guess. even if we made an experiment where we created our own mini universe and observed how everything took place and the result was a universe similar to our own, we can't say that's how it happened only that it's most likely. but that would be very convincing evidence. though it can never be scientifically conclusive how the universe came to be without observing it first hand, it can be deturmined what's more probable. based on the evidence i believe it's more probable that the earth was created than it just happened. what i'm trying to do on this page is find out if i'm wrong when someone can come to me with good explinations for these wholes in the theories or really any evidence of experimentation that proved any theory of evelution right other than the one saying it's possible under cirtain atsmopheric conditions for protien units to be created.
and the only way i could further prove it is not based on what happened but what's going to happen looking at cirtain prophicies of the bible but i didn't think that would be a subject ppl here would like to hear.

[The Grand Nudger]

Testimony makes terrible evidence, thankfully that's not all we have to go on (why on earth would you think that it was?). In fact, whenever testimony is all the support offered for any given claim it gets dropped like a bad habit.
"No I really did turn this lead into gold..you have to believe me, you just have too!"

You obviously believe many strange things, let's not confuse your beliefs with facts. It's not "more probable" that the universe was created by your god or any god. There is no evidence for your god or any god. You're mostly looking to fill gaps in your own knowledge, from what I can see, not gaps in the body of knowledge we call science. You can obviously operate a computer so you should be able to find specific things like experiments in support of or observing evolution. If you want to add to the body of knowledge I suggest you do science, instead of attempting apologetics.

Lastly, there are no prophecies in the bible. Prophecy or precognition is a fairy tale, it doesn't exist.

Let's recap:
The universe is fine tuned and created! - No, it isn't.
Science is wrong about [insert something you're hopelessly out of your depth on here]!- Probably not, but even if it were you aren't right by default.
The bible can tell the future! - No it can't, no it hasn't, and no it won't. Prophecy is a construct of our imagination.

[chi pan]

it's not freaking testimony, it's humin definition for the human process of the scientific method that all scientists supposidly go by and the video isn't a testamony it's a source b/c i like to back up these kind of claims to prevent the common "no it's not." i provided a source and if you don't agree that's the scientific method then go get a counter source

---

it's not a testimony it's a source. if you don't agree that's what the scientific method then provide a source saying otherwise

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you've misunderstood. When dealing with past events, testimony is the weakest possible source. We have many other options available to us. When dealing with the moon, we needn't go there to rule out cheese definitively. These are permissive qualifiers that appeal to you because they afford your religion a sense of credibility it does not deserve.

Correct application of the scientific method is still no promise of accuracy btw. You can do everything right and still be wrong. Sad but true. The scientific method provides us with explanations that carry a decent amount of provisional certainty. That is to say "this is our explanation, until such a time as new information becomes available to us about either the subject at hand or our methods for determining the veracity of this explanation". One of the strengths of the whole enterprise actually.