Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[downbeatplumb]

l
the contemporary scientific enterprise is locked in to interpreting data to fit into a naturalism framework which means all theories, discoveries, and phenomenon must explained materialistically or make an appeal to the future. so what else could he say even if he thought otherwise? naturalistic researchers, scientists, authors will never interpret data, observation that won't have a materialistic conclusion. for instance - "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." -Richard Dawkins. interesting to read what they say, but the conclusion won't be philosophically unbiased.

In the past science was all about looking for evidence of god and trying to explain his creation.

It moved away from that when it became clear that the requirement for a divine creator was and would most likely never be found, in fact "materialistic" answers were all that was required for everything.

I am in fact unsure how a non-materialistic view of the universe could explain anything at all in any meaningful way

[Cyberman]

like we didn't know hawking is atheist and his latest book would have a naturalism conclusion.

Bullshit. That didn't stop you quoting him when you thought it suited your purpose. Now your own quotemine has come back to bite you in the arse and you won't even acknowedge it?

[Alex K]

Was away for 6 months. In this thread, nothing changed

[Brian37]

Where the universe came from does not constitute a magical sky hero to be the starting point. What science does not know currently does not default to our own human desires. It simply means that we have not figured out what is going on.

[Cyberman]

Was away for 6 months. In this thread, nothing changed

Evidence against evolution?

[Anomalocaris]

Was away for 6 months. In this thread, nothing changed

Christian worldview is an act of 2000 year old intellectual stagnation, founded upon what had been bottom quartile atavistic garbage even for the ignorant era of its beginning. Why would it suddenly show progress in 6 month?

[snowtracks]

like we didn't know hawking is atheist and his latest book would have a naturalism conclusion.

Bullshit. That didn't stop you quoting him when you thought it suited your purpose. Now your own quotemine has come back to bite you in the arse and you won't even acknowedge it?

maybe, just maybe there was a reason I ref authors that are atheists and didn't think I have to state the obvious. but the main thing is, you protected the weak-minded by pointing out the obvious - authors' materialistic conclusions - and in everyone's book that's extremely meritorious.

[Anomalocaris]

You seem to assume atheism would bias a particular author towards materialistic explanations. It could very well be true. But that doesn't matter.

It is the potency and successful track record of materialistic explanations and the absence of comparable record on the other side which would make any knowledgeable and genuinely unbiased author atheistic.

While most authors, atheistic or theistic, are neither unbiased nor well informed. Unbiased and well inform authors must be atheistic.

[snowtracks]

here's some examples.
The bacteria take zinc and sulfur from the water and combine them to create a byproduct of sphalerite--the sulfide usually reacts with metals such as zinc to create insoluble products.
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5266797_sph...ormed.html
Sulfate-reducing bacteria can be traced back to 3.5 billion years ago and are considered to be among the oldest forms of microorganisms, having contributed to the sulfur cycle soon after life emerged on Earth.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...lfur+cycle

Seriously, now... what does organic (the sulfur kind) chemistry has to do with breaking down heavy metals?
A metal is an element in the middle part of the periodic table, the further down the table, the heavier it is.
Breaking down any element, you get lighter elements and the most common element that undergoes such breaking down is Uranium-238... well, not really, phosphorous is probably much more common, as you can find it in clay which make up bricks and can be found in every construction site, but it's not a metal.

But you were talking about sulfate and sulfide, both compounds which have sulfur in them... along with other things.
Sulfide is S^2-, which is just an ion of sulfur with 2 extra electrons, ready to combine with some other ion with a deficit of electrons.
Sulfate is SO4^2-, a molecular ion, also with 2 extra electrons.
What do these have to do with breaking down heavy metals?

referenced bacteria (sulfur-reducing) because they have made economic mining of ores possible since bacteria coalesces minerals in high concentrations. one reason life thrives on earth is because of its low sulfur-water ratio, mars doesn't.
more ref's: http://openwetware.org/images/2/2c/Encap...Paper5.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...151031.htm
http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/29/28483.pdf
not sure why bacteria's role in preparing the earth for life by reducing the toxicity of heavy metals is controversial.

[Anomalocaris]

It is actually not controversial. In fact, of the approximately 6000 types of mineral known to exist on earth, at least half are thought to require conditions or chemistry made possible by biological activities in order to form.