Actually, Oliver would know that only at the sub-atomic level are things anything close to orderly. At that point most things behave according to a set of well-mapped-out laws, but everything from atoms on up are rife with staggering amounts of chaos.
Oddly enough, some people give this MORE credence as evidence to a presence behind the creation than they would a nicely ordered system. Order is easy to explain by natural laws. Chaos, though, that can be tough.
The Universe is also just a little too complicated and messy and dumb (with racial and religious hatred and nearsightedness and appendixes that need to come out and child and spousal abuse and problems of good and evil and stuff like that) for there to be any rational creative force behind it all. The more you know the more it all looks pointless and scary. (Sigh…)
Well, I didn’t really think you had removed the comment, but I don’t know who did, or how.Anyways, you’re perfectly welcome to list your list. Apparently you think that unless I type out my points, it doesn’t count. Curious argument.As always, you don’t even pretend that you have a scientific explanation for anything; your entire argument boils down to “(my) god did it.” Not very inspiring. Furthermore, you never present any evidence; you just complain about the scientific evidence for the big bang and evolution. Hey, not my problem. I list the books and websites so that those who want can’t check them out.Briefly, the easiest to understand evidence for the big bang is (1) the galaxies are all moving away from each other, with velocities proportional to their distance away from each other, and (2) the 3°K cosmic background microwave radiation.For evolution, the main lines of evidence are (1) nested phylogenies; (2) the convergence of the findings of comparative anatomy, paleontology, and molecular biology (that is a man is closer a monkey than to a horse, and closer to a horse than to a banana, and this is seen in the details of comparative anatomy, the fossil record, and molecular biology (that is, for any given protein common to all, the amino acid sequences of the protein in a man and a monkey will be more similar than those of a man and a horse, which will be more similar than those of a man and a banana). These are all obvious results of evolution; they can’t be explained at all by positing creation of separate, unrelated kinds.Pretending that the distant starlight problem is a problem for real cosmology as well as for creationism is simply dishonest (the light from the Andromeda galaxy that we see today left 2.7 million years ago, as that galaxy is 2.7 million light-years away; where’s the problem?); ditto for quasar 3C124, changing “million” to “billion”.In any case, creationism is unfalsifiable, and so fails by definition to be scientific; there are no “fossil rabbits in the Cambrian” for a creationist, as “god did it” (another word for “magic”) explains (away) anything. After all, there is no difference between claiming that yahweh created light by saying “y’hi ’or” and claiming that Harry Potter created light by saying “lumos”.You repeat that atheists have no basis for morality, a simply calumny; if you read anything other than Ken Ham, you’d know. But, repeated often enough, it keeps the sheeple who send creationist organizations money docile and happy.Your other points make no impression on the scientific world; mere bafflegab. And your claim that islam provides conflicting accounts of the creation of the world is kind of humorous in light of the two conflicting accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.Faith is pretending to know things that you don’t really know. This discussion started when you claimed “The universe will be restored, but is currently fallen, and we have only ourselves to blame” and I asked you for evidence to support that claim. I notice that you didn’t provide any.
geekboy_x over 10 years ago
Actually, Oliver would know that only at the sub-atomic level are things anything close to orderly. At that point most things behave according to a set of well-mapped-out laws, but everything from atoms on up are rife with staggering amounts of chaos.
Oddly enough, some people give this MORE credence as evidence to a presence behind the creation than they would a nicely ordered system. Order is easy to explain by natural laws. Chaos, though, that can be tough.
Sisyphos over 10 years ago
Oliver has had a moment of insight. Or a revelation. Or perhaps even the agenbite of inwit. Or maybe he just tripped (in whatever sense you choose).
nurbz over 10 years ago
what about that “error correcting software” they are finding? ……just say’n…
sbchamp over 10 years ago
Intelligence?Designed?Nah, just us…
jbmlaw01 over 10 years ago
More like a personal Big Bang.
jrankin1959 over 10 years ago
Not too loudly, Oliver — you’ll never get hired by a university these days…
ghretighoti over 10 years ago
The Universe is also just a little too complicated and messy and dumb (with racial and religious hatred and nearsightedness and appendixes that need to come out and child and spousal abuse and problems of good and evil and stuff like that) for there to be any rational creative force behind it all. The more you know the more it all looks pointless and scary. (Sigh…)
markjoseph125 over 10 years ago
Well, I didn’t really think you had removed the comment, but I don’t know who did, or how.Anyways, you’re perfectly welcome to list your list. Apparently you think that unless I type out my points, it doesn’t count. Curious argument.As always, you don’t even pretend that you have a scientific explanation for anything; your entire argument boils down to “(my) god did it.” Not very inspiring. Furthermore, you never present any evidence; you just complain about the scientific evidence for the big bang and evolution. Hey, not my problem. I list the books and websites so that those who want can’t check them out.Briefly, the easiest to understand evidence for the big bang is (1) the galaxies are all moving away from each other, with velocities proportional to their distance away from each other, and (2) the 3°K cosmic background microwave radiation.For evolution, the main lines of evidence are (1) nested phylogenies; (2) the convergence of the findings of comparative anatomy, paleontology, and molecular biology (that is a man is closer a monkey than to a horse, and closer to a horse than to a banana, and this is seen in the details of comparative anatomy, the fossil record, and molecular biology (that is, for any given protein common to all, the amino acid sequences of the protein in a man and a monkey will be more similar than those of a man and a horse, which will be more similar than those of a man and a banana). These are all obvious results of evolution; they can’t be explained at all by positing creation of separate, unrelated kinds.Pretending that the distant starlight problem is a problem for real cosmology as well as for creationism is simply dishonest (the light from the Andromeda galaxy that we see today left 2.7 million years ago, as that galaxy is 2.7 million light-years away; where’s the problem?); ditto for quasar 3C124, changing “million” to “billion”.In any case, creationism is unfalsifiable, and so fails by definition to be scientific; there are no “fossil rabbits in the Cambrian” for a creationist, as “god did it” (another word for “magic”) explains (away) anything. After all, there is no difference between claiming that yahweh created light by saying “y’hi ’or” and claiming that Harry Potter created light by saying “lumos”.You repeat that atheists have no basis for morality, a simply calumny; if you read anything other than Ken Ham, you’d know. But, repeated often enough, it keeps the sheeple who send creationist organizations money docile and happy.Your other points make no impression on the scientific world; mere bafflegab. And your claim that islam provides conflicting accounts of the creation of the world is kind of humorous in light of the two conflicting accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.Faith is pretending to know things that you don’t really know. This discussion started when you claimed “The universe will be restored, but is currently fallen, and we have only ourselves to blame” and I asked you for evidence to support that claim. I notice that you didn’t provide any.