7:46 Dinish 'ask about causation when we are dealing with things we have some experience with' 8:45 Dinish 'not legitimate to ask who made god, we have no experience of god or gods'
He then goes on to explain how to not answer a question but change it around to the other person.
This is why debates do nothing to establish which truth claims are more likely. These debates are asking the wrong questions. They play to the audience rather than addressing the issues. Frustrating.
For someone who says "we have no experience of god or gods," Dinesh make an awful lot of claims about a god. People can't ask who made god, yet he can tell us confidently that god made us? Am I missing something here?
I listened to only a few minutes, but could not stand to listen to D'Souza anymore. His comments about atheists losing debates and therefore not being the champions of reason almost turned me off right away.
I wanted to ask what science do Christians reject? Atheist reject the law of bio-genesis, the cell theory and the laws of thermal dynamics. They refuse to discuss the first cause of the universe, of life and animal life. I know we look at the same evidence in a different way. We look at common DNA and see a common designer, you see a common first cell.
Cameron scientists don't 'refuse to discuss the first cause of the universe, of life and animal life' they ask those questions all the time and try to find evidence to come up with a reasonable conclusion. Theists say the answer is god with no supporting evidence except a book of claims.
You see a common designer where science says it doesn't know what happened.
Sorry I meant thermodynamics. How did life evolve going against the entropic flow? How did DNA come together in the first place? How did cells form? If I were to win the lottery 100 times in a row would you think that is just one of those things that happen or would you suspect intelligent interference?
How did life evolve going against the entropic flow?
First off, the concept you are talking about is called entropy, and second you are talking about supposed violations of the second law of thermodynamics, which you clearly haven't ever studied or really have the first clue about what their implications truly are. The fact is, if your assumptions were correct, babies could not form from a single egg in the womb as that is a huge decrease in entropy. Either the second law of thermodynamics is wrong, or you don't understand it. As someone who does understand the second law of thermodynamics, I can tell you quite confidently that you are wrong and you don't know what you are talking about.
How did DNA come together in the first place? How did cells form?
A veiled argument from incredulity. Look it up. It's a fallacious argument.
If I were to win the lottery 100 times in a row would you think that is just one of those things that happen or would you suspect intelligent interference?
A simple minded example that shows a lack of understanding of the true probabilities and the chemistry that is thought to be involved.
Go back to school Cameron. You may want to try and claim that I haven't addressed your arguments and that would be true. It is also true that you clearly wouldn't understand the responses anyway, so I'm not going to bother educating you. You will have to do this yourself.
If you are going to try to criticize evolution please, for the love of Pete, at least do some reading on the subject. There are many excellent books out there that present the theory of evolution and the overwhelming evidence for it.
I used to do the same thing, criticize evolution thinking I knew what I was talking about. Then I decided to actually sit down and read and objectively (as best as I could) evaluate the arguments and evidence presented. I came away a changed person.
Glock, I agree that there is a huge ball of energy in the sky we call the sun. There is a question if its power is coming from fusion. Fusion is the only system that works into billions of years; fission would only give you millions of years so that can’t be. But there is evidence the power from the sun is created by gravitational collapse. That is laughable to you. If you applied to study it at a university they would laugh, they would laugh if you applied for a NSF grant too. But some fellow in China did study it recently and again proved it is burning and the power comes from gravitational collapse. But that only gives us a 10,000 year life time. We ought to use operational science to look at this but pagans hate that science. They hate the point of singularity too but Christians did not come up with that either. Steven, I looked up Argument from incredulity; "I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true.” . That is a good one Richard Dawkins summed it up “I personally cannot imagine a natural sequence of events whereby X could have come about. Therefore, it must have come about by supernatural means.” I think it is funny. So if I find a body riddled with bullets and can’t come up with a sequence of events that caused it I would conclude that it had to happen by time and chance? We have this incredible universe that exploded in a fraction of a second from a point of singularity and we just have to assume it is just one of those things that happen? Get real! Antony, I have read books, you might find that hard to believe. Why don’t you give me the best evidence for evolution, just saying things like read all the books or all the scientist say is not evidence to me. Check out fruit flies, we have spent billions of dollars studying them to prove evolution. But after all that money and years they have recently concluded that fruit flies have come to the evolutionary cycle. Give me some evidence, I don’t want birds beaks either.
Cameron seems to think the following argument is a strong one:
Some (unnamed, unreferenced) guy in China says the sun is powered by gravitational collapse, which would imply the sun is really only about 10,000 years old. So, this must be true, in spite of the fact that other indications of the age of the sun consistently and independently point to a much older origin. Consequently, all these other indicators are wrong.
This is not what I was refering to but at least China has an open mind you don't seem to: Professor Wan Lai, a research fellow at the Shanghai observatory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, says the sun has shrunk 410 kilometres in the 273 years from 1715 to 1987. This is an average shrinkage of about 1.5 kilometres a year.
The Australian, April 14, 1990.
I believe there is evidence of an infinite first cause to the universe and life. We as finite men can't comprehend the infinite. But the infinite can reveal himself to us and I believe he did in the Bible.
I believe there is evidence of an infinite first cause to the universe and life. We as finite men can't comprehend the infinite. But the infinite can reveal himself to us and I believe he did in the Bible. --Cameron
Cameron can't comprehend the infinite but then says there's evidence for it. LOL.
Life needs a cause. That cause is "God." But "God" is exempt arbitrarily from having a cause. Why? That would ruin the theistic argument. Plus neither you nor anyone else has shown what the "God" actually IS. Where is it?
The Bible explains anything? Genesis can't even get the creation of light, days and the sun correct. There are two separate and contradictory creation tales for Adam and Eve. And there are thousands of scientific errors riddling the rest of the book(s), written by ancient ignorant tribespeople.
Honestly, Cameron, do you think you make any sense jumping into this forum?
Near, If having a young earth Christian creationist here bothers you I will leave. As far as the first cause to the universe let me quote from one of my papers.
Astronomers on a remote plateau in the Chilean desert, using a Cosmic Background Imager (CBI) funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and California Institute of Technology (Caltech), detected minute variations in the cosmic microwave background, the radiation that came from the beginning of the universe. This data enabled them to conclude that the universe came from a “point of singularity.” They found what they believe to be the first light of the universe and confirmed not only that the universe started from a point of singularity but that it expanded at “an almost inconceivable rate.” They haven’t publicly made this rate known, but they say evidence shows it expanded from the point of singularity to the size of the universe in one/one thousandth of a second. That rate is 10 to the 43rd power times the speed of light. This isn’t evidence of a ‘big bang’ – it is evidence that something outside of our universe is the cause of our universe.
When we use historical science we have to look at what can cause a similar occurrence. An atomic explosion doesn’t come near that kind of an explosion. It would take almost an infinite amount of power to make that happen. Not only an explosion of that power but then making everything fall into place finely tuned, have you ever heard of the Anthropic principle? How it looks like the whole universe was made so that there could be life on earth. That takes almost infinite intelligence. The evidence for an infinite first cause is overwhelming. Now who created God. That is an interesting question. I would answer an over God. Then who created the over God? Another over God. You see we could go on infinitely or we could have an infinite uncaused cause in the first cause. Why not the God of the Bible.
I can explain all of Genesis, it does not contradict. Light could be created before the Sun that is not a problem. About the two creation accounts it was written the ancient Hebrew style and you don’t have a clue about that. I am interested in talking about other science contradiction in the rest of the Bible please explain.
All you prove in your comments is that you are a superstitious conspiracy theorist clinging to a pre-scientific worldview for the sake of your control beliefs.
Anyone who still believes that these debates have any value other than sheer amusement has not been fooked over by a shyster divorce lawyer on the other side. Glib snakeoil salesmen will always sell their product better than people selling the truth.
Watch them, laugh at them, but for god's sake don't take them so seriously.
Good to hear you had a good and positive experience. Maybe I was generalising a bit, I just have to smile at people like our man John who gets so down on the "result" of these debates. Let me then amend my statement to rather say that they are of no consequence except to the relatively undecided few.
Dinesh continues to hold "A Brief History of Time" up as the current state-of-the-art in cosmology. Would someone please pass him the memo that newer books have been written?
This is the internet, and I stated my opinion. I am really not bothered with "proof" when it comes to my opinion, clearly stated as such. You may accept it or not - that in turn is your opinion. No proof needed.
These debates do not convince people that have already made up their minds. We simply watch them and pass comments on how stupid the "other side" is. The only people that, I believe, derive any value from the debates are the undecided few.
It is great talking with you guys, thanks for not banning me! Can we agree that the Universe had a beginning? That means space, time, energy and matter all had a beginning. We have two alternatives for its beginning. Either natural causes or else supernatural causes. Both require faith.
Recent scientific discoveries have all pointed to the supernatural. I have talked about the shrinking sun and the lack of radiation coming from it but you in faith disregard that and believe in fusion. We have studied comets and they point to a young earth but you in faith believe in the Oort cloud, without any evidence for it. We have studied the universe that can’t be explained by the natural but you in faith come up with the multiverse model. We have studied mitochondrial DNA and it points to one woman 6,000 years ago but you in faith think all people were killed but one back then. I could go on and on but I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
Can we agree that the Universe had a beginning? That means space, time, energy and matter all had a beginning. We have two alternatives for its beginning. Either natural causes or else supernatural causes. Both require faith.
From my perspective this question is incoherent as it doesn't make much sense to say that time had a beginning, because to say so implies that there was something "before" that beginning.
Second you're making a false equivocation when you say that the both natural and supernatural explanations require faith. The problem here is that naturalistic explanations are descriptive (meaning they are based on what we can observe) while your supernatural explanation is prescriptive (based on what you think God has done). The supernatural explanation requires faith but the naturalistic one does not by virtue of it being descriptive. A descriptive explanation is amenable to updates and even paradigm shifts when warranted by the evidence, there is no such room for this in supernatural explanations.
I have talked about the shrinking sun and the lack of radiation coming from it but you in faith disregard that and believe in fusion.
Care to cite some real references for this? I don't know where you are getting this idea that fusion isn't going on in the sun. We have more than enough evidence for this from neutrino experiments (and the missing neutrino problem has been solved by the way, just in case you try to pull in that silliness).
As for your claim that the sun is shrinking, I looked up a few of Dr. Lai's journal articles, and near as I can tell, this person has never done any work on the Sun at all. The body of his work is focused on pulsating variable stars (which the sun may become eventually, but is not currently). I'll also note that pulsating variable stars increase and decrease their size on scales that are much larger than a few hundred kilometers and on much shorter time scales than 200 years, which makes your reference to Lai seem even more tenuous. In addition, the fact that Lai works on pulsating variables also quite likely belies the falsehood in your argument. If Lai said anything about the sun shrinking it would almost certainly be in terms of a long period pulsation (given his research interests). In other words, Dr. Lai almost certainly isn't saying that the sun is shrinking, he his saying it is pulsating.
Also, that figure of 417km, is barely even a blip on the scale of the sun. The convective cells on the sun are larger than this size, meaning that a change in radius this small would be virtually undetectable.
Finally, as someone who actually worked on comets years ago, I'd love to hear your supposed "findings" from comets that point to a young age for the solar system. There are no such findings.
Antony, I have read books, you might find that hard to believe.
Please list some of these books, I would really like to know because the arguments you are giving and the statements you make about evolution cause me to seriously doubt you have bothered to carefully read and understand what evolution is. Oh, by the way, if you want I can list some of the books on creationism and intelligent design that I have read as I used to hold these views.
Recent scientific discoveries have all pointed to the supernatural.
This is a pretty generic statement and needs documentation. What recent discoveries? Which scientists are arguing for this?
I have talked about the shrinking sun and the lack of radiation coming from it but you in faith disregard that and believe in fusion.
We believe in fusion by "faith"? Come on Cameron you can do better than this. Let's think a little more critically.
As far as the issue of the sun shrinking I leave that to the experts, see this article. I would also recommend doing a little reading on the subject of the sun (it's nature, origins, history, etc.) before making these kinds of statements. Think my friend, think.
We have studied comets and they point to a young earth but you in faith believe in the Oort cloud
This is simply silly. Check out any basic intro to astronomy, these kinds of arguments just don't cut it.
I could go on and on but I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
This is rhetoric that only inflames the discussion. Many of us atheists were committed believer's for much (or most) of our lives. My rejection of Christianity had nothing to do with faith, it was evidence that eroded my faith to the point that I had no foundation for faith, there was nothing left to believe.
One more thing on the shrinking sun argument. Would you please consider the following article written by a Christian author dealing with how science is done compared to creation science as it specifically relates to the issue of a shrinking sun.
I won't concede that the universe had a beginning without a solid definition of "universe" and "beginning". If *this* universe arose from a larger cosmos, an expanse in which our universe is but one of many, would "beginning" be defined as that point at which this particular universe began taking shape within that expanse as its own self-contained bubble? What about that larger expanse? Perhaps it had no beginning but this universe did. We could say "the universe had a beginning" yet that "place" in which it arose had none.
I wouldn't suggest putting much stock in the "gravitational collapse" model. There is pretty much an absolute consensus on nuclear fusion. Some guy in China doesn't overturn that or offer a plausible reason for doubting it. For every well established phenomenon, there is always some crank somewhere in a reputable school who inexplicably holds a Ph.D. who manages to ignore the preponderance of data. You can always count on that. There may even be a few of them. Pointing to that rare crank isn't a good bet even if that crank's conclusions happen to support your worldview. I wouldn't assume that because this crank is in China that "the Chinese" are open to his views. I'd suggest that the vast majority of Chinese scientists go with the consensus and that even in China this guy is a lone crackpot. The Chinese do have as good a collection of scientists as anywhere else, but I wouldn't suggest that the Chinese peoples' tendency to embrace views that aren't supported by science is a virtue. With respect to medicine, traditional Chinese medicine is widely embraced but testing tends to disconfirm the efficacy of most of those treatments.
As a young-earth creationist you must be abundantly aware that your views are not derived from the conclusions of science, but rather your tendency is going to be to look for and embrace those fringe elements that are compatible with your predetermined worldview. Are you really comfortable with this approach? Looking for the evidence to support your conclusions on a post hoc basis rather than embracing the implications and seeing where they go? I wouldn't be comfortable with that. It seems to me that the risk of going totally off the rails is high with this approach.
As far as the Sun the jury will stay out on that as it goes against the state religion and no funds will be used to find out scientifically either way.
The beginning of time idea was originated by the ancient philosophers. They believed that if there were an infinite number of events before now, now will never come. Kind of mind boggling but it is logical.
The fossil record and sedimentary rocks I attribute to a catastrophic flood that happened about 4400 years ago. You don’t I am sure, it was in all the papers at the time. Interesting the apostle Peter predicted people would forget about the flood in our times around 1950 years ago. (4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.)
No evidence for a young earth? Something that wasn’t affected by the flood is earth’s core. Another offering from my paper: Earth’s Magnetic Field: The strength of the magnetic field around the earth has been observed since 1829, and measurements have shown it to be decaying. Assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for thousands of years, we can assume the magnetic field was four times stronger 2900 years ago and 10,000 years ago would be so strong that the heat produced from it would prevent life as we know it from existing on the earth. In fact, if the rate of decay continues there may not even be a magnetic field around earth in the not so distant future, making life once again impossible. (Merrill, R.T. and McElhinney, M.W., The Earth's Magnetic Field, Academic Press (1983), London, pp. 101-106.)
This is fun you guys are great to hang with. You are getting tough!
Cameron: As far as the Sun the jury will stay out on that as it goes against the state religion and no funds will be used to find out scientifically either way.
No, the jury is not still out on the issue of a shrinking sun. Conspiracy theories won't get you very far. Also, there is no state religion and no Cameron evolution/naturalism/atheism is not the "state religion."
Cameron: The fossil record and sedimentary rocks I attribute to a catastrophic flood that happened about 4400 years ago.
No again. Neither the fossil record nor the sedimentary rocks give evidence to one universal flood 4400 years ago. Cameron I would really challenge you to read and study the arguments from both sides in as an objective manner as possible. Seriously my friend these arguments have been refuted over and over again.
Cameron: The strength of the magnetic field around the earth has been observed since 1829, and measurements have shown it to be decaying.
Again another silly argument. This has also been refuted over and over again. The quick and simple answer is that the magnetic field has reversed many times throughout geologic history. See this brief article on the topic.
Can I suggest that before you make an argument like this you should at least look at what the different sides have to say.
"In the last 10 million years, there have been, on average, 4 or 5 reversals per million years".
Is this based on scientific observation? If it hasn't reversed in the last 20,000 years life would be impossible. Actually you would be surprised all I have read but I don't read so many pagan books.
I remember when I was taking biology in college as an undergrad. The professor promised in the last class he would give us absolute proof for Darwinian evolution. The last class he showed us turtle necks. Not sweaters actual turtle necks. I need more evidence than that. What do you have for positive evidence?
If you have found yourself very casually dismissed in these kinds of discussions, please reflect on why that would be. It isn't personal, because I would go out on a limb and suggest that this probably happens to nearly every young-earth creationist who ventures into the public forums. If it isn't clear yet, please let me explain why you aren't taken seriously and likely won't ever be.
These discussions do start with a few modest challenges of complex bits of science, but sooner or later the young-earth creationist brings forth a denial of one or more highly certain facts which are universally accepted in mainstream science and even in most of the fringe. Which facts are disputed will vary, but the dispute is inevitable. This time it was a novel dispute, the "sun isn't undergoing nuclear fusion" position. Wow. Whenever the denial of an established concept is brought forth, I'm always equally amazed that we're even having the discussion. There really is no doubt at this point that nuclear fusion is what is happening on the sun (this has been so thoroughly established as to be certain), and to propose that this is in error because some guy in China doesn't think this is happening is a very reliable way of forfeiting any chance of persuading anyone of anything you may have had to say. It eliminates all doubt that you're out of touch with reality, that you'll accept the most ludicrous and haphazard claims as either factual or at least viable if those claims are more consistent with your pre-established theology than the established science, and that you have an infinitely more pressing need to validate your theology than to objectively learn what is going on in the universe. You also lose your ability to appeal to any aspect of science, which you have broadly dismissed.
This is where the discussions always go, and which well established concept is disputed is the only variable. In fact, so many chunks of established science are disputed among young-earth creationists that it is a travesty that creationism even puts forth an effort to appeal to "science" as a basis for any of its views.
You have even referred above to publications from the field of mainstream science as "Pagan books", another remark which I will assure you is neither responsible nor reassuring as to your desire to actually understand anything.
So if we dismiss you completely, please understand that it isn't personal, it is because you discredit yourself and leave us in a position to have no common ground on which to have a productive discussion.
I've been listening to the whole "Sound Rezn" clip. One of the pastors who heard the debate actually had the nerve to suggest that John's mic went dead because "it was like God heard enough of John Loftus." SO fucking stupid, but many Christians will believe that.
Then, the guy doing the show finishes off with "The Holy Spirit draws, so let's pray for people like Loftus." One wonders what the holy spirit was doing when Loftus and other ex-pastors like myself were ready and willing to believe.
34 comments:
Just listened to his comments:
7:46 Dinish 'ask about causation when we are dealing with things we have some experience with'
8:45 Dinish 'not legitimate to ask who made god, we have no experience of god or gods'
He then goes on to explain how to not answer a question but change it around to the other person.
What else needs to be said about Dinish!
This is why debates do nothing to establish which truth claims are more likely. These debates are asking the wrong questions. They play to the audience rather than addressing the issues. Frustrating.
For someone who says "we have no experience of god or gods," Dinesh make an awful lot of claims about a god. People can't ask who made god, yet he can tell us confidently that god made us? Am I missing something here?
I listened to only a few minutes, but could not stand to listen to D'Souza anymore. His comments about atheists losing debates and therefore not being the champions of reason almost turned me off right away.
I wanted to ask what science do Christians reject? Atheist reject the law of bio-genesis, the cell theory and the laws of thermal dynamics. They refuse to discuss the first cause of the universe, of life and animal life. I know we look at the same evidence in a different way. We look at common DNA and see a common designer, you see a common first cell.
Cameron scientists don't
'refuse to discuss the first cause of the universe, of life and animal life'
they ask those questions all the time and try to find evidence to come up with a reasonable conclusion.
Theists say the answer is god with no supporting evidence except a book of claims.
You see a common designer where science says it doesn't know what happened.
Do you understand the difference?
"thermal dynamics"?
Oh my.
Sorry I meant thermodynamics. How did life evolve going against the entropic flow? How did DNA come together in the first place? How did cells form? If I were to win the lottery 100 times in a row would you think that is just one of those things that happen or would you suspect intelligent interference?
Cameron... the Earth isn't a closed system. We have a gigantic fusion reactor in the sky (you may have noticed) powering the whole thing.
If you're going to rely on physics, learn it first.
How did life evolve going against the entropic flow?
First off, the concept you are talking about is called entropy, and second you are talking about supposed violations of the second law of thermodynamics, which you clearly haven't ever studied or really have the first clue about what their implications truly are. The fact is, if your assumptions were correct, babies could not form from a single egg in the womb as that is a huge decrease in entropy. Either the second law of thermodynamics is wrong, or you don't understand it. As someone who does understand the second law of thermodynamics, I can tell you quite confidently that you are wrong and you don't know what you are talking about.
How did DNA come together in the first place? How did cells form?
A veiled argument from incredulity. Look it up. It's a fallacious argument.
If I were to win the lottery 100 times in a row would you think that is just one of those things that happen or would you suspect intelligent interference?
A simple minded example that shows a lack of understanding of the true probabilities and the chemistry that is thought to be involved.
Go back to school Cameron. You may want to try and claim that I haven't addressed your arguments and that would be true. It is also true that you clearly wouldn't understand the responses anyway, so I'm not going to bother educating you. You will have to do this yourself.
Cameron,
If you are going to try to criticize evolution please, for the love of Pete, at least do some reading on the subject. There are many excellent books out there that present the theory of evolution and the overwhelming evidence for it.
I used to do the same thing, criticize evolution thinking I knew what I was talking about. Then I decided to actually sit down and read and objectively (as best as I could) evaluate the arguments and evidence presented. I came away a changed person.
Glock, I agree that there is a huge ball of energy in the sky we call the sun. There is a question if its power is coming from fusion. Fusion is the only system that works into billions of years; fission would only give you millions of years so that can’t be. But there is evidence the power from the sun is created by gravitational collapse. That is laughable to you. If you applied to study it at a university they would laugh, they would laugh if you applied for a NSF grant too. But some fellow in China did study it recently and again proved it is burning and the power comes from gravitational collapse. But that only gives us a 10,000 year life time. We ought to use operational science to look at this but pagans hate that science. They hate the point of singularity too but Christians did not come up with that either.
Steven, I looked up Argument from incredulity; "I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true.” . That is a good one Richard Dawkins summed it up “I personally cannot imagine a natural sequence of events whereby X could have come about. Therefore, it must have come about by supernatural means.” I think it is funny. So if I find a body riddled with bullets and can’t come up with a sequence of events that caused it I would conclude that it had to happen by time and chance? We have this incredible universe that exploded in a fraction of a second from a point of singularity and we just have to assume it is just one of those things that happen? Get real!
Antony, I have read books, you might find that hard to believe. Why don’t you give me the best evidence for evolution, just saying things like read all the books or all the scientist say is not evidence to me. Check out fruit flies, we have spent billions of dollars studying them to prove evolution. But after all that money and years they have recently concluded that fruit flies have come to the evolutionary cycle. Give me some evidence, I don’t want birds beaks either.
Cameron seems to think the following argument is a strong one:
Some (unnamed, unreferenced) guy in China says the sun is powered by gravitational collapse, which would imply the sun is really only about 10,000 years old. So, this must be true, in spite of the fact that other indications of the age of the sun consistently and independently point to a much older origin. Consequently, all these other indicators are wrong.
This is not what I was refering to but at least China has an open mind you don't seem to: Professor Wan Lai, a research fellow at the Shanghai observatory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, says the sun has shrunk 410 kilometres in the 273 years from 1715 to 1987. This is an average shrinkage of about 1.5 kilometres a year.
The Australian,
April 14, 1990.
I believe there is evidence of an infinite first cause to the universe and life. We as finite men can't comprehend the infinite. But the infinite can reveal himself to us and I believe he did in the Bible.
I believe there is evidence of an infinite first cause to the universe and life. We as finite men can't comprehend the infinite. But the infinite can reveal himself to us and I believe he did in the Bible. --Cameron
Cameron can't comprehend the infinite but then says there's evidence for it. LOL.
Life needs a cause. That cause is "God." But "God" is exempt arbitrarily from having a cause. Why? That would ruin the theistic argument. Plus neither you nor anyone else has shown what the "God" actually IS. Where is it?
The Bible explains anything? Genesis can't even get the creation of light, days and the sun correct. There are two separate and contradictory creation tales for Adam and Eve. And there are thousands of scientific errors riddling the rest of the book(s), written by ancient ignorant tribespeople.
Honestly, Cameron, do you think you make any sense jumping into this forum?
Near, If having a young earth Christian creationist here bothers you I will leave. As far as the first cause to the universe let me quote from one of my papers.
Astronomers on a remote plateau in the Chilean desert, using a Cosmic Background Imager (CBI) funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and California Institute of Technology (Caltech), detected minute variations in the cosmic microwave background, the radiation that came from the beginning of the universe. This data enabled them to conclude that the universe came from a “point of singularity.” They found what they believe to be the first light of the universe and confirmed not only that the universe started from a point of singularity but that it expanded at “an almost inconceivable rate.” They haven’t publicly made this rate known, but they say evidence shows it expanded from the point of singularity to the size of the universe in one/one thousandth of a second. That rate is 10 to the 43rd power times the speed of light. This isn’t evidence of a ‘big bang’ – it is evidence that something outside of our universe is the cause of our universe.
When we use historical science we have to look at what can cause a similar occurrence. An atomic explosion doesn’t come near that kind of an explosion. It would take almost an infinite amount of power to make that happen. Not only an explosion of that power but then making everything fall into place finely tuned, have you ever heard of the Anthropic principle? How it looks like the whole universe was made so that there could be life on earth. That takes almost infinite intelligence. The evidence for an infinite first cause is overwhelming. Now who created God. That is an interesting question. I would answer an over God. Then who created the over God? Another over God. You see we could go on infinitely or we could have an infinite uncaused cause in the first cause. Why not the God of the Bible.
I can explain all of Genesis, it does not contradict. Light could be created before the Sun that is not a problem. About the two creation accounts it was written the ancient Hebrew style and you don’t have a clue about that. I am interested in talking about other science contradiction in the rest of the Bible please explain.
Cmaeron
All you prove in your comments is that you are a superstitious conspiracy theorist clinging to a pre-scientific worldview for the sake of your control beliefs.
Anyone who still believes that these debates have any value other than sheer amusement has not been fooked over by a shyster divorce lawyer on the other side. Glib snakeoil salesmen will always sell their product better than people selling the truth.
Watch them, laugh at them, but for god's sake don't take them so seriously.
Andre,
These debates helped fan the fire on a spark of doubt I had when listening in church to what seemed like agreed upon hysteria.
I'm grateful for guys like Hitchens and the other New Atheists who took their private conversations public.
Part of the benefit in public debates is to see the christian in a neutral environment which exposes the strange thinking theology is.
Hi Chuck
Good to hear you had a good and positive experience. Maybe I was generalising a bit, I just have to smile at people like our man John who gets so down on the "result" of these debates. Let me then amend my statement to rather say that they are of no consequence except to the relatively undecided few.
Andre you said,
"Let me then amend my statement to rather say that they are of no consequence except to the relatively undecided few."
And your proof of this is what?
Dinesh continues to hold "A Brief History of Time" up as the current state-of-the-art in cosmology. Would someone please pass him the memo that newer books have been written?
Hi Chuck
This is the internet, and I stated my opinion. I am really not bothered with "proof" when it comes to my opinion, clearly stated as such. You may accept it or not - that in turn is your opinion. No proof needed.
These debates do not convince people that have already made up their minds. We simply watch them and pass comments on how stupid the "other side" is. The only people that, I believe, derive any value from the debates are the undecided few.
It is great talking with you guys, thanks for not banning me! Can we agree that the Universe had a beginning? That means space, time, energy and matter all had a beginning. We have two alternatives for its beginning. Either natural causes or else supernatural causes. Both require faith.
Recent scientific discoveries have all pointed to the supernatural. I have talked about the shrinking sun and the lack of radiation coming from it but you in faith disregard that and believe in fusion. We have studied comets and they point to a young earth but you in faith believe in the Oort cloud, without any evidence for it. We have studied the universe that can’t be explained by the natural but you in faith come up with the multiverse model. We have studied mitochondrial DNA and it points to one woman 6,000 years ago but you in faith think all people were killed but one back then. I could go on and on but I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
Cameron
Our very own Young Earth Creationist. How cool is that? Can we keep him? Please?
Can we agree that the Universe had a beginning? That means space, time, energy and matter all had a beginning. We have two alternatives for its beginning. Either natural causes or else supernatural causes. Both require faith.
From my perspective this question is incoherent as it doesn't make much sense to say that time had a beginning, because to say so implies that there was something "before" that beginning.
Second you're making a false equivocation when you say that the both natural and supernatural explanations require faith. The problem here is that naturalistic explanations are descriptive (meaning they are based on what we can observe) while your supernatural explanation is prescriptive (based on what you think God has done). The supernatural explanation requires faith but the naturalistic one does not by virtue of it being descriptive. A descriptive explanation is amenable to updates and even paradigm shifts when warranted by the evidence, there is no such room for this in supernatural explanations.
I have talked about the shrinking sun and the lack of radiation coming from it but you in faith disregard that and believe in fusion.
Care to cite some real references for this? I don't know where you are getting this idea that fusion isn't going on in the sun. We have more than enough evidence for this from neutrino experiments (and the missing neutrino problem has been solved by the way, just in case you try to pull in that silliness).
As for your claim that the sun is shrinking, I looked up a few of Dr. Lai's journal articles, and near as I can tell, this person has never done any work on the Sun at all. The body of his work is focused on pulsating variable stars (which the sun may become eventually, but is not currently). I'll also note that pulsating variable stars increase and decrease their size on scales that are much larger than a few hundred kilometers and on much shorter time scales than 200 years, which makes your reference to Lai seem even more tenuous. In addition, the fact that Lai works on pulsating variables also quite likely belies the falsehood in your argument. If Lai said anything about the sun shrinking it would almost certainly be in terms of a long period pulsation (given his research interests). In other words, Dr. Lai almost certainly isn't saying that the sun is shrinking, he his saying it is pulsating.
Also, that figure of 417km, is barely even a blip on the scale of the sun. The convective cells on the sun are larger than this size, meaning that a change in radius this small would be virtually undetectable.
Finally, as someone who actually worked on comets years ago, I'd love to hear your supposed "findings" from comets that point to a young age for the solar system. There are no such findings.
Cameron,
Come on now, these arguments for a young earth/universe is simply silly. The evidence for an ancient earth and universe is overwhelming.
Let me challenge you to evaluate the arguments and evidence provided by the following three books (all written by evangelical Christians):
The Bible, Rocks & Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth
Neglect of Geologic Data Sedimentary Strata Compared With Young Earth
God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments
Also check out the excellent article on radiometric dating by Roger Wiens, Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
Antony, I have read books, you might find that hard to believe.
Please list some of these books, I would really like to know because the arguments you are giving and the statements you make about evolution cause me to seriously doubt you have bothered to carefully read and understand what evolution is. Oh, by the way, if you want I can list some of the books on creationism and intelligent design that I have read as I used to hold these views.
Recent scientific discoveries have all pointed to the supernatural.
This is a pretty generic statement and needs documentation. What recent discoveries? Which scientists are arguing for this?
I have talked about the shrinking sun and the lack of radiation coming from it but you in faith disregard that and believe in fusion.
We believe in fusion by "faith"? Come on Cameron you can do better than this. Let's think a little more critically.
As far as the issue of the sun shrinking I leave that to the experts, see this article. I would also recommend doing a little reading on the subject of the sun (it's nature, origins, history, etc.) before making these kinds of statements. Think my friend, think.
We have studied comets and they point to a young earth but you in faith believe in the Oort cloud
This is simply silly. Check out any basic intro to astronomy, these kinds of arguments just don't cut it.
I could go on and on but I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
This is rhetoric that only inflames the discussion. Many of us atheists were committed believer's for much (or most) of our lives. My rejection of Christianity had nothing to do with faith, it was evidence that eroded my faith to the point that I had no foundation for faith, there was nothing left to believe.
Cameron,
One more thing on the shrinking sun argument. Would you please consider the following article written by a Christian author dealing with how science is done compared to creation science as it specifically relates to the issue of a shrinking sun.
The Legend of the Shrinking Sun - A Case Study Comparing Professional Science and "Creation Science" in Action by Howard J. Van Till
By the way, this was written back in 1986 and he dealt a devastating blow to the whole idea.
I won't concede that the universe had a beginning without a solid definition of "universe" and "beginning". If *this* universe arose from a larger cosmos, an expanse in which our universe is but one of many, would "beginning" be defined as that point at which this particular universe began taking shape within that expanse as its own self-contained bubble? What about that larger expanse? Perhaps it had no beginning but this universe did. We could say "the universe had a beginning" yet that "place" in which it arose had none.
I wouldn't suggest putting much stock in the "gravitational collapse" model. There is pretty much an absolute consensus on nuclear fusion. Some guy in China doesn't overturn that or offer a plausible reason for doubting it. For every well established phenomenon, there is always some crank somewhere in a reputable school who inexplicably holds a Ph.D. who manages to ignore the preponderance of data. You can always count on that. There may even be a few of them. Pointing to that rare crank isn't a good bet even if that crank's conclusions happen to support your worldview. I wouldn't assume that because this crank is in China that "the Chinese" are open to his views. I'd suggest that the vast majority of Chinese scientists go with the consensus and that even in China this guy is a lone crackpot. The Chinese do have as good a collection of scientists as anywhere else, but I wouldn't suggest that the Chinese peoples' tendency to embrace views that aren't supported by science is a virtue. With respect to medicine, traditional Chinese medicine is widely embraced but testing tends to disconfirm the efficacy of most of those treatments.
As a young-earth creationist you must be abundantly aware that your views are not derived from the conclusions of science, but rather your tendency is going to be to look for and embrace those fringe elements that are compatible with your predetermined worldview. Are you really comfortable with this approach? Looking for the evidence to support your conclusions on a post hoc basis rather than embracing the implications and seeing where they go? I wouldn't be comfortable with that. It seems to me that the risk of going totally off the rails is high with this approach.
As far as the Sun the jury will stay out on that as it goes against the state religion and no funds will be used to find out scientifically either way.
The beginning of time idea was originated by the ancient philosophers. They believed that if there were an infinite number of events before now, now will never come. Kind of mind boggling but it is logical.
The fossil record and sedimentary rocks I attribute to a catastrophic flood that happened about 4400 years ago. You don’t I am sure, it was in all the papers at the time. Interesting the apostle Peter predicted people would forget about the flood in our times around 1950 years ago. (4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.)
No evidence for a young earth? Something that wasn’t affected by the flood is earth’s core. Another offering from my paper: Earth’s Magnetic Field: The strength of the magnetic field around the earth has been observed since 1829, and measurements have shown it to be decaying. Assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for thousands of years, we can assume the magnetic field was four times stronger 2900 years ago and 10,000 years ago would be so strong that the heat produced from it would prevent life as we know it from existing on the earth. In fact, if the rate of decay continues there may not even be a magnetic field around earth in the not so distant future, making life once again impossible. (Merrill, R.T. and McElhinney, M.W., The Earth's Magnetic Field, Academic Press (1983), London, pp. 101-106.)
This is fun you guys are great to hang with. You are getting tough!
Cameron: As far as the Sun the jury will stay out on that as it goes against the state religion and no funds will be used to find out scientifically either way.
No, the jury is not still out on the issue of a shrinking sun. Conspiracy theories won't get you very far. Also, there is no state religion and no Cameron evolution/naturalism/atheism is not the "state religion."
Cameron: The fossil record and sedimentary rocks I attribute to a catastrophic flood that happened about 4400 years ago.
No again. Neither the fossil record nor the sedimentary rocks give evidence to one universal flood 4400 years ago. Cameron I would really challenge you to read and study the arguments from both sides in as an objective manner as possible. Seriously my friend these arguments have been refuted over and over again.
Cameron: The strength of the magnetic field around the earth has been observed since 1829, and measurements have shown it to be decaying.
Again another silly argument. This has also been refuted over and over again. The quick and simple answer is that the magnetic field has reversed many times throughout geologic history. See this brief article on the topic.
Can I suggest that before you make an argument like this you should at least look at what the different sides have to say.
"In the last 10 million years, there have been, on average, 4 or 5 reversals per million years".
Is this based on scientific observation? If it hasn't reversed in the last 20,000 years life would be impossible. Actually you would be surprised all I have read but I don't read so many pagan books.
I remember when I was taking biology in college as an undergrad. The professor promised in the last class he would give us absolute proof for Darwinian evolution. The last class he showed us turtle necks. Not sweaters actual turtle necks. I need more evidence than that. What do you have for positive evidence?
Cameron,
If you have found yourself very casually dismissed in these kinds of discussions, please reflect on why that would be. It isn't personal, because I would go out on a limb and suggest that this probably happens to nearly every young-earth creationist who ventures into the public forums. If it isn't clear yet, please let me explain why you aren't taken seriously and likely won't ever be.
These discussions do start with a few modest challenges of complex bits of science, but sooner or later the young-earth creationist brings forth a denial of one or more highly certain facts which are universally accepted in mainstream science and even in most of the fringe. Which facts are disputed will vary, but the dispute is inevitable. This time it was a novel dispute, the "sun isn't undergoing nuclear fusion" position. Wow. Whenever the denial of an established concept is brought forth, I'm always equally amazed that we're even having the discussion. There really is no doubt at this point that nuclear fusion is what is happening on the sun (this has been so thoroughly established as to be certain), and to propose that this is in error because some guy in China doesn't think this is happening is a very reliable way of forfeiting any chance of persuading anyone of anything you may have had to say. It eliminates all doubt that you're out of touch with reality, that you'll accept the most ludicrous and haphazard claims as either factual or at least viable if those claims are more consistent with your pre-established theology than the established science, and that you have an infinitely more pressing need to validate your theology than to objectively learn what is going on in the universe. You also lose your ability to appeal to any aspect of science, which you have broadly dismissed.
This is where the discussions always go, and which well established concept is disputed is the only variable. In fact, so many chunks of established science are disputed among young-earth creationists that it is a travesty that creationism even puts forth an effort to appeal to "science" as a basis for any of its views.
You have even referred above to publications from the field of mainstream science as "Pagan books", another remark which I will assure you is neither responsible nor reassuring as to your desire to actually understand anything.
So if we dismiss you completely, please understand that it isn't personal, it is because you discredit yourself and leave us in a position to have no common ground on which to have a productive discussion.
I've been listening to the whole "Sound Rezn" clip. One of the pastors who heard the debate actually had the nerve to suggest that John's mic went dead because "it was like God heard enough of John Loftus." SO fucking stupid, but many Christians will believe that.
Then, the guy doing the show finishes off with "The Holy Spirit draws, so let's pray for people like Loftus." One wonders what the holy spirit was doing when Loftus and other ex-pastors like myself were ready and willing to believe.
(JH)
Post a Comment