Christian vs Atheists

[AydanCS]

Hello I am 14 and I simply am asking for Atheists opinions on this and what I am about to say. Since I am only 14 you can expect me not to be very knowledgable. But remember a kind can still have good points. I do not want to put any of you on the spot or offend anyone in any way. I am a strong believer in Christ, so I don't want to win an argument, I want to win souls.

 

So to start off with we need to have some presuppositions. First, everyone in the discussion has to agree that all people operate with a set of starting assumptions. Nothing can be proven in the end. It is either faith in naturalistic science or faith in the science God created. Until then we can't have a civilized argument or rather should I say, conversation.

 

So to get started I am going to talk about the big bang. The First Law of Thermodynamics - the fundamental principle of physics that the total energy of an isolated system is constant despite internal changes. This law is also very close to the law of the conservation of energy which states: In the absence of external work input or output, the energy of a system remains unchanged. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. So you see both laws say that wether or not you have internal changes of a system, the rate if energy stays the same or constant. Then in the conservation of energy the systems energy can only be changed by an external input or output. So basically that states right there that it is physically impossible for the big bang to occur. Because the BB is stated as being a outward expansion, the fact that you cannot have a system change energy in any way without a external input or output, nothing would happen. So the big bang is rendered as impossible based on these two laws.

 

So next I would like to talk about fossil records. The utter failure of the fossil record to back up evolution is an important subject for us to talk about.

 

Yes, there are transitional species, but

 

1.they are few and far between.

2.they are all controversial.

3.their shelf life tends to be about a decade before they are replaced.

 

There is nothing stopping God from having created a fascinating assortment of creatures. From all appearance, He did not. Had we found the transitional fossils or species required for evolution, they would be used as evidence for evolution and as a weapon against creation. Yet, they could not logically be submitted as proof for evolution and disproof of creation because the data could easily fit into either model. The fact is, however, that a general lack of transitional species exists, which does not fit nicely into evolutionary theory. Darwin predicted that future scientists would find innumerable transitional fossils. In fact, he said this would be a direct test of his theory. 150 years later, the missing links are still missing. So what else must I say about this?

 

So this is it. I could say more but it is getting late here and I need to go to sleep. So basically I want your opinions. Do you think this is sound logic? Remember I do not mean this as proof of creation. I simply wanted to see how you guys would see this. Please don't be mean because in end it makes you look bad.

[kindheart]

Hi Aydan. Thanks for asking these questions, they're really good. I'm an atheist (and a former evangelical Christian), so I'll try to answer your questions:

 

So to start off with we need to have some presuppositions. First, everyone in the discussion has to agree that all people operate with a set of starting assumptions. Nothing can be proven in the end.

 

I agree with this. "Proof." in terms of absolute certainty, is a concept that doesn't make any sense in the real world. Any atheist who claims to have proof that there are no gods is either mistaken or lying (the reverse is also true: any theist who claims to have proof that god(s) exist is also wrong or lying).

 

It is either faith in naturalistic science or faith in the science God created.

 

What you call secular science is not based on faith. It is based on hypothesis formulation, observation, testing, analysis. Scientists use this process to formulate models of reality that they call "theories" (the theory of gravity, germ theory, and the theory of evolution are good examples). Any hypothesis or theory that isn't supported by sufficient evidence is abandoned. If scientists find new evidence that contradicts an existing theory, then the theory is modified or abandoned.

 

This is the opposite of a faith-based approach, where you start with the conclusion and hold to it even in the face of contrary evidence.

 

But how do we know the scientific method is reliable? Simple: it works. Through the scientific method, we have designed computers, sent people to the Moon, cured numerous illnesses, and developed countless products that you use every day (phones, TVs, electric lights).

 

Creationism, on the other hand, has produced nothing, which gives us a good reason to reject it as an acceptable model of reality.

 

If you have more questions, you should ask your school's science teacher or send an email to a university science professor: either would be able to provide more detail.

 

Because the BB is stated as being a outward expansion, the fact that you cannot have a system change energy in any way without a external input or output, nothing would happen. So the big bang is rendered as impossible based on these two laws.

 

I'm not a physicist (physicists, please correct me if I'm wrong), but from what I understand, the first law of thermodynamics did not apply prior to the expansion of the universe we call the big bang. 'Before' (for lack of a better term -- time itself did not exist at this point) the big bang, the universe existed as an initial singularity -- an infinitely small, infinitely dense point. What, if anything, caused this point to expand? At this point, scientists don't know for sure, but there are several hypotheses, including ones involving colliding branes within a higher-level universe or a random fluctuation within a quantum vacuum state. It may even be the case that the universe began with no cause at all.

 

Regardless, even if the universe were created by a god, it would have no bearing on the validity of scientific theories like the big bang, evolution, and gravity. Scientists formulated these theories to explain the data they found when researching the world around them, and this evidence would still exist whether or not any gods exist.

 

Yes, there are transitional species, but:

 

1.they are few and far between.

2.they are all controversial.
3.their shelf life tends to be about a decade before they are replaced.

 

These three points are actually not true. I'll address them one-by-one:

 

1. Scientifically speaking, all species are transitional. Evolution is a process without any specific goal: the species that exist today are around because they are suited to the environments in which they live; as these environments change, the living things that inhabit them will also adapt. Twenty million years from now, life on Earth will probably look very different: the species that exist today will have changed in response to selective pressures from the environment, predation, and breeding. Our descendants -- assuming humanity survives that long -- will probably be unrecognizable to us.

 

2. No, they aren't (for the sake of this question, I'll assume you mean "a fossil that demonstrates an extinct species evolving into a living one" by "transitional form"). The numerous pre-humans in the genus Australopithecus, for example, are universally accepted to be transitional between ancient ape-like creatures and modern humans. There's actually a chart showing a gradual progression of human evolution: it starts with the skull one of our early ape-like ancestors and ends with a modern human skull. The transition is obvious.

 

3. I'm not sure where you heard this claim. It's not true: biologists have upheld some "transitional forms" (keep in mind all life is transitional), like Archaeopteryx, for more than a century.

 

Once again, try asking your biology teacher these questions -- I'm sure she or he will be happy to give you more information.

 

So basically I want your opinions. Do you think this is sound logic? Remember I do not mean this as proof of creation. I simply wanted to see how you guys would see this. Please don't be mean because in end it makes you look bad.

 

Again, thanks for asking these questions, they're really good! I hope you found my answers informative and useful .

Edited October 16, 2013 by kindheart

[AydanCS]

Yes thank you! You are, as I would take it, one who actually has a civalized attitude twords Christians. I am sorry but you failed to explain what you thaught of the law of conservation and how it applies to the big bang. If I may also ask another question. Why exactly did you abandon you're faith from God?

[ajb]

So basically that states right there that it is physically impossible for the big bang to occur. Because the BB is stated as being a outward expansion, the fact that you cannot have a system change energy in any way without a external input or output, nothing would happen. So the big bang is rendered as impossible based on these two laws.

It is much more complicated than that. First we will have to "cut-out" the initial singularity and very shortly after that from our discussion. We don't understand the physics there.

 

 

Secondly you need to carefully define energy and energy conservation in the context of general relativity, which is the mathematcal framework of our cosmological models. It is hard to explain here carefully, but energy is due to the physics looking the same at all times. As any expanding Universe depends on time rather explicitly we cannot expect conservation of energy in the usual sense.

[studiot]

 

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,

Or what's a heaven for?

 

from Andrea del Sarto by Robert Browning.

 

It seems to me that both science and religion put too much effort into contemplating matters for which we have far to little information.

 

An observation summed up in the above famous quotation.

 

The likes of Mother Theresa or St Francis of Assisi in religion or Harvey and Gilbert in science are in the minority.

[Ophiolite]

Welcome to the forum Aydan. You asked for responses from atheists. I am a devout agnostic, but I am an atheist in respect of the Christian God, for whom I see zero evidence. I'd like to respond to your fossil points.

So next I would like to talk about fossil records. The utter failure of the fossil record to back up evolution is an important subject for us to talk about.

Yes, there are transitional species, but

1.they are few and far between.
2.they are all controversial.
3.their shelf life tends to be about a decade before they are replaced.

One of the things that alternately amuses and frustrates me is that most persons using this line of argument are talking about verterbrate fossils. The majority of palaeontologists are not working in vertebrate palaeontology. When you examine the fossil record in regard to invertebrates such as graptolites, echinoderms, ammonites, trilobites, brachiopods, etc then it is an almost continuous stream of non-controversial, hugely numerous, uncontroversial forms. Sure, from time to time a particular species gets moved to another position. And academics like a good argument as much, or more, as the next man, so debates do arise. But in the grand scheme of things, if one has examined even a small part of the vast volume of data, then each of these points will be promptly discarded.

 

In terms of the vertebrates I'd like to comment on kindheart's contribution. I agree wholeheartedly with his first point. All fossils are transitional. However, why don't we find more examples of the intermediate stages? For this I would need to go into a very lengthy discussion on the process and likelihood of fossilisation. All the invertebrate fossils I mentioned above are marine, or fresh water creatures. Preservation is much more likely for these. It is interesting that one of the best lines of evidence for evolution in a vertrbarate family is for whales, anothe marine species. Simply put, land animals rarely get into a situation where they can be fossilised. We then need to have the good luck for their remains to be exposed at the surface and for us to stumble on that location before it is eroded and lost.

 

In relation to kindheart's other two comments, I believe these need amending. The conventional illustration he refers to lacks scientific consistency and is best avoided. There is abundant debate as where to place particular australopithocenes in the evolutionary tree, or even whether some are austalopithocenes, or should be part of another genus entirely. Such debate is loud, passionate and sometimes metaphorically violent. Creationists pounce on this as evidence that it is all nonsense. However, consider these to alternate questions:

 

Ask researchers if fossil A is ancestral to man and you will get the disagreement I spoke of.

Ask researchers if fossil A is on a branch reasonably close to the evolutionary line of man and you will get essentially universal agreement.

 

A similar issue exists for Archaeopteryx. I think kindheart may find its status a direct dinosaur to bird ancestor has changed. That does not devalue its use as evidence of the kind of evolutionary changes that were leading to that transition.

So, kindheart's essential idea remains. Your three points are incorrect.

 

Hope that helps.

[Strange]

Nothing can be proven in the end.

Agreed. Science doesn't do "proof".

 

 

It is either faith in naturalistic science or faith in the science God created.

I don't really understand this. I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make. There is only one sort of science I am aware of, that is the use of objective, repeatable data to build testable models of the world around us. I guess, if you are of a religious or philosophical nature, you could say God created that. <shrug>

 

But it doesn't require "faith" to think that science works. Just a quick look at the practical results will do. Engineering can be described as "applied science".

 

Most early scientists and many modern ones are inspired in their work by wanting to better understand their god(s)'s creation.

 

 

So to get started I am going to talk about the big bang. The First Law of Thermodynamics ...

So, I think ajb has addresses this (I noticed after I started writing). But...

Firstly, conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics only apply locally (to closed systems). So we can't say anything about the energy of the whole universe; it just isn't well defined.

Secondly, the big bang theory doesn't say anything about the creation of the universe. It is a description of the apparent evolution of the universe from an earlier hot dense state. There is all sorts of speculation about what might have happened at the very earliest times but no one really knows. "God did it" is probably as good as any other idea right now.

 

 

The utter failure of the fossil record to back up evolution is an important subject for us to talk about.

a) That isn't true.

b) It isn't really relevant. The theory of evolution doesn't depend on the fossil record.

 

Fossils are useful for telling us some of the details of the history of evolution, which is interesting. And can usefully be used to test the theory (it passes, by the way).

 

But given a few basics like:

 

1. Variation within a population = an observed fact

2. Those variations being inherited (to some extent) = an observed fact

3. Those variations also affecting survival/reproduction success = an observed fact

 

Then evolution is kind of inevitable. It would take divine intervention to stop it happening!

 

 

Yes, there are transitional species, but

There are only transitional species. Everything is in transition from an earlier form to a later one.

 

I'm afraid that your comments on the fossil record appear to be based on a lack of knowledge and some misinformation. I'm sure someone here can provide some good resources to learn more.

This might be a useful starting point: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Edited October 16, 2013 by Strange

[john5746]

So to start off with we need to have some presuppositions. First, everyone in the discussion has to agree that all people operate with a set of starting assumptions. Nothing can be proven in the end. It is either faith in naturalistic science or faith in the science God created. Until then we can't have a civilized argument or rather should I say, conversation.

Say you are walking down the street and you see a dead man laying down with an object stuck in his back. To begin the process of determining what happened, you will probably start with an assumption.

 

1) The man was stabbed by someone or somehow fell backwords on the object

2) God did it.

 

Which assumption makes sense to you? Why? Which one will more likely lead to a meaningful answer?

[kindheart]

If I may also ask another question. Why exactly did you abandon you're faith from God?

 

There was no evidence for God's existence.

Edited October 16, 2013 by kindheart

[Villain]

Say you are walking down the street and you see a dead man laying down with an object stuck in his back. To begin the process of determining what happened, you will probably start with an assumption.

 

1) The man was stabbed by someone or somehow fell backwords on the object

2) God did it.

 

Which assumption makes sense to you? Why? Which one will more likely lead to a meaningful answer?

 

Is the dead man made of straw like this analogy?

[Ophiolite]

 

Is the dead man made of straw like this analogy?

I don't think it is an analogy. It is a direct comparison of two events that are in the same class.

[Villain]

I don't think it is an analogy. It is a direct comparison of two events that are in the same class.

 

The OP seems to be talking about a first cause which doesn't equate to dead man IMO.

[doG]

So to get started I am going to talk about the big bang. The First Law of Thermodynamics - the fundamental principle of physics that the total energy of an isolated system is constant despite internal changes. This law is also very close to the law of the conservation of energy which states: In the absence of external work input or output, the energy of a system remains unchanged. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. So you see both laws say that wether or not you have internal changes of a system, the rate if energy stays the same or constant. Then in the conservation of energy the systems energy can only be changed by an external input or output. So basically that states right there that it is physically impossible for the big bang to occur. Because the BB is stated as being a outward expansion, the fact that you cannot have a system change energy in any way without a external input or output, nothing would happen. So the big bang is rendered as impossible based on these two laws.

 

The big bang theory makes no attempt to theorize or predict what did or did not exist prior to that event. It makes no claim that matter or energy came from nowhere. There very well could have been an existing universe that went through a big crunch that caused the event we label as a big bang. We have no observable evidence of anything prior to the big bang to make any hypothesis of the state of matter or energy before that so science draws no conclusions on where the big bang came from.

So next I would like to talk about fossil records. The utter failure of the fossil record to back up evolution is an important subject for us to talk about.

 

Yes, there are transitional species, but

 

1.they are few and far between.

2.they are all controversial.

3.their shelf life tends to be about a decade before they are replaced.

 

There is nothing stopping God from having created a fascinating assortment of creatures. From all appearance, He did not. Had we found the transitional fossils or species required for evolution, they would be used as evidence for evolution and as a weapon against creation. Yet, they could not logically be submitted as proof for evolution and disproof of creation because the data could easily fit into either model. The fact is, however, that a general lack of transitional species exists, which does not fit nicely into evolutionary theory. Darwin predicted that future scientists would find innumerable transitional fossils. In fact, he said this would be a direct test of his theory. 150 years later, the missing links are still missing. So what else must I say about this?

 

Evolution is a fact. The fact that we need to create a new flu vaccine every year shows evolution in process. There are plenty of transitional species alive today to support the evolution of species. Evolution is not a theory on the origin of life or abiogenesis. It makes no assertion or predictions on where life came from. Science does not have an answer for this, it is still exploring the observable evidence available as it looks for an answer to the question of where life came from. Science does not just give up the search though and make up an answer like "God did it". It only draws conclusions based on evidence and the lack of evidence to support any particular theory A is not support for theory B so the fact that we have no evidence on the beginning of life is not evidence to support any 'God' theory. There is no evidence of any deities and no reason to conclude they exist at all.

Edited October 17, 2013 by doG

[Ringer]

Hello I am 14 and I simply am asking for Atheists opinions on this and what I am about to say. Since I am only 14 you can expect me not to be very knowledgable. But remember a kind can still have good points. I do not want to put any of you on the spot or offend anyone in any way. I am a strong believer in Christ, so I don't want to win an argument, I want to win souls.

Although you're honest about your end game, it's not a very honest discussion when your only goal is to win souls instead of discuss ideas. I don't want that to be taken the wrong way, but it seems disheartening to even begin discussions this way.

 

So to start off with we need to have some presuppositions. First, everyone in the discussion has to agree that all people operate with a set of starting assumptions. Nothing can be proven in the end. It is either faith in naturalistic science or faith in the science God created. Until then we can't have a civilized argument or rather should I say, conversation.

The problem with that idea is that science is based on methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism. Though many scientists are naturalists it isn't a necessity. So long as naturalism is assumed in the methodology, philosophically one can believe anything.

 

So to get started I am going to talk about the big bang. The First Law of Thermodynamics - the fundamental principle of physics that the total energy of an isolated system is constant despite internal changes. This law is also very close to the law of the conservation of energy which states: In the absence of external work input or output, the energy of a system remains unchanged. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. So you see both laws say that wether or not you have internal changes of a system, the rate if energy stays the same or constant. Then in the conservation of energy the systems energy can only be changed by an external input or output. So basically that states right there that it is physically impossible for the big bang to occur. Because the BB is stated as being a outward expansion, the fact that you cannot have a system change energy in any way without a external input or output, nothing would happen. So the big bang is rendered as impossible based on these two laws.

Even in a closed system spontaneous reactions may occur.

 

So next I would like to talk about fossil records. The utter failure of the fossil record to back up evolution is an important subject for us to talk about.

There is no failure, other than school's failure to teach these things properly. We have beautiful transitions of any number of species and character states that support evolution more than most other scientific theories.

 

Yes, there are transitional species, but

 

1.they are few and far between.

All species are transitional, ring species are good examples

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

 

2.they are all controversial.

Again, incorrect. Most transitional fossils are controversial only in very specific phylogenetic terms, but not that they are transitional species

 

3.their shelf life tends to be about a decade before they are replaced.

I don't know what this means.

 

There is nothing stopping God from having created a fascinating assortment of creatures. From all appearance, He did not. Had we found the transitional fossils or species required for evolution, they would be used as evidence for evolution and as a weapon against creation. Yet, they could not logically be submitted as proof for evolution and disproof of creation because the data could easily fit into either model. The fact is, however, that a general lack of transitional species exists, which does not fit nicely into evolutionary theory. Darwin predicted that future scientists would find innumerable transitional fossils. In fact, he said this would be a direct test of his theory. 150 years later, the missing links are still missing. So what else must I say about this?

We do have the evidence, and they are used against creation. The problem begins with coming into a discussion assuming the answer and ignoring counter-evidence. The reason creation is discounted is because it makes massive assumptions that have no evidence to support them and because you can use ANYTHING to support creation by making further assumptions. If it's unfalsifiable it's not science, so it's ignored.

 

I would start with reading up on any number of sites about evolution. talkorigins.org is a good one

 

So this is it. I could say more but it is getting late here and I need to go to sleep. So basically I want your opinions. Do you think this is sound logic? Remember I do not mean this as proof of creation. I simply wanted to see how you guys would see this. Please don't be mean because in end it makes you look bad.

I have had this discussion many times in the past (most of my family are creationists) and the arguments you bring are all old and have been beaten to death. The first thing anyone should do when making a factual statement is look for multiple sources (more importantly sources that disagree) to see if the statement is factual. You seem like an intelligent person, use that intelligence to search, question, and explore. I don't care if you're atheist or theist or whatever, just learn. Creationism denies all evidence by basically saying 'magic', is that really satisfying to you? Please search sites that talk about evolution and teach about evolution, don't put blinders on your intellect because of what you are taught.

[Strange]

 

The OP seems to be talking about a first cause which doesn't equate to dead man IMO.

 

I think the dead man thing was about looking at the evidence to try and reach a conclusion, rather than just jumping to a conclusion without considering the evidence, and possibly contradicting the evidence.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Strange

[pears]

I have had this discussion many times in the past (most of my family are creationists) and the arguments you bring are all old and have been beaten to death. The first thing anyone should do when making a factual statement is look for multiple sources (more importantly sources that disagree) to see if the statement is factual. You seem like an intelligent person, use that intelligence to search, question, and explore. I don't care if you're atheist or theist or whatever, just learn. Creationism denies all evidence by basically saying 'magic', is that really satisfying to you? Please search sites that talk about evolution and teach about evolution, don't put blinders on your intellect because of what you are taught.

 

Ringer makes a good post here. If you want to learn about evolution but are suspicious of it then you might like sites like http://biologos.org/ which is run by christians who reject creationism and Intelligent Design and embrace evolution as taught by mainstream science.

[Arete]

I won't re-iterate the other posters which have pointed out that a number of your assertions about evoluiton and the fossil record are misconceived, aside from saying I am truly sorry that you have been misinformed. It is not fair to you, as a seemingly intellgent and articulate 14 year old to have been presented with flawed facts and strawman versions of science, and then be expected to come to an informed, well thought out conclusion.

 

I will however say that the major shortcoming of the fossil record is its imcompleteness. It is woefully incomplete. Imagine it's a jigsaw puzzle, from which you have lost most of the pieces - the picture you can see is far from complete, but of what we see of it, it fits evolutionary theory extraordinarily well. Fortunately , it is also far from the only "jigsaw" of information we have:

 

- We have direct observational evidence, like the Lenski experiment which has evolved E. coli populations for 25 years and shown how through evolutionary processes, they can develop new phenotypic traits. We also have instances where a population of organisms has diverged into two species during historical tiime, like the apple maggot fly and the yellow fever mosquito.

 

- We have biogeographical evidence that organisms share common ancestry. For example, many of the organisms which are found on the former continents which made up Gondwana are more related to each other than the places they are near to now, providing evidence of common ancestry.

 

- We have macro-morphological evidence, like vestigial organs like tail bones in humans and leg bones in whales, which support common ancestry with animals with tails and legs, respectively.

 

- On the cellular level, the evidence for common ancestry becomes even more compelling. Despite the obvious differences between say an dandelion and a horse, when you look at the the structural components of the cells, they are largely the same. This suggests that, despite the massive differences in external morphology you see today, they share common ancestry.

 

- Prehaps the most elegant (or maybe I'm just biased by working in genetics) evidence comes from genetics. All organisms on earth share the same basic structure and code for their blueprint. The study of genetics provides a comprehensive understanding of the mechanism by which phenotypic traits are inherited, how they can change, and provide the co-ordinates required to map the evolution of life.

 

This is not an exhaustive list of the lines of evidence we have for evolution - but when you "overlay" each of these "jigsaws" with each other, you can put together a more complete picture of the overall evidence, and the image we get is overwhelmingly consistent with evolutionary theory. As we look more, get more pieces fo each puzzle, learn how to reshuffle the pieces we have more accurately, we get a better overall picture, and it only keeps looking more and more like evolution is the right fit for the data.

 

As an ending, I don't believe that evolutionary theory is exclusive of religion - it would seem that the Pope strongly agrees, calling the argument "absurd". You can believe in evolution and God - I have had the pleasure of collaborating with Professor Francisco Ayala who is a former Dominican Priest, a Professor of Evolutionary Biology at UC Irvine and former president of the AAAS. You might find some of his essays on religion and science interesting, especially, his book - "Am I a monkey?" which addresses the question of what evolution is and whether it is compatible with belief in God. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042603381.html

http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=2134

Edited October 17, 2013 by Arete

[Moontanman]

Lots of very good answers here and i do understand the delima of religious indoctrination vs scientific inquiry. I suggest this series of videos to illustrate so many here have written in print, sometimes a visual representation can close the gaps a written description cannot... science is not necessarily atheism and religion is not necessarily creationism, this series of videos illustrates this extremely well, there are 17 of them but they are all only around 10 to 15 minutes long and well worth watching...

 

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC

Edited October 17, 2013 by Moontanman

[Greg H.]

Hello I am 14 and I simply am asking for Atheists opinions on this and what I am about to say. Since I am only 14 you can expect me not to be very knowledgable. But remember a kind can still have good points. I do not want to put any of you on the spot or offend anyone in any way. I am a strong believer in Christ, so I don't want to win an argument, I want to win souls.

Hello and welcome to the forums!

 

So to start off with we need to have some presuppositions. First, everyone in the discussion has to agree that all people operate with a set of starting assumptions. Nothing can be proven in the end. It is either faith in naturalistic science or faith in the science God created. Until then we can't have a civilized argument or rather should I say, conversation.

The problem, most often, isn't that everyone comes with their own set of assumptions; it's that a lot of people refuse to change their assumptions when presented with evidence that counter them. As long as you have an open mind, and are willing to consider arguments on the merit of the evidence at hand, you'll do just fine - not only here but more generally in life as well.

 

So to get started I am going to talk about the big bang. The First Law of Thermodynamics - the fundamental principle of physics that the total energy of an isolated system is constant despite internal changes. This law is also very close to the law of the conservation of energy which states: In the absence of external work input or output, the energy of a system remains unchanged. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. So you see both laws say that wether or not you have internal changes of a system, the rate if energy stays the same or constant. Then in the conservation of energy the systems energy can only be changed by an external input or output. So basically that states right there that it is physically impossible for the big bang to occur. Because the BB is stated as being a outward expansion, the fact that you cannot have a system change energy in any way without a external input or output, nothing would happen. So the big bang is rendered as impossible based on these two laws.

The simple fact is, we just don't know how the universe started. And contrary to the popular "there was nothing and it exploded" explanation of the big bang, the theory really doesn't say anything about how it may have formed. We have some ideas, but we lack the physics and the technology to adequately test them (I hope I'm getting this correct - if not, some physicist here on the site will come along and chastise me).

 

Asking "What was the universe like before the big bang?" is like asking "What happens at the middle of a black hole?". The answers given by our current understanding of physics are meaningless (in that they often involve things like infinity which don't offer much insight into an actual answer).

 

What the big bang does explain is what happens after that initial instant when our physics breaks down. How do the four fundamental forces act, and how would we expect the universe to evolve given what we know? What we find is that the BB theory is remarkably predictive in terms of what we actually observe, and this is the true test of any scientific theory - does it hold up to reality? As it says in my signature - if your theory and reality disagree, it is not reality that's wrong.

 

Also, you can't really discuss conservation of energy as it applies to the whole universe because we just don't know if the universe is a closed system or not.

 

Finally, make sure you understand the difference between what a scientist means when he says "theory" and what a layperson means when he uses the same word. In science, theory has a very specific meaning - what most lay people (of which I am one) call theories are more properly labelled as "hypotheses" or "vague ideas I had in the shower".

 

So next I would like to talk about fossil records. The utter failure of the fossil record to back up evolution is an important subject for us to talk about.

 

Yes, there are transitional species, but

 

1.they are few and far between.

2.they are all controversial.

3.their shelf life tends to be about a decade before they are replaced.

I am going to stop here and reiterate what several other people have already said - educate yourself on the science of evolution - specifically what is sometimes called macro-evolution by creationists (which is the part they most often deny).

 

A good starting point would be talkorigins.org 29+ Evidences for Macro-evolution (which also has rebuttals and responses to the rebuttals, IIRC).

 

Again, welcome to the forums!

Edited October 17, 2013 by Greg H.

[john5746]

The OP seems to be talking about a first cause which doesn't equate to dead man IMO.

Actually, it was offered as evidence to support his main position, which is that his opinions are equivalent to science. If he relies on science and reason for events that he understands, why would he use something else for those that he doesn't understand?

 

If there is this being that created everything and can do anything, why can't he be involved at any given moment? Why "jump to the conclusion" that God is not involved in any given murder, birth, etc. Why does a method that disregards "God did it" come up with the answers so much more readily than asking God?

 

nothing equates to the beginnings of the universe, that is why we need to utilize science instead of equating it to objects or rules within the universe. The example I provided was not intended to address that.

Edited October 17, 2013 by john5746

[Moontanman]

The main thing that jumps out at me in the OP was the idea that some how science equals atheism and that the "fight" is between Christendom and science, this is not true, the videos I listed show this very well and the texts are available as well as links to some relevant scientific information.

 

http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/1stFFoC.html

Edited October 17, 2013 by Moontanman