Aussie scientists

[slowpoke55]

1:1 In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light and there was light.

Another thing it gets wrong is that it states the moon is a light.

1:16

God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.

The moon is reflecting light it is not emitting it.

HisG: Have you ever referred to the light bulb in your bedroom as a "light"? Even when it isn't on? EG: "Can you please turn the light on?"

Same thing with the moon.....it is the "light" at night - yes, light reflected off the moon by the suns rays...and like the rocks at the NASA centre show, moon rocks are made up of highly reflective material in line with doing exactly what it's job is to do - give light to earth and of course us, you and me.

That's completely laughable that one thinks that the moons reflective properties are just a result of randomness and chaos...my foot

Even today, no educator with a basic understanding of the sun and moon would explain moonlight to a child the way the bible does.

When in an enclosed room we say light as a shorthand to mean artificial light source. If you're in a room with a curtain over a window that is exposed to the sun, do you say "turn on the light" when you want someone to open the curtains to let the sunlight in?

You can argue philosophy all you want, but the forces that explain the formation of the sun, moon and earth are well known and none of these processes involves the need for a supernatural force.

.

[slowpoke55]

Even today, no educator with a basic understanding of the sun and moon would explain moonlight to a child the way the bible does.

Have you ever seen a beautiful 'sun-set'? Did it really 'set'?

You're just confirming my original point...

The Bible does not teach anything about the universe. It tells a story with vast generalities that are often wrong.

[slowpoke55]

You can argue philosophy all you want, but the forces that explain the formation of the sun, moon and earth are well known and none of these processes involves the need for a supernatural force.

Logically and scientifically---how did something - the Universe - come from nothing?

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." ~ Isaac Newton

Without evidential support it remains an opinion. Although arguments from authority are readily accepted by religion (when they confirm their views of course), these arguments are invalid when it comes to science.

You really need to read up on how scientific research is carried out. It's not a bunch of guesses and or attempts to validate ideas through logic. In order to demonstrate the validity of a concept, one must provide evidential support, having an idea or argument is not enough.

[slowpoke55]

You can argue philosophy all you want, but the forces that explain the formation of the sun, moon and earth are well known and none of these processes involves the need for a supernatural force.

Logically and scientifically---how did something - the Universe - come from nothing?

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." ~ Isaac Newton

Without evidential support it remains an opinion.

You didn't answer my question---logically and scientifically---how did something - the Universe - come from nothing?

Define nothing.

[slowpoke55]

Can you scientifically demonstrate that "an intelligent and powerful Being" did not create the Universe or do you simply believe via faith that God does not exist?

The burden is on you to substantiate your claim, it's not on the critic - at least iin the adult world that's the way it works..

http://en.wikipedia....burden_of_proof

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

http://www.qcc.cuny....en-of-Proof.htm

Evidence of absence

http://en.wikipedia....ence_of_absence

The difference between evidence that something is absent (e.g. an observation that suggests there were no dragons here today) and a simple absence of evidence (e.g. no careful research has been done) can be nuanced. Indeed, scientists will often debate whether an experiment's result should be considered evidence of absence, or if it remains absence of evidence. The debate is whether the experiment would have detected the phenomenon of interest if it was there.

The confusion is worsened since arguments from ignorance and incredulity are often (wrongly) advanced in debates as proper "evidence of absence". A case in point: arguing "There is no evidence that this mysterious remedy does not work, therefore it works." Basically, this arguments from ignorance relies on a lack of research to somehow draw conclusions. While this is a powerful method of debate to switch the burden of proof, appealing to ignorance is a fallacy. Carl Sagan criticized such "impatience with ambiguity" using cosmologist Martin Rees' maxim, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."^[3]

Feel free to make up your own special rules for discussing this topic, just let me know ahead of time what fallacies you want to accept as valid.

Edited October 11, 2012 by slowpoke55

[slowpoke55]

You didn't answer my question---logically and scientifically---how did something - the Universe - come from nothing?

Define nothing.

You are still dancing--why?

nothing

--the absence of something.

Bull. I have a conception of what nothing should be and I doubt that it’s the same yours. Your simplistic response confirms this. Also, your request that I give a logical and scientific answer is a humorous on several levels. One, it’s coming from someone with fallacious arguments. Two, you reject science that contradicts your mythology. Three, your counter responses are usually, “well, the Bible says this and that’s evidence for me.” There are more, like expecting logic to apply to the quantum mechanics. Overall though, it seems like concepts and thus philosophy are the foundation of your questions, (by the way my answer to your question is quantum fluctuations), and science is only of use to you when you can stretch its findings to sort of line up with the vast generalities in the Bible. It’s no surprise that a creationist story is appealing because: it gives you simple answers to the mysterious of the universe (accuracy is another issue) that seem logical because the appearance of design is strong, it tells you why you are so special (who doesn’t want to feel special), and gives you guidelines for taking your place next to a wonderful being - everything is all rolled up into one package like an Oscar Meyer Lunchables. http://www.lunchables.com/

[slowpoke55]

The burden is on you to substantiate your claim, it's not on the critic - at least iin the adult world that's the way it works..

We are discussing the interrogative - “Does God exist?” In an interrogative “each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer.” This being true – what evidence do you offer (other than blind faith) that supports your error that God does not exist? If you have none just say you don’t—we will understand.

After realizing your fallacious arguments aren't cutting it, you want to shift this into a personal chat between girlfriends? It’s no longer, “prove that God doesn't exist” but “Does God exist and what do you think He’s wearing?” Your real question, though, is not does a god or gods exist; it’s, does the god of the Abrahamic variety exist? Is this not correct?

[ByFaithAlone]

The burden is on you to substantiate your claim, it's not on the critic - at least iin the adult world that's the way it works..

We are discussing the interrogative - “Does God exist?” In an interrogative “each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer.” This being true – what evidence do you offer (other than blind faith) that supports your error that God does not exist? If you have none just say you don’t—we will understand.

You misrepresent the position of the atheist just as you misrepresented it in another thread. The position of the atheist is a lack of belief in a God due to lack of arguments and evidence. The interrogative you are posing would be valid only for an antitheist (one who claims that no God or gods exist). Stop repeating this same argument.

[Fez]

You didn't answer my question---logically and scientifically---how did something - the Universe - come from nothing?

Define nothing.

You are still dancing--why?

nothing

--the absence of something.

Bull. I have a conception of what nothing should be and I doubt that it’s the same yours. Your simplistic response confirms this. Also, your request that I give a logical and scientific answer is a humorous on several levels. One, it’s coming from someone with fallacious arguments. Two, you reject science that contradicts your mythology. Three, your counter responses are usually, “well, the Bible says this and that’s evidence for me.” There are more, like expecting logic to apply to the quantum mechanics. Overall though, it seems like concepts and thus philosophy are the foundation of your questions, (by the way my answer to your question is quantum fluctuations), and science is only of use to you when you can stretch its findings to sort of line up with the vast generalities in the Bible. It’s no surprise that a creationist story is appealing because: it gives you simple answers to the mysterious of the universe (accuracy is another issue) that seem logical because the appearance of design is strong, it tells you why you are so special (who doesn’t want to feel special), and gives you guidelines for taking your place next to a wonderful being - everything is all rolled up into one package like an Oscar Meyer Lunchables. http://www.lunchables.com/

There are more, like expecting logic to apply to the quantum mechanics.

Lol, and yet here you are, expecting logic to apply to the Bible.

[Guest HisG]

1:1 In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light and there was light.

Another thing it gets wrong is that it states the moon is a light.

1:16

God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.

The moon is reflecting light it is not emitting it.

HisG: Have you ever referred to the light bulb in your bedroom as a "light"? Even when it isn't on? EG: "Can you please turn the light on?"

Same thing with the moon.....it is the "light" at night - yes, light reflected off the moon by the suns rays...and like the rocks at the NASA centre show, moon rocks are made up of highly reflective material in line with doing exactly what it's job is to do - give light to earth and of course us, you and me.

That's completely laughable that one thinks that the moons reflective properties are just a result of randomness and chaos...my foot

Even today, no educator with a basic understanding of the sun and moon would explain moonlight to a child the way the bible does.

When in an enclosed room we say light as a shorthand to mean artificial light source. If you're in a room with a curtain over a window that is exposed to the sun, do you say "turn on the light" when you want someone to open the curtains to let the sunlight in?

You can argue philosophy all you want, but the forces that explain the formation of the sun, moon and earth are well known and none of these processes involves the need for a supernatural force.

.

LOL Really?

A light bulb isn't the source of light yet you refer to it as a "light" yes? ...even when it isn't emitting light from electricity...: )

What's the chances of randomness "giving" the moon highly reflective properties?

The moon serves as a night light for earth....doing exactly what it was created to do.

A result of randomness?

You are kidding me....