Material for a Paper on Atheism

Question from Cherish:
Hi, I am doing a research paper on atheism and was wondering if I could ask you some questions so that I can get an atheist’s view on it.

1. First off I would like to ask you a little bit about yourself, age now and age you were when you first became an atheist.
2. What things do you support that a religion such as Christianity would not?
3. Do you have any sort of belief other than atheism?
4. And also, why is it that you find the big bang theory more believable than thinking someone of greater power created it?

Answer by SmartLX:
Hi Cherish. The answers to most or all of these are probably available in my other writings, so feel free to search for some keywords, but I’m happy to recap it all. I’ve added numbers to your questions above for easy reference.

1. 36 now, 26-27 when I realised I was an atheist. It was probably a few years earlier that my belief faded and I actually became an atheist but I was too preoccupied with other things to notice. The media attention for “New Atheism” made me think about it again.

2. I support secularism in government and society, which some Christians do and others do not. I support legal marriage between any two consenting adults (this is still a battlefield here in Australia), which some Christians do and others do not. I support reproductive rights for women such as abortion and surrogacy, which again some Christians do and others do not. In all three cases, the reason why people do not support these things is almost invariably their religion and the “values” their religious upbringings have instilled.

3. I believe all sorts of things. I believe hard work pays off better with planning, I believe Colin Baker wasn’t as bad in Doctor Who in the 1980s as people make out, I believe I left a bag of toiletries in York on my way to Edinburgh. I don’t believe in anything supernatural though, so nothing like ghosts or ESP or astrology.

4. There’s evidence that the Big Bang happened, whatever caused it or whether or not it needed a cause. There’s no available substantive evidence for the kind of “greater power” that could deliberately trigger the birth of a universe, so to entertain the idea of this happening you basically have to make up this entity and ascribe arbitrary qualities to it, and to the universe. And there’s something I’ve tweeted before: whatever constraints you apply to the universe in order to necessitate God, you immediately have to break in order to allow God.

Cherish, I’d appreciate it very much if you could comment and tell us what kind of course or other academic pursuit this research paper is for. I like to know who’s doing this kind of work.

23 thoughts on “Material for a Paper on Atheism”

  1. This is from smarLX”“The Big Bang theory isn’t perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got.”
    Scientists believe our universe comes from a singularity. Scientists don’t actually know where this singularity came from or exactly what it is, but they do know that a singularity is an infinitely small, hot area of infinite pressure and density. These singularities defy our known laws of physics because they didn’t appear in space. Rather, space began inside them. Before the singularity, nothing existed. There was no space, no time, no matter, no energy.
    One of the misconceptions about the Big Bang is that it was an explosion, like with fire and sound and, well, kind of like a bomb. It wasn’t. Instead, it was probably more like a balloon being blown up – a really tiny balloon. A balloon starts small and expands outward at roughly the same speed all around. Our universe is that balloon”.
    And this is from this website. Maybe you aren’t sure about how it started, but the inspirered writers of the Bible were sure.
    http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html
    “17 verses in the Bible state that God expanded
    the size of the Universe from its original size.
    What affect did that have on time, and on red and blue shift?

    Home | Audio | Buy | Contact | Downloads | FAQ | Links | | TOC | Videos
    Seven books of the Bible reference this event starting from about 1000 BC in the book of Psalms, to about 518 BC in the book of Zechariah (a span of almost 500 years). This “stretching” of the universe was done during the creation week described in Genesis. Dr. Russell Humphreys suggests in his book Starlight and Time that it may have given the universe an older look the farther you move away from Earth into the outermost reaches of the universe. From Earth’s perspective, the universe would be about 6,000 – 10,000 years old. However, in the outermost reaches of the universe, this rapid expansion may have given those galaxies the appearance of being billions of years old, even though they aged that much in what is most likely less than 24 hours.

    Current evolutionary thinking suggests that the universe is still expanding. This is based in large part of the belief that ‘red shift’ indicates that the stars and galaxies are moving away from each other. However, Isaiah 40:22 seems to suggest that this expanding of the galaxies was a one time event that occurred in a very short amount of time (probably in less than 24 hours), and that the expansion may no longer be occurring. Tents and curtains don’t keep expanding once they’re fully opened up. They are finite in size.

    [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
    – Isaiah 40:22

    Furthermore, none of these Bible verses appear to suggest that this expansion is still going on.

    Do scientists really know what the impact would be of having the universe expanded at what was most likely millions or even billions of times faster than the speed of light? How would such a rapid expansion affect the visible red and blue shift we see today in space? How would that affect time, especially at the outer edges of the universe? Could the red shift that evolutionists believe indicates an expanding universe actually be the result of this rapid stretching of the universe that started and ended about 6,000 years ago?

    Quotes below are from the King James Bible (KJV), and are listed in alphabetical order.

    Ezekiel
    Author(s): Ezekiel
    Date: 592-570 B.C.

    And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature [was] as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.
    Ezekiel 1:22

    Isaiah
    Author(s): Isaiah
    Date: 746-680 B.C.

    [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
    – Isaiah 40:22

    Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
    Isaiah 42:5

    Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
    Isaiah 44:24

    I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
    Isaiah 45:12

    Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: [when] I call unto them, they stand up together.
    Isaiah 48:13

    And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where [is] the fury of the oppressor?
    Isaiah 51:13

    Jeremiah
    Author(s): Jeremiah
    Date: 627-585 B.C.

    He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
    Jeremiah 10:12

    He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
    Jeremiah 51:15

    Job
    Author(s): Possibly Job, Elihu,
    Moses or Solomon; not sure
    Date: 950 B.C. or earlier

    Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.
    Job 9:8

    He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.
    Job 26:7

    Hast thou with him spread out the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?
    Job 37:18

    Psalms
    Author(s): Several
    Date: Varied, about 1000 B.C.

    He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness [was] under his feet.
    Psalms 18:9

    Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
    Psalms 104:2

    Bow thy heavens, O LORD, and come down: touch the mountains, and they shall smoke.
    Psalms 144:5

    2 Samuel
    Author(s): Samuel, Nathan, Gad
    Date: About 930 BC

    He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness [was] under his feet.
    2 Samuel 22:10

    Zechariah
    Author(s): Zechariah
    Date: 520-518 B.C.

    The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
    Zechariah 12:1
    Your theory of the ” balloon” being blown up, is like all the other theories that Atheists throw out with no regard for the facts that would cement them as proved. You don’t know how it all started but you jump ahead and theorize that ” this how it all came to pass ” but you fail to be able to explain what caused it. You simply expect all to swallow the mess without asking the questions that would reveal what you are providing has even less possibility than the God who you so easily cast out as the cause of it all. While you say that there is no evidence that God exists you completely ignore the fact that the universe and us are that very evidence. The completely impossibility that this universe somehow kicked started itself, when, so you Atheists say, it had to have been laying dormant, or out of existence for who knows how long. But suddenly it or something inside the nothing expanse, began to inflate or explode. Not, only are you not realizing that not only does the this possibility, account for the fact that there is nothing. If there is nothing there is no singularity. And if you are willing to concede the possibility of there being any kind of something, than why aren’t you willing to accept the fact that there could be an Intelligent being that created everything. He could have even been the One that caused the sudden imbalance in that so called singularity that ballooned and, but now I’m ignoring the fact that there is nothing. No, singularity, and even if there was a singularity, from where did all the matter come from. Even if there were a singularity, it had nothing in it. What, could have caused it to become unbalanced, and not only balloon out but from where and what kind of chemicals could possibly have mixed that caused the sudden appearance of the billions of tons of rock and all we see and can’t see? And to cross that chasm, only to face an even greater one, of the sudden appearance of life coming from inanimate matter, and to simply ignore the impossibilities roadblocks that should cause you to stop and reconsider your path of musing is not the path of a true seeker of knowledge. Everything is too orderly, and intricate to have been caused without the intervention of God.

    1. From Easton’s Bible Dictionary, 1897:

      “from the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation of the Hebrew raki’a. This word means simply “expansion.” It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered raki’a by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body. The language of Scripture is not scientific but popular, and hence we read of the sun rising and setting, and also here the use of this particular word. It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion. It formed a division between the waters above and the waters below (Gen. 1:7). The raki’a supported the upper reservoir (Ps. 148:4). It was the support also of the heavenly bodies (Gen. 1:14), and is spoken of as having “windows” and “doors” (Gen. 7:11; Isa. 24:18; Mal. 3:10) through which the rain and snow might descend.”

      Spacetime is not a “curtain”, and it does not “spread out” over anything. The language in the Bible clearly speaks of a planet (Earth) that is flat, anchored, and attached to something, with the firmament like a “tent” over it. This is so scientifically inaccurate that it doesn’t need to be explained any further. These passages merely show the conventional thinking of Bronze Age peoples at that time – ignorant and erroneous.

      1. Why ignore the other questions that I have brought up. How could nothing produce something?
        What could have been the catalyst that caused nothing at rest, at peace with all around, to suddenly bring forth everything? What was the outside influence? What or Who, interjected this new, obviously, not there compound, to come into contact with this peaceful nothingness, and ” bean batta boom” inorganics are on the scene? And why is it so hard to accept that “Someone” was there if you are obviously willing to accept that something was there?

    2. Gerald writes: [Your theory of the ” balloon” being blown up, is like all the other theories that Atheists throw out with no regard for the facts that would cement them as proved. You don’t know how it all started but you jump ahead and theorize that ” this how it all came to pass ” but you fail to be able to explain what caused it.]

      Once again you’ve posted a comment that reflects an inaccurate understanding of a scientific theory. First, the Big Bang Theory is not a theory by “Atheists”. It is a scientific theory, developed by scientists to reflect the data and empirical evidence gathered to date. As the majority of scientists in America are believers and/or have faith in a personal deity, your comment is inflammatory rhetoric. This has been pointed out to you before. As a scientific theory cannot exist without facts, your claim that the theory is thrown out “with no regard for the facts” is utter nonsense. The cosmic background radiation, gravity waves, red shifting of light, and movement of the universe away from a central point is just some of the measurable data that supports the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory does NOT explain the source of the singularity, and therefore does not comment on that. The Big Bang theory also does NOT explain the cause of the present universe, and therefore does not comment on that. All the Big Bang theory does is explain the history of the universe. I’ve explained these things to you before, yet you continue to make the same tired errors in your comments.

      This article explains what I’ve already stated above, but you can read it as a conformation of my info if you’d like: http://www.space.com/31192-what-triggered-the-big-bang.html

      In the mean time, if you cannot accurately discuss the scientific theory of the Big Bang, perhaps you should refrain from discussing it in these threads.

      Gerald writes: [While you say that there is no evidence that God exists you completely ignore the fact that the universe and us are that very evidence.]

      This is another claim that has been thoroughly and repeatedly refuted in the past. How many additional times do you plan to make this baseless assertion at this website? The existence of the universe does not prove a god exists. It does not prove a natural explanation either for that matter. The only thing the existence of the universe proves is that the universe does indeed exist. Why it exists or how it came to exist cannot be proven JUST BECAUSE it exists. If you cannot accurately discuss what constitutes evidence in a logical format perhaps you should refrain from discussing it in these threads.

      Gerald wriets: [The completely impossibility that this universe somehow kicked started itself]

      I’d ask you to prove this, but we already know you can’t. You have no idea what is possible or not possible in quantum mechanics or outside of spacetime. You’ve made a baseless assumption without any empirical data to support it.

      [But suddenly it or something inside the nothing expanse, began to inflate or explode. Not, only are you not realizing that not only does the this possibility, account for the fact that there is nothing. If there is nothing there is no singularity.]

      As explained to you previously, the universe IS nothing. It adds up to a big fat zero. The universe, as Stephen Hawking has written, is a free lunch. You don’t know what you are talking about. Please educate yourself on the topic.

      Gerald writes: [And if you are willing to concede the possibility of there being any kind of something, than why aren’t you willing to accept the fact that there could be an Intelligent being that created everything.]

      No one here can say, with 100% certainty, that no god being exists. We can’t say leprechauns definitely don’t exist either. That’s because you can’t prove a negative. What we can say is that there is exactly zero evidence or data for such critters, and exactly zero evidence or data for the supernatural in general. So while it can’t be ruled out, there is also no good reason to consider the possibility as remotely plausible. Again, not ruling it out, but not giving it any real consideration since the concept is full of logical paradoxes and devoid of proof. (Guess what everyone…this has been explained to Gerald multiple times in the past too…)

      Gerald writes: [of the sudden appearance of life coming from inanimate matter]

      All life is made up entirely of inanimate matter, Gerald. What molecule in you is the “life” molecule? There is no such thing. You and I are made up entirely out of stuff that is not alive. Life is just a chemical property of certain combinations of inanimate material. But you already knew this since I’ve explained it to you before…

      1. “I’d ask you to prove this, but we already know you can’t. You have no idea what is possible or not possible in quantum mechanics or outside of spacetime. You’ve made a baseless assumption without any empirical data to support it.”
        This is all that the Atheist has with their view of how this universe came into existence. All is a maybe, possibly, could have been, and then they say, accept it as fact. They want to say that all this is possible, but God, no. Even when all the facts point to the possibly of an Intelligence having had designed it, and all to work as a hand in a glove. Working as a well oiled, well designed, machine. And this thought comes from previous Atheists who found this well designed universe to be too well designed, to have come about by an accident.,

        1. Gerald writes: [This is all that the Atheist has with their view of how this universe came into existence.]

          You are wrong in your speculation. Astrophysicists actually proceed from mathematical models and data points. They talk about the probability, based on those models and data points, of certain hypothesized explanations. No scientist makes a definite statement like you did. Remember your own words? “Complete impossibility” is what you said about the universe happening on its own. Based on what? Nothing but conjecture, that’s what. You have no mathematical models, no empirical information, no statistical analysis to proceed from. What you have, Gerald, is a statement based on nothing.

          Gerald writes: [All is a maybe, possibly, could have been, and then they say, accept it as fact.]

          No, they don’t say that. I honestly cannot figure out why you continue to misrepresent scientific work in these threads. It has been explained, repeatedly, that no one in science (and especially in the realm of astrophysics) claims that anything is a “fact”. Scientists say that this is a possibility,or that this is the best understanding we have at this time. They never say accept this or that as a “fact”. Nothing is ever chiseled in stone. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with how science operates, but in science we never assume we know all there is to know, and therefore never make absolute statements. Yet you, who seems to struggle with these nuances, continue to make statements about the “complete impossibility” of things without evidence backing you. If we are to continue talking scientifically then I submit you need to better your understanding of the methods of science…

          Gerald writes: [They want to say that all this is possible, but God, no]

          They follow the data and empirical evidence. As there is none for your god or any other god that human’s have created, there is no reason to consider gods as a plausible possibility. It can’t be stated any simpler than that Gerald, and I’ve explained this to you before. Why should a group of scientists consider your particular version of a god as possible? Because your 2000 year old book says so? Under that standard we need to consider the Mayan, Aztec, Incan, Egyptian, Hindu, Zoroastriast, Aboriginal, and all the other gods too, don’t we? We should probably consider wizards like Harry Potter as well. Without any data or evidence supporting a possibility, there is trillions of considerations that would need to be looked at. Only without any empirical data, there is absolutely no way to verify any of them. See the problem here? If we were to lower standards and consider any possibility for which there is no evidence for, it’d take damn near the rest of time and we wouldn’t even have a decent starting point for an investigation into any of them.

          That’s the problem Gerald. You think YOUR flavor of god should be considered, but you don’t understand that all the other flavors would also have to be considered as well since they are no different from an evidence point of view, along with any other concept that someone could dream up (Aliens, leprechauns, Olaf the Slavic farmer, etc).

          Science has rigid standards, and it all starts with empirical data. Until you or any other believer of any concept brings such data forward, science isn’t going to pretend there is anything to consider about supernatural stories.

          Gerald writes: [Even when all the facts point to the possibly of an Intelligence having had designed it, and all to work as a hand in a glove. Working as a well oiled, well designed, machine. And this thought comes from previous Atheists who found this well designed universe to be too well designed, to have come about by an accident]

          What facts? That stuff exists? Already been explained to you why existence doesn’t prove anything. What other “facts” point to the possibility of a creator critter? Because of the laws of the universe? That’s just the “existence” argument wrapped in a different bow. The existence of the laws of the universe don’t prove they were created Gerald. All it proves is that the laws of the universe exist. Are you trying to use the “fine tuning” argument again? We’ve covered that before as well. The universe isn’t fine tuned for anything. The universe IS, and everything in it conforms to the rules. Life conforms to the rules, galaxies conform to the rules, Earth conforms to the rules. What evidence exists that shows the rules were purposefully directed to be as they are? Nothing that I know of…

  2. Please remember that the translations of anything has its good and bad. Being able to translate is great whatever is being translated, provides those later on a chance to know of that past. But translation is not perfect, since we are depending upon humans who are not perfect, trying to decide what other imperfect humans meant when they wrote what they wrote. The only thing is when we are dealing with the Bible, we are told that God had the writers of the Bible to write what He told them to write. The Scholars who decided which books were to be included in what we consider as God’s word, we feel, were let to the selection of those books. One of the reasons we feel that the Bible is God’s word due to the way that the books have matched key points that have been written by different writers, at different points of history, who did not have contact with each other, yet had what they wrote say the same thing. Unfortunately, the ones who translated often times allowed the ideas of previous teachers teachings influence the way they translated some of the Bible. That is why the Bible often has other possible ways that some words and texts and even biblical truths and this many times discolor, what the Bible has actually said about these truths. For example, the idea, of life after death. Almost all Christians believe that there will be life after death. But there are some Christians who believe that that life after death begins right after a person who dies. And if you only take a few texts of the Bible, leaving out other texts, you can say that that viewpoint is right. But one considers the other texts that have been ignored, you can see that the Bible does say that there is life after death, but that continuance of lift will be when Christ comes back the second time. Not when a person dies. As I said the other viewpoint is largely due to the fact that these people who have translated the way they translated, is because of what they have been taught and they fail to take into consideration that they have been taught error. First off, the Bible says that God is the only One who is immortal. He was not created, and cannot die. He can give eternal life but no one gave Him this ability, it is an attribute that is His alone. So when God created Adam, He created all of Adam, from nothing. Adam, all of Adam, Mind, Body and Soul, were created by God all at once. God did not pull a soul from somewhere else and plug it into a body. And so after Adam was not permitted to eat from the Tree of Life, because he fell into sin, Adam was not allowed to become immortal. So when Adam died, Adam went back from where he was made. He went back to the earth. The Bible says that they go to sleep. And they wait for the time that Christ returns the second time to bring them back to life. So, if they were never immortal, when the die they go to sleep, and there is nothing that continues when the die, they cannot be sent to hell fire to burn, or go to heaven. They are sleeping, waiting for the day that they will be granted life again, some who will have eternal life forever, and live with God forever, and some will have life again for a specific length of time where they will be punished for that time and then they will go to sleep forever after the time of punishment for not having accepted God’s offer of forgiveness. You see, the other texts that let us know this, have been ignored by these translators, and this causes a perception of error or contradictions, in God’s word. But when we take all these texts into consideration, we get the correct light of what the Bible is saying about life after death. And it gives us the correct view of who God is, because the Bible actually teaches that God is merciful. It teaches that God is just. That God is loving. But when we accept the other view of eternal life, that man is or has an immortal soul and therefore when he dies he goes to hell and burns and is tortured forever, this contradicts the Bible saying that God is merciful, just and loving. For indeed this is actually giving an opposite view of God. How could He be loving and just and merciful, and still sends souls to burn forever even though they only have been sinning for a few short years. How could God be just, merciful or loving if He is going to torture souls in hell forever. But the correct view of what the Bible is actually says that man upon death, goes to sleep, until Christ comes back the second time, and then man is resurrected, some, as the Bible says, to have eternal life, and some to have eternal death. Which some pastors say is actually an eternal separation from God. But this is even an error, Because God is life, and since heaven is everywhere, where will hell be placed, if not taken directly by what the Bible says, that hell will take place upon this earth, right before God destroys and remakes it anew, to be the new home of those who accepted Christ as their Savior.

    1. Gerald – I agree with some of your points on translation. I think we can all admit that intended meaning can, and is, lost over time and when things are copied into a different language. But most of these errors are probably minor anyways, and I for one don’t use translation errors as a major contention point about the Bible. Much more damning in my opinion is the intentional changes and omissions made over time to various books, as well as the exclusion of material because of what branch of Christianity it came from (like Gnostic material such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene).

      It is, of course, your right to believe inspiration via your god is why your version of the Bible (there are around 20 you know) is correct and accurate. However, this means nothing to me as we are still at a standstill regarding the complete and total lack of empirical data and evidence for the existence of the supernatural, including god beings. So crediting such beings with inspiring anything is putting the cart before the horse, because there is no evidence of the horse in the first place.

      Gerald writes: [One of the reasons we feel that the Bible is God’s word due to the way that the books have matched key points that have been written by different writers, at different points of history, who did not have contact with each other, yet had what they wrote say the same thing.]

      It’s not hard to match up key points from earlier text A when a writer is writing decades or even centuries after text A is written, and can therefore read exactly what it says and include the same details in their text B. This is common sense. Add in the scholarly dating of when things were actually written (as opposed to traditional assumed dates) and it makes it even more obvious how often this happened. On top of that, the numerous differences found in various Codex and other ancient copies show that the books of the Bible were tampered with almost continuously. Is it not little wonder that books written years apart or written in different places can read the same way? Give me a couple of years and I could put out new copies of the Bible, the Torah, and the Qu’ran and they’d compliment each other like crazy. Bible editors have had 2000 years to tweak those texts, and we evidence that they did exactly that. I’m just being honest about the facts we know when I say there is nothing special about key points matching up.

      Gerald writes: [For example, the idea, of life after death. Almost all Christians believe that there will be life after death. But there are some Christians who believe that that life after death begins right after a person who dies. And if you only take a few texts of the Bible, leaving out other texts, you can say that that viewpoint is right. But one considers the other texts that have been ignored, you can see that the Bible does say that there is life after death, but that continuance of lift will be when Christ comes back the second time. Not when a person dies. As I said the other viewpoint is largely due to the fact that these people who have translated the way they translated, is because of what they have been taught and they fail to take into consideration that they have been taught error.]

      Understood what you are saying. To be completely honest with you here, the fact that there are ten thousand different sects of Christianity, and not one agrees completely with the other, makes the nuances between them rather silly in my mind. How each one of you say you are right and the other 9,999 are wrong, when ALL of them have zero evidence supporting them, is an exercise in futility as I see it.

  3. I’m sorry, you talk about Steven as if he was around then. He was not. He is theorizing. It is not fact, and therefore should not be taught as such. The Scientists who you said are teaching the “Big Bang” are in fact Atheists themselves, and appears to be above all else Atheists. Not wanting anything to disprove this theory, which by the way, has all but been thrown out, by all but a few die hard Atheistic Scientists, because it has needed to be modified so much, just as has the theory of Evolution. The holes that have been found in these theories have caused a “Swiss cheese” effect in these theories. So much so, that it has caused many Scientists to become, in one form or another believers of an Intelligent designer. And these holes even has your high priest, Steven trying to catch his tale, running in a circle, saying now that the life on this planet hooked a ride on an asteroid from another planet and once again, wait for it, wait for it, an accident caused this life to come here. Come on. Just how many accidents are you willing to conjure up before you all will see, that God did it all. God. The Intelligent Designer. That is why all appears to fit together just like “Goldielocks” it is all just right.

    1. Gerald: “The Scientists who you said are teaching the “Big Bang” are in fact Atheists themselves, and appears to be above all else Atheists.”

      Gerald, have you any idea how wrong you are?

      The first research paper to posit what we now popularly called ‘the big bang’ was published in the Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels in 1927. The author was George Lemaitre, a Belgian Professor of Physics. The first paper written as a follow-up to LeMaitre’s paper appeared three years later in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. That author was Arthur Eddington, then professor of Astronomy at Cambridge. He praised LeMaitre’s ideas highly.
      LeMaitre was an ordained Catholic priest and remained so for the rest of his life. Eddington was a lifelong Christian who also wrote popular books about spirituality.

      Stephen Hawking was the PhD supervisor at Cambridge for the Canadian theoretical physicist Don Page. They have since published several papers together on issues related to ‘big bang’.
      Throughout his PhD and now, Page is a devout evangelical Christian. I recommend you read his non-technical paper ‘Scientific and Philosophical Challenges to Theism’

      https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0247v3.pdf

      as an example of an honest appraisal of theism in light of current scientific findings. He doesn’t bullshit like creationists; he states openly that although he is a Christian believer he cannot hide from the fact that theism has real problems.

      The current director of CERN (the European large hadron collider where the Higg’s boson was discovered and who do much research related to ‘big bang’) is the Italian particle physicist Fabiola Gianotti.

      She’s stated in a number of interviews that she believes in God.

      So Gerald, your simplistic pitching of science vs. theism does not accord with the reality. The actual distinction is science vs. pseudoscientific crackpottery, whether theistically-based or not.

      Gerald: “They want to say that all this is possible, but God, no.”

      Why do you keep rehashing this tired old canard? You’re contradicting yourself; on the one hand you’re saying that science consistently maintains a party line, on the other hand you complain that science keeps changing in line with new evidence!

      First, it’s considered possible simply because that’s where the data lead us. Second, no-one is saying that God definitely does not exist. Can you actually provide a quote from a scientist who actually, explicitly, makes such a statement? Science, by definition, does not make definitive statements. All scientific knowledge is considered provisional. The majority of scientists simply agree that there is currently no data that would lead us to posit a god-like entity. Therefore there is currently no need to posit a god in any of the theories developed.

      What’s so hard to understand about that?

      Gerald: “He is theorizing. It is not fact, and therefore should not be taught as such.”

      Please, Gerald, for God’s sake (sic) learn, and use correctly, the distinction between the lay use of the term ‘theory’ and the vastly different scientific use of the term. It’s not as if you haven’t been informed of this often enough.

      Once again: Theories explain facts acquired from systematic observation and replicated experimentation.

  4. “No one here can say, with 100% certainty, that no god being exists. We can’t say leprechauns definitely don’t exist either. That’s because you can’t prove a negative.”
    There is nothing definite about God. But, there are evidences that lead to the fact that there must be a Grand Designer. For one this universe and the way it is. For another the way all appears to be designed for Man on this planet. By this I mean that when you consider how every other planet is so devoid of life and so much so that it is hostile to all life, yet this planet in the midst of all these other planets, not only has life but this life thrives. And to explain away it all, the Atheist says it is all a luck of the draw. All of the unbounding blessings we are afforded, the Atheist says is due to the luck of the draw. Then when you consider the coding of all DNA, and how many Scientists stand in awe, at the programming performed so minutely, yet so extravagantly, so geniously, that many Scientists are jumping ship from the Atheist platform to saying that accident smakchigant. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. There has to be God. Then you have the fact that the position that Atheists and Evolutionists take about how life appeared on this planet, is not supported by their views, numerous, though they be, but facts have shown that life appears to have been all at once, in an all at once, all of a sudden way. And that they have never ever found any kind of fossil proof that shows that any kind of species transformation has ever occurred. Not to mention the fact that their theory that one celled organisms some how got”too big for their britches”and decided to become more than they ever thought possible. Oh, I’m sorry, they could not think, yet here we are. ” you can’t see it, but I have a smile on my face.” Come on guys. This alone should make you”tap the mat” But now, consider the miracle of the Bible, the Word of God. How the predictions given years ago, have come to be. How, things such as Smartlx has written about, that we today not long ago discovered, with all our technical stuff, yet the Bible has it told long before. I know SmartLx, you have your slant, but you want to ignore the fact that what they wrote about, is impossible for them to have known. Impossible for them to have wondered, or imagined, and yet be so correct. Sure, this doesn’t put God neatly in a test tube, for the Atheist, but you can’t put God into a test tube and expect to be able to call Him God. And but these evidences should at least cause the wise person to say, lets see what more they can find. But this is not all. Now, you have to consider the fact that Christ was an actual person. Spoken of in both non biblical and biblical sources. From different cultures. And then when you add to that the fact, that the Jewish leaders, many of whom hated Christ, never ever said or were able to prove that Christ was God. They had ever chance to provide the body of my Redeemer, and would have nipped the greatest fraud in the universe in the bud, had they brought forth the body of the ” Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” Yet, even as the disciples turned the world upside down, teaching that Christ had come back to life, the Jewish leaders failed to supply the dead body, that was guarded by the then most powerful army in the world. To only come up with the lame excuse that Christ’s own ragtag, disorganized, all but defeated, few followers somehow defeated the Roman soldiers assigned to guard the tomb, and spirited away the body of Christ. Now, we know that this is an impossibility. The disciples, could never have performed this action. So the only possibility is that Christ rose from the dead. Because then we have Christianity, on steroids and the disciples taking the “Good News” throughout the world. Now lets talk about the miracles that Christ performed. So much so that the Jewish leaders could only say that He did it by the power of the Devil. Christ did so many that the disciples said that there could not be a way to record all of them. Even the Muslim nation has at least said that Christ was a great Prophet. A great teacher. Now, and I think this is the last of my evidences, maybe not, but I think so, but these evidences, are people. People past and present, who have testified that Christ, both before and after He died and rose, has changed their lives. Poor and rich, simple and extraordinary, from one continent to another, people have said that they have had a relationship with the God of the universe. That He has was actually standing at the door and knocking at the door of their hearts, and when the opened the door, He entered and made residence in them, and that He has changed their lives.
    No. It’s not God in a test tube. But God in our hearts. Now you can say “poppycock.” You can say impossible. But if you do, you are denying what people down through the ages have been testifying to. Mass hypnosis. Mass hysteria. That is your privilege to believe. But why not try to open that door first. He is waiting

  5. I’m afraid that your concept of Christianity is just a little below of some of those who call themselves Christians. They actually believe that concepts that directly contradict Holy Scripture can somehow be overlooked, be placed as more revelation than, or harmonized with Scripture. If it contradicts Scripture than it is error. As stated previously by me and other Christians with a true capital C, the concepts that this universe somehow exploded into an accidental arrival is not supported by observation through science. No one has ever observed something made from nothing. And something never comes from nothing. So this alone should cause a true Scientist to throw out the “Big Bang” theory. And to date every attempt to amalgamate two different species has never produced another species. As often as some poor deluded, undisciplined and deceived soul who has satisfied their own perverse sexual desires with sheep or other animal, no subhuman or superhuman has ever been produced. And since there has been so much evidence that has caused Atheism to stop and change course so many times, so much so that it caused Charles Darwin to doubt his own beliefs, which caused some Evolutionists to hide, misconstrue, and makeup evidence to support the crumbling theory of Evolution.

    1. Gerald: “No one has ever observed something made from nothing.”

      No. Perhaps that’s why no physicist or cosmologist has ever suggested that such a thing has occurred. I challenge you to provide a reference from a scientific journal where someone actually says that something came from nothing (and I mean the imaginary philosophical ‘nothing’; not the scientific use of the term ‘nothing’)

      Gerald: “No one has ever observed something made from nothing. And something never comes from nothing. So this alone should cause a true Scientist to throw out the “Big Bang” theory.”

      This doesn’t follow, the big bang theory doesn’t hypothesise that the universe comes from nothing.

      Gerald: “to date every attempt to amalgamate two different species has never produced another species”

      Gerald, this happens all the time!!!! Plant and animal breeders produce hybrid species as a matter of routine these days.

      “As often as some poor deluded, undisciplined and deceived soul who has satisfied their own perverse sexual desires with sheep or other animal, no subhuman or superhuman has ever been produced.”

      Well, of course, not. There are no extant species genetically close enough to humans that we would be able to interbreed with them. But again, you’re contradicting yourself: you’ve just argued that neanderthals were human EVEN though we couldn’t freely interbreed with them!

      “makeup evidence to support the crumbling theory of Evolution”

      Gerald, have you any idea how difficult it would be to make up evidence? There’s all your co-workers, the independent labs who your work gets contracted out to, peer review from funding bodies and journals, the people who tried to replicate your work, the joint databases shared with labs from all over the world, etc etc. You’d be caught out. Without a doubt.

      Gerald, how can you get so much science so wrong in a single paragraph? I sometimes wonder who it is you’re trying to convince that all of this fantasy is real. Yourself?

  6. ” this happens all the time!!!! Plant and animal breeders produce hybrid species as a matter of routine” these days”
    You see. You want to ignore the truth. They are able to manipulate species, but they are not able to change the nature of that species. One can not become another. A flower manipulated remains a flower afterwards. So to in the animal kingdom. A chimp remains a chimp. A lion a lion. This alone should testify how if it takes an intelligence tochage what we are able to change, that it would be impossible for each specie to come about by accident, let alone the misguided theory that a virus or bacteria evolved to tadpole or some other higher form of existence. Man talk about not being able to recognize foolishness. Your fortunate someone doesn’t take you for all your worth.

    1. Gerald: “every attempt to amalgamate two different species has never produced another species”

      I’m not sure whether you’re just being deliberately obtuse or you really don’t understand even the very basics of evolutionary theory and genetics. You’ve shifted the goalposts. You claim that new species have never been produced from two different species – which is patently untrue. When I pointed this out you shifted to:

      “A flower manipulated remains a flower afterwards…….A chimp remains a chimp. A lion a lion”

      Of course it does. Why would you expect anything different? Whatever else can it become? Both evolution and artificial selection (a speeded up, teleological version of natural selection) can only act on the genome that already exists. It can produce change in a genome ONLY at the level of species. It cannot produce speciation that crosses into another extant genus. It does eventually result in the formation of novel genera, as e.g., with Homo (of which Homo sapiens are the last surviving species), but this takes place over hundred of thousands-millions of years. In animals, a change to the genome of a magnitude that would put the organism out of its species certainly wouldn’t survive beyond the blastocyst stage. Look at what having even an extra portion of chromosome 21 does to humans (Down syndrome).

      While all primates are represented only at the level of genus (Primate; 1 classification higher than species), flowering plants are represented all the way up to Division, which in plant biology is 6 classifications higher than species; so even if a flowering plant were, somehow, able to jump extant Genus and Family and Order etc (something even science fiction wouldn’t consider)- it would still remain a flowering plant! Plants generally are far more resilient to large-scale changes in the genome than animals (which is why we can eat fruits and vegetables that didn’t even exist a couple of hundred years ago), but even here, polyploidy (the multiplication of whole chromosomes) only leads to new species.

      So what you are effectively claiming is that because plant and animal breeders have never achieved what evolutionary theory and molecular genetics says is utterly impossible, this shows that evolutionary theory and molecular genetics have got it wrong!

      1. I cannot fathom why you and other Atheists and Evolutionists refuse to understand and accept that there are parts of each species and organisms that is biologically impossible for any of the organisms to have evolved from lesser organisms especially from those like viruses, bacterias, or one celled organisms. They do not have built in sensors, or factories that would be able to test environments, then make calculated extrapolations that would enable them to know just what kind of organism would be best to survive in the surrounding environments, and then shift to some kind of factory mode and shoot out the kind of species that would contain just the right kind of defense, that would not only be able to survive the type of predator, and also know into what kind of evolution that predator would later evolve into. How would those lesser organisms know how to evolve so as to be able to consume whatever the other organisms or plant of fauna would evolve into, so as to subsist. How would the lesser organisms know how best to propagate, and expand their species. For that matter why develop so many diverse ways to propagate? Why not stick to the one that is best, like that of having the two sexes in itself. Or being able to subdivide cells into another of itself. The propagation of two sexes needing to mate is so, unpractical. Why has it become so pleasing for us especially to become so involved right down to the cellular level to assure the survival of our species. It is as if Someone made it so.
        Also, there are things like breathing and receiving energy, that are so complex that it is literally impossible for these systems to have come together at different times or else those species would not have survived. Claws for the cat to climb. Wings for the fowl to fly, gills for the fish to breath, lungs for mammals to breath. The reproductive systems, with the divers complex stasis chambers, from womb to egg, all would have needed to have been worked out for each species to survive. But yet the supposed intelligent think that it all happened by chance. The membrane that we use to allow the flow of waste material, like carbon dioxide, or waste byproducts from each organism is not even perfected by our greatest minds, and yet there are those who claim to be intelligent who say it the perfect happened by chance. As I have mentioned once or twice before, Charles Darwin, and a few other Evolutionists had at one time talked of their worry that the fossil record has not given support to their theory of Evolution. And what does the Evolutionists do with that setback, they proclaim even louder that they have proof that Evolution is fact. All the while sweeping contrary evidence under the rug, hoping that no one is watching, or studying and thinking for themselves. Especially as the die hard Evolutionists try to stamp out the Scientists who will not be silenced when the see that all the evidence that the die hard Evolutionists are proclaiming as proof, is no more than smoke and mirrors.

        1. Gerald

          There are estimated to be between 10-14 million species on the planet today. About 5 billion species that we know of are no longer with us. They’re extinct. That’s 99.75% Does this sound like the sort of scenario an intelligent creator being would be proud of? They no longer exist precisely because, as you say:

          “They do not have built in sensors, or factories that would be able to test environments, then make calculated extrapolations that would enable them to know just what kind of organism would be best to survive in the surrounding environments, and then shift to some kind of factory mode and shoot out the kind of species that would contain just the right kind of defense, that would not only be able to survive the type of predator, and also know into what kind of evolution that predator would later evolve into.”

          Organisms are cobbled together by evolution on a ‘good enough to do the job’ basis. More often than not, they become unable to do the job and die off, forever. If you look at the human brain, it’s not a bespoke designed device, wired optimally in order to do the job. It’s got bits of evolutionary ancient circuits shared with birds and reptiles (but not as efficient as theirs) badly wired to relatively young cortical circuits (that are susceptible to diverse and serious kinds of malfunction that other species don’t suffer).

          Most of the human genome either does nothing or has lost much of the function it performs in other animals. Sometimes even a single point mutation can cause serious ill-health. There are species of onion with a genome that’s 5x more complex than humans. Flowering plants with a genome 50x more complex than humans. What’s the point of all this genetic material. It’s just baggage. You could inactivate 99% of it and it would make no difference to the onion you get. We’re all carrying around genetic junk that we’ve accumulated over billions of years. Humans can’t manufacture Vitamin C, we have to eat it, but we’ve got the gene to do so. All the other primate species can’t manufacture Vitamin C either but they’ve still got the gene to do it. It’s been disabled by a mutation – its the exact same mutation in every case. We’ve all just picked up the gene from our shared ancestors. It does nothing. It just sits in the genome. We could remove it and it would make no difference whatsoever to our ability to live and function. About 7% of our genome is snippets of retrovirus genetic material throughout that became embedded after our ancestor species became infected. Most are inactivated because their genetic code is gibberish and they just sit there doing nothing, but a few can cause cancer and neurodegeneration. Chimps (genetically our closest relatives) have exactly the same retroviruses in almost exactly the same parts of the genome that we share with them. What’s the point of designing that?

          I could give example after example. My point is: does all this sound like optimal design to you?

          1. You see, “Organisms are cobbled together by evolution on a ‘good enough to do the job’ basis. More often than not, they become unable to do the job and die off, forever. If you look at the human brain, it’s not a bespoke designed device, wired optimally in order to do the job. It’s got bits of evolutionary ancient circuits shared with birds and reptiles (but not as efficient as theirs) badly wired to relatively young cortical circuits (that are susceptible to diverse and serious kinds of malfunction that other species don’t suffer).” This tells me you are not even willing to risk thinking about the beginning. How could we even have been brought into existence if everything had not been provided at the beginning. Everything was provided for us to flourish. Not just simply to survive. And once again, why do you ignore the fact that we could never have come from strains of virus, or bacteria or one celled animals. If this was the case why do we not see it happening today. If it happened before, then it should be a lot easier today. Why do we not only the same species coming to be as it always has. And sure there are breakdowns in our genes but this only causes weaker organisms. Nothing better is being born. No superior organisms. Except for those organisms that are able to adapt. Lower forms of organisms, have it built in. Man has the ability to manipulate. To adapt to a certain extent his environment. But, we are not becoming better. God has seen to it that we can know that we are not immortal beings. We sense our mortality. And this causes us yes to try, to extend our lives, but it also causes us to try to be better, that we might be the best, and that can happen only as we get to know God, and His love.

  7. Gary, I’m not sure if you are aware of the fact that Atheists are claiming that alllllllllll species evolved from some sort of virus, bacteria, to one celled organism. Now, that alone is a big ha, ha. But the fact that all the Atheists and Evolutionists have swallowed this without, (I’m sorry, let back track, because some Atheists and Evolutionists who came to their senses, finally realized the impossibility of what was being said and jumped ship) questioning this, is beyond belief. But then to say that the adaptation of a species was in itself proof of Evolution, is an even bigger ha, ha. But first, please tell me just where do you think that the virus, the bacteria, and finally the one celled organism came from? This I would like to know and whether you believe that they were brought into existence by some accident, or if one or the other evolved into one another?

  8. And second, why speak of any new species as if they evolved from another existing species when there has been no kind of fossil evidence that any kind of morphing has ever been discovered. What you are continuing to push as fact is only innuendo. To date only the fact that all species appears to have come into being all at one time, with some species dying out, but no species coming from another.

  9. Would you be proud if your son or daughter died? No. So why would you even consider that God who has enabled you to be as caring as you are but feel that God would not be as caring as you. The things that has passed on this planet due to Adam allowing Satan to take control of this planet is not God’s fault. God in the beginning told Adam not to eat from the ” Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”
    Adam, out of distrust of God, due to Satan’s interference, surrendered control of this planet, making Satan the ruler. Now all that is happening is God’s way of regaining that control, trying to win Mankind trust back by showing us that the accusations waged against God by Satan, when he made Adam believe that God would destroy Eve and leave Adam alone, because he as you do now, believed that God was tyrannical, and stuck up. But God, by dying on the cross, has shown that God’s creation, Man was more valuable to God and that God was willing to die to save Man. The horrors you see, where man fails and fails again to demonstrate the character of love and self denial that God had originally intended man to have, is caused by man being without God in their lives. So, it is man destroying God’s planet, not God. God has to allow what is happening to play out so that man and this universe looking on, will in the end see that Satan’s accusations are unmerited and God who has allowed Himself to be placed on trial, will be vindicated. Why? you ask. Because God will not have His creation believe a lie about Him. He doesn’t want His creation to serve Him out of fear, and trepidation. Neither does He want His creation to server Him just to escape Hell, or eternal death, or just to keep on His good side and be yes men. He loves us and He wants us to love Him because we know that He loves us. So He is out to prove His love for us.
    John 15: 13-17 “13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
    14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
    15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
    16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
    17 These things I command you, that ye love one another. This is what God intended for Mankind. But instead Man has followed the life of the deceiver, and listening to his lies. Why doesn’t God prevent all the acts of man, and keep Satan from interfering, you ask. Well because God created us to be free moral agents. God has to allow man to decide for themselves, just how he wants to live. And He trusts that we will see that His way is the best way. He just can’t rub out Satan or keep us from living the wrong way. Even if He were to make us think that we were doing it on because we wanted to do it. God is just and loving. Like Superman, God will not cheat. He will not lie. He plays by the rules. And He will not try to win by wowing or using shock and awe. Satan, cannot hold a candle to God, in any way. So God cannot just come out and say, here I am. Now follow me. Satan pales to the Nth degree to God, so God has to limit His actions to what Satan is able to perform. God holds the truth up for all to see, and He showed that He is willing to lose His life for us to know what is truth. And each person needs to have time develop who he or she is going to be. God wants us to be like Him, so how could we develop godlike characters if He steps in every time and prevents wrong from happening. Each time we see someone drowning, we have a chance to be like God and save. Each time we see someone in need, we have a chance to provide. But the opposite is also true. We have the choice to be like God or like Satan. To give until it hurts, or to selfishly, hoard for ourselves. The battle is waging and we must choose sides. There will be no middle of the road. We will not be able to straddle the fence. We will either trust Him and live, or decide that we want nothing to do with Him and give us the very life that He is offering us. You can even see now how little by little this world is becoming one of two sides. 2 Timothy 3:1-5 makes it clear “3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
    2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
    3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
    4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
    5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”
    So, the choice we make from one second to another, from one heartbeat to the next, from each breath to the next, we are making to have eternal life or eternal death. Please choose wisely.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *