1) Who actually thinks that cosmology and geophysics are on the same level as creationism? They are as different as night and day, facts and lies, truth and superstition.
2)  I suggest you actually take the time to study “this” before trying to intelligently discuss them. If not is a waste of everyone’s time…
3) There are evolutionary records for the planets, stars and the universe itself. Again, I strongly suggest you read up on these topics. See my previous recommendations on where to start. Then you can ask intelligently. No one is bound to do your homework for you. 
4) Miracles to prevent catastrophic planetary accidents? Really? At this point I can only concluded you are a troll. Who hasn’t at least heard of gravity, orbits and black holes? C’mon…
5) No point going back and forth anymore. For those still interested the fact remains that asserting that a designer made the universe does not solve the problem of who designed the designer. If the assumption is that the designer had no need for anyone to design it/him/her then, why can’t we assert the same thing of the Universe itself? Per Occam’s razor (google it) belief in a supreme designer is superfluous and a total waste of time since no facts support it. 
Truly it is easier to sit on one’s couch and assert baseless things about the universe than actually taking the time to study and learn how the universe actually is and came to be. That is the difference between a lazy, uninformed person and one who actually seeks truth. May we always be the latter and never the former.
In reason:-FA


1) Who actually thinks that cosmology and geophysics are on the same level as creationism? They are as different as night and day, facts and lies, truth and superstition.

2)  I suggest you actually take the time to study “this” before trying to intelligently discuss them. If not is a waste of everyone’s time…

3) There are evolutionary records for the planets, stars and the universe itself. Again, I strongly suggest you read up on these topics. See my previous recommendations on where to start. Then you can ask intelligently. No one is bound to do your homework for you. 

4) Miracles to prevent catastrophic planetary accidents? Really? At this point I can only concluded you are a troll. Who hasn’t at least heard of gravity, orbits and black holes? C’mon…

5) No point going back and forth anymore. For those still interested the fact remains that asserting that a designer made the universe does not solve the problem of who designed the designer. If the assumption is that the designer had no need for anyone to design it/him/her then, why can’t we assert the same thing of the Universe itself? Per Occam’s razor (google it) belief in a supreme designer is superfluous and a total waste of time since no facts support it. 

Truly it is easier to sit on one’s couch and assert baseless things about the universe than actually taking the time to study and learn how the universe actually is and came to be. That is the difference between a lazy, uninformed person and one who actually seeks truth. May we always be the latter and never the former.

In reason:
-FA

godfreyyouth
godfreyyouth:

From the series, Peer Review’s a Bitch.

The Universe Has a Center
Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe [citation needed]. Galaxies look the same [citation needed], and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions [citation needed]. The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions [citation needed]. These and other data [citation needed] strongly indicate [do they?] we are located at a very special [subjective] location by design [non-sequitur].
Instead of accepting the obvious [which? to whom? based on what evidence?], recent models of physical cosmology assume [look up the word “assume”] the earth is not special [subjective] and that everywhere in the universe the exact same observation of receding objects would be seen [link to at least one impartial source]. Instead of a universe with an age measured in thousands of years, this assumption [look up the word “assumption”] leads to billions of years.
In contrast, creation cosmologies explain the data better [subjective] by starting from biblically-based axioms [look up the word “axiom”]: the cosmos has a unique [citation needed] center and a boundary for its matter [citation needed], beyond which there is at least some empty space [citation needed]; and on a cosmic scale of distances [link], the earth is near [vague] the center. [source]

I’m mostly posting this because I ended up here this morning and it made me want to cry. For a start, it was tagged as #research, which is the one thing so desperately lacking. Wouldn’t it be interesting to change everything we know about the universe in three un-sourced paragraphs?
I also like that all their “sciencey” images are stock photos.

[source] [image search]
I know there’s no point arguing with people who take Genesis to be a literal historical account. It’s like talking to a doll that repeats one of the same five phrases every time you pull the string. But I find their existence depressing nonetheless.
ICR (or Insane Clown Research as they shall henceforth be referred to) and their pals in the YEC/ID lobby are exceptionally well funded; vastly better funded, indeed, than the average academic institution. Why therefore, has no creation “scientist” yet managed to put any independently verifiable dent in cosmology, abiogenesis or evolution? Is it an atheistic conspiracy to hide the truth? So what. Outspend us on the marketing. Get the word out.
These groups have the money, they have the time, they have the faith. The individual or institution which categorically disproves any of these topics will be internationally famous for the rest of human history. The scientific community will be forced to hang their collective head in shame at such an embarrassing mistake. It would be a triumph of literally biblical proportions.
But it hasn’t happened yet. Will it happen in the future? Perhaps. But in the meantime, the corroborating scientific, fact-based evidence continues to pour in.
Biblical. Accurate. Certain. [citation needed]

godfreyyouth:

From the series, Peer Review’s a Bitch.

The Universe Has a Center

Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe [citation needed]. Galaxies look the same [citation needed], and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions [citation needed]. The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions [citation needed]. These and other data [citation needed] strongly indicate [do they?] we are located at a very special [subjective] location by design [non-sequitur].

Instead of accepting the obvious [which? to whom? based on what evidence?], recent models of physical cosmology assume [look up the word “assume”] the earth is not special [subjective] and that everywhere in the universe the exact same observation of receding objects would be seen [link to at least one impartial source]. Instead of a universe with an age measured in thousands of years, this assumption [look up the word “assumption”] leads to billions of years.

In contrast, creation cosmologies explain the data better [subjective] by starting from biblically-based axioms [look up the word “axiom”]: the cosmos has a unique [citation needed] center and a boundary for its matter [citation needed], beyond which there is at least some empty space [citation needed]; and on a cosmic scale of distances [link], the earth is near [vague] the center. [source]

I’m mostly posting this because I ended up here this morning and it made me want to cry. For a start, it was tagged as #research, which is the one thing so desperately lacking. Wouldn’t it be interesting to change everything we know about the universe in three un-sourced paragraphs?

I also like that all their “sciencey” images are stock photos.

[source] [image search]

I know there’s no point arguing with people who take Genesis to be a literal historical account. It’s like talking to a doll that repeats one of the same five phrases every time you pull the string. But I find their existence depressing nonetheless.

ICR (or Insane Clown Research as they shall henceforth be referred to) and their pals in the YEC/ID lobby are exceptionally well funded; vastly better funded, indeed, than the average academic institution. Why therefore, has no creation “scientist” yet managed to put any independently verifiable dent in cosmology, abiogenesis or evolution? Is it an atheistic conspiracy to hide the truth? So what. Outspend us on the marketing. Get the word out.

These groups have the money, they have the time, they have the faith. The individual or institution which categorically disproves any of these topics will be internationally famous for the rest of human history. The scientific community will be forced to hang their collective head in shame at such an embarrassing mistake. It would be a triumph of literally biblical proportions.

But it hasn’t happened yet. Will it happen in the future? Perhaps. But in the meantime, the corroborating scientific, fact-based evidence continues to pour in.

Biblical. Accurate. Certain. [citation needed]

tomeeklystay
bloodonmytypewriterkeys:

friendlyatheist:

scriptonaut:

I’m beginning to think he’s a troll and will drop the argument but I have a small rant/response.
Being religious does not mean that I am anti-science. I believe in evolution. I believe in God. Why is the idea that God used the laws of science that we’ve discovered to create the world so strange to both sides of this debate?? Wouldn’t an all knowing loving Heavenly Father WANT his children to be able to learn from him and about their origins- both physically and spiritually? I believe in a God that wants me to educate myself as much as possible. There are few things we take into the next life, the most important being our knowledge.  While there are people out there who are being closed minded about scientific progress, people like this commenter is JUST as closed minded about my beliefs.
Recently Hank Green released a song about how freaking WEIRD the universe is. (It’s really awesome, go listen!) There is just SO much stuff we don’t know about it, and probably will never know. No Edge and all that. I know his point wasn’t religious, but from my point of view, I saw God in all those oddities and mysteries. The fact that there ARE answers out there and maybe, just maybe, learning those answers through spiritual means is just as okay as learning them scientifically. Either way, we find out something COOL about the universe.
So remember Tumblies, God and Science can be BFFs.
I believe this commenter, troll or not, is believing that since a few minor religions are anti-science, anyone who believes in religion must be too.

Who trusted God was love indeedAnd love Creation’s final lawTho’ Nature, red in tooth and clawWith ravine, shriek’d against his creed
Is this the god you believe in? One that watches passively millions of years of death, extinction, suffering, and catastrophe as he waits for humans to evolve? Is this what you call “all loving”? A god that is compatible with science and nature is not, cannot be, a just and good god.
The god of the bible, or relgion, cannot be a bff of reality. On the contrary, is the epitome of contradiction.
In reason:-FA 

So God is love and life is full of suffering. So what. What would love be without hate? What would life be without death? What would the glory of the universe be without sadness and pain and suffering?
And - more importantly than anything else - what would free will be without obstacles to overcome and bad decisions to make. What would free will be without the option of genocide and rape and exploitation?
As for natural disasters and diseases - who is to say that God isn’t here to care for bacteria and tapeworms and the wind and the rain? There’s a huge fucking universe out there and God can love ALL of it.
So don’t use the piss-weak argument of universal suffering to say that an all-loving God is incompatible with science and reality.

SIWOTI alert…
Such a god would not be the god of the three monotheistic religions. In such, suffering is not a necessity but an aberration. Hence how suffering and a GOOD god cannot mix. How can cruel and amoral nature come from a so called good, just, and caring god? Is this really that hard to understand?
Fact is the universe behaves as we would expect it to if a god did not exist. To assume that a god cares for tapeworms (tapeworm heaven maybe?) is a truly piss poor argument in favor of something you can’t prove and that is not needed to explain reality. Your retort would be funnier if it weren’t so pathetic. 
It is a good thing that there is no reason to believe a god exists. The last thing one would want is for such a god to love us the same way he loved the dinosaurs.
In reason:
-FA 
EDIT: On free will. Where is the free will of a person that is being raped? Does this god take into account that? The fact that the person being raped does not want it to happen? Nope. Only the free will of the rapist counts. Either a god does not exist or god really, really likes rapists.

bloodonmytypewriterkeys:

friendlyatheist:

scriptonaut:

I’m beginning to think he’s a troll and will drop the argument but I have a small rant/response.

Being religious does not mean that I am anti-science. I believe in evolution. I believe in God. Why is the idea that God used the laws of science that we’ve discovered to create the world so strange to both sides of this debate?? Wouldn’t an all knowing loving Heavenly Father WANT his children to be able to learn from him and about their origins- both physically and spiritually? I believe in a God that wants me to educate myself as much as possible. There are few things we take into the next life, the most important being our knowledge.  While there are people out there who are being closed minded about scientific progress, people like this commenter is JUST as closed minded about my beliefs.

Recently Hank Green released a song about how freaking WEIRD the universe is. (It’s really awesome, go listen!) There is just SO much stuff we don’t know about it, and probably will never know. No Edge and all that. I know his point wasn’t religious, but from my point of view, I saw God in all those oddities and mysteries. The fact that there ARE answers out there and maybe, just maybe, learning those answers through spiritual means is just as okay as learning them scientifically. Either way, we find out something COOL about the universe.

So remember Tumblies, God and Science can be BFFs.

I believe this commenter, troll or not, is believing that since a few minor religions are anti-science, anyone who believes in religion must be too.

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation’s final law
Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek’d against his creed

Is this the god you believe in? One that watches passively millions of years of death, extinction, suffering, and catastrophe as he waits for humans to evolve? Is this what you call “all loving”? A god that is compatible with science and nature is not, cannot be, a just and good god.

The god of the bible, or relgion, cannot be a bff of reality. On the contrary, is the epitome of contradiction.

In reason:
-FA 

So God is love and life is full of suffering. So what. What would love be without hate? What would life be without death? What would the glory of the universe be without sadness and pain and suffering?

And - more importantly than anything else - what would free will be without obstacles to overcome and bad decisions to make. What would free will be without the option of genocide and rape and exploitation?

As for natural disasters and diseases - who is to say that God isn’t here to care for bacteria and tapeworms and the wind and the rain? There’s a huge fucking universe out there and God can love ALL of it.

So don’t use the piss-weak argument of universal suffering to say that an all-loving God is incompatible with science and reality.

SIWOTI alert…

Such a god would not be the god of the three monotheistic religions. In such, suffering is not a necessity but an aberration. Hence how suffering and a GOOD god cannot mix. How can cruel and amoral nature come from a so called good, just, and caring god? Is this really that hard to understand?

Fact is the universe behaves as we would expect it to if a god did not exist. To assume that a god cares for tapeworms (tapeworm heaven maybe?) is a truly piss poor argument in favor of something you can’t prove and that is not needed to explain reality. Your retort would be funnier if it weren’t so pathetic. 

It is a good thing that there is no reason to believe a god exists. The last thing one would want is for such a god to love us the same way he loved the dinosaurs.

In reason:

-FA 

EDIT: On free will. Where is the free will of a person that is being raped? Does this god take into account that? The fact that the person being raped does not want it to happen? Nope. Only the free will of the rapist counts. Either a god does not exist or god really, really likes rapists.

So I get creationist “copy-paste” comments…

On this post I received the a critique of the following quote:

Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” - Tim Minchin.

I will not put the critique here since it is at the bottom of the previous link. Here is my response:
Thanks for the copy paste from another website. Yawn. I will still make some comments because im that kind of guy.

1) Your expectations are wrong. Apparently you haven’t been here before. Feel free to check the FAQ is you so choose.

2) Nobody has asserted that science is like an infallible, omnisciente deity that is perfect. No one. Only religionists like you assume so. On the contrary, science is the process that works. That produces verifiable results. It is not perfect, but is the best we have. Way, way superior to religious faith. History is a witness to that.

3) You assert that evolution (macro-evolution? LOL!!) is is pseudo-scientific. Talk about ad-hominen, assertions and straw men.

4) The fact that science changes is what makes it powerful because it SELF CORRECTS. Compare that to the bible. Slavery ok in the past. Not ok now say believers (not based on the bible since it never, ever outlaws slavery). Picking sticks on Sabbath, death. Not today. The fact that there are 1,000,000 + versions and flavors of christianity show that “the word of god” is anything but that.

5) Love is a description of feelings/chemicals in your brain. I have no issue with you saying that god is as real as love, sadness or happiness. They surely exist in your head and they will go to the same place they where before you were born. What you cant do is say that god more than a process in your head. Like a plant, a computer or anything else we know exists. For that you need evidence. Where is it?

6) Dude, so many assertions in your copy paste job. I was a christian for many years (check FAQ). Not impressed at all.

7) The value of logic is based on the results we get from applying it. Bible belief IS circular reasoning. You have no evidence in favor of it. But we have evidence in favor of logic. Science, logic and reason are tools. The fact that we can type on a computer is evidence. The fact that when you get sick you depend on doctors and not on prayer only is a testament to the superiority of science, logic and reason over religious myths and superstitions like christianity. I could go on and on but the point is already obvious to the open mind. The one that has not been filled with preconceived religious 
notions.

8) Assertions on bible prophecy. Yawn. None of the prophecies regarding Jesus (per christians since Jews find them ridiculous still today based on the study of the books THEY wrote) can be verified outside of the new testament. A series of books whose purpose was not history or factual recordings, but pure unadulterated proselytizing. Circular reasoning. Not credible at all. A clear agenda. Is that the best your god can do? Please. The same can be said of ALL of the other supposed proof. It is quite sad actually that people still take myth and superstition to this day as real.

9) Atheism existed way before Darwin was born. So your “axiomatic” assertion about world views are not only ridiculous but factually wrong. Which is not surprising since you are a creationist. There is no other way one could be one.

In reason:
-FA
tumbltimethief
el-peligroso:

 Fish in Long Fish. In the belly of the above 14-foot-long fish is a smaller fish, presumably the big fish’s breakfast. Because digestion is rapid, fossilization must have been even more so.

Yes because a fish that ends up being entombed in a sediment basin will be able to digest the eaten fish after death. Talk about not knowing how fossilization works…
You can always count on this simple fact: creationism = ignorance.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC363.html
-FA

el-peligroso:

 Fish in Long Fish. In the belly of the above 14-foot-long fish is a smaller fish, presumably the big fish’s breakfast. Because digestion is rapid, fossilization must have been even more so.

Yes because a fish that ends up being entombed in a sediment basin will be able to digest the eaten fish after death. Talk about not knowing how fossilization works…

You can always count on this simple fact: creationism = ignorance.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC363.html

-FA