Recently yet another website full of misunderstandings and general ignorance (mixed with a fair share of intellectual dishonesty) was pointed out to me; so in the spirit of trying to spread good ol’ fashioned knowledge around it’s time for another ‘Net Case – this time the oddly named Anointed-One.net gets an examination. Warning: This may be quite long by the time it’s done, irrelevant parts have been snipped to preserve everyone’s sanity.
While atheism does not break any state or federal laws, it does break several scientific laws.
I find that quite odd since Atheism is rooted quite solidly in science and those that hold Atheistic beliefs usually have an excellent understanding of science. You know, it kind of helps to know what you’re talking about and what your actual beliefs are based in. It helps make you not look like an idiot … oh wait, that can be applied to this site, how silly of me to have missed it.
Scientific laws do not need complex external proofs. They are accepted at face value because they have always been observed to be true.
If you can’t see the glaring huge flaw in this statement, you need to re-attend basic high school science immediately. How could anyone have written this with a straight face?
Where did the entire physical universe come from?
This has already been explained. Professor Stephen Hawking (considered by some to be the smartest person on Earth) detailed a nice little theory called The Big Bang theory in his book called A Brief History of Time (you may have heard of it, it was a best seller), with reality as we know it possessing eleven or so dimensions and the dimensions we can experience being the result of interaction between the other nine or so. If you need to ask where the Universe as we know it came from, then you obviously haven’t read Professor Hawking’s book – go out and find a copy, I’ll wait.
The fact that matter and energy cannot be created is consistent with the claim in Genesis which says God rested from his work and all he created.
God gets tired? Hold on, isn’t he meant to be omnipotent? Omnipotent beings don’t get tired, don’t need rest. He obviously didn’t need to take a step back to have a look at his handiwork since he’s also meant to omnipresent so he can see everything at all times anyhow. Anyhow, getting back on point … Genesis doesn’t say ‘And thus God gave a one fingered salute to the Physical Laws of the Universe and did what he wanted anyhow’, it boasts a really extremely vague passage which could mean God looked at the Universe, said ‘Screw it’ and went back to doing his crossword … which he incidentally found really irritating because he was omniscient and knew the answers before the crossword was ever made.
But this use of the bible as evidence is indicative of the error that creationists succumb to time and again; they do not take an objective look at the available evidence and then reach a conclusion. Instead, they assume that a god exists and that the bible is accurate and look for things to support it. Logically, this is a horrible way of going about things and, if applied to another scenario, can be used to argue for the existence of just about anything you can think of. Commonly, this is known as the orbiting teapot dilemma.
This law of science contradicts the notion that matter came from nothing through natural means.
This statement contradicts all current understandings and theories about the origins of the Universe as we know it. A Brief History of Time … go read it. Please. It’s complicated but it’ll clear a whole bunch of stuff up and stop people asking really silly questions and making equally silly statements. If you then want to try to disprove Professor Hawking’s findings then go ahead, get your PhD and peer argue with him.
Why couldn’t the universe have always existed? Because nothing that has a beginning and an end could have always existed.
The very nature of SpaceTime is quite interesting and is a concept a lot of people have trouble comprehending properly. Without SpaceTime, there is no context for existence – there is nothing before SpaceTime simply because existence is impossible for there is nothing present for something to exist in. Hm, I just did a rather poor job of explaining that … I’m getting repetitive but Hawking explains it far better than I can.
Today, virtually all scientists accept the Big Bang theory which says the entire universe came into existence at a particular point in time when all of the galaxies, stars and planets were formed.
Ever considered why the smartest people on the face of the planet look at the available evidence and think “Hey, that Big Bang theory is looking good.”? Ever considered that it’s so blatantly obvious that to consider any other alternative is nonsensical to say the least?
Because the available energy is being used up and there is no source of new energy, the universe could not have always existed.
See above about the nature of SpaceTime. The Universe, in an interesting way, has always existed simply because without the Universe existence is impossible. We do know the approximate age of the Universe and it does have an origin point (check out the ways Galaxies and other cosmic bodies are moving) and we’re pretty damn sure that the Big Bang happened and even how hot it was and the temperature drop the Universe experienced.
If the universe is “all matter and energy”, how could it be an open system? If the universe is everything, how can there be something else out there to provide more matter and energy?
See scientific theory surrounding the existence of (if I remember correctly, it’s late at the moment) eleven dimensions. If you don’t know about it, then you’re demonstrating yourself to be ignorant about Big Bang theory … therefore you shouldn’t be talking about it.
Einstein’s general relativity shows that time is linked to matter and space. Time itself would have begun along with matter and space at the beginning of the universe.
So you do, I assume, understand that link. Amazing since it pretty much is missing from anything earlier written here. I, at this point, have to assume that though the words have been typed down and copied, that the concept itself isn’t clear.
Since God is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time and is independent and outside of time. He is not limited by the time dimension he created, so he has no beginning in time.
Try thinking about that statement logically. Think about it. Think about it really hard. Are you seeing the major flaw in that sort of thinking and what is missing from it? Firstly, any consiousness that exists outside of time wouldn’t be able to interact with anything that existed within time because it would force them to also exist in time, you can’t exist both inside and outside time … I’m sure you get the point by now. As for the thing that’s missing? Oh yeah, that pesky little thing called evidence – there’s a hell of a lot which points to Big Bang theory being pretty accurate and there’s pretty much nothing which indicates the existence of any sort of supernatural force which made the universe. To be blunt, there’s more evidence in support for the existence of fairies than there is of any sort of god.
There is not even one generally accepted scientific theory on the origin of matter and energy.
This statement again shows an exceeding amount of ignorance and also logical hypocrisy. The Big Bang theory, as stated on the page earlier, is pretty much universally accepted by the scientific community (mainly because it makes perfect sense and all the evidence points straight to it). Boom, there is have it.
If you insist that for any sort of theory to be valid has to be generally agreed on, then I guess religious stories about the start of life/universe/everything (is the answer 42?) are in really deep trouble. How many religions are there in the world with how many creation stories? Should I go with the ol’ garden of eden tale? How about Odin and the world tree? Maybe the universe sits on the back of elephants which in turn stand on a giant turtle? The science community is pretty cool with the Big Bang theory yet the variety of religious origin stories is breath taking. Stick to just the Christian dogma and you still can’t get a unified answer – the Pope says evolution is the go and that the Earth is about 4 billion years old, while others say it’s only 6,000 and the Pope can go stick it in his ear. Craziness.
The Law of Biogenesis
The entire section therein is odd and the statements therein taken out of context to a fair degree. There have been controlled experiment in laboratories wherein the basic building blocks of life (acids, proteins, etc) have been exposed to an environment like we know a newly formed earth would have been like. Yes, acids and proteins occur naturally and would have been present at the time. Guess what happened? You got it … have the right elements and the right environment and it’s like those delicious shake n’ bake pancake mixes. Mmm, tasty.
There is not even one generally accepted scientific theory on the origin of life.
Excuse me, I need to wipe the coffee off my nice flat screen monitor…
That statement is possibly the funniest thing I’ve read all day, yet also possibly the saddest. Seriously, who could write that with a straight face? To answer that, I’m sure you would agree, would be a waste of time. Here’s a clue – primordial soup, amino acids, environment, zap, change.
The scientific method is held in high esteem by most atheists and it is composed of the following parts…
It’s actually held in high esteem by pretty much any rational person, including the entire scientific community, because it is the only objective and logical means of reaching a workable conclusion. Anything else and you’re basically just pulling answers out of your rear end – you’re guessing and guesswork just doesn’t cut it, not by a long shot. Guessing and ‘fill-in-the-blank’ style answers lead directly to the afore mentioned orbitting teapot deal, which is logical absurd. Then again, it could be worse – you could follow scientology (which, oddly enough, has nothing to do with either science or theology. Go figure).
Nobody has ever observed the creation of matter or energy.
Nobody has ever observed a molecular cloud collapse or any planet form.
Nobody has ever observed abiogenesis.
Nobody has ever observed the evolution of any genome.
Nobody has ever observed any phylum, class, order or family change.
You see, this is possibly the greatest misrepresentation of the scientific method possible and is also, on many accounts, quite false; evolution has actually been observed, for example. On the other hand, direct observation of an event is not always needed … seriously, it’s not. Some things are simply impossible to observe. For example, the formation of a planet … which would take a hell of a long time and by the time it has even started the first stages and become identifiable as a planet then the human race as we know it would have died out (not to mention the distance and technology involved, knowing where exactly to look in the almost infinite universe, etc). On the other hand, there is countless evidence (mathematical, chemical, etc) which clearly indicates how planets are formed, how suns work, how life was created, etc. Can we observe these things being formed? No, mainly because they’ve already happened or our technology isn’t good enough for a direct observation. Instead we go by the evidence … for example, we know that suns are formed out of gaseous clouds that float around, molecules combine and become heavier, their mass attracts other molecules and so forth. This sun has a large gravity field (to put it as simply as I can) which attracts rocks which attract each other, which form into a spherical shape and eventually form planets – with specific circumstances determining what sort of planet is formed. Again, this sort of stuff is the most basic of high school science and there shouldn’t be anyone with access to the Internet who doesn’t understand it … it’s not even high school level, space and the universe is taught in primary school (VELS, Level 4).
The definition of a miracle is an event which is inexplicable by the laws of nature. The fact is there are zero generally accepted scientific explanations on these issues.
Unfortunately, there have been zero credible accounts of any sort of miracles taking place. There is no objective, impartial evidence supporting a single one which can’t be explained by science and simple rational thought.
If you want to believe in naturalism it is fine with me but please don’t make the erroneous claim that “science” is on your side.
The whacked out version of science spouted on Anointed-one.net? I certainly don’t follow, nor would I wish to, that one. Rational science which follows the proper scientific method and logical reasoning? That’s the bus I’m riding, baby.
What term is used to describe something you believe to be true but has no empirical evidence?
Wait, I know this one… is it ‘Making-Crap-Up’?
Oh, I was right! Yay, do I win a prize?
The bottom line is we live in a universe which completely frustrates any attempt to explain its origin and content by natural processes alone.
Bzzt. Disproved time and again. Please try again.
The best evidence for the possible existence of a supernatural creator lies in the total lack of any scientific evidence in these key areas.
Perhaps you’ve heard of the wonderful Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster? This line of thinking, if followed, can be used to justify his/its existence. Coming to any conclusion based on the lack of evidence is one of the worst logical mistakes any person can make. For example, if I find that I can’t find my car keys and my housemates don’t know where they are then, using that odd version of reasoning, I can fill in the blanks and conclude that a surly gang of living garden gnomes took them. Absence of evidence can be used to prove absolutely nothing at all, it’s logically absurd.
I hope you’ve enjoyed this particular write up; showcasing the horrible ignorance and crazy beliefs that some people hold dear to their hearts. Sometimes it just makes you want to cry for the fate of the human race, doesn’t it?