Creation vs Big Bang

[Shortyland05]

Hey, I thought i would bring this up in this forum... There has been alot of debate going on in the outside world on whether the Big Bang created the Universe or if God did. I personally believe that God did. the chances of the Earth, much less the Universe, being created by the Big Bang is as much chance as a printing factory exploding and creating a dictionary. Also if the Earth was 1 inch closer to the sun, the Earth would be a Giant oven, if it was 1 inch away, it would be a giant freezer.

What are your opinions?

[WeekendLazyness]

You apparently don't understand any form of astrophysics.

Problems with your argument:

1)This is IR, not ML

2)Your argument works if you replace "God" with "Big Bang" (this means it's not an argument)

3)The Earth's orbit varies by several million kilometers over each year - proof is in this NASA webstie:
All planets in our solar system travel around the Sun in elliptical orbits. It's Kepler's 1st Law," says University of Florida astronomy professor George Lebo. "The eccentricity of Earth's orbit is 1.7%. In January when we're closest to the Sun (perihelion), the distance is 147.5 million km. This weekend [July 4] we will be 152.6 million km away--a five million kilometer difference."Source: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/02jul_aphelion.htm

4)There's more proof for the Big Bang than for God. Some proof is cosmic background radiation (the afterglow of the Big Bang).
The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place and that as it expands, the gas within it cools. Thus the universe should be filled with radiation that is literally the remnant heat left over from the Big Bang, called the “cosmic microwave background radiation”, or CMB.This uniformity is one compelling reason to interpret the radiation as remnant heat from the Big Bang; it would be very difficult to imagine a local source of radiation that was this uniform.Source: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html
Interestingly, I read in Discover magazine that if you tune a TV to a unused UHF station, some of the static is the cosmic backgroud radiation.

5)Why would God make the galaxies speed away from each other?
The big bang was initially suggested because it explains why distant galaxies are traveling away from us at great speeds.The big bang was initially suggested because it explains why distant galaxies are traveling away from us at great speeds. The theory also predicts the existence of cosmic background radiation (the glow left over from the explosion itself).Source: http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

Also, some theories of what caused the Big Bang include:
- A "primeval atom" exploding (Source: previous site)
- As I remeber reading once two different planes of exsitence touching, thus creating ours..

Unfoturnately, it also states on that page:
Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions.Source: Previous site
Despite this, I believe NASA's (and the rest of the general scientific community's) arguments are much more valid and truthful than anything any creationist can come up with.

[loads_of_fun]

theres also another theory, that the
universe was once very small and expanded,
then shrank, then grew very big again,
kinda like a small bang and the small crunch
theory, but right off hand i for got the name
of it

[Pisces]

Most astrophysics are religious because dispite what some people tell you, they go hand in hand, religion is only another form of science vis versa; I don't have a religion (I do adopt parts of Buddhism though) so I believe in a mixture of the 2 like most scientists do (even though I too uneducated be one). So big bang starts and the chance of this happening is about 1/1 with a hell of a lot of 0s. But there is infinite time and questionable amounts of existance which when you times together you get infinite instances of something happening and so thats works out as ∞/1 with a hell of a lot of 0s which you all know means something will definitly happen :) Of course this being abstract when applied you can apply levels of something first of which is forming of planets, suns, solar systems and such, which assuming it came from a ball of nuclear mess is fairly likely; then there is life I think that given a mess of compounds which will eventually form you will most likely also form loads of acids and the such which is in DNA and given energy from the sun and the constant mixture and change of these chemicals in a state where they are not moderated and seperated by any bacteria like our earth is now it will eventually form something like DNA, and probably fail billions of times but one time it might form bacteria, it may fail but if it doesn't it will spread and evolve and the rest is history (ha ha, bad pun). Some people's arguements for creationalism is that it is so extremely unlikely but I'd say given all the ways of something like this happening, it is very likely, and you have to define what is like this, for which you can say something eqaully unlikely and given there is only one way for event to happen in the infinite events, it has to happen doesn't it?

Now onto god, with the big bang it needs a trigger and if there is no trigger then even with infinity on its side (the possiblity that it must happen) then there will be no event. I say god is this trigger, and I believe it would be egotistic (I've heard that word before but I believe its made up, oh well, Shakespare made up words) to give god a human personality or even "thought", in fact it would contradict his ability to create infinite to give him something limited such as thought, even infinite thought she* couldn't do the job. So I think as god as choatic as the universe, she's even more infact, infinity times more infact ;)

*In English people tend to refer to genderless things as female when giving them a gender.

[Cyberspirit]

Questions:

1. Is there only one creation event ?

2. Are you sure that something cannot come out of nothing ?

3. Must there be a conscious creator ?

"...
According to the laws of quantum mechanics, a bit of matter can appear spontaneously out of nothing, provided that (1) a corresponding bit of antimatter appears at the same time and that (2) the matter and antimatter come together and annihilate each other ( disappear back into the vacuum ) in a time so short that their presence cannot be directly measured.
...

Think of the fabric of space as being something like the membrane of a very special kind of balloon. The presence of any matter, even virtual pairs of particles, causes fabric to bulge, and this drains energy from the gravitational field to make matter. If the bending is severe enough, the balloon starts to expand. In this scheme, if the virtual pairs pop for a long enough time, eventually enough of them will pop in the same place at the same time to bend the fabric enough to start the expansion going. This is the event we usually refer to as the Big Bang. Oddly enough, calculations indicate that it really doesn't take very much mass to set this process off - about ten pounds packed into a volume smaller than a proton would do the job nicely. In most theories, the energy needed to create the rest of the mass of the universe came from the warping of gravitional fields later on.

This particular version of creation has several interesting aspects. For example, it leaves open the possibility that the process could still be going on and thus that there might be other universes out there. Furthermore, it raises the possibility that we might be able to create our own universes by manipulating matter ... ... here's physicist Edward Tyron commenting on the fact that creation may just be a statistical fluke:" Perhaps the universe is just one of those things that happens now and again."

- The first chapter of " 101 things you don't know about science and noone else does either" by James Trefil, who is a " regular contributor to Smithsonian magazine and a science commentator on National Public Radio, and also the Robinson Professor of Physics at Mason University."


Other interesting things :
1. Cosmologists have not been able to measure the age of the universe accurately.

Does the Universe have to have a definite age ?

2. The Hindu concept of a cyclical Universe which grows and deteriorates alternately is similar to the modern cosmological concept of a cyclical Universe. Even the time periods calculated are similar.

...
More to come later ...

[L2_1989]

I believe in the big bang theory. The universe will collapse sometime in the future, but it will not be for billions of years. The universe will cool to absolute zero (around -287 C) and the universe will collapse on itself. The matter will be so compressed that it can't take anymore and explodes into a big bang. I don't think God has anything to do with it. Everyone thought God created everything a thousand years ago. The Earth was flat, everything revolved around Earth, we were created by God. But people saw things in a different way. Galileo, Darwin, Newton, etc. This is our views today. There could be life outside Earth, but we are not advanced enough. I take it in a couple hundred years from now, we'll see if the big bang theory is true, that's if we're not wiped out by an asteroid.

[Yoda]

Ok, you lot. If you believe in God, you can believe in creation, ie "intelligent design." If one of them exists, the other exists.

ScottieIWU, let me tell you something. Charles Darwin later says that his theory is a load of tripe, and no it was not under pressure. Since he said that, its kind of sad that a whole lot of people believe that now, but then again they don't know any of it anyway.

I'll quote you some statistics, WeekendLazyness: It takes 100 of the right amino acids lined up in the right manner to make one protein molecule. And you have to bring about 200 protein molecules with the right functions to make one living cell. The chance of creating one success protein molecular, which is functional, is 1 / 10^60. EVERY cell in the human body contains more information than a library. DO YOU honestly think that that was all caused by random chance!?

Ok. You evolutionists believe that some explosion, which happened for no reason whatsoever by no means whatsoever, blasted everything into EXACTLY the right place. I don't think so. If you were in your house at night, and there was a large sound you could ask "How did that happen." The other person says "It just happened." What do you think that means? It happened out of nothing? More like he/she can't be bothered working out why it did.

You are walking on a beach. You see some message written on the ground, like "So-and-so was here, 2006." Would you think "Oh, that just happened. The waves are oh so good at leaving messages all by themselves", or "someone wrote that!" Obviously the "creation" is intelligent, so therefore it was made by intelligent design. Lets say you are exploring the ruins in the middle east and you find something like this:

http://images.google.com.au/images?q=tbn:gEo-9vu7HJ4J:www.hubbers.com/blog/img/persopolis.jpg

How much more intelligent is a human cell than such the remains of a building like that! Yet you would never consider, even for a second, that it was formed by random chance! You may not know what time it came from, or why it was built, or who it was built by (it was the Persian capital city, Persepolis built somewhere around 450-300 BC), but you would know that it was made by an intelligent design. How can you hold those two thoughts at the same time?

And, by the way, I also don't except one of evolution's main points - that some creatures evolved out of dead material. Not likely.

[william_clinch]

Ok, you lot. If you believe in God, you can believe in creation, ie "intelligent design." If one of them exists, the other exists.

Not necceceraly. God existing doesn't mean he just randomly created animals out of nothingness


I'll quote you some statistics, WeekendLazyness: It takes 100 of the right amino acids lined up in the right manner to make one protein molecule. And you have to bring about 200 protein molecules with the right functions to make one living cell. The chance of creating one success protein molecular, which is functional, is 1 / 10^60. EVERY cell in the human body contains more information than a library. DO YOU honestly think that that was all caused by random chance!?

You do realise that it didn't all happen in one instant, it happened over billions of years, within billions of billions of creatures


blasted everything into EXACTLY the right place.

there isn't exactly an "exact right place" though is there. you cant say that things are exactly as they should be, because there's nothing to compair against


You are walking on a beach. You see some message written on the ground, like "So-and-so was here, 2006." Would you think "Oh, that just happened.

no, but you wouldn't say "OMG!! a message from god!!!" (well most people wouldn't say that : P )

[GenocideAlive]

Shorty, the purpose of an intelligent discussion is not to simply demolish the other person's argument, leaving him speechless and in awe. The true purpose of all intelligent discussion should be to reach a near-consensus among participants about what the solution to the question is. In doing this, all viewpoints are welcome and evaluated until eventually everybody either agrees to hold their own opinions but is that much the wiser for sharing them with each other.
There's a word that I think you should familiarize yourself with, called "concise". I suggest this, because your post is something like 3000 words long and extremely boring by about 2 paragraphs deep. And shorty, don't believe this fool. The purpose of intelligent discussion is totally owning the other person's feeble argument. What he's talking about is a fantasy.

For instance:
Ok, you lot. If you believe in God, you can believe in creation, ie "intelligent design." If one of them exists, the other exists.
In case you weren't paying attention during...the past 10 years, ID has nothing to do with Creation according to ID advocates. It's ID opponents that contend it's merely Creationism in disguise. You are so thoroughly pwned by this flaw, I will leave you in shock and awe. But's let's continue.
And, by the way, I also don't except one of evolution's main points - that some creatures evolved out of dead material. Not likely.
Quotes, please. And if you could, please offer a background on your education in Biology. Your argument here stinks of "regurgitating shit you don't understand".
You are walking on a beach. You see some message written on the ground, like "So-and-so was here, 2006." Would you think "Oh, that just happened. The waves are oh so good at leaving messages all by themselves", or "someone wrote that!" Obviously the "creation" is intelligent, so therefore it was made by intelligent design.
So God wrote "God was here 2006" in the Universe or something? I'm not following. Who wrote a message, where? Until you can establish that, I'm fairly sure we can safely say your analogy is deceptive bullshit. :rolleyes:

Edit: And BTW I'm a little confused, isn't this about BB vs. Creationism? Not ID, not Evolution (which you will get fucking used if you attempt to discredit).

[singo]

The universe will collapse sometime in the future, but it will not be for billions of years.

Not necessarily. I read in some back issues of astronomy now I think it was (not just an astronomy magazine thank you very much, its also got lots of spaceflight and physics stuff, as long as the physics releates to the cosmos in some way) That the universe is actually accelerating and will eventually rip apart. God knows what it will do after that.

Bad choice of words there. But you see my point, if it rips apart because its expansion is approaching reletavistic speeds then it might not collapse at all, it might keep going, keep accelerating even after that. Which raises some interesting but not entirely relevant questions.

Like will the acceleration win out or will the "limitations of light speed"

[ScottieIWU]

And shorty, don't believe this fool. The purpose of intelligent discussion is totally owning the other person's feeble argument. What he's talking about is a fantasy.

I suppose what I've seen of your posts consist of intelligence? I've seen your intelligent posts about "owning" other peoples "feeble" arguments? If somebody's argument is feeble you still need to understand it. I'm not talking about fantasy, I'm talking about going out into the world and having a discussion with someone to understand their viewpoints. Doing so is not compromising your own view or weakening it, but merely making yourself stronger so that your views can withstand more.

If you want to make this an intelligent debate, then we can begin destroying creationists' viewpoints. I was under the impression this was the intellectual roundtable, an area about discussion and sharing, not about listening to you get some kind of rush off of making people feel bad about themselves.

Anyway, your post may have done a whole lot of concise destroying of somebody elses argument (read: insulting the other person) but just because you defeated somebody's argument have you built any kind of case for your views?

Scott

[GenocideAlive]

I suppose what I've seen of your posts consist of intelligence? I've seen your intelligent posts about "owning" other peoples "feeble" arguments? If somebody's argument is feeble BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH but just because you defeated somebody's argument have you built any kind of case for your views?
Holy shit, dude. You need to see a doctor, because you have a bad case of Mouthus diarrheae. Remember that "concise" thing? Learn to flesh out your ideas in brief, because people are going to lose interest in what you write while you're finishing up the five-hundred pages of the Declaration of Scottdependence.

In rejoinder to your actual content: Yes, my posts are intelligent, and yes if I defeat someone's argument, my view looks a whole lot better. Duh?

Think of it like this: there's Option A, and Option B. If I make Option B look stupid, then suddenly there are few places to turn. And until you can reasonably provide an heretofore unseen Option C, Option A looks like our horse.

[FallenLord]

Cosmology is fun.

Quantified redshifts are inconsistent with the big bang. Hubble's law is the statement in physical cosmology that the redshift in light coming from distant galaxies is proportional to their distance. The law was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929 after nearly a decade of observations. It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the most often cited pieces of evidence in support of the Big Bang.
In 1984, Tifft and his co-worker W. J. Cocke examined the 1981 Fisher-Tully survey of redshifts in the radio wave (not visible light) part of the spectrum. The survey listed redshifts in the prominent 21-cm wavelength line from hydrogen in the galaxies. Tifft and Cocke found ‘sharp periodicities at exact submultiples (1/3 and 1/2) of 72.45 km/s’, stating, ‘There is now very firm evidence that the redshifts of galaxies are quantized with a primary interval near 72 km s-1.'
However, some skepticism about their conclusion remained for a decade after that, despite Tifft’s steady stream of peer-reviewed publications closing up the loopholes in his case. Then in 1997, an independent study of 250 galaxy redshifts by William Napier and Bruce Guthrie confirmed Tifft’s basic observations, saying,
‘ … the redshift distribution has been found to be strongly quantized in the galactocentric frame of reference. The phenomenon is easily seen by eye and apparently cannot be ascribed to statistical artefacts, selection procedures or flawed reduction techniques. Two galactocentric periodicities have so far been detected, ~ 71.5 km s-1 in the Virgo cluster, and ~ 37.5 km s-1 for all other spiral galaxies within ~ 2600 km s-1 [roughly 100 million light years]. The formal confidence levels associated with these results are extremely high.’
A "galactocentric frame of reference" refers to a frame at rest with respect to the center of our own galaxy.
In 1996, Tifft showed that it is important to compensate the galactocentric redshifts yet further by accounting for our galaxy’s motion with respect to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. Doppler shifts of the microwaves show that our galaxy is moving about 560 km/s in a direction south of the constellation Hydra. Accounting for that motion converts the galactocentric redshifts to a frame of reference which is at rest with respect to the CMB, and thus presumably at rest with respect to the universe as a whole. In that frame, it turns out that the redshift groups are much more distinct from one another. Then some less intense periodicities, such as at 2.6, 9.15, and 18.3 km/s, become evident.
It appears that redshift quantization—the phenomenon itself, not the theories trying to explain it—has survived a quarter-century of peer review.
Except for directions obscured by the Milky Way, astronomers observe about equal numbers of galaxies in all directions from us. If a particular group of redshifts represents a group of galaxy distances clustered around an average distance r1 from us, then we would expect those galaxies to be roughly equally distributed all around us on a (conceptual) spherical shell of radius r1. A second group of distances might have an average of r2 = r1 + r, so those galaxies would tend to be on a second spherical shell a distance r outside the first.
To observe distinct groups of redshifts, we must be near the centre of the spherical-shell pattern of galaxies.
In summary, the observed redshift quantizations strongly imply that the universe has a centre, and that our galaxy is uncannily close to it!
The above suggests we live in a galactocentric cosmos—a universe that has a unique geometric centre very near our own home galaxy, the Milky Way.
The technical literature of astronomy almost completely ignores a galactocentric cosmos as a possible explanation for redshift quantization. Instead, secular astronomers appear to prefer some as-yet-unexplained microscopic phenomenon affecting the light itself, either in its emission from atoms or its transmission through space. Tifft himself actively promotes such an explanation.
Thus secular astronomers have avoided the simple explanation, most not even mentioning it as a possibility. Instead, they have grasped at a straw they would normally disdain, by invoking mysterious unknown physics.
Few people realize how different the big bang cosmology is from their conceptions of it. The misleading popular name of the theory causes most people to picture a small three-dimensional ball—having a centre and an outer edge—exploding outward into an empty three-dimensional space.
Most people, including most scientists and even many astronomers, picture the big bang that way. But expert cosmologists picture the big bang theory entirely differently! They reject both a three-dimensional initial ball and an ‘island’ universe. In the ‘closed’ big bang (the most favored version), they imagine—purely by analogy—the three-dimensional space we can see as being merely the surface of a four-dimensional ‘balloon’ expanding out into a ‘hyperspace’ of four spatial dimensions (none is time).
On the surface of the balloon, there is no centre. The true centre of the expansion would be in the air inside the balloon, which represents ‘hyperspace’, beyond the perception of creatures confined to the 3-D ‘surface’.
Thus, the big bang has no centre. No unique centre would exist anywhere within the three space dimensions we can see. (This explains why its supporters reject any interpretation of redshift quantization requiring a centre.)Sources include (but are not limited to): Gore, Al. The Internet. 1999.

(As one might expect, evidence that the earth is at/near the center of the universe is highly consistent with YEC views.)

...

WeekendLazyness:
There's more proof for the Big Bang than for GodNot to overly quibble, but math and logic deal with 'proofs.' Science deals with data or 'evidence.'

Some proof is cosmic background radiation (the afterglow of the Big Bang).Actually, CBR is also consistent with other theories.

I believe NASA's (and the rest of the general scientific community's) arguments are much more valid and truthful than anything any creationist can come up with.You may or may not agree that it's possible you are wrong.

...

Genocide:
The purpose of intellectual brutality is totally owning the other person's feeble argument.Fixed.

ID has nothing to do with Creation according to ID advocates. It's ID opponents that contend it's merely Creationism in disguise. You are so thoroughly pwned by this flaw, I will leave you in shock and awe.It's possible you recognize that the now frightful baggaged acronym "ID" is actually not synonymous with the simple term "intelligent design." /school

[ScottieIWU]

In insulting me, have you actually done anything but defeat the spirit of this forum?

Think of it like this: there's Option A, and Option B. If I make Option B look stupid, then suddenly there are few places to turn. And until you can reasonably provide an heretofore unseen Option C, Option A looks like our horse.

Yah, that's called bifurcation, it's a logical fallicy. Sure, it appears as though Option A is better because Option B is wrong, there are millions of other options. Prove your option is true, and you've won the argument.

And concise does not mean short. It means free of elaboration. Granted that I do elaborate, and my first post was long-winded, but your posts are shallow and void of depth, not concise. There's a difference.

The purpose of intellectual brutality is totally owning the other person's feeble argument.

Fixed.

That's about right.

[WeekendLazyness]

Quantified redshifts are inconsistent with the big bang.Sources include (but are not limited to): Gore, Al. The Internet. 1999.A very interesting read indeed. Unfortunately, this conclusion rests on what "expert cosmologists" have to say, but wihtout a source I cannot agree if these are indeed the views of said experts.

Not to overly quibble, but math and logic deal with 'proofs.' Science deals with data or 'evidence.'I was using them interchangeably. To rephrase:
There's more evidence for the Big Bang than for God.

Actually, CBR is also consistent with other theories.Such as?

You may or may not agree that it's possible you are wrong.Oh it's very possible. But that doesn't validate creationism, either.

[Neo]

I hate you all. No really, I do. This is going to turn into some humoungous ass debate, and I am going to have to read each and every post and keep a close eye on this. Damn you all!

Ok, now that thats out of the way (I don't really mean it, I luv u all).

That whole quote about redshifts is... Uhm not that informative.

For all we know, we are near a big galaxy (visible or not) that has a very large 'pull' and thus has created, for lack of a etter term, a kind of solar system of galaxies. At least, that makes about as much sense as the universe having a center that we are near. First off; we all have a hard time understanding something 'infinite' -- personally, I believe (or try to) that the universe is infinite in all forms. That is, space and time wise, the universe had no beggining and no end, it just simply is.

I also feel that 'dark matter' also serves an important roll in the way the universe behaves.

But to claim that a God created the universe... that seems so backwards.

I personally could see a God-like being, or beings, creating the earth, even us, but the entire universe? For that matter, what about the theory of multiple universes? Ones that split off at each decision point? For example, there could be a universe out there where earth is ruled by a Nazi regime after Hitler counqered everything.

The universe is big. God is simply a way to try to define things in a way that people will understand. The fact is, the bible, and anything relating to the 'proof' of God, was created by man. Whether said men had divine inspiration is disputable.

I also dislike the big bang theory. It seems so mundane of a way for the universe to have started. I mean really, a big bang? How boring is that. And how contradictory, I mean, your telling me that all matter in the universe was compressed in an infinitsimal point and then "exploded" ?

I don't know. I guess the visible matter and energy might be, but that only account for what, like 3% of all matter in the universe? That big bang doesn't seem so big anymore.

Ya I think i rambled there.

Oh, and try to be civil. I know thats hard for some of you, but I won't be afraid to give out temp bans. This is IR, not ML, and it sure as hell isn't Blizzforums.

-Neo

[Yoda]

You do realise that it didn't all happen in one instant, it happened over billions of years, within billions of billions of creatures

Get down and worship time!! :rolleyes: No, honestly would you believe that if a standstorm had "enough time", it would arrange an aeroplane out of spare parts?

there isn't exactly an "exact right place" though is there. you cant say that things are exactly as they should be, because there's nothing to compair against

I'll quote you some statistics, WeekendLazyness: It takes 100 of the right amino acids lined up in the right manner to make one protein molecule. And you have to bring about 200 protein molecules with the right functions to make one living cell. The chance of creating one success protein molecular, which is functional, is 1 / 10^60. EVERY cell in the human body contains more information than a library. DO YOU honestly think that that was all caused by random chance!?


no, but you wouldn't say "OMG!! a message from god!!!" (well most people wouldn't say that : P )

You've missed the point altogether. I was not saying that God randomly writes messages on beaches, but what you would think if you saw a message like that. Would you think "This was made by some form of human intelligence" or "The waves made this randomly from a floating rock?" Would you see the complexity of a human cell and think "This was made by some form of great intelligence (i.e. Creation)" or "This was made randomly?"

GenocideAlive, you only offer one counterpoint -

So God wrote "God was here 2006" in the Universe or something? I'm not following. Who wrote a message, where?

Well that point flew right over your head. See above.

Lets bring up moral values. I suppose you people who believe that the universe was made by the big bang and evolution also believe that moral values are determined solely by the individual's experiences. So if something does not benifet the human race, than it is 'morally' wrong. Part of evolution is that people "evolved" by a series of "accidental" changes and changes for "survival." Wouldn't it therefore be morally right for the weak, old, disabled to be exterminated, so the human race is made much stronger? The Big Bang/ evolution was one of Hitler's main excuses for his genocide of "undesirables." Why then, is it considered morally wrong? The Big Bang theory means that there is nothing special about human life. It could be destroyed without any form of conscience. Conscience? Oh wait!! Where did that come from?

[Sikawtic]

I'd like to point out that most highly-knowledgeable scientists switch to creationism when they delve into this question.

[ScottieIWU]

I'd like to point out that most highly-knowledgeable scientists switch to creationism when they delve into this question.
I'm interested in some examples you could show me of this conversion. I hear about this frequently but have yet to really hear the stories of these scientists.

No, honestly would you believe that if a standstorm had "enough time", it would arrange an aeroplane out of spare parts?
Faulty example, I think. Sandstorms don't rage for billions of years with all of the necessary nuts, bolts and metal required for the sandstorm to build and airplane.

I'll quote you some statistics, WeekendLazyness: It takes 100 of the right amino acids lined up in the right manner to make one protein molecule. And you have to bring about 200 protein molecules with the right functions to make one living cell. The chance of creating one success protein molecular, which is functional, is 1 / 10^60. EVERY cell in the human body contains more information than a library. DO YOU honestly think that that was all caused by random chance!?
Yes, because we're not the only planet in the universe. Carl Sagan (in Cosmos) points out there are 10^22 planets estimated in the universe. The odds are overwhelmingly against when you twist facts and we're the only planet to spawn life. Things change when you have that many planets all with attempts at life.

Scott

[Geckat]

Did you ever think that the Big Bang that scientists worship and some religeous creation intermingle? Again, I really hate it when people think of God as some huge hand in the sky giving the thumbs-up to Ned Flanders. God is nature, common sense, the inner morality of people, and also the driving force of creation.

Get down and worship time!! No, honestly would you believe that if a standstorm had "enough time", it would arrange an aeroplane out of spare parts?

My favorite thing to say to atheists, only a little different. If you shatter a watch and place it all in a bag, and then shake it long enough, will it come back out fixed? Bill Nye thinks so!

[william_clinch]

Get down and worship time!! :rolleyes: No, honestly would you believe that if a standstorm had "enough time", it would arrange an aeroplane out of spare parts?

no, because random sand cant evolve, nor can it undergo chemical reactions

a better analogy would be a million monkeys on a million typewriters for a million years




You've missed the point altogether. what you would think if you saw a message like that. Would you think "This was made by some form of human intelligence" or "The waves made this randomly from a floating rock?" Would you see the complexity of a human cell and think "This was made by some form of great intelligence (i.e. Creation)" or "This was made randomly?"


you dont just go for the easy option because you dont understand, you go for the option which has been proven by logic and by people who understand these things, even if you dont

[Snot]

Thank you Geckat for that... brief few words of wisdom... I think.

I have to say that the BB Theory makes more sense than any being could create... either celestial or deity. Astormomy has taught me enough that gravity and how things work in the solar system... all make more sense than God blowing hot air out his ass... no I am not atheist, I believe in God enough to know. Never mind... too religious for me.

[Sauvastika]

Well, gee, anyone can place God as the creator/instigator of anything in existence. Where'd that candy wrapper come from? God put it there. How did evolution start? God did it. Why do humans exist? God made it so. Basically, you can add God as the catalyst for any event that has ever happened, but does that make it reasonable? Not really.

All I've been reading for the God created the universe point is: Since the other theories have problems or leave too much to chance, God must have created the universe. Since we have so many other mysteries, I'll help some of the researchers out:

The dinosaurs died off because of God's wrath.
God gave the Egyptians advanced technology.
God killed off the settlers on Roanoke Island.
God made the statues on Easter Island
God is responsible for the disappearance of Amelia Earhart... might as well make that every ship, airplane, etc...

but what you would think if you saw a message like that. Would you think "This was made by some form of human intelligence" or "The waves made this randomly from a floating rock?" Would you see the complexity of a human cell and think "This was made by some form of great intelligence (i.e. Creation)" or "This was made randomly?"

Now for the difference between God's creation and Man's creation. We aren't even 1% sure that God created lifeforms. With the writing on the beach, we can be 99% (rounded down) certain that someone wrote that, because we've observed that Man is the only creature that writes in English. Hey! OBSERVATION! That's one of the foundations of science. Observing trends, behaviour, remains, relationships etc.

Observation... So can you honestly say that the observation of trends proves that God or an intelligent being created life, the universe, and so on?

Another point. Something isn't "complex" just because we don't understand it. Maybe life's the easiest thing for nature to create, but for us, with our limitations, it's too "complex". "Complexity" is just another one of those relative things.

[Geckat]

Of course sand can't evolve. Think of the tiny little carbon atoms that supposedly started this whole thing as the airplane parts (or the pieces of the watch). Think of the forces of evolution (which was only limited to radiation and other tiny ecological influences) as the blowing wind (or the shaking of the bag). It's the same thing, and really neither would work very well. I think there's something else scientists haven't discovered. I believe wholly in God and Christianity, but I also believe in acception. Like I said, God IS these forces you're talking about. The people in the Bible, I think, did exist. There's scientific proof of that...but they were only people that believed they were there to document, or to teach, or to restore order to the world. Funnily enough, they did. Pillars of fire raining down on a sacrifice? I think it's just interest. People taking tales and slowly transforming them, either because they didn't understand or simply to make the tales more consumer-friendly, rather than a textbook.

Mull that over, I gotta get off soon.

[GenocideAlive]

You've missed the point altogether. I was not saying that God randomly writes messages on beaches, but what you would think if you saw a message like that.
So, not only do you admit that it's not an appropriate analogy, but you immediately attempt to again redirect the reader BACK to the same shit that you just admitted wasn't appropriate. That, uh, makes sense.
Get down and worship time!! No, honestly would you believe that if a standstorm had "enough time", it would arrange an aeroplane out of spare parts?
Another horrid example. You consider molecules in a liquid medium to be equivalent to parts flying in a sandstorm. ...riiiiiiight.
Lets bring up moral values.
Let's fucking not.
Yah, that's called bifurcation, it's a logical fallicy. Sure, it appears as though Option A is better because Option B is wrong, there are millions of other options. Prove your option is true, and you've won the argument.
Wait. Now there are millions of other options? Where did this come from? I stated there were two options. As in, two opinions. You could easily posit there are millions or BILLIONS of other opinions, but that's a polemic designed to draw attention away from the issues; there's only one truth.
And concise does not mean short. It means free of elaboration. Granted that I do elaborate, and my first post was long-winded, but your posts are shallow and void of depth, not concise. There's a difference.
I think it's fairly safe to say that everybody here knows what concise means, so "elaborating" on that point is un-concise. Additionally, your opinion of my posts seems almost salient, given your inability to summarize the most basic concept in less than 5 paragraphs. Thanks.
It's possible you recognize that the now frightful baggaged acronym "ID" is actually not synonymous with the simple term "intelligent design." /school
Ahahahaha! So smart, FallenLord! A little tongue-in-cheek jab at me, huh? Well allow me to reciprocate. Your little science sheet there? It refers to "secular scientists", multiple times. Why is that? Do you just go straight to "Christian Science" websites, and copy/paste?

[FallenLord]

WeekendLaziness:
Unfortunately, this conclusion rests on what "expert cosmologists" have to say, but wihtout a source I cannot agree if these are indeed the views of said experts.It's not necessary for you to agree. Definitions are definitions, and the Big Bang is the Big Bang. And the conclusion I presented rests on the Big Bang, not a misconception of the Big Bang.
Many think of the Big Bang as though it was a bomb going off, where the only thing expanding is matter. This is totally untrue. The Big Bang states that space is expanding. (The expansion of matter is naturally incidental.) The assumption that the universe is 'unbounded' and center-less is in fact perfectly fundamental to Big Bang [mathematical] solution(s). Which are, concordantly, badly damaged by these serious indications of a galactocentric universe.

Such as?...YEC? (You may recognize that natural selection, mutations, etc., etc. are consistent with YEC, too.) Additionally, CMB's 'smoothness' is consistent with YEC. Something their opponents can't necessarily say.

There's more evidence for the Big Bang than for God.There's also more evidence against the Big Bang than for God. (Or against God, for that matter.) Go figure?

...

Scottie:
Yes, because we're not the only planet in the universe. Carl Sagan (in Cosmos) points out there are 10^22 planets estimated in the universe. The odds are overwhelmingly against when you twist facts and we're the only planet to spawn life. Things change when you have that many planets all with attempts at life.What about the odds of life spawning on a planet within a few hundred thousand lightyears of the center of the universe?

...

Sauvastika:

Actually, the Egyptians and Easter Islanders invented their own technology, and YEC model that dinosaurs died during the ice age.

Another point. Something isn't "complex" just because we don't understand it. Maybe life's the easiest thing for nature to create, but for us, with our limitations, it's too "complex". "Complexity" is just another one of those relative things.Actually, "complexity" refers to things made up of smaller parts. Life by definition is therefore complex. Extremely complex, relative to anything we've ever designed.

...

Genocide:

How could I pass up such an easy opportunity to let you once again display your irrationally close-minded attitude? (It never gets old.)

And if you weren't so busy fanatically shutting out everything except your choir director(s), you'd respond intelligently to quantized redshifts. (I won't hold my breath.)

[WeekendLazyness]

WeekendLaziness:
It's not necessary for you to agree. Definitions are definitions, and the Big Bang is the Big Bang. And the conclusion I presented rests on the Big Bang, not a misconception of the Big Bang.Or could your conclusion rest on the misconceptions of your so called "cosmology experts?" Without sources you aren't credible (and even less so if it is original research).

Many think of the Big Bang as though it was a bomb going off, where the only thing expanding is matter. This is totally untrue. The Big Bang states that space is expanding. (The expansion of matter is naturally incidental.) The assumption that the universe is 'unbounded' and center-less is in fact perfectly fundamental to Big Bang [mathematical] solution(s). Which are, concordantly, badly damaged by these serious indications of a galactocentric universe.What proof is there for this four dimentional expantion? I also don't see why it's not possible for a four dimensional space to have a center. Two and three dimensional objects do. And unless you have a degree in math or physics, don't expect anyone to believe your explination of why not unless you provide a credible source.

...YEC? (You may recognize that natural selection, mutations, etc., etc. are consistent with YEC, too.) Additionally, CMB's 'smoothness' is consistent with YEC. Something their opponents can't necessarily say.You don't explain why though.

There's also more evidence against the Big Bang than for God. (Or against God, for that matter.) Go figure?That doesn't help to prove God exsists though (your reply is a logical fallacy).


What about the odds of life spawning on a planet within a few hundred thousand lightyears of the center of the universe?What people don't realize is that despite the fact that odds may be stacked very highly against an event, it can still occur (and most likely will given enough time). Odds state how often said event will occur. For example, a penny has a 1 in 2 chance of landing face up on a given toss. Repeating the toss over and over, the penny will average about 1 in 2 times of landing face up.

[Sauvastika]

Actually, the Egyptians and Easter Islanders invented their own technology

I was responding to wherever there were conflicting viewpoints, and there are conflicting views on these topics.

and YEC model that dinosaurs died during the ice age.

Same as above.

Actually, "complexity" refers to things made up of smaller parts. Life by definition is therefore complex. Extremely complex, relative to anything we've ever designed.

hard to separate, analyze, or solve

Different definition?

A diamond cutter's able to create beautiful gems from unremarkable natural diamonds, using precise techniques, the right equipment, etc. Nature, itself, is unable to create diamonds of a professional cutter's caliber. The diamond cutter, however, is unable to create natural diamonds from random things lying around. For Nature, the creation of the gems we see in Tiffany's or Kay's is complex. For us, the creation of natural diamonds is complex. Complexity, therefore, is relative to whomever or whatever's point of view.

[Neo]

If the earth was/is built by God or whatever...

Doesn't it seem odd then, that through the earth's history, its been more of an Ice Planet then the temperate one we have now? I can't remember if that topic was here or not (might've been at BF), but someone mentioned that the total number of 'ice ages' for out weigh those 'temperate ages' (ie: the one we have now).

Which reminds me, how old do creationist's think the earth is?
ID'ers?
Evolutionists?
etc...?

The earth is old. Very Old. To assume that God decided at some point in the recent past to 'create' humans out of nothing seems kind of out there doesn't it?

And I am so tired of hearing the whole 'darwin discounted his own theory' -- its false. He didn't claim he was wrong and he didn't decide to accept Christ as his lord and savior.

The evidence shows that the story is not true. Lady Hope was not present at the deathbed of Darwin. The multiple independent accounts of his death, written by those who were there, make no mention of it. His children who were there at his death wrote articles and letters that specifically refuted the recantation and conversion story.

http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/darwin-deathbed.html

So the next time you feel the need to bring that little bit up, remember it was just yet another lie that a Christian decided to make up to reinforce thier own beliefs.

-Neo

[ScottieIWU]

Wait. Now there are millions of other options? Where did this come from?
Non-christian religious ideas of creation and crazy crackpot theories. You have to disprove every one of those before science's explanation can win by default. Hence, you falling under the logical fallacy bifurcation.

I think it's fairly safe to say that everybody here knows what concise means, so "elaborating" on that point is un-concise. Additionally, your opinion of my posts seems almost salient, given your inability to summarize the most basic concept in less than 5 paragraphs. Thanks.
I'll direct you to my previous post.


Geckat:Atoms will react and combine with each other in ways that airplane and watch parts can't.

So, how about the analogy of taking an infinite amount of space with a near infinite amount of mass spread out over said space, plus the laws of quantum mechanics with billions of years. There's your analogy. Prove to me now that absolutely nothing could happen without intelligent intervention.

Scott

[FallenLord]

WeekendLaziness:

Welcome to modern astrophysics:
The Big Bang refers to the expansion of space:http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward.http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_pillars.html
The fact that the Universe is expanding - about every point in space - can be a difficult concept to grasp.(Yes, it can be difficult to grasp.)Wikipedia:
The Big Bang is a consequence of the observed Hubble's law velocities of distant galaxies that when taken together with the cosmological principle imply that space is expanding according to the Friedmann-Lemaître model of general relativity.(The phrase "the universe/cosmos is expanding," means the same thing as 'space is expanding.' The universe, after all, includes space.)The Big Bang assumes center-less universe:The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, by Stephen Hawking and George Ellis
Indeed we are now so democratic that we would not claim that our position in space is specially distinguished in any way. We shall, following Bondi (1960), call this assumption the Copernican principle. ... We shall interpret the Copernican principle as stating that the universe is approximately spherically symmetric about every point.http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_pillars.html
The Copernican or cosmological principle states that the Universe appears the same in every direction from every point in space. It amounts to asserting that our position in the Universe - with respect to the very largest scales - is in no sense preferred.http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_pillars.html
The fact that the Universe is expanding - about every point in space - can be a difficult concept to grasp. The analogy of an expanding balloon may be helpful: Imagine residing in a curved flatland on the surface of a balloon. As the balloon is blown up, the distance between all neighbouring points grows; the two-dimensional universe grows but there is no preferred centre.http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
No matter where you are in the Universe, every galaxy you see is moving away from you. That's why astrophysicists say that you shouldn't talk about the center of the Universe; there really is no center of the Universe.I also don't see why it's not possible for a four dimensional space to have a center.That's because you don't understand it.

What proof is there for this four dimentional expantion?Now that you know what the Big Bang really means, perhaps it is harder to stomach.

You don't explain why though.Do you know why CMB is helpful to the Big Bang?

That doesn't help to prove God exsists though (it's a logical fallacy).You'd have to be omnipotent with respect to the natural to prove that the supernatural exists.

...

Sauvastika:
http://www.meriam-webster.com/
1 a : composed of two or more parts : COMPOSITE b (1) of a word : having a bound form as one or more of its immediate constituents <unmanly is a complex word> (2) of a sentence : consisting of a main clause and one or more subordinate clauses
2 : hard to separate, analyze, or solve
3 : of, concerned with, being, or containing complex numbers <a complex root> <complex analysis>Organs, protiens, DNA, cells, atoms, molecules, etc. These things are complex because they are composed (made up) of lesser elements. Ergo, life is complex. It's a pretty simple concept and there's no point in disagreeing.

"Nature" is simply the cumulative result of microscopic organisms, thermodynamics, gravity, and various other physical phenomena.

[WeekendLazyness]

Welcome to modern astrophysics:Your sources seem to be a bunch of research papers by students, not experts.

That's because you don't understand it.Who are you to say what I do and don't understand? Maybe you just reply in this manner so you don't have to explain it yourself (possibly because you don't know how)?

Now that you know what the Big Bang really means, perhaps it is harder to stomach.Please stop trying to act as if though you are teaching me and answer the question. What proof is there?

Do you know why CMB is helpful to the Big Bang?I do believe that is stated in point 4 of post #2. Could this response of yours be another cop-out (possibly because you don't know why it's important to YEC)?

You'd have to be omnipotent with respect to the natural to prove that the supernatural exists.Am I correct in saying that you support creationism? If so, if you cannot prove that God exsists (yourself not being "omnipotent with respect to the natural"), how can you continue to support creationism?

[Sauvastika]

Organs, protiens, DNA, cells, atoms, molecules, etc. These things are complex because they are composed (made up) of lesser elements. Ergo, life is complex. It's a pretty simple concept and there's no point in disagreeing.

"Nature" is simply the cumulative result of microscopic organisms, thermodynamics, gravity, and various other physical phenomena.

What you're saying is life is complex per definition one. What's pertinent to this discussion is definition two: "hard to separate, analyze, or solve", as what we feel is "complex" is the thing I'm trying to explain. I'm not going by how many cogs are in the machine, I'm going by how much one understands the mechanics behind it.

As for Nature, I'll just address it as a single, semi-sentient entity as it makes much more sense than saying Phenomena every time I say something about life, or a "complex" system.

I'll go back to the diamond cutter and Nature's diamonds example. For the diamond cutter, cutting diamonds isn't a "complex" task, as he understands how to do it - the ins and outs of the system - but for the diamond cutter, the creation of diamnds in nature is "complex" because he doesn't understand how diamonds come about from just plain rock (let's just pretend he doesn't know). Nature, on the other hand, can create natural diamonds, but the cutting of diamonds is a complex task for it. It can't create the gems we see in jewlry stores.

Life is "complex" in the same way. Maybe there is a being that understands all the ins and outs of life. Life is no longer complex for it. But for us, life is still complex, because we don't understand it (as fully as other things).

Now, on the Big Bang.

We view it as a "complex" operation because it is, at this point of our knowledge, hard to analyze and/or solve. Does this mean it's beyond our domain? Probably not. With everything we learn about space-time, the closer we get to learning the mechanics behind the Big Bang, or whatever other theory arises from the information, because it's an ever-evolving field.

[GenocideAlive]

Seriously, WL, FallenLord is a joke in the IR. It's just common knowledge. Don't bother arguing, he just pulls stuff out of Christian Science magazines that may or may not have actual facts in it and then spits out some banal one-liner.

He's a Creationist that couches himself in a "non-partisan" banter for purposes of not having to defend Creationism while being able to attack everything else. Sort of like the ever-popular ID, which isn't any scientific fact, it's just a series of unrelated observations that attempts to poke holes in Evolution. It contains no actual science in practice.

Observation -- Life is complex.
Hypothesis -- It was made by something, since it's complex.
Experiment -- ???????? <-- In progress
Conclusion -- Life was created by God.

Sort of like the underpants gnomes from South Park.
Step 1 - Collect Underpants
Step 2 - ??????
Step 3 - Profit

[Cyberspirit]

Seriously, WL, FallenLord is a joke in the IR.

And GenocideAlive is the nemesis of jokers !!! :D
...

Well, I see a lot of assumptions were made thoughout the discussion.

Some assume that there was only one creation event, and that it is impossible for something to arise out of "nothing".

I posted an excerpt from " 101 things you don't know about science and no one else does either " by James Trefil. That was in page 1 of this thread.

It says that matter can arise out of vacuum provided the same mass of antimatter is created with it, and when matter and antimatter come together they annihilate each other and disappear into nothingness again.
The laws of quantum mechanics say that this happens all the time, just that we cannot observe it with our naked senses.

Well, it seemed noone paid attention to my post.
Perhaps it overturned all our assumptions and made everybody uncomfortable.
In order to continue with the argument of "who created what", we have to assume that everything has to be created by something else.
Hence, my post was ignored.
...

Some assume that complexity implies intelligent design.

Heard of fractals ?

Currently, there is NO evidence to show that the history of living things or the Universe was guided by an entity doing something that cannot be achieved by the laws of nature alone.
So ID is still just an assumption.

On the other hand, evolution, Big Bang, Cyclical Universe etc ... have tons of observational evidence. Mutation and diversification is observed among living things. Stars/galaxies are observed to drift through space in a certain pattern.
And given billion of years, it is more than possible for such observed phenomena to produce seemingly miraculous changes.
Hence, scientific evolutionary and cosmological theories explain these changes perfectly well.

mystical creationist theories do not have such evidence. Just admit it !
...

And we have some fuzzy definitions.

According to Geckat, God is the forces of nature.

Not that this definition is wrong, I think that it resolves the conflict pretty well.

It would help if someone gives a full list of definitions for terms in cosmology.
Then once we agree on the definitions, we will know exactly what the heck we are arguing about.
...

I am not a moderator, so probably noone will take my advices anyway ...

but my points are true.

[ScottieIWU]

It says that matter can arise out of vacuum provided the same mass of antimatter is created with it, and when matter and antimatter come together they annihilate each other and disappear into nothingness again.
The laws of quantum mechanics say that this happens all the time, just that we cannot observe it with our naked senses.

Actually, I had read about that in an article in Discover Magazine. I'm sorry I ignored it until now. The article was about a theory about what happened before the big bang.

To sum it up, basically the theory runs that this happens so much over the span of the infinite vacuum that existed before the big bang that some particles attracted themselves and managed to "escape" their anti-particles. This happens repeatedly in infinite amount of vacuum until you have a piece of mass that goes critical and hence the big bang.

It's a quick summary and I'll have to find the article and perhaps post it, but that's I think where you were going with that.

Scott

[FallenLord]

Genocide:

If you can't beat 'em, label 'em. I'd hold it against you, but it's not like you have a choice.

And as someone who revels in flagrantly flaunting their partisan attitude, it's understandable that you would rather have WeekendLaziness believe a fictional "layman's Big Bang" than agree that anyone espousing YEC views could ever state obvious facts.

(By the way, quantized redshifts weren't discovered by a YEC. If you're going to ignore, ignore. Don't lie. Thanks.)

...

WeekendLaziness:
Your sources seem to be a bunch of research papers by students, not experts.My patience is running thin. I'd like to know where you are getting your faulty ideas of the Big Bang from, anyhow. That NASA page? Try clicking the back button:
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/
This site is no longer supported, and is maintained for archival purposes only.Allow me to instead point you to current NASA articles:
http://universe.nasa.gov/press/2005/050802a.html
New look at microwave background may cast doubts on big bang theory

In the same paper, Albert Einstein's 1917 theory that at a certain "critical" density the counteracting forces of gravity and expanding space can result in a "flat" universe no matter how irregular the distribution of matter might be, is proven mathematically for the first time.

An expanding universe would tend to "stretch" space, causing radiation to disperse as it flies through. That dispersion would make objects appear to an observer to be smaller than they really are, as if the light went through a concave lens.

"As far as we know," said Lieu, "the expansion takes place smoothly everywhere. When the universe reaches a certain age all points in space at this moment expand in the same way."

Although widely accepted by astrophysicists and cosmologists as the best theory for the creation of the universe, the big bang model has come under increasingly vocal criticism from scientists concerned about inconsistencies between the theory and astronomical observations, or by concepts that have been used to "fix" the theory so it agrees with those observations.There's another "expert source," NASA. And there's plenty more where that came from. (Go to their homepage and search for 'big bang.') Let's have no more nonsense, shall we? (Did I even mention that this article discusses how CMB turned into a problem for the Big Bang?)

Who are you to say what I do and don't understand? Maybe you just reply in this manner so you don't have to explain it yourself (possibly because you don't know how)?I have no idea how to explain it to you. Everyone else catches on pretty quickly after the balloon example. Anyway, whether you understand or not is totally irrelevant. Just go to NASA and accept what they tell you about the Big Bang on faith:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html:
Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:
The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.Am I correct in saying that you support creationism?Half true. Like all intellectual persons, I am interested in the accumulation and dissemination of accurate knowledge, including many and various viewpoints on many and various subjects. Science doesn't give us truth, ergo partisan antics have no place in science.
I could just as easily argue to support the various forms of evolution, naturalism, etc. as I could YEC, ID, etc. (Just as I am now explaining the real Big Bang. Which YEC happens to reject, by the way.)
You may recognize that YEC is, almost categorically, unfairly misunderstood and maligned. (Like in this thread.) I think my time is generally best spent serving the underdog.

If so, if you cannot prove that God exsists (yourself not being "omnipotent with respect to the natural"), how can you continue to support creationism?Even if YEC hinged on "proof" of God (which it doesn't any more than evolution hinges on "proof" of the Big Bang), that doesn't stop YEC from offering a fresh and interesting perspective on governing scientific assumptions.

...

Sauvastika:

What exactly are you trying to say? What is the purpose of your definition of "complex?"

[GenocideAlive]

If you can't beat 'em, label 'em. I'd hold it against you, but it's not like you have a choice.
Not much to beat here: you claim a magical fairy came down and spoke the Universe into being. You have no proof or evidence for that fact, but like any good magician you cloak your completely intellectually bankrupt concepts in a facade to criticize or twist evidence that others have put together (see redshifts).

Show me where astrophysics shows proof that Jesus created the Universe on the first day.
Show me where biology shows proof that Jesus created Life.
Show me where any form of credible science shows that Jesus has anything to do with the way the Universe works.

You can't. You can't. Aaaaand...you can't. Any argument that you can make for God creating the universe can immediately be credited to aliens just as quickly. You can't offer any evidence for God, but rather can only stand on the crumbling pathetic foundation that no-one else can prove that the all-powerful all-seeing fairy is invisible and undetectable ... by magic.

Please make more witty remarks and flourish your next cantrip trick, magician. It's at least more amusing than your attempts at debate.

[FallenLord]

Readers:

A serious fallacy perpetrated by many scientists and laymen on both sides of Naturalism/YEC is that evidence is somehow "associated" with either Naturalism or YEC.

In reality, most evidence is consistent with both Naturalism and YEC. This is as it should be, since they are both simply theories that, among other things, must remain consistent with observable, reproducible scientific phenomena.

Of course, there is evidence inconsistent with YEC and evidence inconsistent with Naturalism.

What they don't tell you is that there is very little evidence that is consistent with Naturalism and simultaneously inconsistent with YEC. (The reverse is not necessarily as extreme, since YEC does not offer an explanation for ultimate origins.)

This is why it is generally a fallacy to talk about "evidence for Naturalism" or "evidence for YEC." Nearly all popularly discussed "evidences" are consistent with both theories, and in many cases are consistent in the same way!
Natural selection and genetic mutations are absolutely 100% consistent with Naturalism in the same way that they are consistent with YEC. Most biologically-related evidences fall under this category.
The fossil record is consistent with YEC, as it is with Naturalism. However, they each explain it differently. Thus, the fossil record is consistent with each in different ways.
Etc.
The objective of both theories is to explain the evidence as simply and elegantly as possible. Much is explained elegantly by both. Some is explained more elegantly by Naturalism, some by YEC. However, both theories explain nearly all evidence in one way or another.

...

Another serious fallacy, commonly seen in this issue, is the application of the argument of "no alternative."

As Genocide suggests, much YEC literature is devoted to displaying evidentiary inconsistencies within Naturalism. (I.e., "Such-and-such evidence is inconsistent with evolution.")

Naturalists claim that because YEC does not offer an alternative, YEC is intellectually dishonest.

With respect to origins, this claim is entirely true. YEC offers no modeled equivalent of the Big Bang. YEC in fact makes no attempt to explain the ultimate origin of the universe.

However, YEC attempts to explain most (if not all) other things.

Thus, wherever the argument of "no alternative" is applied to some issue other than ultimate origins, it is fallacious: YEC does offer a scientific alternative.

...

Genocide:

What is this, 'Attack of the Strawmen'? Try to demonstrate for even one moment that you have a clue what YEC means. (Hint, it has nothing to do with "proving God created the universe." Which obviously can't be done anyway.)

Since I try to avoid being asinine, I'll help you out. YEC is elegantly consistent with evidence that the universe is young, evidence that there was a global flood and evidence of how the universe is observed to operate in the present (among other things I may not necessarily recall). It is additionally claimed that evidence of many highly improbable events occurring in sequence is consistent with YEC, but I don't necessarily go that far.

(Off the top of my head...)
Evidence elegantly consistent with YEC:
A galactrocentric universe.
The ice age.
Natural selection.
Mutations.
Earth's decaying magnetic field.
Rapid reversals in earth's magnetic field.
The existence of magnetic fields on other planets.
Measurable reductions in planetary rings.
"Young" galaxies.
Rapid fossil formation.
Sedimentary layers.
Perserved soft dinosaur tissue.
"Living fossils."
Etc.Of course, you inexplicably and arbitrarily dismiss these and others as "magically inconsistent" with YEC. (Which, besides being laughably wrong, is known as close-minded dogmatism.) I find it especially cute because you don't even understand what YEC is.

...

On one hand, you call for evidence consistent with YEC.

On the other hand, you pretend that evidence consistent with YEC isn't consistent with YEC.

:rolleyes: Intellectual dishonesty for the loss.

[SuiCidAl-KiSmEt]

I was living up knowing about god, I'm religious too. I'm also intrested in science. But I just don't get it that theres one upon a time theirs huge rock that exploded and theires water vaper and poisoness gas and stuff. Where did the gigantic rock come from? Possibly, God help made existance.

[GenocideAlive]

I was living up knowing about god, I'm religious too. I'm also intrested in science. But I just don't get it that theres one upon a time theirs huge rock that exploded and theires water vaper and poisoness gas and stuff. Where did the gigantic rock come from? Possibly, God help made existance.
Big Bang sounds kind of stupid to me too, but I don't really know the ins and outs about it, either. I'm fairly certain anyone that posts here could easily be made a fool of by a physics major. But this doesn't address the issue that is at the heart of the question: where did we come from and where did things start?

God seems like an easy, fast answer. But the immediate question after that is, "Where did God come from?" or "When did God start?"

[ScottieIWU]

God seems like an easy, fast answer. But the immediate question after that is, "Where did God come from?" or "When did God start?"

I definitely agree, GA. The thing is that many creationists demand a first cause, which they say is god. But the fault of that argument is then god must have a first cause.

Scott

[Geckat]

Hey, guys. Where did the Big Bang begin? Where did all that matter come from? It couldn't just be there...forever. Because supposedly that's how long God's been around. Scientists don't yet understand the concept of 'infinity'. I hope this doesn't mean the end of this thread :p .

EDIT: Wow...that's...that's interesting. I just hit Post #666 on a religious topic O_O . It's a sign! :rolleyes:

[Sauvastika]

What exactly are you trying to say? What is the purpose of your definition of "complex?"

That what may seem, complex to us now, will be analyzed, understood, and solved as civilization progresses.

[ScottieIWU]

Hey, guys. Where did the Big Bang begin? Where did all that matter come from? It couldn't just be there...forever. Because supposedly that's how long God's been around.
1) Cyberspirit brought up, and I am currently trying to locate more sources about, the concept in quantum mechanics that allows a particle and subparticle to spontaneously come into existence and then quickly cancel each other out. Read the previous posts.
2) You seem to have contradicted yourself (unless you intended to do that) by saying that the matter couldn't just have been around forever and yet God has. If matter could not have either existed forever or must have had a creator, the same must then apply for god.

Scientists don't yet understand the concept of 'infinity'.
I'm interested in where exactly you intended to go with that.

Scott

[Geckat]

I did intend to contradict myself, thank you. I actually agree with Toonami, that there must have been something to start and set off the Big Bang.

Oh, and your theory of 'matter coming into existance' goes against the laws of science. There is always the same amount of matter in the universe, correct? And energy can never be created or eliminated, only transformed. Two laws that contradict that theory.

I'm not sure where I intend to go with the fact that 'infinity' is incomprehensible. Time can only go forwards as far as scientists can comprehend, so thusfar we can't really tell what happened before creation, which can be called by the same name whether you're ultra-religious or a science fanatic.

[ScottieIWU]

I did intend to contradict myself, thank you. I actually agree with Toonami, that there must have been something to start and set off the Big Bang.
Then the first question is that if the Big Bang must have had something to cause it, why is god any different? Current ideas about what set off the big bang is that it hit critical mass, as all of the mass of the universe was compressed into an area smaller than an electron. That would probably cause some strange effects.

Oh, and your theory of 'matter coming into existance' goes against the laws of science. There is always the same amount of matter in the universe, correct? And energy can never be created or eliminated, only transformed. Two laws that contradict that theory.
First off, I'm quite aware of the Law of Conservation of Mass, and it is a part of the field of chemistry. Quantum mechanics differs quite a bit from other fields. Second, this isn't my theory, this is a described and observed phenomena by scientists, so the credibility is a bit up there.

Scott

Edit: Okay I've found a bit more information about that phenomena, which is known as virtual particles in a vacuum. You can read about them on Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0395877407/103-8710412-1783013?v=glance&n=283155) and click on the cover to look inside. It's on the first page of the first chapter. Props to Cyberspirit for bringing this up and also bringing up a source.

[Geckat]

Then the first question is that if the Big Bang must have had something to cause it, why is god any different?

YES! So why not have both?

I know how the Big Bang supposedly started. It collapsed in on itself, just like stars do when they get old.

Hm...book looks interesting. I should look for it somewhere, but...my internet's slowing down. Not letting me get past to ToC. I'll see if there's anything in Wikipedia.

Damn, nothing. Well, if it's really all that relevant, think you could summarize it for me?

[ScottieIWU]

I'd say virtual particles are pretty relevant, since that'd be the actual start of everything, instead of the big bang.

Virtual particles happen in a vacuum (i.e. nothing, what would have existed before creatoin) when a particle appears and is promptly annihilated by it's anti-particle. There is no real net creation of mass because both particles are destroyed so quickly.

The idea is mostly that these particles, however, disturb space when they are annihilated. This would happen over such a vast space that it would disturb space so much after it happens enough that it eventually builds up to the big bang. Since matter and energy are, theoretically, interchangeable, it would not have taken much of these particles to really do this.

This is kind of a summary of it. To be quite honest I haven't read enough about it to have a solid understanding of the basics, but that's what I know.

I know how the Big Bang supposedly started. It collapsed in on itself, just like stars do when they get old.
Well had the matter in the big bang collapsed on itself, we'd not be here. It was more, speaking through analogy, as though a star had gone supernova. When this happens, it creates a cloud of matter that eventually forms other star systems.

YES! So why not have both?
I'm a bit confused by this response, since you seem to be affirming my statement that God must also have a cause. If that is so, what, per se, caused/created God?

[Cyberspirit]

Geckat was saying that :

God is not really a bearded old man watching us from the "skies".
God did not create the Universe by saying, " let there be xx..".

It became the Universe.

the beginning is God.
The Grand Unified Force is God.
The Anubis field ( described in " The Sirius Mystery" by Robert Temple ) is God.
There is no need to prove the existence of God,
because we are all part of God.

That right, Geckat ?

God is not as defined by the Christians, Muslims or Jews.

If I am right, Geckat's enlightened idea of God is called pantheism.

Pantheism is more characteristic of the Dharmic faiths, Daoism etc than the Abrahamic faiths.

( " Yes, Geckat, the Asu is strong in you ! Forget about the Bible, and learn the way of the Hindu !!! "
LOLz... ) :D

[Geckat]

Thanks Cyberspiritit. That's exactly what I meant. I don't know much about monotheisic faiths, though from what I know about Hinduism it sounds like the idea of God, Satan, and things in between divided up.

So basically, in answer to Scottie's questions: I did say a star's death was similar to the 'collapse' of the Big Bang, right? Since there's no up or down in space (ie nothingness, but I like to call in Ginnungagap since the Norse are the only people so far I know who have actually named space itself :p ), a collapse would essentially be an explosion - falling in every direction at excellerated speeds.

Like CS implied, God is essentially the Big Bang. It is creation, and everything that followed to aid in the building of the universe is essentially God - or Gods, depending on your religion (through studying more ancient religions, I'm thinking they could almost be interchangable, having one origin that got confused just like the many scriptures in today's religions).

One exception I know so far (just a fun-fact, kind of odd...thought I'd bring it up):
A very small percentage of the world believes in Lucas' idea of the Force, as opposed to other religions :p . I'll try and find an article if it's brought up, since I only heard this on the radio.

[FallenLord]

Readers:
It cannot be proved that God exists, nor can it be proved that God does not exist:
Consider a system that encloses you which is otherwise arbitrarily bounded. Also assume that your capacity for knowledge is limited to the contents of the system.
Since your capacity for knowledge is limited to the contents of the system, you cannot directly state whether or not forces exist externally.
In order to comment on the existence (or lackthereof) of external forces, it is first necessary to have perfect, simultaneous knowledge (omniscience) with respect to your system.
Given omniscience, it will be known whether a change within the system is due to internal forces. An unaccountable change could therefore only be attributable to a force outside the system (external force).
Thus, in order to logically comment on the existence of forces external to one's system, it is necessary first to have omniscience with respect to one's system and second an inexplicable change to occur. (Note that without an inexplicable change, the most one can say is "external forces either have no effect on my system or do not exist.")
Thus it is only possible to logically prove that outside forces do exist (with omniscience and an inexplicable change). It is impossible to prove that they do not exist.
We (humanity) cannot have omniscience with respect to our system, and therefore it is both impossible to prove that outside forces exist and also impossible to prove that they do not exist. (Outside forces may be loosely defined as 'God.')
...

Scottie:
The thing is that many creationists demand a first cause, which they say is god.Yes, that is a major fallacy of creationists. YEC, being a scientific theory, concordantly doesn't have anything to do with God. Since most creationists are Christians, however, they often intermingle the philosophy that God initialized the universe with YEC. This, naturally, is a fallacy.

But the fault of that argument is then god must have a first cause.

If matter could not have either existed forever or must have had a creator, the same must then apply for god.It is unnecessary for God to have a cause/beginning: Assuming God exists, he exists outside of our system as an external force which may or may not act upon our system.
As was discussed earlier, omniscience with respect to our system would allow us to detect changes that cannot be attributable to internal forces, thus proving the existence of an external force (i.e., God) if an inexplicable change were to occur.
However, proving the existence of external forces gives us no information concerning the system which includes those external forces! It simply proves that they exist. (I.e., proving God exists gives us no information about God's "universe/world/whatever.")
Therefore, it is categorically impossible to make a statement concerning whether said external forces have further external forces acting on them. (I.e., it is impossible to state whether the system which includes God has external forces acting on it. (I.e., forces that would have 'created' God.))
Note that the above is the best case scenario; following is the actual scenario.
Lacking omniscience with respect to our system, we (humanity) cannot prove that God exists; nor can we prove he does not exist.
Therefore, with infinitely absolute assurance, it cannot be proved that external forces act on God (i.e., that God had a beginning); nor can it be proved that no external forces act on God (i.e., he had no beginning).
The idea that it is necessary for God to have a beginning is a logical fallacy. Versions of naturalism suggest a closed, oscillating universe that explodes and collapses before exploding and collapsing again. (I.e., it has no beginning.) If our universe may not have had a beginning, then it is self-evident that God (assuming he exists) may also be without beginning! Believing that God created our universe does not in any way imply that God must also have a beginning. The logic is non sequitur.

...

Sauvastika:

Yes, that's the purpose of science. Why are you pointing this out...? (Isn't it kind of obvious?)

[WeekendLazyness]

Your logic is flawed, FallenLord. Proving the exsistance of external forces allows you to infer things about that system.

The idea that it is necessary for God to have a beginning is a logical fallacy.You took Scottie's quote out of context. He was refering to people who don't believe in "versions of naturalism suggest a closed, oscillating universe that explodes and collapses before exploding and collapsing again."

Honestly, I don't think you ever stated your position. Your purpose in this thread seems to only provide counterpoints to ideas about the Big Bang. Also, when asked to clarify something, you tend to ignore it.

[FallenLord]

WeekendLaziness:
Your logic is flawed, FallenLord.I get that one a lot. If my logic is flawed, it should be easy to show the flaw. Therefore, in the interest of intellectualism, may I trouble you for something specific? (You may recognize that I would prefer to present flawless logic.)

Proving the exsistance of external forces allows you to infer things about that system.At best, it allows one to infer something about the external force that's been proven to exist. (The nature of the "unexplainable changes" this force has effected would likely allow this.) One can also infer that an external system exists. However, since proving the existence of the supernatural is impossible anyhow, one can't even prove the existence of external systems - making your comment entirely academic.
Additionally, what is the use of "inferences?" We can infer many things. However, inferences cannot warrant absolute statements such as "God must have had a beginning."

You took Scottie's quote out of context. He was refering to people who don't believe in "versions of naturalism suggest a closed, oscillating universe that explodes and collapses before exploding and collapsing again."Under what circumstances is the statement "God must have had a beginning" not a fallacy? None. You can say "If God exists, he must have had a beginning." Fallacy. You can say "If matter had a beginning, God must have had a beginning." Fallacy. You can dress it up any way you like. It's still a fallacy. God, by definition, exists outside of our system and we can't prove or disprove his existence. Therefore, how much less can we prove or disprove the existence of a force that could have created God?

...

I find it enormously disappointing that you categorically ignored my post directed at correcting your misconceptions about the Big Bang. I would greatly appreciate feedback on whether or not it was helpful.

Honestly, I don't think you ever stated your position.Cute. If you had read the post I mentioned above, you would see my position (reposted here for your convenience):I am interested in the accumulation and dissemination of accurate knowledge, including many and various viewpoints on many and various subjects. Science doesn't give us truth, ergo partisan antics have no place in science.
I could just as easily argue to support the various forms of evolution, naturalism, etc. as I could YEC, ID, etc. (Just as I am now explaining the real Big Bang. Which YEC happens to reject, by the way.)
You may recognize that YEC is, almost categorically, unfairly misunderstood and maligned. (Like in this thread.) I think my time is generally best spent serving the underdog.Why should I waste my time associating with Naturalism or YEC when so frickin' many people understand neither? Until everyone reading this thread understands both sides, there is absolutely no reason to take a side. Explaining whichever side is most misunderstood is good enough for me.

Your purpose in this thread seems to only provide counterpoints to ideas about the Big Bang.And yet I spent 3 posts trying to explain the Big Bang to you. :rolleyes:
Post #13: FL presents "quantized redshifts," which are inconsistent with the Big Bang.
Post #26: FL explains the Big Bang to WeekendLaziness.
Post #26: FL discusses the meaning of 'complexity' with Sauvastika.
Post #31: FL continues to explain the Big Bang to WeekendLaziness.
Post #31: FL continues discussion of 'complexity' with Sauvastika.
Post #37: FL continues to explain the Big Bang to WeekendLaziness.
Post #37: FL states his 'position.'
Post #37: FL notes that Sauvastika's point is unclear.
Post #39: FL presents discussion concerning the fallacy of "evidence for Naturalism/YEC."
Post #39: FL presents discussion concerning the fallacy of "no alternative."
Post #39: FL presents criteria for evidence consistent with YEC.
Post #52: FL presents a pseudo-proof outlining that God's existence cannot be proved or disproved.
Post #52: FL presents a pseudo-proof against the fallacy that "God must have a beginning."
Post #52: FL still isn't clear of Sauvastika's point.
Also, when asked to clarify something, you tend to ignore it.Apology, that is not my intention by any means. If you would like clarity on some issue, ask away.

[Neo]

Seems wierd to join a topic and not pick a side. I mean thats the whole point f debating, you can't like not pick a side. Seems totally wierd. And for that matter pretty pointless.

But then again I have't exactly chosen a side either, but then again, I hold my own beliefs.

At any rate, the arguements for / against God go both ways.

"You can't disprove him so he exists" "You can't prove him so he must not exist" etc...

Religon has no place in real scientific discovery. I am sorry, but there is no reason that religon, god, or personal beliefs should be a part of any scientific 'theory' or otherwise.

Your welcome to believe that God created the earth in 7 days, but I like to believe that other, more scientific, explanations.

And pardon me, but what does YEC mean? I'm a complete scatterbrain at the moment (not enough sleep).

I wonder what Darwin would say about these arguements, or arguements between creationists/evolutionists in general O_o.

-Neo

[FallenLord]

Seems wierd to join a topic and not pick a side. I mean thats the whole point f debating, you can't like not pick a side. Seems totally wierd. And for that matter pretty pointless.Until everyone reading this thread understands both sides, there is absolutely no reason to take a side. Explaining whichever side is most misunderstood is good enough for me.
At any rate, the arguements for / against God go both ways.

"You can't disprove him so he exists" "You can't prove him so he must not exist" etc...It cannot be proved that God exists, nor can it be proved that God does not exist.
Religon has no place in real scientific discovery. I am sorry, but there is no reason that religon, god, or personal beliefs should be a part of any scientific 'theory' or otherwise.

Your welcome to believe that God created the earth in 7 days, but I like to believe that other, more scientific, explanations.YEC, being a scientific theory, concordantly doesn't have anything to do with God.
And pardon me, but what does YEC mean?Young Earth Creation or Young Earth Creationist, depending on the context.

[Cyberspirit]

Until everyone reading this thread understands both sides, there is absolutely no reason to take a side. Explaining whichever side is most misunderstood is good enough for me.


Why not give us a list of definition of cosmological terms ?
Really, we need help on this.

...

YEC, being a scientific theory, concordantly doesn't have anything to do with God.


Yes, YEC is a scientific theory.

ID is also scientific theory.

What else ...

It does not matter which theory is labelled as scientific.

We want to prove the theory scientifically.
...


It cannot be proved that God exists, nor can it be proved that God does not exist.

Actually, I can prove that an omnipotent being does not exist.

Can a supposedly "omnipotent" entity create a rock it cannot lift,
and still be truely omnipotent ?

Well, if God is defined as omnipotent, then logically it does not exist.

However, according to Geckat's definition, God does not have to be omnipotent. God is everything that exists. We exist, so God is here. Omnipotence does not matter.
...

And oh yes, FL, you rarely talk about evidence and examples. Why ?

Your logic is flawless, but like you implied, we do not understand what you are trying to do.

[ScottieIWU]

Under what circumstances is the statement "God must have had a beginning" not a fallacy? None. You can say "If God exists, he must have had a beginning." Fallacy. You can say "If matter had a beginning, God must have had a beginning." Fallacy. You can dress it up any way you like. It's still a fallacy. God, by definition, exists outside of our system and we can't prove or disprove his existence. Therefore, how much less can we prove or disprove the existence of a force that could have created God?

When you are conveniently allowed to define god as out of our system, then yes it is a logical fallacy. God by Christian definition is outside of our system, and it's very convenient that he is because he is then exempt from all form of logical study or anything that might resemble it. But there is definitely nothing that says a god MUST exist outside of our system, the majority of religions simply say that, for reasons that I personally find dubious (i.e. so he cannot be studied and people can't call him out.

I hate to quote a dictionary, but hey. Websters:
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
Note the lack of dictionary defintion of the words "outside of the system of human understanding."

Scott

[WeekendLazyness]

FallenLord, this isn't Intellectual Explinations, it's intellectual debates we are doing here. Please stop trying to act as a know-it-all. You were not explaing the Big Bang to me, you were debating it. Also, you (as in original researching you) took known facts and attempted to link them together to disprove the Big Bang. Unfortunately, unless you are a astrophysicist/cosmologist, you are not qualified in any way to make these connections. One reason is because there are possibly unkown factors you leave out. Unless the proof you presented has already been published (the same conclusion taking the same known facts in the same order you presented them), there is no way to even begin taking your views seriously.

By not taking a position you have hardly made this a debate. If I don't understand something, I do my own research on it; I don't take your "explinations" as the gospel truth (so to speak). It is immature and rude to come into a debate assuming you are the only expert on everything. What you are doing is pretty much the opposite of a debate. I am requesting that, from this point forward, you choose a side and explain why you are right to choose that side instead of why I am incorrect to choose my side.

[Neo]

How can YEC even be a theory? How the hell can there even be scientific evidence for it to be true?

What is it, 6000 years old give or take for the earth and/or universe?

So like do they like throw out any and all evidence from things dating back a few million years or whatever?

I mean, wtf?

And most YEC are christians/influenced by christianity! So it cannot, by my own definition and beliefs, be considered a real scientific theory.

Hell, besides that, its just common sense.

"I believe the earth is only 6000 years old"

--"Hey, this thing dates back a few million years"

"Oh, but I still believe the earth is only 6000 years old"

--"But this thing is millions of years old... Are you listening?"

"The earth is only 6000 years old!!!!"

...

If there are things older then 6000 years old on the earth, then therefore, YEC is wrong.

Since there are things older then 6000 years old (ie: the sphinx...) then YEC is wrong.

-Neo

[FallenLord]

Scottie:
When you are conveniently allowed to define god as out of our system, then yes it is a logical fallacy."God is within our system thus must have a beginning" is the same as saying, "Our universe is within our system and thus must have had a beginning." As I said, the statement "God must have a beginning" is a fallacy any way you cut the cake.

Furthmore, as you hinted, if God is assumed to be within our system, it would be possible to gather scientific data concerning whether or not he exists. Unfortunately, this would allow "God dun it" to be a scientifically valid theory. I don't think anyone wants that.

Note the lack of dictionary defintion of the words "outside of the system of human understanding.""Understanding" is not the same as scientific data. Would you argue that science can gather knowledge of the supernatural, as God is generally considered to be?

...

WeekendLaziness:

First, I demand you retract your statement that "I ignore issues rather explaining then" unless you have something you want me to explain. I don't mind you taking convenient pot-shots at my character - but I called your bluff and you damn well better have something.

Second, comment on my allegedly flawed logic or apologize. This is an intellectual setting; we can't have people running around crying 'flawed logic' but refusing to offer discussion, can we?

[devil's advocate]
Also, you (as in original researching you) took known facts and attempted to link them together to disprove the Big Bang. Unfortunately, unless you are a astrophysicist/cosmologist, you are not qualified in any way to make these connections.That's silly:
Redshift/doppler is freshman college physics.
Hubble's Law is simple.
Everyone knows what "quantized" means.
Try it yourself. Draw a few concentric circles. If you're too far away from the center, detecting the quantization is impossible.
Furthermore, I was offering evidence inconsistent with the Big Bang. It can't prove the Big Bang is wrong because science does not involve proofs. Get your bloody terminology straight.

[/devils advocate]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp

Also, you (as in original researching you) took known facts and attempted to link them together to disprove the Big Bang.Even though you were unfortunately misled, that you would blaspheme critical thinking in its holiest sanctuary is astonishing to the point of inconceivability. Obviously, everyone should reserve several ammunition clips filled with other people's work. But if you can't make your own bullets, what's the point of debating at all?

One reason is because there are possibly unkown factors you leave out. Unless the proof you presented has already been published (the same conclusion taking the same known facts in the same order you presented them), there is no way to even begin taking your views seriously.I suppose we are to assume that you are incapable of doing your own research to illuminate such alleged factors, eh? I agree, it's much easier to cop-out and dismiss. But that isn't particularly intellectual nor debate-like, now is it?

You were not explaing the Big Bang to me, you were debating it.Stop throwing the baby out with the bath water. I continued to make minor comments relating to the Big Bang's inconsistencies because I had faith that you would understand my source-ridden explanations. Faith in vain, it seems.

By not taking a position you have hardly made this a debate.You have no right to "debate" the Big Bang until you understand it. All you will succeed in doing is further confusing yourself and pissing off more knowledgeable people.

If I don't understand something, I do my own research on itWhen conducting research into archived simplistic explanations of modern physics, you really should be more receptive to the possibility that you've accidentally suffered a misunderstanding.

It is immature and rude to come into a debate assuming you are the only expert on everything.It's also immature and rude to come into a debate assuming an outdated, archived web page with abbreviated explanations has any intellectual use. To say nothing of repeatedly rejecting correction. (I don't actually have to be an expert on anything to correct you on the Big Bang.)

I am requesting that, from this point forward, you choose a side and explain why you are right to choose that side instead of why I am incorrect to choose my side./exasperation

Fine. YEC offers highly simplistic explanations for the scientific knowledge it claims to explain. YEC also is enormously consistent with observable, reproducible science. Simplicity is best, and the only real science is what we can observe and reproduce.

[Cyberspirit]

Stop attacking each other's "logical flaws" and "incapability to understand", people !

I almost succeeded in getting Fallenlord to talk about examples.

And there you jump in and demand that he take a side,

forcing him to rebutt all your criticisms and "forget" the topic !!! :mad:
...

OK, I am exaggerating. :D ...
...

YEC offers highly simplistic explanations for the scientific knowledge it claims to explain. YEC also is enormously consistent with observable, reproducible science. Simplicity is best, and the only real science is what we can observe and reproduce.

Well, there's something to talk about.

Examples anyone ?

Here's examples of rebuttals and examinations of YEC:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/links.html
http://www.creationtheory.org/YoungEarth/
http://atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/p/yec.htm
... lots more on the Internet.

They do not quite explain " what created the Universe/world/matter/reality/time/whatever... " but I think we already settled that with the " virtual particles" theory and the pantheist definition of God.
So now we go in detail. The time of creation.

( Ooops, I sound like I am trying to control the discussion. :o
Well, at least I am not flaming anyone. =P ... yet. )

[FallenLord]

Cyberspirt:

If you want an example, look at my first post. Quantized redshifts. Address that.

...

All clever interpretation, scriptural misuses and general retarded bullshit concerning the length of the creation week can be set to rest:Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall work and do all your work, but the seven day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. -Exodus 20:8-11Deceivers who claim that the Bible does not conclusively teach a six day, 24-hour creation week never stop to think about why God orders the Jews to work for six days and rest on the seventh. God arbitrarily decided to create the universe over an enormously long period of 144 hours rather an in a single instant because he wanted to set an example for us. The author of this deceitful website of course ignores this amazingly clear fact.

Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were Not 24This bullshit makes an enormously obvious fallacy. The author goes through a lot of trouble to point out that one of yom's meanings is "A 24-hour period from sunrise to sunset." He then goes through a lot of trouble to ignore the fact that each day ends with the sentence "And there was evening and morning, the x'th day." Gee, the 24-hour day interpretation suddenly makes sense.

The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalms 90:4).

The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).As can be seen, our intellectual dishonest author only talks about context when it suits him. In both of these cases, the context is referring to the awesome, timelessness of God. Not a definition of "day."

...

but I think we already settled that with the " virtual particles" theory and the pantheist definition of God.No pantheist definition of God is necessary.

[Geckat]

But if God is defined by pantheism for this topic, is there really anything else that needs to be discussed? Since I haven't seen much from the side of science, I can't think of much else to say since Neo popped in.

Yeah, sorry for the short post - I'm a little busy at the moment. I'll catch up later :( .

[FallenLord]

Evidence consistent with YEC.
Earth's Decaying Magnetic Field: Consistent with a young earth.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp
In the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century1 (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today2). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook,3 proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s metallic core (see side note). Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth. So the earth must be younger than that.Rapid Reversals in Earth's Magnetic Field: Consistent with a global flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i3/fossil.asp
A convincing test of Humphreys’ proposal, that reversals of the earth’s magnetic field must have taken only a matter of days or weeks within the time-frame of the year-long biblical Flood only 4,500 or so years ago, would be to look for evidence of such rapid reversals within rock layers that would have formed, or are known to have formed, that rapidly. Indeed, Humphreys has suggested this himself. He suggested that the best candidates for strata which clearly formed within a few weeks and yet contained a full reversal, would be distinct lava flows thin enough that they would have cooled below 500°C within a few weeks.

...

Coe and Prevot carefully sampled a relatively thin (1.9 metres) lava flow, designated as flow number B51, at a point where their team’s previous investigations had suggested a rapid transition (magnetic polarity change) was likely to have been recorded. A group of nine lava flows with similar magnetic polarity directions (essentially ‘reversed’ polarity), the last one being B52, precedes a 90° jump to the ‘normal’ direction of flow B50 above, which is followed up the sequence by a group of six flows with directions that are indistinguishable from one another but very similar to the ‘normal’ direction of flow B50. Palaeomagnetic measurements by Coe and Prevot on the numerous samples they collected through the entire thickness of flow B51 show a bumpy but continuous transition from the ‘reversed’ polarity in the lava flows below to the ‘normal’ polarity in the lava flows above, just as expected.
Next comes the question as to how long it took for this magnetic reversal recorded in the lava flow to occur? This can be reasonably ascertained if it is possible to calculate how long it took for the lava flow to cool to 500°C, since at that temperature the magnetization of the magnetic grains in the basalt would be ‘frozen’.
For this purpose, Coe and Prevot used a very simple model of heat conduction that has been long established,26 and which suffices to calculate a reasonable value of the cooling time of a basalt flow, as verified by the use of actual temperature measurements from similar lava flows on the island of Hawaii.27
From their calculations, they concluded that the entire lava flow would cool to 500°C or below in about 15 days. This means that the magnetic polarity transition recorded in the lava flow had to be made in less than two weeks!

[ScottieIWU]

Evidence consistent with YEC.
Well I took some time to read parts of that, and it seems scholarly enough on the surface, but I'm not convinced of the validity of www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com).

I'm sure you will no doubt point out that both of these authors are PhDs, but that does not mean that their articles are well-founded. There is serious doubt in my mind that answersingenesis.com has any form of peer-review from other scientists and that those articles would be published whether or not the information is correct simply because PhDs are agreeing with creationism.

Find me articles that say the same thing as those two in a scholarly, peer-reviewed professional journal (or hell, even the New York Times would work) and you'll have my attention.

And if you wish to accuse me of being too demanding by asking that, go to a university and ask any professor worth a salt if he/she would quote an article from answersingenesis.com (whether or not it was written by a PhD) in a research paper of his/her own. You could probably guess the professor's answer.

Scott

[Neo]

Those articles don't change the fact that there are objects on the earth that date back hundreds of thousands of years -- if not millions.

I am also of the believe that the earth's magnetic ppoles reverse, or shift themselves significantly every once in awhile -- and I don't mean "over long periods of time" -- I've come to believe that they shift significantly within a short period of time (there seems to be evidence that supports this).

Those don't contribute to a young earth though. Magnetic Poles and thier eccentriness don't support the YEC.

Theory A; Earth is only 6000 to 10000 years old
Facts: There are things that date back tens of thousands of years old, even millions
Therefore, Theory A is wrong.

Its that simple. You can't argue against it. You can't just ignore the facts. It's like talking about Flat Earth believers -- they believe without a doubt that the earth is Flat -- even now -- but they won't except any evidence contrary. (Which oddly enough, they are influcenced by the bible as well)

The current magnetic field, as it is, maybe less then 10,000 years old, but that doesn't mean the earth is that young.

-Neo

[ScottieIWU]

Its that simple. You can't argue against