By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Why do we exist,GOD or BIG BANG theory?

 

Who created everything?

GOD 184 41.82%
 
BIG BANG 251 57.05%
 
Total:435
Dr.Grass on 19 July 2011
Rath said:
padib said:
Sri Lumpa said:
padib said:

How are ID proponents similar to drunk people? Are you saying they are fabulating? 

No, in my example they are the same because neither of their theories are scientific theories and neither of them understands why scientists do not take them seriously.

Give me one theory of intelligent design that you believe is non-scientific. Here's one that is scientific: all intelligent signals require a sender, from information theory (I'm sure they have better ways to formulate it, I don't have it on hand). How is that non-scientific? We repeatedly observe it in the world around us. But when it comes to the genetic code, all of a sudden it comes by chance. When you see a finger-print, you think "Who's is that?" not "How did that come about by chance?". Even evolutionists are ready to admit that Evolution is totally non-conventional, non-trivial (i.e. it doesn't concord with the facts of life in any way). That's why it's of such "beauty".

I'll give you one from the evolutionary model that is non-scientific. The life of the universe. How is the 6 Billion years number scientific? It's based on false assumptions such as static rates (decay, erosion, time, speed of celestial bodies). That sounds to me like indoctrination, ipse dixit, more than anything. And it is taugh as fact in NatGeo, I see it all the time.

The first part isn't science because you're presenting an assumption without proof. You tell us that complex information requires an intelligent designer but you haven't given any proof for that statement.

 

As for the second part - the age of the universe is not 6 billion years, it's approximately 13.75 billion years. It is scientific as it is based on prediction, measurement and repeatability built on known scientific laws. If you're vaguely interested in how the calculation is done it's based on Hubbles laws.

(1) All objects observed in deep space (interstellar space) are found to have a doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to each other

(2) This doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies.

The only real assumption made in determining the age of the universe is that time is linear.

Also how the hell is the age of the universe related to evolution? One's cosmology and the others biology - they're working on way different scales.

 

Edit: @Padib. There is already more than enough proof of evolution, the big bang, plate tectonics etc, that the Genesis account is clearly wrong. The earth simply isn't a few thousand years old. I find it hard to believe that you have an open mind to science if you still believe that it is.

You display the typical characteristics of someone who just repeats what he's heard and doesn't use his brain. Let me show you what I mean:

''The only real assumption made in determining the age of the universe is that time is linear''

Yoau're wrong - big time. In order to calculate the distances between the galaxies, more information is required besides this relative proportion between distant galaxies. I'm so tired of people who can't reason and know next to nothing about real science decrie religion and then make statements like this.

So here: http://astro.wku.edu/astr106/Hubble_intro.html

And if you're too lazy to check then here's the part that shows you're wrong ''To determine a galaxy's distance, we must rely on indirect methods. For instance, one assumption used by Hubble, and other early 20th century astronomers, is to assume all galaxies of the same type are the same physical size, no matter where they are. This is known as "the standard ruler" assumption. To determine the distance to a galaxy one would only need to measure its apparent (angular) size, and use the small angle equation: a = s / d, where a is the measured angular size (in radians!), s is the galaxy's true size (diameter), and d is the distance to the galaxy.''

Not only that, but;#

1. There is no proof that red-shift is solely caused by relative velocity.

2. The relative velocities would not be constant since gravitation is an accelerating force. Therefore, to calculate the time one needs to know the rate of change of these relative velocities, and this is no simple physics problem.

3. We have yet to see 99% of what the universe is made of (another speculation btw), so we can't make accurate predictions about the evolution of the early universe - we can only do our best to guess.

 

So you can clearly see how scientists also speculate in order to make data fit to their beliefs.



Around the Network
Dr.Grass on 19 July 2011
padib said:
Dr.Grass said:
FaRmLaNd said:
The big bang isn't a who. With that minor quibble aside, I certainly think the big bang is the most credible explanation that currently exists. Its actually supported by data!


There are too many people spewing their hateful comments here to reply to them all so I'll just comment on your rather neutral and common viewpoint...

As possibly the ONLY real physicist/mathematician on this site I have to tell you that:

1) The big-bang theory arose out of necessety, NOT BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPORTED BY DATA. The red-shift observed in light is NOT fully understood.

2) There are unsolvable problems in the model including; Singularity, origin of "Lumpiness", high-energy interactions etc.

3) THERE IS NO THEORY OF THE NUCLEUS. Read those words. There exists NO theory for the interaction between sub-nuclear particles. Models are built with data. We know next to nothing.

4) Modern Cosmology has WAY more assumptions and approximations than any of you seem to believe. The current model of the universe is certainly on shaky ground, and while it may prove to represent reality to some extent, it is not taken very seriously by many of the world's biggest brains.

So in short, STOP believing everything you see on BBC just because its made by someone with a PhD, and for heaven's sake LEAVE people alone who believe in a divine creator - ESPECIALLY if they aren't fanatic.

Wow, I really appreciate hearing that.

Life's greatest irony is that people often accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of... In this case, its fanatacism. SO many science fanatics who can't even explain Newton's laws and Special Relativity, what to speak of really tricky things like Quantum Mechanics and high energy physics. 

Let me spread the truth: If you can't solve the infinite square well then you know nothing about quantum mechanics. If you don't know about Hilbert Space then you know less than 10% (at most).

So Padib, I'm trying to say that you should not be intimitated because these people 'stand behind science', since they hardly know what real science is.

BTW. It's important you know right now that I do not believe in the young earth model.



Dr.Grass on 19 July 2011
padib said:
Rath said:

Evolution requires millions of years, the universe is billions of years old - as I said they are on quite different scales.

I know. I understood Rath. What I meant was that the numbers have constantly grown over the ages, 


I'm going to throw a spanner in the works now...

Your statement there is false... Vedic (Indian/Hindu) Cosmology describes the lifespan of the universe as 311 trillion 40 billion years. According to the texts we are about half-way through this current universe. That puts the age of the Universe according to the Vedas as 150 trillion years. That's significantly more than anyone has ever stated. Note that this is the oldest complete cosmology known to man.

Interestíngly, the last sub-creation happened around 6 billion years ago according to these texts, which agrees perfectly with scientific measurement of the age of our solar system. Just for reference, this is done using Uranium dating methods. It's quite a simple technique and I've done the calculations and measurements myself.



Dr.Grass on 19 July 2011
Rath said:
padib said:
Rath said:

So, apparently there has been a lot of research done on that on the creationist side and in fact they have found many anomalies in the fossil record, things that shouldn't appear in one place appear there in masses. It can mostly be explained due to the washing out by massive waters and depositing them in an unusual region, where you would not expect them (e.g. mountaintops, sea creatures in deserts). Did you also know that the process involved in the flood is an excellent means of fossilisation, if not the best? Apparently, there's a way to make fossils using home appliances that you can do at home (I think it's part of a kid's program or something). You make a mix of mud and water and make it tumble in a drier or washing machine, I can't remember which. The other mechanisms explained by the secular model leave place to erosion and predation to destroy the bones and structures found in fossils. Enlighten me here again, I'm limited on the secular explanation of fossils (for now)."

Fossils are relatively rare compared to the number of creatures that have existed because fossils do not form particularly easily. If the biblical flood did happen a single distinct geological strata with mixtures of fossilised flora and fauna of all types would be found. Instead there are distinct geological eras with distinct flora and fauna - you will never find dinosaur bones at a Cro-Magnon site for example.

Sorry for the quadruple posting. I have a hard time with 5 quotes within the same post though, so I almost prefer multi-posting. So, the explanation is given in the article I provided: 
http://www.nwcreation.net/fossilsorting.html

That article makes no sense. You find sea dwelling creatures such as the Plesiosaur amongst the dinosaurs and huge lowland dwelling creatures such as the Diprotodon amongst humans and other more recently existing creatures. Once again it's doing its best to make the evidence fit the theory, rather than looking at the evidence and building up a theory around it.


May I ask that you bow out from the 'young-earth' discussion? Trust me, its going nowhere, and is not necessarily on topic since everyone who believes in creation isn't a Christian, and many Christians don't even believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old.



melbye on 19 July 2011

I look at humanity and that is all the proof i need that there is no God



Around the Network
Dr.Grass on 19 July 2011
padib said:
Dr.Grass said:
padib said:
Rath said:

Evolution requires millions of years, the universe is billions of years old - as I said they are on quite different scales.

I know. I understood Rath. What I meant was that the numbers have constantly grown over the ages, 


I'm going to throw a spanner in the works now...

Your statement there is false... Vedic (Indian/Hindu) Cosmology describes the lifespan of the universe as 311 trillion 40 billion years. According to the texts we are about half-way through this current universe. That puts the age of the Universe according to the Vedas as 150 trillion years. That's significantly more than anyone has ever stated. Note that this is the oldest complete cosmology known to man.

Interestíngly, the last sub-creation happened around 6 billion years ago according to these texts, which agrees perfectly with scientific measurement of the age of our solar system. Just for reference, this is done using Uranium dating methods. It's quite a simple technique and I've done the calculations and measurements myself.

Okay, but I was referring to modern cosmology within modern science history. Say, the record of the last 400 years.

Yes, but I believe 'young earth' arguments should be made in a seperate place. Look, I am of the opinion that most people in this world have such incredibly messed up belief systems that I reeeaaally don't look down on someone for believing this. Some things I believe in will seem just as crazy to you.

However, where it does become an issue for me is when this rather radical viewpoint is proposed as the main antithesis to full-blown atheism. That's what I feel happens when you bring the 5000 year old earth theory in here, and I firmly believe that I could give more worthwhile arguments than the one's in your discussion above.

Furthermore, look what I did with my quote above. Immediately you feel estranged because I'm citing something 'non-Christian', but you don't consider that I have to cringe every time I read 5000 year old earth. I'd rather just spend my energy giving arguments against science-fanboys than wasting energy on that.

Dunno if you get what I'm trying to say(?). 



Dr.Grass on 19 July 2011
melbye said:
I look at humanity and that is all the proof i need that there is no God


You have obviously not studied any philosophy or thought about the subject very much at all. If I seem harsh, then its just because comments like these are no different from ''I look at the bible and that is all proof I need that Jesus is the only way''. This is the way small minds think.

You need to boil down your misguided statement to:''How can God exist if there is suffering''. Now THAT'S a good question. If you actually look you'll find good answers to that too, except if you want to be cynical, which is kind of implicit in the tone of your comment.



Dr.Grass on 19 July 2011
padib said:
Dr.Grass said:
Rath said:
padib said:
Rath said:

So, apparently there has been a lot of research done on that on the creationist side and in fact they have found many anomalies in the fossil record, things that shouldn't appear in one place appear there in masses. It can mostly be explained due to the washing out by massive waters and depositing them in an unusual region, where you would not expect them (e.g. mountaintops, sea creatures in deserts). Did you also know that the process involved in the flood is an excellent means of fossilisation, if not the best? Apparently, there's a way to make fossils using home appliances that you can do at home (I think it's part of a kid's program or something). You make a mix of mud and water and make it tumble in a drier or washing machine, I can't remember which. The other mechanisms explained by the secular model leave place to erosion and predation to destroy the bones and structures found in fossils. Enlighten me here again, I'm limited on the secular explanation of fossils (for now)."

Fossils are relatively rare compared to the number of creatures that have existed because fossils do not form particularly easily. If the biblical flood did happen a single distinct geological strata with mixtures of fossilised flora and fauna of all types would be found. Instead there are distinct geological eras with distinct flora and fauna - you will never find dinosaur bones at a Cro-Magnon site for example.

Sorry for the quadruple posting. I have a hard time with 5 quotes within the same post though, so I almost prefer multi-posting. So, the explanation is given in the article I provided: 
http://www.nwcreation.net/fossilsorting.html

That article makes no sense. You find sea dwelling creatures such as the Plesiosaur amongst the dinosaurs and huge lowland dwelling creatures such as the Diprotodon amongst humans and other more recently existing creatures. Once again it's doing its best to make the evidence fit the theory, rather than looking at the evidence and building up a theory around it.


May I ask that you bow out from the 'young-earth' discussion? Trust me, its going nowhere, and is not necessarily on topic since everyone who believes in creation isn't a Christian, and many Christians don't even believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

For the sake of argument and going forward I would be willing to back from it, but I won't and I'll tell you why.

It does me less good because that's the position at the moment that fits my understanding of things. Since we're here to understand things, why shouldn't my view also be thrown into the mix and challenged as it has been up to now, I was fine with it. If it can help clarify things for me, and others, then why not? It's not like it's totally bogus, an age is but a number. Given variable rates, anything can change.

FTR I understand that not all Christians are young-earth creationists, that not all Christians are creationists, that not all creationists are Christian and that Christianity is not the only religion, and that not everyone is religious, that not all religions are monotheistic and everything related. I was just stating my position.

I am agreeable to the sentiment in this reply. Please don't think I'm trying to bash you, just wanted to clarify the situation. I actually quite like your disposition.



Dr.Grass on 19 July 2011
padib said:
Dr.Grass said:

Yes, but I believe 'young earth' arguments should be made in a seperate place. Look, I am of the opinion that most people in this world have such incredibly messed up belief systems that I reeeaaally don't look down on someone for believing this. Some things I believe in will seem just as crazy to you.

However, where it does become an issue for me is when this rather radical viewpoint is proposed as the main antithesis to full-blown atheism. That's what I feel happens when you bring the 5000 year old earth theory in here, and I firmly believe that I could give more worthwhile arguments than the one's in your discussion above.

Furthermore, look what I did with my quote above. Immediately you feel estranged because I'm citing something 'non-Christian', but you don't consider that I have to cringe every time I read 5000 year old earth. I'd rather just spend my energy giving arguments against science-fanboys than wasting energy on that.

Dunno if you get what I'm trying to say(?). 

I do, I totally do, and here is how I see it. First of all I want to understand why your points are leaps better than the other counter-arguments brought up to date. That would help me to realize that there is a lot of pretense science, for me to grow. Then, I would be interested in the actual, real counterarguments that actually tackle the issue more accurately.

And lastly, I didn't cringe when you mentioned the 'non-Christian' citing. I just wanted to clarify that my point was relating more to modern science. Don't know what made you think I cringed :)

Don't think my arguments are 'better', but only that they would have more impact since they are based on the very belief system that these fanatics so religiously follow - science.

Otherwise, I would say we're cool and we can drop the rest of it - I get your drift B-)



Dr.Grass on 19 July 2011

On the evolution side... Amazing how insects, bats, birds, dinosaurs all evolved flight INDEPENDENTLY. Now that's something to consider...