Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

What is your belief?

Big Bang. In the beginning was nothing. Then, bang. Evoloution did the rest. God did nothing
3
38%
God caused the Big Bang, then Evoloution did the rest.
0
No votes
I'm a compromiser. Gap Theory / Day-Age Theory etc.
0
No votes
Science goes against Christianity. Evoloution.
0
No votes
I beleieve in Creation because my parents do.
0
No votes
I believe in Evoloution because my teachers taught me it and they must know a lot.
0
No votes
Science points to Intelligent Design -- a personal Creator.
3
38%
The Universe never began and never will end.
2
25%
 
Total votes: 8

Lydiot
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:30 pm

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby Lydiot » Fri Nov 20, 2015 3:27 pm

HJ1an wrote:
Lydiot wrote:However, we're not even sure we're that special. Out of the billions of billions of planets out there, how many are in the goldilock's zone? How many planets are outside of the zone but still have properties that allow for life to exist.


It might be worthwhile to point out that in our solar system alone, there are already 3 planets in the 'goldilocks' zone. The other two being Venus and Mars. Venus probably went to poop a bit earlier with a runaway greenhouse, and Mars possibly supported life long before it became barren. So not only we have to consider place (goldilocks zone) for life, but also time...


Very true. In addition to that there are planets which could have an interior that has conditions still appropriate for life while the exterior does not. The numbers are truly staggering, and I find it quite likely that there is life elsewhere.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lydiot
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:30 pm

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby Lydiot » Fri Nov 20, 2015 3:40 pm

KL-666 wrote:
Lydiot wrote: KL-666 wrote:
Yes that Cause and Effect issue has always struck me as odd. The whole science and astronomy is built upon cause and effect, but then suddenly they say that with the big bang they can do without cause. This bending of their own rules is one of the strongest arguments against the big bang story.

Actually, I don't think it does. The argument that is put forth is that since time and space are intimately tied together we don't really know that time as we know it even exists at "the time of" the big bang. It might simply be a notion that no longer makes sense.


Well there we go, nothing can be said about the big bang (they speculate there is no time). Yet they tell it to the world as a fact.


But I think you missed the point. The point is that we actually can make correct statements about the universe, but that as we look back in time we end up at a point where our intuition fails completely, we have problems with our understanding of how it all works - BUT - the universe itself worked differently. It's not that we can't make accurate statements of the big bang, it's a matter of what time frame we're looking at.

If you are standing in New York City, on Canal Street, and you give me a call and ask me for directions for where I am, and I say "go north", then that means something to you. You go north but miss me. You keep going. For some reason there are people near you any time you want to ask if you're going the right direction. So you repeatedly ask "Which direction is north?", and you repeatedly get people pointing in the exact same direction, and you keep walking that direction.... Until you get to the north pole! Now, you can keep going in the same direction, that is obvious to you, but when you ask the question "Which direction is north?" the person either says "I can't answer that question" or "Here". Neither makes any sense because your question made no sense.

See? Your understanding of the place you were in was accurate for some time, but it didn't become retroactively inaccurate because you got to a point where you were ignorant on the facts.

KL-666 wrote:Over time and probably now already they believe in big bang themselves, so much that they will base other theories on this quicksand, making everything they say into quicksand.


That's a bit of a stretch and it does, in my opinion, hint at an inconsistency in the world view of people of faith. Just because scientists don't know everything doesn't mean "everything they say" is "quicksand". And just because there are things we don't understand it doesn't mean that god did it.

KL-666 wrote:As i said before, ever since Hubble science has transformed in a bunch of meddling apes that do anything to uphold the expanding universe theory. Non believers are crucified. There have been people that saw a phenomenon of two stars interacting, yet the one had the red-shift and the other had not. Instead of triggering the curiosity of the other scientists, they were bullied until they left the scientific community.

Expanding universe causes many inconsistencies. What did the scientific community do about that? Inventing stuff like black matter and black energy to make everything still fit. What they should have done is research the core of the problem, the red-shift theory.


I haven't read anything of the above anywhere, and it seems to fly in the face of all scientific discoveries I'm aware of. If you have any sources to the above I'd love to read about it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lydiot
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:30 pm

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby Lydiot » Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:12 pm

MIG29pilot wrote:I know what you are going to say; We aren't. I answer: There are two theories about the shape of the universe: One says it is a three dimensional space, with a definite center; think of the inside of a balloon. The other says that the universe is like the surface of that balloon, or the surface of the earth; definite distance and size, but no center.
BOTH are only theories.


The word "theory" should be used with caution.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."

I doubt that's what you mean when you use the word. If that's what you mean then you also invalidate our understanding of electromagnetism, because it too is "just a theory".

MIG29pilot wrote:The first has the evidence of daily experience, of the fact that we know that it is clear to see that the universe is three-dimensional space in its favour.
The other has the word of a handful of persons who don't want to be in the centre of the universe.


Actually, I don't think you're right for a couple of reasons (and I'm thereby not saying the universe is "three dimensional").

First of all, we can't trust our "daily experience", because to a lot of people the earth looks flat, and it looks as if the sun revolves around the earth. Surely you claim neither is true, right? We've evolved to perceive four dimensions to the extent they're useful to our species. A very very small creature, to the extent it can perceive dimensions, probably perceives only two. That's because it can get traction and climb almost any surface in any direction. Thinks spider but far smaller. To it there's no meaningful distinction between two and three dimensions. As the surface "turns" it just follows along on it. No worries about falling or anything. But a cat for example has to worry about three dimensions. If they're at the edge of a cliff they have to be careful because they can hurt themselves falling down. So once they're beyond a certain height it's a problem. But they probably don't care about whether the height is a mountain or a hill with a steep cliff. We on the other hand do care. That's because when we migrate, and we do, we have problems with crossing mountains as opposed to hills. If we're looking for fertile soil it's an issue. In addition to that we care about time because we can use that to our advantage when farming. So while a cat probably doesn't care or even is aware of seasons, we do. Our "daily experience" is absolutely no good basis for making statements about these sorts of things. If it was then you wouldn't be making the statements you are to me right now, because we would never have found the electron or understood electricity and formulated an accurate theory of electromagnetism (needed for computers).

Secondly, even if space is three dimensional it doesn't mean what you think it does if the universe is expanding. If the universe is three dimensional and expanding, consider being in one of the "points" in the following image:

Image

As that "cube" or "universe" expands ALL "points" move away from each other. Since that's the case, the "experience" on ANY of those "points" will be ALL other points moving away from it. In other words, in a three dimensional expanding universe it will look like you're in the center regardless of where you actually are.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

KL-666
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:42 am

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby KL-666 » Fri Nov 20, 2015 5:01 pm

Lydiot wrote: KL-666 wrote:
As i said before, ever since Hubble science has transformed in a bunch of meddling apes that do anything to uphold the expanding universe theory. Non believers are crucified. There have been people that saw a phenomenon of two stars interacting, yet the one had the red-shift and the other had not. Instead of triggering the curiosity of the other scientists, they were bullied until they left the scientific community.

Expanding universe causes many inconsistencies. What did the scientific community do about that? Inventing stuff like black matter and black energy to make everything still fit. What they should have done is research the core of the problem, the red-shift theory.

I haven't read anything of the above anywhere, and it seems to fly in the face of all scientific discoveries I'm aware of. If you have any sources to the above I'd love to read about it.


Here is one of the people that tried to research problems with red-shift:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

And this video contains his personal account of how he got worked out of the Carnegie Institution of Washington for that (somewhat at the last quarter of the video):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV7JX9BZDMs

My argument is not that anyone is right or wrong. But that anyone that researches stuff that may go against the expanding universe is hushed up. There are more examples of the like, but i am sorry, i do not keep a log of everything i see or read. It is not my work.

Dark matter and dark energy are somewhat the core business of current science. If you have not heard about that, then you have missed something.

Kind regards, Vincent

User avatar
LesterBoffo
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:58 am
Location: Beautiful sunny, KOTH

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby LesterBoffo » Fri Nov 20, 2015 5:04 pm

From a purely experiential, self centered POV one could surmise that we are the center of the universe, it wouldn't make it correct though.

User avatar
legoboyvdlp
Posts: 1757
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:49 pm
Location: Venezuela

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby legoboyvdlp » Fri Nov 20, 2015 5:21 pm

LesterBoffo wrote:From a purely experiential, self centered POV one could surmise that we are the center of the universe, it wouldn't make it correct though.

And it may be scientifically proven too.
For we are in a remote arm of the Milky Way, just a tiny little planet with 7 other planets revolvig around the sun together.... out of the way of dangers, including black holes, supernovae, and other celestial hazards. Well, at least, that is what I believe. If we were in the middle of the Milky Way, we would be in a black hole. If we were near the major Milky Way arms, we would be within range of supernovae.
To my point of view, this is because God specifically designed the Earth to be in the best place for life.
Everything is just right for man.
What a wonderful world.
~~Legoboyvdlp~~
Maiquetia / Venezuela Custom Scenery
Hallo! Ich bin Jonathan.
Hey!
Avatar created by InSapphoWeTrust CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... d=27409879

User avatar
legoboyvdlp
Posts: 1757
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:49 pm
Location: Venezuela

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby legoboyvdlp » Fri Nov 20, 2015 5:25 pm

Dear people:
I heartily reccomend you to purchase this book.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Creator- ... 0310242096

I don't ask you to believe it.
I don't even ask you to beleive in God or Creation or anything.
But see what the experts have to see, and decide for yourself.


It can be downloaded to Kindle, or shipped. It is well worth the price.

Best,
Jonathan
~~Legoboyvdlp~~
Maiquetia / Venezuela Custom Scenery
Hallo! Ich bin Jonathan.
Hey!
Avatar created by InSapphoWeTrust CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... d=27409879

User avatar
LesterBoffo
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:58 am
Location: Beautiful sunny, KOTH

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby LesterBoffo » Fri Nov 20, 2015 5:49 pm

legoboyvdlp wrote:
LesterBoffo wrote:From a purely experiential, self centered POV one could surmise that we are the center of the universe, it wouldn't make it correct though.

And it may be scientifically proven too.
For we are in a remote arm of the Milky Way, just a tiny little planet with 7 other planets revolvig around the sun together.... out of the way of dangers, including black holes, supernovae, and other celestial hazards. Well, at least, that is what I believe. If we were in the middle of the Milky Way, we would be in a black hole. If we were near the major Milky Way arms, we would be within range of supernovae.
To my point of view, this is because God specifically designed the Earth to be in the best place for life.
Everything is just right for man.
What a wonderful world.


This is a bit wrong, We're not out on the edge of our galaxy, we're actually about 2/3rds the way out on one of the spiral arms. According to the astronomers you ask, we appear to be part of a small, local cluster of suns that have been 'captured' by the Milky Way. Our place in the galaxy could be closer or further out, we also could be farther up or down from the dust clouds of the galactic disc, and it wouldn't make that big a difference. Our Galaxy is an enormously huge thing, and because of our potential for being anyplace from Galactic center, there's wide range of possible places that would be equally as benign or dangerous. Being within a few light years away from a particularly large, and radiantly active O class sun could much more dangerous, which would be the same distance to Alpha Centauri.

I'm sorry but I don't buy the celestial clockmaker's overt concern for our little planet and people. Especially when the precept is couched in the philosophy of a subset of religion, that concerns itself more with re-inventing science by making up falsifiable data.
Last edited by LesterBoffo on Fri Nov 20, 2015 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LesterBoffo
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:58 am
Location: Beautiful sunny, KOTH

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby LesterBoffo » Fri Nov 20, 2015 5:56 pm

legoboyvdlp wrote:Dear people:
I heartily reccomend you to purchase this book.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Creator- ... 0310242096

I don't ask you to believe it.
I don't even ask you to beleive in God or Creation or anything.
But see what the experts have to see, and decide for yourself.


It can be downloaded to Kindle, or shipped. It is well worth the price.

Best,
Jonathan


You mean the experts like Ken Ham, You remember Bill Nye's talk with Ken a couple years back at the creationist museum?

Lydiot
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:30 pm

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Postby Lydiot » Fri Nov 20, 2015 6:17 pm

KL-666 wrote:
Lydiot wrote: KL-666 wrote:
As i said before, ever since Hubble science has transformed in a bunch of meddling apes that do anything to uphold the expanding universe theory. Non believers are crucified. There have been people that saw a phenomenon of two stars interacting, yet the one had the red-shift and the other had not. Instead of triggering the curiosity of the other scientists, they were bullied until they left the scientific community.

Expanding universe causes many inconsistencies. What did the scientific community do about that? Inventing stuff like black matter and black energy to make everything still fit. What they should have done is research the core of the problem, the red-shift theory.

I haven't read anything of the above anywhere, and it seems to fly in the face of all scientific discoveries I'm aware of. If you have any sources to the above I'd love to read about it.


Here is one of the people that tried to research problems with red-shift:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp


The way the scientific method and community work is that you have a hypothesis and you test it by making observations and predictions. The peer review can validate or invalidate a hypothesis, or ignore it. The fact that the community as a whole seems to have done little to invalidate his hypothesis seems to show that his theories were so fringe they seemed unlikely, and that those who actually did argue that he was wrong were enough to not have to bother with further refutation.

He made his proposals a long time ago and since we've had a lot of incredible new data come in. It seems none of it supports his ideas any more than the "mainstream" scientific views. So all in all I'm tremendously unconvinced by this argument. This is in a sense no different than bringing up any other discredited "scientist's" fringe view on something.

But we simply come back to the fact that science has worked wonders for a while now, and that we've made huge advances due to it. The method seems to be sound. If simply disagreement sufficed to question theory then again it would apply to any and all theories, since you can probably find some "scientist" who disagrees with the "mainstream" and is thus ignored. Disagreement and being left on the fringe proves nothing.

KL-666 wrote:And this video contains his personal account of how he got worked out of the Carnegie Institution of Washington for that (somewhat at the last quarter of the video):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV7JX9BZDMs

My argument is not that anyone is right or wrong. But that anyone that researches stuff that may go against the expanding universe is hushed up.


His own account is obviously tainted by subjectivity and isn't particularly interesting to me. As for "hushing up": This particular field requires huge amounts of resources to do practical research. Telescope time for example isn't "cheap". So should the scientific community accommodate any fringe view scientist's requests? There'd be such a dilution of resources we'd get nothing done. Of course he and disbelievers in the Big Bang will call it "hushing up".

KL-666 wrote:Dark matter and dark energy are somewhat the core business of current science. If you have not heard about that, then you have missed something.

Kind regards, Vincent


I'm aware of the above.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Return to “42: The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests