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

[legoboyvdlp]

What do you guys really believe about the Origins of this Universe?

[legoboyvdlp]

Please discuss.

[IAHM-COL]

Maybe non of the above? let me read all of those options once again

[KL-666]

How we perceive the universe is dictated by simplicity of the calculations for the astronomers.

In the beginning the earth was flat with a bell jar over it, with holes in it for the sun, moon and stars.

Then a guy thought, let's assume the celestial objects are balls that circle around us. That would make my calculations a lot easier.

But a while later another guy had a problem calculating the movement of planets. Ow well, let's assume the balls do not circle around us, but around the sun.

Later a guy with another problem came up with the idea of the sun being part of a milky way, to make his calculating life easier.

After that another guy needed many galaxies to satisfy his ease of calculation.

And then came a guy saying i want you to view those balls as dents in time-space.

This thinking we are still not used to, because another guy continued to watch the balls and concluded that they all moved away from us. He based this on red-shift. Everything that moves away from us looks red because the light waves are elongated. The guy was named Hubble.

There are many problems with the expanding universe, so lesser scientists came up with fantasy dark matter to fix their calculations and to be able to continue to support Hubbles theory.

The dark matter caused new errors in the calculations, so the lesser scientists made up the even so unproven dark energy. Now they are kind of satisfied to uphold Hubbles theory with two fantasized dark entities.

On top of that a guy in a wheelchair thought to be smart. He took the Hubble fantasy as premise and said: If everything moves outward it must have started at some point. Euraka! A big bang of course.

Before Hubble science was kind of serious. But since Hubble it is plain fantasy without proof, no different from religion.

Concerning the realism of how we view the universe, it makes no difference if you view the universe as a flat earth with a bell jar over it, or as a bunch of galaxies. The flat earth variant only causes harder calculations.

I go with the flat earth variant.

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

great answer Vincent

@Lego

I revised all of your poll options. I can't vote.
There is none of these options that I would adhere with.
I will tell you my opinion about the Creation and Evolution debate. These don't belong to the same discourse, and thus can't be compared. One cannot choose between them.

Creation, itself, belongs to the discourse of religion. Not only Judeo - Christianity, but several religions have come to explain their version of creation. You get to choose whether to believe or not (and what to believe). Believing implies you take the word, and it is unquestionable. No arguments need to be build. No explanations need to be provided. you do not get to choose whether to question

Evolution is not the topic of religion. Evolution as a discourse belongs to the Sciences. Yo do not get to choose whether to believe. You get to decide to understand what the main propositions are and you get to question them. Arguments are build. Explanations, and evidences are set for the laid ground of investigation. In this particular case, the amount of evidence currently piled to favour evolution is so staggering high, that on our current understanding[*], Whether evolution occurs is not longer much debatable; the debate is onto how it occurs and what are its biological mechanisms. And it sets the floor for a body of work based on hypothesis about the mechanisms that take place to generate / maintain the biodiversity we can appreciate.

The main differences of the religious and scientific discourse make comparing them (or choosing) impossible. They don't share semantics.


*******Footnotes
[*] In Scientific Discourse, as Vincent has shown above, Understanding (and thus current understanding) do change. It is eventually subjected to rebuttal. And thus, one can only dare to speak of "current".

[legoboyvdlp]

I have been doing my research, and to my view, Science points a clear finger towards intelligent creation.
I don't have my books at my side here; I need to go and get them, but here are the laws of Science... not breakable laws.
The Laws of Thermodynamics
'All scientists are controlled by two basic laws as they research... and these are the two Laws of Thermodynamics. There are no exceptions to these laws' (Dr. Farid Abou-Rame)

1. The Law of Conservation of Energy
Energy may not be created or destroyed.
Matter may be converted to Energy; yet the sum total must not change.
Thus, the Universe did not create itself. It had to have a superior cause, outside of itself. (This last sentence is the Law of Cause and Effect.)

(The Kalam Argument, accepted by most or all, a logical statement, says that: Everything that has a beginning has a cause (those dirty footprints on the carpet didn't just appear, Woofer). The Universe had a beginning. Thus, the Universe had a Cause.)

2. All physical systems left to themselves tend to becomed disordered and chaotic.
The Big Bang claims that this wonderful Universe we live in came from a chaotic explosion, in direct contradiction to this second law. According to Creation, when man sinned, God cursed the Earth, and 'the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain' (Rom 8:2)

These first two laws point to a beginning and an end; someday, 'Time's arrow (description of Entropy) hits the bottom... and kaboom. See 2 Peter 3 v 10...

The Third law states that Order is Maximum at Absolute Zero (0K). Adding raw energy to an open system increases disorder.

Thus, an explosion-caused Universe is contradicted by the most basic Laws.

Another Law: Principle of Conservation of Angular Momentum (phew, what a name).
Uniform radial motion can never give rise to curvilinear motion. How then does a laterally expanding gas turn into orbiting galaxies?

Finally, the Law of Cause and Effect states that any Effect needs a Cause superior in every aspect. Since the Universe MUST have had a Cause, according to the Kalam Argument, since the Laws of Thermodynamics show how he Universe had a beginning, and everything with a beginning has a cause, there must be a Cause outside space and time; superior to all; a Creator.




'We believe that evoloution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on the Earth. Now that the environment we live in is becoming so... disordered.... we are beginning to have second thoughts.' (Rifkin, "Entropy: A New World View")

[KL-666]

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.

Btw. Refuting the big bang does not immediately make me jump on another band wagon like creation.

Kind regards, Vincent

[MIG29pilot]

KL-666 It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of explanation--the universe exists; how come?
Before we go any further we must establish several points:
Point 1. The Universe exists
Point 2. It is orderly and apparently perfect for human life.
Point 3. It had a beginning
Point 4. Before that beginning there was nothing

Now, the question is: How explain these three point?
The Evolution/Big Bang explanation is:
1. The beginning was the result of some action at the beginning of time known as The Big Bang
2. Life was the result of random protein arrangements.
3. Human Intelligence is just a coincidence.
4. As is the perfection of the Universe.

Objections:
1. What caused the Big Bang
2. If the Big Bang was cause by itself, it violates the universal law that matter--and therefore energy--can neither be created nor destroyed naturally
3. The chances of those life-making proteins being arranged are about equivalent to the chance of me going through the universe and randomly picking a particular atom on the first try.
4. Human intelligence seems a rather immense coincidence
5. As does our universe.

The Creationist view is:
1. The beginning was caused by God
2. Life is the result of God
3. Human intelligence is a gift of God
4. The perfect order in the world is the design of God

Objections: what made God?

Now, statistically speaking, it is far easier to believe in a Supernatural being creating the Universe than the unthinkable odds and violation of laws in Big Banging. It is far easier to Believe in God creating the universe than in nothingness suddenly deciding it wanted to be something. Scientifically both the Big Bang and Creation are impossible. Therefore it is a matter of which is more logical, believable, and sensible.

[IAHM-COL]

hehe

I think, MiG29P, you missed not one, but all of KL666 points
and problably some of mine too.

But let me ask you kind of briefly, Just to begin with
How do you "statistically speaking", find "easier to believe"?

keep in mind my question does not refer to what you believe, but onto how you use statistical argumentation to lead a belief.

[KL-666]

Thanks Israel, i was busy wondering about the text of Mig. I could not find the relation between "KL-666" and the rest of the text. Now i know there is no relation

Kind regards, Vincent