NationStates Jolt Archive

Since I keep forgetting where my posts are, I will make a topic... and hopefully find it again

Evoloutionism LOOKS logical, but all those higher up explantions fall apart if the basis is flawed. which, in my opinion, it is.

tell me; how did the big bang happen? what is the evidence? don't post links, I won't click on them

Until you learn enough about evolution to know that the big bang has nothing to do with it don't bother me with this bullshit.

www.talkorigins.org

We'll talk after you read.

The Big Bang and Evolution aren't directly correlated. They're seperate theories explaining seperate phenomena.

Until you learn enough about evolution to know that the big bang has nothing to do with it don't bother me with this bullshit.
Besides, wtf is 'evolutionism?' I am familiar w/evolution, but what he speaks of is a mystery :eek:

Besides, wtf is 'evolutionism?' I am familiar w/evolution, but what he speaks of is a mystery :eek:
Evolutionism is proof creationists can't spell.

Until you learn enough about evolution to know that the big bang has nothing to do with it don't bother me with this bullshit.
that's a bit harsh... there's surely a hundred gentler ways you could have put that.

I agree that the big bang didn't have anything directly to do with evolution, but I also think it's a good non-evolution-related question... what (according to scientists) caused the big bang?

I'm personally quite happy to accept scientific theories, proven or less-proven, about everything from the world being round to the big bang theory. I do, however, believe in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God, and I'm quite happy to accept that he made the big bang happen. I'm interested though, in the non-theist choice for a cause for the beginning. Any answers?

don't post links, I won't click on them

Don't post links because you're set in your own opinions and you don't want people to challenge them? ;)

Until you learn enough about evolution to know that the big bang has nothing to do with it don't bother me with this bullshit.

damn right. creationists have been pissing me off for years with that stupid argument. what does the start of the universe have to do with how life develops here? Nothing!

I'm personally quite happy to accept scientific theories, proven or less-proven, about everything from the world being round to the big bang theory. I do, however, believe in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God, and I'm quite happy to accept that he made the big bang happen. I'm interested though, in the non-theist choice for a cause for the beginning. Any answers?
Well here's my theory (a mix between theological and scientific)
So to start of the universe God sets all the laws of physics and stuff into place. Then he creates a critical singularity, which then explodes in the phenomenon we know of as the Big Bang

that's a bit harsh... there's surely a hundred gentler ways you could have put that.

I agree that the big bang didn't have anything directly to do with evolution, but I also think it's a good non-evolution-related question... what (according to scientists) caused the big bang?

I'm personally quite happy to accept scientific theories, proven or less-proven, about everything from the world being round to the big bang theory. I do, however, believe in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God, and I'm quite happy to accept that he made the big bang happen. I'm interested though, in the non-theist choice for a cause for the beginning. Any answers?
No, it's not harsh. Harsh is hearing people use the same tired, old, irrelevant and just plain wrong arguments over and over again to attempt to disprove a theory that is about as solid as heliocentrism and to try to promote their religion as a science over and over and over again until I want to go on a shooting spree.

Well here's my theory (a mix between theological and scientific)
So to start of the universe God sets all the laws of physics and stuff into place. Then he creates a critical singularity, which then explodes in the phenomenon we know of as the Big Bang

Sounds an awful lot like deism

Any answers?

I don't think that scientists can speculate on how the Big Bang came about because of lack of data. However, it was proven that energy could be "borrowed" for a while, in some confusing matter/anti-matter experiment. Something along the lines of -- you can create matter if you create an equal amount of anti-matter. When they collide, they completely annihilate each other, and everything goes back to the way it was. Perhaps that has something to do with it...?

Well here's my theory (a mix between theological and scientific)
So to start of the universe God sets all the laws of physics and stuff into place. Then he creates a critical singularity, which then explodes in the phenomenon we know of as the Big Bang

I'm happy with that. It sounds more or less what I think myself. Do you know of a non-God-based version?

No, it's not harsh. Harsh is hearing people use the same tired, old, irrelevant and just plain wrong arguments over and over again to attempt to disprove a theory that is about as solid as heliocentrism and to try to promote their religion as a science over and over and over again until I want to go on a shooting spree.

You obviously didn't read what the person you were attacking said, or else are too closedminded to bother listening to it.

-snip-

I'm personally quite happy to accept scientific theories, proven or less-proven, about everything from the world being round to the big bang theory. I do, however, believe in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God, and I'm quite happy to accept that he made the big bang happen. I'm interested though, in the non-theist choice for a cause for the beginning. Any answers?
You're just making your God into a "God of the Gaps" -- anything which you do not understand, you attribute to him. Look at how many things were attributed to God until they were actually empircally understood, and then rethink that philosophy.

that's a bit harsh... there's surely a hundred gentler ways you could have put that.

I agree that the big bang didn't have anything directly to do with evolution, but I also think it's a good non-evolution-related question... what (according to scientists) caused the big bang?

I'm personally quite happy to accept scientific theories, proven or less-proven, about everything from the world being round to the big bang theory. I do, however, believe in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God, and I'm quite happy to accept that he made the big bang happen. I'm interested though, in the non-theist choice for a cause for the beginning. Any answers?

Not being a theoretical physicist I couldn't answer the question of what caused the universe to start, however simply because we can't explain it in words of one syllable is not a reason to say it was created by some supernatural being, or should we just say we don't know so it must be magic?

I agree that the big bang didn't have anything directly to do with evolution, but I also think it's a good non-evolution-related question... what (according to scientists) caused the big bang?



I suspect that Will Wright had something to do with it. ;)

You're just making your God into a "God of the Gaps" -- anything which you do not understand, you attribute to him. Look at how many things were attributed to God until they were actually empircally understood, and then rethink that philosophy.

Ahem.

I'm interested though, in the non-theist choice for a cause for the beginning. Any answers?

You obviously didn't read what the person you were attacking said, or else are too closedminded to bother listening to it.
Sorry, what are you talking about? I "attacked" a guy who asked for evidence of the big bang and implied that without said evidence evolution is therefore wrong. One has nothing to do with the other. It's a tired old argument used by creationists who lack any understanding of science.

The second guy I attacked said my response to the first person was harsh. I argue that it's not harsh. It's important to discipline people into not posting the same tired crap over and over.

You obviously didn't read what the person you were attacking said, or else are too closedminded to bother listening to it.

Please, allow me to paraphrase:



Since I keep forgetting where my posts are, I will make a topic... and hopefully find it again

I am too lazy to look up my 15 posts, so I will create a whole new topic. I have not considered bookmarking this, but I hope to find it again. Otherwise, I will create another topic.

Evoloutionism LOOKS logical, but all those higher up explantions fall apart if the basis is flawed. which, in my opinion, it is.

Everything scientific, including evolutionism, is wrong unless you can prove how the Big Bang happened. I shall now revert to thinking the Earth is the center of the universe until you prove to me how the Earth and everything came to be.

tell me; how did the big bang happen? what is the evidence? don't post links, I won't click on them

Prove to me that the Big Bang happened, and tell me how. And in the off chance that you will be able to prove it, I will not read your proof. Tee-hee.

that's a bit harsh... there's surely a hundred gentler ways you could have put that.

I agree that the big bang didn't have anything directly to do with evolution, but I also think it's a good non-evolution-related question... what (according to scientists) caused the big bang?

I'm personally quite happy to accept scientific theories, proven or less-proven, about everything from the world being round to the big bang theory. I do, however, believe in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God, and I'm quite happy to accept that he made the big bang happen. I'm interested though, in the non-theist choice for a cause for the beginning. Any answers?
The how is unknown, and may be unknowable because of the energy that might be required to directly investigate the properties of the universe at plank lengths. But what is a fact, is there was a 'big bang' of some sort. And what sort might even be observable.

Our species understands the story of the universe from the first slivers of a quadrillionth of a second to the next 10^60th or so years. During the reavelation of that story, our wildest imaginations have never been able to match the wonder of those revealed truths. Creationism is the ignorant attempt to understand the world by keeping it small by throwing out the wonder and majesty. It deserves harsh ridicule.

You obviously didn't read what the person you were attacking said, or else are too closedminded to bother listening to it.
He's heard it all before. As have we all, unfortunately. There genuinely isn't anything profound, new or even interesting about the original "challenge". As much as I'm willing to listen to decent ideas, just saying "i think its rong becoz theres no evidence for teh big bnag" has been battered to death more times than a Scottish fish supper.

You're just making your God into a "God of the Gaps" -- anything which you do not understand, you attribute to him. Look at how many things were attributed to God until they were actually empircally understood, and then rethink that philosophy.

An interesting way of explaining it... As far as I'm concerned, God's responsible for everything, whether I understand it or not, at one level or another. I cannot possibly claim to understand why or how he does things. He did give us free will, which means we all have responsibility to bear too. This is a part of my faith I still don't understand, and I somehow don't expect to find the mysteries of the universe explained on a web forum. I'm wary of any people in authority, be they priests or scientists, telling me things - especially about things I understand so little about. I'm very happy, though, to hear all the various sides of arguments, hence the question.

I agree that the big bang didn't have anything directly to do with evolution, but I also think it's a good non-evolution-related question... what (according to scientists) caused the big bang?
There are a number of ideas floating about, but nothing terribly solid. The "Big Bang" in itself, is a sort of place-holder term for the "starting point" of our universe. Beyond that, it get's pretty shaky.

It might have been a spectacularly dense singularity going Ka-Boom, but it might have been something else. Like a couple of branes colliding, for example. Branes are what string theorists call various planes of reality in a multi-dimensional multiverse - which our universe (according to them) is part of.

Google is prolly a better source of info than this forum.

An interesting way of explaining it... As far as I'm concerned, God's responsible for everything, whether I understand it or not, at one level or another. I cannot possibly claim to understand why or how he does things. He did give us free will, which means we all have responsibility to bear too. This is a part of my faith I still don't understand, and I somehow don't expect to find the mysteries of the universe explained on a web forum. I'm wary of any people in authority, be they priests or scientists, telling me things - especially about things I understand so little about. I'm very happy, though, to hear all the various sides of arguments, hence the question.
That's nice, but it has no predictive power and thus has no place in a scientific venue.

Prove to me that the Big Bang happened, and tell me how. And in the off chance that you will be able to prove it, I will not read your proof. Tee-hee.

And you just "proved" to the entire board that this is nothing but trolling and you have no knowledge of the scientific method.

1: THE BIG BANG THEORY IS NOT A PART OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!
Evolution could have occured exactly as leading scientists believe it did if the big bang theory was false.

2: The big bang theory comes primarily from evidence that the universe is expanding. This is primarily linked to things like Doppler Shift (Note: I'm not a scientist, I'm writing what little I know.) What doppler shift says is that when things are moving away from each other, the light and sound waves become stretched out. This is the same effect you notice when a car speeds by you; it's sound seems to change as it travels away. Doppler shift, or red shift (as light turns redder when it's wavelength is stretched) is seen in most of the universe, indicating that most of the universe is travelling away from us. If the universe is expanding, without assuming anything else, it must at one point have occupied a very limited space.

3: The big bang theory has very little to do with other science. As far as most geology, astrology, biology, cosmetology, whateverology is concerned, it may or may not have happened, and it will not change their theories and working models significantly.

4: Next, on Abiogenisis, Life came to be somehow. Either it happened by chance in the seas, or God made little microbes and sprinkled them from his HOLY SALT SHAKER into the ocean, it doesn't matter. Scientists think that primitive forms of RNA were formed with only the ability to copy themselves (like viruses, maybe.) Yes, scientists haven't been able to reproduce this yet, but it did theoretically happen over millions of years. Finding just the right mix of chemicals and protiens and whatever-the-hell else isn't easy.

5: And on all the "The world is too perfect to happen by chance" People, if you hit a golf ball at random, it's chance of going into the hole and stopping on any other similer sized piece of grass is equal! We only find it "Perfect" because we were adapted in order to live in it. Unless you can calculate the chances of the laws of physics being somehow different then they are now, you can't tell me the chances of anything.

Also, scientists believe that the makeup of 1 out of every 400 worlds would make them more or less habitable. There are approximately 3 planets per star. Our galaxy alone holds over 500 billion stars. And there more than one hundred billion galaxies. that ends up as 70 sextillion stars (not sure how many zeros go into that, but suffice to say it's a lot. Think about the cube of the american deficit.)
one out of four hundred in that kind of pool ends up with a very large number.

6: And finally, for evolution itself. Things mutate, even in tiny ways, over millions of years. Those mutations add up into large changes. There are a ton of things that cause mutations, from UV radiation from the sun, to various space emissions, to problems in egg fertilization (Where an extra chromosome is grabbed, or one is left behind, or part of one is cut off, ect.) This is guided by natural selection, which is undeniable. Natural selection states that species whose mutations cause them to be unfit die off, either of starvation, or lack of food, or being hunted out by a predator, or just being unable to survive birth in the first place. Life on earth is several billions of years old (maybe as young as a few hundred million, I can't remember) and in billions of years, tiny mutations add up.

Are there any more stupid questions? Did I leave anything off?

And you just "proved" to the entire board that this is nothing but trolling and you have no knowledge of the scientific method.

Please, do tell me what I said that illustrates that I have no knowledge of the scientific method. I didn't mention it at all, but you can't let that stop you, can you?

*snip*

Nope, you covered everything. :)

That's nice, but it has no predictive power and thus has no place in a scientific venue.
Unless this "God" is somehow tappable? If it is possible to use "God" as a resource, it would be an interesting field of empirical analysis.

Evoloutionism LOOKS logical, but all those higher up explantions fall apart if the basis is flawed. which, in my opinion, it is.

tell me; how did the big bang happen? what is the evidence? don't post links, I won't click on them
Biology...

...

... Cosmology.

Learn the difference.

As to your question, we don't know how the Big Bang happened. And we don't need to know. All we need to know is that the Big Bang is a plausible theory which continues to hold up after being tested with the scientific method. The time will come when we can figure out what caused it, but until then we can't discount the theory on the fact that we can't figure it out now.

Well here's my theory (a mix between theological and scientific)
So to start of the universe God sets all the laws of physics and stuff into place. Then he creates a critical singularity, which then explodes in the phenomenon we know of as the Big Bang
First of all, that's a hypothesis, and will always be a hypothesis until it has been tested via the scientific method and holds up.

Second of all, it's not logical to attribute to a supernatural power anything that you can't explain or don't understand, especially when that power itself isn't something you can't explain or understand, and especially when the existence of that power is not scientifically proven. Think about how people once thought that when you got sick and died, it was God striking you down. Etothepitimesiplusone's post makes the same point I make:

You're just making your God into a "God of the Gaps" -- anything which you do not understand, you attribute to him. Look at how many things were attributed to God until they were actually empircally understood, and then rethink that philosophy.

Please, do tell me what I said that illustrates that I have no knowledge of the scientific method. I didn't mention it at all, but you can't let that stop you, can you?



Nope, you covered everything. :)

Well being that you connected the BB theory and the theory of evolution, that's strike one. Strike two was asking to "prove" the Big Bang Theory. Science doesn't have absolute proof, they have evidence that supports a hypothesis making it a theory. If evidence is discovered that changes the result, the theory is thrown out and a new hypothesis developed.

Well being that you connected the BB theory and the theory of evolution, that's strike one. Strike two was asking to "prove" the Big Bang Theory. Science doesn't have absolute proof, they have evidence that supports a hypothesis making it a theory. If evidence is discovered that changes the result, the theory is thrown out and a new hypothesis developed.

No, no, no, I was just rephrasing what the OP said in a more exaggerated manner. I didn't actually mean that. :(

Since I keep forgetting where my posts are, I will make a topic... and hopefully find it again

Evoloutionism LOOKS logical, but all those higher up explantions fall apart if the basis is flawed. which, in my opinion, it is.

tell me; how did the big bang happen? what is the evidence? don't post links, I won't click on them
Open a science book (note: I say SCIENCE, as in one that is based on factual material, has been peer reviewed, and approved), educate yourself on what is and is not evolution (there is no such thing as evolutionism)

and the basis is in no way flawed. if anything, it is the higher parts that have their flaws, which are constantly being tested and corrected.

Nope, you covered everything.
No, I realize after reading what was written while I wrote, that I missed one.

7: The original cause question is stupid. Either God created the universe or the universe just existed. In either case, you are speculating that something exists without anything to cause it to exist. The first cause could have been God, it could have been the big bang, who knows. in the beginning, there was effect without cause, which caused the next effect, and so on. IT IS JUST AS POSSIBLE FOR THE UNIVERSE TO EXIST ON IT'S OWN WITH NOTHING TO CAUSE IT TO EXIST AS IT IS FOR GOD TO EXIST ON HIS OWN WITH NOTHING TO CAUSE HIM TO EXIST.

*snip*

I think the religious argument for that one is that God transcends all laws of physics and such, while science does not. God can spontaneously exist because he's cool like that.

IT IS JUST AS POSSIBLE FOR THE UNIVERSE TO EXIST ON IT'S OWN WITH NOTHING TO CAUSE IT TO EXIST AS IT IS FOR GOD TO EXIST ON HIS OWN WITH NOTHING TO CAUSE HIM TO EXIST.


Good answer!
I still opt for God though - admittedly mainly because I like the idea. I'm impressed though - I hadn't considered that aspect. Thanks.

As to your question, we don't know how the Big Bang happened. And we don't need to know. All we need to know is that the Big Bang is a plausible theory which continues to hold up after being tested with the scientific method. The time will come when we can figure out what caused it, but until then we can't discount the theory on the fact that we can't figure it out now.It isn't nessecarily true that we'll figure out what caused our universe. The problem is that we might need to be outside reality to observe such things, and no-one's quite figured out how to do that yet. People have tried with acid & various plants, but all that just resulted in lots of vomit, bad clothing & unwanted pregnancies.

For all we factually know, the thing we call the Big Bang, may well have been a bi-product of the new & improved Insta-Super-Zapper, employed by the legendary, 300ft space pirate Squirrels, that ply the living seas of melted cheese outside reality... I digress.

What I meant to say is, we might never be able to exhaustively explain some things. We don't need to, to be on the right track though. We can't currently explain just what gravity is, but that doesn't stop us from utilising it or make us doubt that it's very real indeed.

No, no, no, I was just rephrasing what the OP said in a more exaggerated manner. I didn't actually mean that. :(

Ah. gotcha.

I tend to forget sarcasm blocks myself.

I think the religious argument for that one is that God transcends all laws of physics and such, while science does not. God can spontaneously exist because he's cool like that.
Can he also transcend the laws of logic? For example, God cannot exist because he cannot be both omniscent (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful). If he knows what is going to happen, then he is powerless to change it, and if he can change what is going to happen, then he does not know what is going to happen.

I think the religious argument for that one is that God transcends all laws of physics and such, while science does not. God can spontaneously exist because he's cool like that.

Yes, he can. However, I am not trying to disprove God. Doing so would be like you trying to disprove that I am not infact a two headed dragon. (or, conversely, an invisible (http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm) pink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn) unicorn. (http://ipu.secularlife.org/))
I am, however, illustrating how these semantical arguments trying to prove God's existence are stupid.

Yes, he can. However, I am not trying to disprove God. Doing so would be like you trying to disprove that I am not infact a two headed dragon. (or, conversely, an invisible (http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm) pink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn) unicorn. (http://ipu.secularlife.org/))
I am, however, illustrating how these semantical arguments trying to prove God's existence are stupid.
(^See my above post^)

But if you can prove that the properties of God are mutually exclusive, then you can prove that like a sphere with corners cannot exist, God cannot exist -- he's logically impossible.

kid you are making a big mistake challening a whole forum of evolutionist liberal hard enders.

But that's what makes NS so fun!

kid you are making a big mistake challening a whole forum of evolutionist liberal hard enders.


Points and laughs at the funny man who thinks having a grasp of science = liberal.

Oh, and only Commies believe in gravity. You damn pinko gravityists.

Can he also transcend the laws of logic? For example, God cannot exist because he cannot be both omniscent (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful). If he knows what is going to happen, then he is powerless to change it, and if he can change what is going to happen, then he does not know what is going to happen.

Being omniscient does not mean that you are powerless to change the future. Seeing the future and then changing it only makes it so that what you saw was what the future would have been if you had changed nothing. Being omniscient may also mean being able to see all possibilities.

However, if God exists, and is both omniscient and omnipotent, then he is absolutely responsible for everything that occurs on this planet. This includes the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, the massacres in Darfur, the Holocaust. He saw them all coming, and set things up in a way that would allow them to happen. Why he would have done this I don't know (as I am not sure he even exists) but if he exists then all those things happened because he wanted them to happen that way.

Being omniscient does not mean that you are powerless to change the future. Seeing the future and then changing it only makes it so that what you saw was what the future would have been if you had changed nothing. Being omniscient may also mean being able to see all possibilities.

However, if God exists, and is both omniscient and omnipotent, then he is absolutely responsible for everything that occurs on this planet. This includes the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, the massacres in Darfur, the Holocaust. He saw them all coming, and set things up in a way that would allow them to happen. Why he would have done this I don't know (as I am not sure he even exists) but if he exists then all those things happened because he wanted them to happen that way.
Didn't he more or less avow to stop interfering in human existence until the Second Coming?

kid you are making a big mistake challening a whole forum of evolutionist liberal hard enders.

I am amused that you equate knowledge of science with liberalism, and the implications made against the opposing viewpoint.

kid you are making a big mistake challening a whole forum of evolutionist liberal hard enders.
yeah! Damn those liberal intellectual elites!:rolleyes:

as if being intellectual and being able to understand the scientific method is a bad thing.

Didn't he more or less avow to stop interfering in human existence until the Second Coming?
Maybe he did, but then he still set up everything knowing exactly how things would transpire from that point. It's not like anything could have surprised God.

I am, however, illustrating how these semantical arguments trying to prove God's existence are stupid.

Of course trying to prove God's existence is stupid -- I don't think that anyone would disagree with you on that point. By definition, God cannot be proven or disproven. However, to somebody who believes in God, the universe is much more likely to be created by God than by the Big Bang because matter/energy coming from nothing would defy science, while it would not defy their religious beliefs. Since science cannot offer an explanation, then...

Maybe he did, but then he still set up everything knowing exactly how things would transpire from that point. It's not like anything could have surprised God.

Then why did He torture Job just to see if his faith was unshakeable? Or is God so insecure that he had to prove to the Devil that people love Him?

Then why did He torture Job just to see if his faith was unshakeable? Or is God so insecure that he had to prove to the Devil that people love Him?

I wouldnt look at the old testament as truth, personally. Its more like moral stories compiled into one book. The point, I think is to give people hope and not to lose faith despite discouraging events.

(besides, does God NEED a reason, hes f*ing God man!!!)

Then why did He torture Job just to see if his faith was unshakeable? Or is God so insecure that he had to prove to the Devil that people love Him?
Assuming God exists as described in the old testament of the Bible, there are really only two possible answers.
1: God is not actually omniscient, and is thus blind to some things.
2: God is a sadistic asshole.

Of course, it's also possible that God does not exist as described by the OT, or even at all.

Evolutionism is proof creationists can't spell.

Best. Post. EVER.

*Dies laughing, leaves for DCD his supply of cookies in the Will*

Being omniscient does not mean that you are powerless to change the future. Seeing the future and then changing it only makes it so that what you saw was what the future would have been if you had changed nothing. Being omniscient may also mean being able to see all possibilities.
-snip-
Then he is not omniscent, because he did not see his change until he made it. Were he omniscent, he would have known of the change before he made it. Duh.

Who says he can't predict his own actions. Besides, he wouldn't really ever change anything, because he would know exactly what it would be like from beginning to end, and would set it up with every conclusion in mind.

This is the reason I don't normally post in forums. People seem to always ignore each other, and miss the original question.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with abiogenesis which has nothing to do with evolution. But that's been covered, and the BBT (big bang theory) question hasn't been answered.

Also, being a theoretical physicist in training, I think I can answer this (with a good modern perspective, and without linking).

First, the evidence. BBT is a fairly new theory. It started when Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding by looking at the Doppler shift from light from far off galaxies. The light was redshifted, which means that the galaxies were moving away. Logically, if they were moving from each other now, then they were together at one point, and that means something propelled them out. Hence BBT. And by examining how fast they're moving and how far apart they are, physicists can guess at how old the universe is. Early estimates were 10 billion years or so.

But that's crude. Which is when the Cosmic Background Radiation comes in. A couple of guys at Bell Labs noticed that they couldn't point their radio telescope into the sky and hear nothing. There was always some microwave radiation mucking it up. Through careful experiment they showed that this radiation is ubiquitous, and they won a Nobel Prize some time later (for people who really care, some guys at Princeton predicted that it should be there from the BBT that had developed during the interval between hubble and when this happened). This is the same stuff you see when you turn on a TV with no station set (the "fuzz" or "snow")

So what does CBR have to do with the Big Bang? Well, essentially, it's the "bang". When the BB happened a whole bunch of electromagnetic radiation was released, and as space expanded it "cooled", or increased in wavelength (bigger wavelengths have less energy). So this radiation has stretched out, and by examining it we can learn a whole bunch of things (including quantum fluctuations early in the universe, which manifest as small fluctuations in the wavelength of the CBR, among others that I won't detail).

So that was, essentially, the clincher. There is nothing else that could possibly create this, the BB happened.

But the old model (especially the one taught in schools) is outdated. Cosmology is very nuanced and hard to explain. I was going to go into Inflation, which is the modern model for how the BB happened, but even that doesn't go back all the way, it still requires matter and an Inflaton field (which is a type of Higgs field).

But the point is that no description of BBT or Inflation Theory or String Theory or Evolutionary Theory or anything else will ever be enough. The same creationist arguments that were defeated years ago are circulating still, and one gets sick of addressing them over and over. People will still be irrational and ignore the mountains of evidence for something, while choosing to embrace the unprovable and untestable and nonsensical.

Then why did He torture Job just to see if his faith was unshakeable? Or is God so insecure that he had to prove to the Devil that people love Him?
I think it's a subtle implicit argument for the good and the responsability of freewill as a well as simple statement about how the larger world isn't necessarily invested in fairness.

People can't be extorted to be virtuous. It has to be something they want for, and seek to discover in, themselves for their own sake. In a world that has any evil, for people to be free, they must choose for themselves. For God to interfere would be to take back his gift of freewill and institute tyranny. This was the bargain man made with himself in his origiinal sin.

Don't post links because you're set in your own opinions and you don't want people to challenge them? ;)
nope too lazy *hides*

because matter/energy coming from nothing would defy science


Completely and totally wrong. Matter and energy can come from nothing, it's called Quantum Fluctuations. String theory smooths them out to some extent, but they're still there. One strange thing that can happen is for a particle and its antiparticle to come into existance next to a black hole, and for one to fall in while other doesn't. That would seem to violate a law of physics, but it doesn't.


Besides, how hard is it to believe that some matter and energy have always existed? Is that more or less reasonable than believing in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god? You ask what made the matter and energy without asking what made your god. If it always existed, why can't matter or energy?

Go out and pick up <U>The Elegant Universe</U> by Brian Greene or <U>The Inflationary Universe</U> by Alan Guth or <U>The Cosmic Landscape</U> by Leonard Susskind. They all deal with what you're asking, and they're all by prominant theoretical phycisists. Susskind's book was really good, and dealt with what you're asking about (as well as focusing on the Anthropic Principle), but I'd recommend Guth's for a knowledge of BBT or Green's for general theoretical Physics knowledge. Hell, if you send me a receipt and proof that you actually read any one of those, I'll give you the $15 for the book.

If you actually want to know what the scientists say, <I>ask them</I>. Don't ask a bunch of random people in a forum.

Who says he can't predict his own actions. Besides, he wouldn't really ever change anything, because he would know exactly what it would be like from beginning to end, and would set it up with every conclusion in mind.
Exactly, he is powerless to change anything because he already knows what is going to happen. Therefore God could not have willingly created the Universe -- he would have known about its creation before "deciding" to make it.

Just because I know I'm going to have eggs for breakfast doesn't mean I can't make the descision to have eggs.

And didn't I say something earlier about stupid semantical arguments? I think that applies here.

Go out and pick up <U>The Elegant Universe</U> by Brian Greene or <U>The Inflationary Universe</U> by Alan Guth or <U>The Cosmic Landscape</U> by Leonard Susskind. They all deal with what you're asking, and they're all by prominant theoretical phycisists. Susskind's book was really good, and dealt with what you're asking about (as well as focusing on the Anthropic Principle), but I'd recommend Guth's for a knowledge of BBT or Green's for general theoretical Physics knowledge. Hell, if you send me a receipt and proof that you actually read any one of those, I'll give you the $15 for the book.

If you actually want to know what the scientists say, <I>ask them</I>. Don't ask a bunch of random people in a forum.Is that offer good for me as well?

Is that offer good for me as well?


No, only people who will never actually do that because they're too afraid to have their beliefs challenged. But it's $15! You could probably find it on amazon for like 5...

No, only people who will never actually do that because they're too afraid to have their beliefs challenged. But it's $15! You could probably find it on amazon for like 5...Bugger!

Oh well, I'll see if I can find them on eMule. I'm sure some of the best educated & brightest people in the world, won't mind a working class kid's copyright infringements. The education they have, were given to them freely, after all. And the discoveries they've made, were (well, are) payed by people like me.
Two way street & that sort of thing.

IT IS JUST AS POSSIBLE FOR THE UNIVERSE TO EXIST ON IT'S OWN WITH NOTHING TO CAUSE IT TO EXIST AS IT IS FOR GOD TO EXIST ON HIS OWN WITH NOTHING TO CAUSE HIM TO EXIST.
Uhh.... would you agree a supernatural being has more chance of existing, then a supernatural place? (If, that is, the universe is eternal..)and if he/she/it/whosit created EVERYTHING, don't you think that would include physics? Stop thinking him human, and stop trying to apply a set of rules to him! It won't work!

Wow, I wasn't expecting 4 pages in 1 hour o_O

Being omniscient does not mean that you are powerless to change the future. Seeing the future and then changing it only makes it so that what you saw was what the future would have been if you had changed nothing. Being omniscient may also mean being able to see all possibilities.

However, if God exists, and is both omniscient and omnipotent, then he is absolutely responsible for everything that occurs on this planet. This includes the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, the massacres in Darfur, the Holocaust. He saw them all coming, and set things up in a way that would allow them to happen. Why he would have done this I don't know (as I am not sure he even exists) but if he exists then all those things happened because he wanted them to happen that way.
... stupid stupid stupid. Sorry. HE didn't create it. HE gave us free will. HE can't stop it. Well, he could, but he wants you to stop this by yourself.

Uhh.... would you agree a supernatural being has more chance of existing, then a supernatural place? (If, that is, the universe is eternal..)and if he/she/it/whosit created EVERYTHING, don't you think that would include physics? Stop thinking him human, and stop trying to apply a set of rules to him! It won't work!

Wow, I wasn't expecting 4 pages in 1 hour o_ODo you believe humans are too extraordinary to have simply strung forth by chance?

If you do, how in the hell can you possibly imagine something even more extraordinary - like a god - just zipped into existence?!

Arguments from awe don't work. It isn't rational & somewhere down the line, arguments like that always makes one look like a gibbering idiot.

EDIT: Seleucid Poleis I am afraid, I am very, very afraid! Let me challenge my irrational fears at your expense, please!

.. Couldn't find anything on eMule :(

Uhh.... would you agree a supernatural being has more chance of existing, then a supernatural place?No. Because we have no way of measuring the chance that either of them exist. What's the chance I'm just dreaming existence? The question is stupid because we have no way of calculating such a far flung possibility. (If, that is, the universe is eternal..)and if he/she/it/whosit created EVERYTHING, don't you think that would include physics? Stop thinking him human, and stop trying to apply a set of rules to him! It won't work!
If rules or logic cannot be applied to god, if the only way of understanding him is through faith, then what is the damn point of bringing him up in a scientific discussion?

Wow, I wasn't expecting 4 pages in 1 hour o_O
I was.

... stupid stupid stupid. Sorry. HE didn't create it. HE gave us free will. HE can't stop it. Well, he could, but he wants you to stop this by yourself.
He WANTS being the key word here. But consider this. HE MADE ME THE WAY I AM (If he exists) And knew when he made me the ultimate conclusion of everything I would do. God made Hitler, knowing what he would carry out. God made the people that would create the political situations leading to the Darfur trajedy, with full knowledge of what would result. God could have chosen to make the world in any other way, but he didn't, and thus he is responsible for what happens in this world.

Interesting how in 5 pages this has changed from Bobary showing ignorance of the concept of evolution to Bobary trying to evangelize to the world of NS. I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in not listening to evidence to support evolution. It appears you were simply interested in trying to convert people who don't want the service. Maybe you should have called this topic "Mental Masturbation Leads to Evangelism," since that's all I see going on here.

Since I keep forgetting where my posts are, I will make a topic... and hopefully find it again

Evoloutionism LOOKS logical, but all those higher up explantions fall apart if the basis is flawed. which, in my opinion, it is.

tell me; how did the big bang happen? what is the evidence? don't post links, I won't click on them
I'm going to try a different angle on this.

There have been a lot of holes and unknowns in scientific theories over time that have been answered and not once in any of those cases ever in history has the answer to any of those questions ever turned out to be 'magic.'

God could have chosen to make the world in any other way, but he didn't, and thus he is responsible for what happens in this world.

It's funny how it's mostly the same people that excuse Bush for his godawful job as President also excuse an all-powerful diety for making a fucked up universe.

Just remember. It's never Bush's fault. It's also never God's fault, even though God created people who do things like molest children, burn churches, and watch American Idol.

It's also funny when someone notes how crappy things are and how greedy, shortsighted and short-memoried people are, that the response invariably is, "Well, that's just human nature."

Well, who the fuck made human nature?

Also, putting the goddam tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden is like leaving a live wire in a nursery. God HAD to have known that, since Adam and Eve were immortal until expelled, eventually, over the course of who knows how long, they'd check out that apple. It's human nature, after all. That's just how we are. Even I could have foreseen that, and I ain't omniscient

So God set us all up to fail. The bastard.

Either that, or the relationship between God and reality is way too complex for us to understand. It's funny that often the God/Bush/Creationism/Anti-Global Warming people are one in the same. The weather is way too complex for us to measure, predict, see subtle trends in or define cause and effect relationships for, but somehow THEY can tell me exactly what an all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent being wants me to do.

And apparently what that Being wants me to do is to stop touching myself and keep gays from getting married.

All this religious, anti-scientific, myopic political shit is all disgustingly inter-related.

But get used to it. It's human nature.

If you think that evolution is anything more than a religion, you are an idiot. What proof is there for evolution? There is none. Let's start with the Big Bang Theory--what a joke! These "scientists" expect me to believe that 20 billion years ago nothing exploded, and that's how the Universe was formed. Or they say that all of the dirt in the universe got together and exploded. Let me ask you something, Where did all of that dirt (matter) come from? No one Knows!!! You have to believe it came from somewhere. Until you can tell me where that dirt came from, do not tell me that my theory is religous and yours is sciectific.

I believe "In the beginning God..."
You believe "In the beginning dirt..."
Which makes more sense?

Go to www.drdino.com and try to open your tiny little minds to the possibility that this world, galaxy, and universe all have a common designer. :headbang: Do not make me think I am talking to a wall.

www.talkorigins.org

More specifically, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

But wait, that's all evil lie-beral evolutionist propaganda, isn't it?

If you think that evolution is anything more than a religion, you are an idiot. What proof is there for evolution? There is none. Let's start with the Big Bang Theory--what a joke! These "scientists" expect me to believe that 20 billion years ago nothing exploded, and that's how the Universe was formed. Or they say that all of the dirt in the universe got together and exploded. Let me ask you something, Where did all of that dirt (matter) come from? No one Knows!!! You have to believe it came from somewhere. Until you can tell me where that dirt came from, do not tell me that my theory is religous and yours is sciectific.

I believe "In the beginning God..."
You believe "In the beginning dirt..."
Which makes more sense?

Go to www.drdino.com and try to open your tiny little minds to the possibility that this world, galaxy, and universe all have a common designer. :headbang: Do not make me think I am talking to a wall.
U better hope that evolution works,,, much of our medical treatments are based on it...and theres that pesky genetic and fossel evidence..

..oh yeah and the matter came from pure energy that existed in moment that universe was born. Although the big bang theory is not perfect, its a pretty good sketch of what happened.

If you think that evolution is anything more than a religion, you are an idiot. What proof is there for evolution? There is none. Let's start with the Big Bang Theory--what a joke! These "scientists" expect me to believe that 20 billion years ago nothing exploded, and that's how the Universe was formed. Or they say that all of the dirt in the universe got together and exploded. Let me ask you something, Where did all of that dirt (matter) come from? No one Knows!!! You have to believe it came from somewhere. Until you can tell me where that dirt came from, do not tell me that my theory is religous and yours is sciectific.

I believe "In the beginning God..."
You believe "In the beginning dirt..."
Which makes more sense?

Go to www.drdino.com and try to open your tiny little minds to the possibility that this world, galaxy, and universe all have a common designer. :headbang: Do not make me think I am talking to a wall.Oh dear, oh dear...

1) Evolution a religion: There's no superhuman controlling power involved, irrevocable devotion to a principle beyond proof or ritualistic practices...

2) Proof for evolution: On an immediate basis, there's MRSA/H5N1/drosphilia. Beyond that there's comparitive analysis of genetic codes that provide many datum points that agree with the principles of speciation. Really, there's a lot of evidence for which evolution-style answers are the simplest explanations.

3) Big Bang: Again, it's based on evidence... And, again, it's nothing to do with evolution. Interestingly, there is arguably a whole lot more undeniable [edit: 'undeniable' in layperson-type manner, of course, please excuse me for drifting from true scientific terminology] evidence of Big Bang than any specific theoretical prehistoric evolutionary event you might care to mention, what with the observable early universe still being 'there to observe' and analyse, compared with the fickle nature of fossilisation that leaves us with mere snapshots (and yet, many many snapshots that can be put together into a passable 'film' of events gone by).

4) 'Nothing' exploding: Entirely consistent with the theory of 'quantum foam', particle/anti-particle pairs spontaneously being created and then re-anhialating, maintaining an equilibreum. If little bits of matter can do this all the time, then large amounts (a universe's worth?) might appear on long enough time scales to account for our Universe having happened...

5) Other than that, all the 'substance' of the universe could well have come from the substance/energies contained within the N-dimensional branes that (in another possible theory) created the Universe that we know of. And the way that this and the prior theory are scientific is that there are ways (particle accelerators, etc) that we can investigate physical properties of the universe and so rule out 'wrong' theories. We can't do that for God.

6) What makes more sense? As you word it, neither.

7) As for Dr Dino... Shall I count the many ways that that guy is not only most definitely wrong (making 'leaps of faith' in the name of science) but grossly misinterprets available evidence to support his own preconceptions? You're not going to get any rational person to take him seriously, however much they might or might not have doubts about the 'ultimate truth' of such things as the Big Bang/evolution...

The so-called "Archaic Period" artifacts are supposed to be from 10,500 to a couple of thousand years ago. Of course, these boneheads have no way of dating rocks to start with. They will feed us the usual mindless dribble about how they can supposedly date them with so-called Carbon 14 dating.
Buhahahahahahahahahahah. Those silly scientists and their so-called Carbon-14 dating, how comical.:p

*snip*
The difference between you and a scientist:

You: Read some book that claims to know how things are. The book seems to make sense and claims to be correct, so you automatically and unquestionably take it as truth.

Scientist: Thinks about how things might be, forms a hypothesis based on that. They study and test the hypothesis. If it holds up consistently, it becomes a theory. If the theory continues to hold up, then it becomes a scientific law, which is a declaration of the most likely explaination of how things actually are.

Which makes more sense?

And by the way, there is no question in the scientific community that evolution is fact. They may not know some finer details - and they don't need to - but the basic idea is now a scientific law. And scientists have quite a bit of credibility because they have researched evolution and they have tested the idea, and the idea continues to hold up.

Until you can explain how gravity is science even though we don't know where it comes from, don't claim that evolution is anything less than science.

If you think that evolution is anything more than a religion, you are an idiot. What proof is there for evolution? There is none. Let's start with the Big Bang Theory--what a joke! These "scientists" expect me to believe that 20 billion years ago nothing exploded, and that's how the Universe was formed. Or they say that all of the dirt in the universe got together and exploded. Let me ask you something, Where did all of that dirt (matter) come from? No one Knows!!! You have to believe it came from somewhere. Until you can tell me where that dirt came from, do not tell me that my theory is religous and yours is sciectific.

I believe "In the beginning God..."
You believe "In the beginning dirt..."
Which makes more sense?

Go to www.drdino.com and try to open your tiny little minds to the possibility that this world, galaxy, and universe all have a common designer. :headbang: Do not make me think I am talking to a wall.

You arn't talking to a wall. Your talking to someone who knows what they're talking about. Where did the dirt come from? Where did God come from? Who made God? You have to believe he came from somewhere! (By the way, in response, NO I FUCKING DONT!)

Either God always existed, or the dirt always existed, or whatever caused the dirt to be there always existed.

You believe "In the beginning God wove his magic wand and made the earth."
I think "There was no Beginning, per se, as the universe has always been here. The earth came together through gravitic attraction of various debris about 6 billion years ago, and started orbiting the giant fusion power plant we call the Sun."

And I've been to drdino.com before. It's stupid fake bullshit, nothing more than using vague science terms in complicated ways to show how some bible things might have been possible. Mostly it is a front to sell overpriced shit.

Let's just say there's a reason even most Young-Earth Creationism groups think Hovind is a loon. The reason? He is. I've read parts of his dissertation. How he even got passed High School with writing and logic skills like his is the greatest mystery in the world. He literaly repeats entire pages of his dissertation multiple times.

Do not make me think I am talking to a wall.
Lookit! The pot gave up on calling the kettle black and is after the rest of the kitchen cutlery now.

Let's start with the Big Bang Theory--what a joke! These "scientists" expect me to believe that 20 billion years ago nothing exploded, and that's how the Universe was formed. Or they say that all of the dirt in the universe got together and exploded.

To what extent are you confident that what you are describing here represents the "Big Bang Theory" as actually posited by its proponents?

Although I don't yet have the background in theoretical physics and its percumbent mathematics to say this definitively, I would suggest that your interpretation of the theory itself (not its veracity, but its structure) is somewhat less than sound.

In short, I think what you're disputing is not "Big Bang" itself, but your version of it, which may not be the most rigorously formulated.

Do you believe humans are too extraordinary to have simply strung forth by chance?

If you do, how in the hell can you possibly imagine something even more extraordinary - like a god - just zipped into existence?!
(

Simple. We can assign a property of ontological primacy to a "God", (and not to the fundamental laws of the universe), because then we can also axiomatically assign God the properties of "liking us" and then we feel important.

And some people need to feel important so badly, they'll invent temporally pervasive daddy-figures if that's what it takes.

Get with the program, Simmy. After all, you can't go through life coping with the idea that you aren't at the center of attention of the Creator of Everything, 'cause then you'd have to justify your life on your own terms.

And nobody wants that.

In short, I think what you're disputing is not "Big Bang" itself, but your version of it, which may not be the most rigorously formulated.And you'd be right. The thing he is criticising has little to do with the Big Bang.

BBT is about the event itself & what resulted from it. Not what caused it.

There's not any real doubt that something happened to expand the universe from a point to where it is today. The entire universe is evidence that it happened.

What caused it, though, is a different kettle of fish. It isn't all that easy to explore events beyond the current state of our universe. In fact, it's very probably impossible to pull it off. One of the neat side effects of living in an expanding, time-based universe, is that we can't observe stuff beyond it. "Beyond" meaning things like "outside", "before", "predating" and so on. This also means we can't just grab the pope by the collar & drag him out of reality, to show him his God isn't there... It's still neat though, because it's a lot less confusing than if we could.

The universe probably didn't come out of 'nothing' per se. The thing is, nothing isn't quite nothing. It's more of a place where things may or may not occour. Such as particles suddenly zipping into existence & possibly getting involved in a crash, and other oddities.

Still, if one feels it is arrogant & presumptous to make one assumption about the origin of the current shape of the universe, I fail to understand why it is different to make another assumption?

For example, we factually know that stuff tends to become complicated over time, in an open system. Plants grow & evolve because there's the energy & opportunity for increased complexity. Chemical compounds reacts & form new ones, because there's energy & opportunity to do so.

So why is it so incredibly spectacular to believe that the universe has unfolded as it has, because it had the opportunity & energy, instead of believing that the universe has unfolded in this manner, because something really, really complicated had a bright (or maybe not so bright) idea?

If it's a question of pride, keep in mind that a naturalistic approach means that life started with mud, just like the Bible claims some ghost made you from mud. The only real difference here, is that the naturalistic approach doesn't tell tall tales.

*Rubs Temples*

Okay, here's the drill.

I have one question about Creationism. And that question is this: why, if God created the world, did the Judaic God not appear until LONG after the first religions developed in the world?

Despite the fact that Christianity is the single largest religion on the planet, why was it that the universe God created did not feature this said diety until long after Set, Horus, and Amon Ra had graced the silt-filled shores of Egypt? Or, why the ancient people of Ur worshiped an earth figureine: a giant pregnant woman with large, milk-filled breasts?

The point is, that the God of the Judaic religion and Christian religion did not appear in religious texts/circles until LONG after the first religions formed on this planet.

Why am I saying that? Well, how come no one advocates for those creationist stories? I mean, they came first, didn't they? Why is their religious beliefs any different from Christians? Or Muslims?

Personally, I'm Bhuddhist, so no creator Gods/Goddesses...but, still, I would just like to say that.

Now, to Evolution.

I think the biggest problem with Evolution is that most people don't quite understand what Evolution is.

Evolution is not that things kept randomly progressing towards humans today. Evolution is simply what happens in our day-to-day lives. It is the belief that those creatures with traits that allow them to survive better (NOT SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST! SURVIVAL OF THE BEST ADAPTED TO THE ENVIRONMENT) will be able to out-compete and out-reproduce creatures in the same niche. Think about it: how can we deny something like that? The theory of Evolution is that if a population of species is better adapted to the environment, then they will reproduce more, their offspring would have the same or similar traits, and they would be able to eat all the food or inhabit all the space less-adept creatures needed.

Hell, we see that in artificial evolution. Horse breeding, dog breeding, plant breeding?, etc. Any kind of breeding shows Evolution at work: entire breeds, which can develop into new species of animals, can be created by isolating certain traits.

Or, how about bacteria? Wonder why new strains of "dead" bacteria come about? The bacteria has evolved, with enough of its members to become more adapt to the environment (IE: immune to the poision/antibiotic) and have those members reproduce. Simple, clean evolution. If humans reproduced at the same rate as bacteria, we'd see evolution real clear.

Now, a few very important things to remember about evolutionary "problems."

Frist of all, "There's no evidence that evolution could have started?" Or, "How did Evolution start? Where did the first creatures come from?"

Well, we've known the answer from the fifties.

1n 1953, a University of Chicago graduate student named Stanley Miller working in Harold Urey's lab flipped a switch sending electric current through a chamber containing a combination of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. The experiment yielded organic compounds including amino acids, the building blocks of life, and catapulted a field of study known as exobiology into the headlines. Methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water are - in essence - the primordial soup. This experiment has been underdone many other times. There are several other cases where amino acids have formed. What does this show us? That amino acids, the building blocks of life, can form in the correct culture.

Next, the good ol' fashioned watchmaker argument. If there's a watch, there's a watchmaker. And it's impossible for you to throw up all the components of a watch and hope that a watch is put together. A colorful annalogy, but futile. Often this is backed up by looking at the eye. After all, the eye requires very delicate and precise parts to function. We couldn't see if different parts of the eye were unevolved. So, how could those have evolved?

The answer: the same as everything else. Slowly. There was an initial advantage to primitive eyes - which have been discovered, thanks to fossil records showing eyeholes in primitive creatures. After all, something that can only register different degrees of light has an advantage over those that cannot.

Well, that's all I have. I just want to make something clear: to my Christian, Muslim, and Judaic Peeps - I love you guys. Just cause I believe what I do, doesn't mean you're all wrong. I, personally, believe that when one truly believes in something that somewhere in some crazy dimension or other plane of thought, that being takes form. Just, please, don't make everyone believe that the Christian God created everything. Please? We've got good ideas that don't involve the Big Daddy. Besides, isn't it cool enough to think that a few strands of amino acid - to small to even be noticed in this universe - could eventually produce something as amazing and beautiful as humans? I think so.

I'm happy with that. It sounds more or less what I think myself. Do you know of a non-God-based version?

Which is similar to my own theological view [religious] in relation to the matter [though I believe in more involvement by the creator in the process]... The "non-God" empirical version goes like this..... "I Don't know"... three words which some people are more fearfull of hearing or speaking than a multitute of racial epiteths spewed at them, or by them.... Any situation where lack of data and evidence exists to make a reasoned extrapolation of events, must be considered and regarded as a present unknown....

Which is similar to my own theological view [religious] in relation to the matter [though I believe in more involvement by the creator in the process]... The "non-God" empirical version goes like this..... "I Don't know"... three words which some people are more fearfull of hearing or speaking than a multitute of racial epiteths spewed at them, or by them.... Any situation where lack of data and evidence exists to make a reasoned extrapolation of events, must be considered and regarded as a present unknown....What is so horrible about not knowing? No-one here, myself included, knows exactly what's on the desk I'm sitting at. Everyone here can probably guess an item or two, but that's it.

Does it bother you all?

What is so horrible about not knowing? No-one here, myself included, knows exactly what's on the desk I'm sitting at. Everyone here can probably guess an item or two, but that's it.

Does it bother you all?

No, but it bothers some.

And those some are so bothered, they'll take whatever answer is backed up by tradition, charisma, or number of believers.

And since they've already silently, collectively agreed to keep repeating whatever answer they've made up until they believe it, and communally reinforce that belief, why not make up a happy story?

Why, we're at the center of attention for a loving all powerful superdaddy that loves us and will eventually make everything wonderful (at some point in the conveniently unspecifiable future).

And you get the benefits of believing that so long as you keep believing. Whether its true or not...

Since I keep forgetting where my posts are, I will make a topic... and hopefully find it again

Evoloutionism LOOKS logical, but all those higher up explantions fall apart if the basis is flawed. which, in my opinion, it is.

tell me; how did the big bang happen? what is the evidence? don't post links, I won't click on them
Evolutionism is not the Theory of Evolution. Evolutionism is an ideology that polarizes one as turning a blind eye to the supernatural. It is also the idea that things evolve naturally.

The Theory of the Big Bang is not the Theory of Evolution either. It's a cosmological theory.

Everything scientific, including evolutionism, is wrong unless you can prove how the Big Bang happened. I shall now revert to thinking the Earth is the center of the universe until you prove to me how the Earth and everything came to be.
There is nothing scientific about evolutionism. It's an ideology.

that's a bit harsh... there's surely a hundred gentler ways you could have put that.

I agree that the big bang didn't have anything directly to do with evolution, but I also think it's a good non-evolution-related question... what (according to scientists) caused the big bang?

I'm personally quite happy to accept scientific theories, proven or less-proven, about everything from the world being round to the big bang theory. I do, however, believe in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God, and I'm quite happy to accept that he made the big bang happen. I'm interested though, in the non-theist choice for a cause for the beginning. Any answers?
scientist don't know. yet.
250 years ago nobody had a clue about nuclear fission either, today good chances exist that your pc (equally unheard of 200 years ago) is running on nuclear fission produced electric power.
the scientific description of the universe it's a work in progress and i am not obsessed with explanations.
so far science has explained a few things that in the past were in the "act of god cathegory" and that lead me to think that a natural random phenomena is more likely than the existance of an everpowerful, ever knowledgeable entity that put the entire universe in existence by an act of will.
of course all opinions are respectable if expressed with respect for other ideas.


ps
please excuse any grammar and/or spelling mistakes since english is not my mother tongue.

Who was it that created God, then? :O

Evolutionism is not the Theory of Evolution. Evolutionism is an ideology that polarizes one as turning a blind eye to the supernatural. It is also the idea that things evolve naturally.

The Theory of the Big Bang is not the Theory of Evolution either. It's a cosmological theory.So.. Are these much-famed evolutionists actually real? I never ever heard of such a thing until I came here, and I've yet to hear anyone profess such beliefs.

Seems like it just might be a propaganda monster, conjured up by religious creationists.

Everything scientific, including evolutionism, is wrong unless you can prove how the Big Bang happened. I shall now revert to thinking the Earth is the center of the universe until you prove to me how the Earth and everything came to be.

let's talk about probablities.
i'll use a everyday metaphore.
you go shopping and you leave tour car in a no parking area.
you come back and (surprise!) the car is gone.
which one according to you is the most likely option?
a. car stolen
b. car removed by traffic wardens (can happen in italy believe or not! ;) )
c. car abducted by alien spaceship in attepmt to assess our current technology level and properly plan an invasion.

it is obviously an exagerated example, for the sake of discussion, but to me believing in the existance of a supenatural entity that created the univere by sheer act of will looks a lot like option c. (no offense intended).
i will not enter the realm of faith, which is a deeply personal experience.

Who was it that created God, then? :O
man?

What is so horrible about not knowing? No-one here, myself included, knows exactly what's on the desk I'm sitting at. Everyone here can probably guess an item or two, but that's it.

Does it bother you all?

There is nothing wrong, itself, with not knowing something... But the human psyche in general abhors the unknown... This is not to say everyone is fearful to express lack of knowledge regarding a subject, merely that a significant proportion of mankind will refuses to express this lack of knowledge when pressed upon the issue.

Creationists, in the sense of those who adopt Young-Earth, Old-Earth and other evolution-rejecting Theological models regarding the development and presence of life on this planet, are so fearful of the unknown, and so adopting of a position of pure faith and feeling, that they are willing to ignore empirical data in order to reject anything which does not fit into their theological model... And they press upon rejection of the empirical systems of science, since science does not answer all of their questions, yet religion does via assumption.... None of this is to imply that all religions reject the empirical disciplines, nor that all Creation Theories reject the empirical, but at least he most vocal do.

Everything scientific, including evolutionism, is wrong unless you can prove how the Big Bang happened.

Nonsense. There isn't even agreement whether or not there WAS a "Big Bang". And since BB and evolutionary theory are not dependant on one another you do not require an explanation for BB to have ET function as a scientifc theory.

Next, the good ol' fashioned watchmaker argument. If there's a watch, there's a watchmaker. And it's impossible for you to throw up all the components of a watch and hope that a watch is put together. A colorful annalogy, but futile. Often this is backed up by looking at the eye. After all, the eye requires very delicate and precise parts to function. We couldn't see if different parts of the eye were unevolved. So, how could those have evolved?

The answer: the same as everything else. Slowly. There was an initial advantage to primitive eyes - which have been discovered, thanks to fossil records showing eyeholes in primitive creatures. After all, something that can only register different degrees of light has an advantage over those that cannot.



The problem with your argument is that the fossil record shows sudden appearances of new species, leading to much speculation over the source of these new species. If evolution works slowly, as you suggest, then there is no way that these new species should suddenly pop into existence, as the fossil record indicates.

'Slowly' cannot explain this discrepancy.

Nonsense. There isn't even agreement whether or not there WAS a "Big Bang". And since BB and evolutionary theory are not dependant on one another you do not require an explanation for BB to have ET function as a scientifc theory.

i was quoting Begoned but the quote got lost.
sorry about that. I agree with you.

The problem with your argument is that the fossil record shows sudden appearances of new species, leading to much speculation over the source of these new species. If evolution works slowly, as you suggest, then there is no way that these new species should suddenly pop into existence, as the fossil record indicates.

'Slowly' cannot explain this discrepancy.
the facts the there is a fairly limited number of paleonthologist, quite a lot of rock to be digged and the the chances for a dead animal/plant to become fossils are pretty slim in the first place do provide, IMHO, a reasoneble explanation for any gap found in the genealogical tree of any given species.

There is nothing wrong, itself, with not knowing something... But the human psyche in general abhors the unknown... This is not to say everyone is fearful to express lack of knowledge regarding a subject, merely that a significant proportion of mankind will refuses to express this lack of knowledge when pressed upon the issue.

Fair enough, but if you think that the origin of species (according to evolutionary theory) is 'knowledge', then creationism is also 'knowledge'. Fear could easily play a role in the development of both.


Creationists, in the sense of those who adopt Young-Earth, Old-Earth and other evolution-rejecting Theological models regarding the development and presence of life on this planet, are so fearful of the unknown, and so adopting of a position of pure faith and feeling, that they are willing to ignore empirical data in order to reject anything which does not fit into their theological model...

Obviously there are individuals in this position, but not all Creationists are in this position. Therefore, wouldn't is be a rather gross generalisation to assume that all Creationists are motivated by fear, and a hunger for 'pure faith and feeling'?


And they press upon rejection of the empirical systems of science, since science does not answer all of their questions, yet religion does via assumption.... None of this is to imply that all religions reject the empirical disciplines, nor that all Creation Theories reject the empirical, but at least he most vocal do.

As if there could be no other reason for rejection of naturalistic assumptions other than fear of the unknown. Goodness me! I don't know if I can believe anything else you say. However, you did save yourself a little by admiting that not all of the creationist positions reject the 'empirical'. Perhaps you live in a very 'conservative, fundamentalist neighbourhood. But my reasons for doubting much of the evolutionary speculation have more to do with coming to grips with the obvious flaws in the theory than with my religion, since my religion does not prevent me from accepting that God may have created through evolution.

I would rather live with open questions than embrace an obviously flawed theory.

So.. Are these much-famed evolutionists actually real? I never ever heard of such a thing until I came here, and I've yet to hear anyone profess such beliefs.

Seems like it just might be a propaganda monster, conjured up by religious creationists.

No one will admit to being an evolutionist, as it is a derogatory term. However, there do exist evolutionists, people who have replaced 'God' by 'Science'.

the facts the there is a fairly limited number of paleonthologist, quite a lot of rock to be digged and the the chances for a dead animal/plant to become fossils are pretty slim in the first place do provide, IMHO, a reasoneble explanation for any gap found in the genealogical tree of any given species.

That is almost exactly what Darwin said when he was defending himself against his critics. Today, we have a far greater number of fossils to observe, and the conclusion remains the same. Species don't seem to change very much, and there is still no indication of the origin of species.

Incidentally, judging by the title of Darwin's work (Origin of Species), it is quite ironic that he never really answered the question of the origin of species. Modern science still has not, unless you call all that speculation (answers without evidence) good enough.

So.. Are these much-famed evolutionists actually real? I never ever heard of such a thing until I came here, and I've yet to hear anyone profess such beliefs.

Seems like it just might be a propaganda monster, conjured up by religious creationists.

Evolutionists are real. Though really its more of a religious adherance to naturalism (as an ideology), which creates this "evolutionism" within them. So you could more acurately call them radical naturalists... But it's inaccurately called "evolutionist"/"evolutionism" by Radical Literal Creationists .

Theologically, "evolutionist" is a term describing any theological theory of creation which adopts evolution in whole or in part, so in broad "evolutionist" would describe in general, Theistic Evolutionists, Evolutionary Creationists, and Progressive Creationists... And it would as well apply to a Naturalistic Evolutionist.... The term should only be used to describe a Theological/Philosophical model... Though I will admit that many Literalists misuse the word and apply it to any iteration of the Theory of Evolution...

This does not discount the fact that there have been Naturalistic Evolitionists on this very forum.

Theologically, "evolutionist" is a term describing any theological theory of creation which adopts evolution in whole or in part, so in broad "evolutionist" would describe in general, Theistic Evolutionists, Evolutionary Creationists, and Progressive Creationists... And it would as well apply to a Naturalistic Evolutionist.... The term should only be used to describe a Theological/Philosophical model... Though I will admit that many Literalists misuse the word and apply it to any iteration of the Theory of Evolution...


I think you mean 'theoretically', not 'theologically'.

I think you mean 'theoretically', not 'theologically'.

No, I meant Theologically... Since the term is used pretty exclusively in theological circles.

That is almost exactly what Darwin said when he was defending himself against his critics. Today, we have a far greater number of fossils to observe, and the conclusion remains the same. Species don't seem to change very much, and there is still no indication of the origin of species.

Incidentally, judging by the title of Darwin's work (Origin of Species), it is quite ironic that he never really answered the question of the origin of species. Modern science still has not, unless you call all that speculation (answers without evidence) good enough.

Darwin's original work was meant to give an explanation WHY we see different species all around us. That answer was evolution.

Now, I don't know about your personal knowledge on speciation, but there is a LOT of evidence for all kinds of speciation. Speciation can be a relatively quick process, sometimes even extremely rapid and very observable (sympatric speciation). I'd be happy to give you some pointers.

No, I meant Theologically... Since the term is used pretty exclusively in theological circles.

OK, fair enough, I take it back then.

Darwin's original work was meant to give an explanation WHY we see different species all around us. That answer was evolution.

Now, I don't know about your personal knowledge on speciation, but there is a LOT of evidence for all kinds of speciation. Speciation can be a relatively quick process, sometimes even extremely rapid and very observable (sympatric speciation). I'd be happy to give you some pointers.

But even Darwin was called to give an explanation of the origin of species. He himself argued that it must have been a slow process involving lots of small changes which conferred an advantage (sooner or later). This progress by degrees is precisely what he predicted, and yet what was lacking in the fossil record.

As for speciation, I don't have much desire to enter into that tangle. Modern definitions of speciation seem to be generally about the capacity to interbreed, but have not really settled the whole affair. I only mentioned speciation since I was referring to the fossil record where small changes have been observed, but nothing that would confirm Darwin's predictions.

I know that speciation (depending on what definition is used) does occur, but does what we see really support the idea of progression by degrees being the source of all the species on the planet?

So.. Are these much-famed evolutionists actually real? I never ever heard of such a thing until I came here, and I've yet to hear anyone profess such beliefs.

Seems like it just might be a propaganda monster, conjured up by religious creationists.
According to Wikipedia, the word and idea "evolutionist" predates the development of the modern Theory of Evolution.

Yes, they are real, but for me at least it depends on how people are going to define themselves. As with any ideology, people have to "buy into" it; having it thrust on a person is redundant.

the fossil record is by its nature incomplete (unless of course you dig out all the sedimentary basins in the world) so it can only give you the general framework, not the details.
all the evidencies though, point in the same direction. unfortunately all the facts happened millions of years ago and there is no "smoking gun" available.

Bruarong, which is the answer darwin should have provided?

as kyott correctly stated his work was aimed at explaining the presence of different species today.

the fossil record is by its nature incomplete (unless of course you dig out all the sedimentary basins in the world) so it can only give you the general framework, not the details.
all the evidencies though, point in the same direction. unfortunately all the facts happened millions of years ago and there is no "smoking gun" available.

Bruarong, which is the answer darwin should have provided?

as kyott correctly stated his work was aimed at explaining the presence of different species today.

It is one thing to be able to explain the presence of species. But it is quite another to make your explanation fit in with the facts. The facts are that the fossil record does not show degrees of progression in a way that Darwin predicted (but rather that the species suddenly appeared and do not seemed to have changed much over time).

My conclusion is that either we are missing a big chunk of explanation (the sort that fits with the evidence) or that the theory has gone completely wrong at some point, or both.

It is one thing to be able to explain the presence of species. But it is quite another to make your explanation fit in with the facts. The facts are that the fossil record does not show degrees of progression in a way that Darwin predicted (but rather that the species suddenly appeared and do not seemed to have changed much over time).

My conclusion is that either we are missing a big chunk of explanation (the sort that fits with the evidence) or that the theory has gone completely wrong at some point, or both.
So Darwin predicted something other than the progression that the fossil record shows us?

Seriously, the book I had to read for my fist course this year would have been perfect for all you, too bad its in dutch... roughly translated the titel would go as follows 'cheese and the evolution theory'...

It is one thing to be able to explain the presence of species. But it is quite another to make your explanation fit in with the facts. The facts are that the fossil record does not show degrees of progression in a way that Darwin predicted (but rather that the species suddenly appeared and do not seemed to have changed much over time).

My conclusion is that either we are missing a big chunk of explanation (the sort that fits with the evidence) or that the theory has gone completely wrong at some point, or both.

the missing chunk seems likely to me...

anyway it is but a theory that seems to fit with the facts we know. usually theories are not reveald thruths and are sobsituted/modified with the discovery of new facts/evidencies.

we know the fossil records. we can speculate on theories that explain their existance.
some of us believe in God and creation, with no other evidencies that the lack of evidencies against it.

the difference between the two attitudes (both respectable) is faith. either you have it or not. and faith cannot be taught: it's a personal experience.

So Darwin predicted something other than the progression that the fossil record shows us?

I would put it like this: My reading around the subject has lead me to conclude that the fossil record does not indicate the progression that Darwin predicted.

the missing chunk seems likely to me...

anyway it is but a theory that seems to fit with the facts we know. usually theories are not reveald thruths and are sobsituted/modified with the discovery of new facts/evidencies.

OK, but there seems to be a lot of people who think it is fact, Stephen Hawkins included. While it does indeed fit with lots of facts, there is also a lot where it doesn't seem to fit. Thus, the future holds a good deal of modification for the theory of evolution. It may be that we can explain the holes one day, but then again, we may not be able. To believe that we will be is to have something like faith in the processes that modify the theory.



we know the fossil records. we can speculate on theories that explain their existance.
some of us believe in God and creation, with no other evidencies that the lack of evidencies against it.

the difference between the two attitudes (both respectable) is faith. either you have it or not. and faith cannot be taught: it's a personal experience.

no real argument against that, except that while faith itself cannot be taught by one human to another, it can be learned.

And the world view that incorporates, recognises, and even celebrates faith can be taught.

Seriously, the book I had to read for my fist course this year would have been perfect for all you, too bad its in dutch... roughly translated the titel would go as follows 'cheese and the evolution theory'...

You have piqued my interest. Care to give us a gist of the book?

I can't imagine a Dutch science course book would have much in it that criticises evolution, but I could be wrong.

I would put it like this: My reading around the subject has lead me to conclude that the fossil record does not indicate the progression that Darwin predicted.
So, in other words, yes. :)

We know the fossil record indicates a predictable progression. So, the conclusion from what you say is that Darwin predicted something other than the progession that the fossil record shows us.

And the world view that incorporates, recognises, and even celebrates faith can be taught.

they certainly tried with me... and failed thoroughly. and failed with most of my educated friends. i've got nothing against religion (if it's not too invasive) but I'm not at all religious myself.

going back to the fact/theory issue: it is not faith. it's a reasonable approach on possibilities. if I tell you that something is four legged, furred, wag his tail and barks you think about the likely option: a dog. it might be a werewolf (happy one indeed;) ) but wouldn't be the first thing yuo'd think about would it?

I would put it like this: My reading around the subject has lead me to conclude that the fossil record does not indicate the progression that Darwin predicted.


There's enough people working on this already, I'm just wondering. Is there something besides the fossil record that you find makes the theory flawed?

I suspect that Will Wright had something to do with it. ;)
Is "Will Wright" another name for "Q"?

In one of the few books i have actually taken time out of my hectic schedule to read, it stated that the reason scientist's believei n the big bang, is because there is a lot of radiation in the universe, Gamma or other wise that is in the back ground of the universe, meaning at the edges of it. I mean come now...they don't pay these people huge amounts of money to make up things..I am religious in some ways but not in the way that i do not belive in science. Before any of these relgions where established, there where people in the ancient times that believed in animal gods and that humans hwere apart of the anime kingdom, whcih in many ways ,we still are. That is one of the reasons that ido not believe in the Atom and Eve theories...Not to mention..the Bible has been changed and altered in so many thousands of ways over the span of 2,000 years...Ranging from the Romans to England.

And on the fossil theories. It is true that we cannot uflly graps our species full heritage sense it dates back to such a long time ago..Bones can become destroyed due to the fact that things take a bite at them after they die, rain, and even earthquakes which bury the fossils and at times destroy them. But there is enough evidence that proves evolution is true because of the fact that they have found so many skeletons of Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus and even the one that came before it. Astropithicus.

Since I keep forgetting where my posts are, I will make a topic... and hopefully find it again

Evoloutionism LOOKS logical, but all those higher up explantions fall apart if the basis is flawed. which, in my opinion, it is.

tell me; how did the big bang happen? what is the evidence? don't post links, I won't click on them

How apt. You can't be bothered to click on links, and I can't be bothered to debate someone who can't even write properly.

Google is prolly a better source of info than this forum.
Kinda depends on the "entertainment merit" aspect of what people come up with here, doesn't it? ;)

Didn't he more or less avow to stop interfering in human existence until the Second Coming?
And how does that one go again? LINK?
Oh yeah, that would make certain arsehole evangelists just a bit on the heretical/liar side, wouldn't it?

... stupid stupid stupid. Sorry.
What? :confused:

Lookit! The pot gave up on calling the kettle black and is after the rest of the kitchen cutlery now.
Hahahahahaha!! *FLORT* :D

What is so horrible about not knowing? No-one here, myself included, knows exactly what's on the desk I'm sitting at. Everyone here can probably guess an item or two, but that's it.

Does it bother you all?
Do i smell a new cult brewing? *nods emphatically* :D

I would rather live with open questions than embrace an obviously flawed theory.
So, by extension, you aren't a "christian" either. *nods*

It's funny how it's mostly the same people that excuse Bush for his godawful job as President also excuse an all-powerful diety for making a fucked up universe.

Just remember. It's never Bush's fault. It's also never God's fault, even though God created people who do things like molest children, burn churches, and watch American Idol.

It's also funny when someone notes how crappy things are and how greedy, shortsighted and short-memoried people are, that the response invariably is, "Well, that's just human nature."

Well, who the fuck made human nature?

Also, putting the goddam tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden is like leaving a live wire in a nursery. God HAD to have known that, since Adam and Eve were immortal until expelled, eventually, over the course of who knows how long, they'd check out that apple. It's human nature, after all. That's just how we are. Even I could have foreseen that, and I ain't omniscient

So God set us all up to fail. The bastard.

Either that, or the relationship between God and reality is way too complex for us to understand. It's funny that often the God/Bush/Creationism/Anti-Global Warming people are one in the same. The weather is way too complex for us to measure, predict, see subtle trends in or define cause and effect relationships for, but somehow THEY can tell me exactly what an all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent being wants me to do.

And apparently what that Being wants me to do is to stop touching myself and keep gays from getting married.

All this religious, anti-scientific, myopic political shit is all disgustingly inter-related.

But get used to it. It's human nature.

This is one of the best posts I've ever read.

Is "Will Wright" another name for "Q"?
Will Wright created Sim City and the dozens of other sim games.

I'm guessing most of you complaining about the "holes in the fossil record" mean that since we don't have a fossil of every change in every creature ever, the fossil record can be completely disregarded, right? Guess what. Not every change equals new species. Also, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

EDIT:Also, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Before anyone accuses this site of being biased, they also host creationism and ID sites.

Will Wright created Sim City and the dozens of other sim games.
Reinforcing my point! ;)
*notes a giant salamander wandering through the neighborhood*

...and at some point, supernovae are going to permeate the neighbourhood as well, i trust?