• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

*Cordial* Debate Regarding Creation

I know, I didn't take it as an insult or anything. I'm just tired of our mods sitting idly by while HOJ derails any thread he feels like. You did receive 2 likes from the guy. You may want to take a shower or something.

Friendly advice: Posters like HoJ are why DP has an "ignore" feature. Put him on your ignore list and move on.:peace
 
Friendly advice: Posters like HoJ are why DP has an "ignore" feature. Put him on your ignore list and move on.:peace
Oh, he doesn't bug me dude. Not at all. It just gets old sorting through the pages of crap he either posts or initiates from other trolls due to his flaming. You can't even find a decent thread around here with the guy derailing it.
 
There is a point in science when something has so much evidence for it, so much data backing it up that, even in the realm of new discoveries, it is true beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes, and I learned Pluto was a planet. They knew it was a planet for certain, right up to the point where they changed their minds.
 
I was doing my daily devotional on Blue Letter Bible (if you are a Christian, this is a great website) and saw a link to a website called "Encouragement for Believers Science Update". This site isn't affiliated with BLB. It was just advertised on it. The article I read was astonishing. However, I do like to vet my sources and am hoping there are some users on this site that are more read in to this subject. The link to the article is provided below. It is a great read, cites many prominent scientists (Hubble, Hawking, etc), and at least seems to disprove the Big Bang Theory. Now, the article does state that their findings do not prove God exists or the creation "theory". However, it does disprove the Big Bang Theory. Please, do not turn this into a "You're going to hell because you don't believe in God!" or "Christians are just archaic idiots that don't believe real science!" threads. That's not the intent. The intent is good, honest debate citing sources and sound judgement. Thanks.
fms-found

I'm sorry but this article is bush league stuff. All of his ideas would be disproved in an entry level cosmology course.

For example, his entire premise is based on this single completely false assertion.

The only rational way to account for the observation that all galaxies appear to be moving away from us, is if we were in the center.

It's entirely possible that the reason we observe all galaxies moving away from us is if space itself were expanding. In which case EVERY galaxy would (or could) observe all other galaxies moving away from them. Which is precisely what the prevailing theory holds.

And I also want to point out that there actually is a sort of "preferred" reference frame in physics. It's the reference frame which is at rest wrt the CMB. This is the reference frame within which numbers such as the age of the universe are commonly reported (such numbers would be different in different frames so physicists use the CMB frame as a standard to be consistent). And we (the earth) are NOT at rest wrt the CMB, which in itself proves that we are not at the geometrical 'center' of the universe (which probably doesn't even exist either - where is the center of an infinite flat plane?)

His comments on the CMB are completely unfounded. The mystery of the homogeneity of the CMB has nothing to do with whether or not we are at the 'center'. His interpretation of the "spatial distribution" of galaxies is laughable. We see more galaxies near us because their light is brighter, the light from those farther away is fainter.

And I wouldn't say the physics community is dogmatic about the Big Bang theory. In fact, recently competing hypotheses have been proposed regarding the meaning of the redshift which would completely invalidate the BBT, and they are being considered quite seriously by the physics community. The Big Bang theory is accepted as the best guess we have. If or when a theory comes around that better explains our observations, physicists will cheerfully adopt it.
 
I'm sorry but this article is bush league stuff. All of his ideas would be disproved in an entry level cosmology course.

For example, his entire premise is based on this single completely false assertion.



It's entirely possible that the reason we observe all galaxies moving away from us is if space itself were expanding. In which case EVERY galaxy would (or could) observe all other galaxies moving away from them. Which is precisely what the prevailing theory holds.

And I also want to point out that there actually is a sort of "preferred" reference frame in physics. It's the reference frame which is at rest wrt the CMB. This is the reference frame within which numbers such as the age of the universe are commonly reported (such numbers would be different in different frames so physicists use the CMB frame as a standard to be consistent). And we (the earth) are NOT at rest wrt the CMB, which in itself proves that we are not at the geometrical 'center' of the universe (which probably doesn't even exist either - where is the center of an infinite flat plane?)

His comments on the CMB are completely unfounded. The mystery of the homogeneity of the CMB has nothing to do with whether or not we are at the 'center'. His interpretation of the "spatial distribution" of galaxies is laughable. We see more galaxies near us because their light is brighter, the light from those farther away is fainter.

And I wouldn't say the physics community is dogmatic about the Big Bang theory. In fact, recently competing hypotheses have been proposed regarding the meaning of the redshift which would completely invalidate the BBT, and they are being considered quite seriously by the physics community. The Big Bang theory is accepted as the best guess we have. If or when a theory comes around that better explains our observations, physicists will cheerfully adopt it.
Thanks for your contribution man. Good post.
 
Yes, and I learned Pluto was a planet. They knew it was a planet for certain, right up to the point where they changed their minds.

Actually, we always knew it was a planet. We just decided to change it into a different type of planet. :prof
 
Actually, we always knew it was a planet. We just decided to change it into a different type of planet. :prof

The point is that truths can and do change over time, so those things that seem far-fetched today, could become tomorrows truths.
 
The point is that truths can and do change over time, so those things that seem far-fetched today, could become tomorrows truths.

That is true.

But things that have been proven to be correct over and over again don't really change, they just are modified to accept new evidence.
 
Scientific theories don't prove anything and don't attempt to, since they are empirically based. They explain observable facts. Those that explain a lot of facts and especially important facts, with no facts contradicting the theory, are considered valid scientific theories.

Science can of course disprove invalid theories. Any facts that contradict an explanation invalidates the theory. The theory is disproven and can be rejected.
<< Wondering what the point might be here, let alone how it applies to what I posted... >>

There are literally thousands of observable fact that contradict creationism. So even to the extent that it is a theory (and of course it isn't since it's simply based on faith in an ancient text, not on any testable hypothesis), creationism has been disproved and no rational person need consider it further.
Did you even read my post, or did you just find a blurb within it which you thought you could ridicule?

Finally creationism has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a sub-cult of Christianity that propounds this interpretation of these texts. The vast majority of Christians reject this newfangled view of the bible. It is arguably a heresy, if you want to go that route.
If "creationism has nothing to do with Christianity," why do you call it "a sub-cult" --- of Christianity?

So creationism is both bad science and bad religion. Try again.
LOL - in your haste to find something which you think you could ridicule, you completely missed what my point was. :lamo
 
<< Wondering what the point might be here, let alone how it applies to what I posted... >>

Did you even read my post, or did you just find a blurb within it which you thought you could ridicule?

If "creationism has nothing to do with Christianity," why do you call it "a sub-cult" --- of Christianity?

LOL - in your haste to find something which you think you could ridicule, you completely missed what my point was. :lamo

You're equivocating. Disproofing creationism is rather easy since there are so many known facts that contradict it. Within the realm of methodological naturalism, that's all that's required to reject an explanation of facts - a fact that contradicts the explanation.

So your apparent claim of equivalency between the scientific method and religious faith is off base.
 
You're equivocating. Disproofing creationism is rather easy since there are so many known facts that contradict it. Within the realm of methodological naturalism, that's all that's required to reject an explanation of facts - a fact that contradicts the explanation.

So your apparent claim of equivalency between the scientific method and religious faith is off base.
Whatever
 
I do not see any conflict between the Big Bang (or evolution and a universe and earth billions of years old) and God. The Genesis account uses metaphors, and the word day in the text is a Hebrew word that can mean an age of any duration. So given we do not know how God created things, why try and find holes in science to be consistent with personal assumptions of creation based on likely poor interpretation of the Genesis text instead of recognizing our assumptions may be incorrect on the how. Sal Khan of Khan Academy mentioned that he thought evolution and the randomness in it is a sign of a much more elegant designer. To me, in the same way, to think the universe began as like a seed as big as a needle head, and out of that we have the majestic universe and earth and all life, points to an extraordinary elegant designer. Watch the short video below. Sal uses the Mandelbrot set as an example of comparison between evolution. Intelligent Design and Evolution - YouTube
 
I do not see any conflict between the Big Bang (or evolution and a universe and earth billions of years old) and God. The Genesis account uses metaphors, and the word day in the text is a Hebrew word that can mean an age of any duration. So given we do not know how God created things, why try and find holes in science to be consistent with personal assumptions of creation based on likely poor interpretation of the Genesis text instead of recognizing our assumptions may be incorrect on the how. Sal Khan of Khan Academy mentioned that he thought evolution and the randomness in it is a sign of a much more elegant designer. To me, in the same way, to think the universe began as like a seed as big as a needle head, and out of that we have the majestic universe and earth and all life, points to an extraordinary elegant designer. Watch the short video below. Sal uses the Mandelbrot set as an example of comparison between evolution. Intelligent Design and Evolution - YouTube

My issue with people who question science is that they aren't questioning science they're doing everything that they can to make science conform to their own world paradigm regardless of what the facts are telling us.

If people want to question the big bang theory then fine question it, it has it's issues but be honest about it and approach it from an open viewpoint. Apologetics belong in religion not science.
 
My issue with people who question science is that they aren't questioning science they're doing everything that they can to make science conform to their own world paradigm regardless of what the facts are telling us.

If people want to question the big bang theory then fine question it, it has it's issues but be honest about it and approach it from an open viewpoint. Apologetics belong in religion not science.
That's a valid point.

My only issue with the big bang theory is that it doesn't answer the question, "what existed prior to the bang?" How does a universe come into being from... nothing? Maybe it answers it; if it does, I haven't heard it.
 
Did you actually read the article I quoted? :roll:

I did. As a Christian, I would have to say that it wasn't a terribly impressive argument. For example:

The Big Bang theory concerning the origin of the universe was spawned about 50 years ago, and soon became the dogma of the evolutionary establishment.

Is historically inaccurate. The Humanist position had long been the "Steady State" theory, which held that the universe had always existed. Big Bang theory was resisted by the secular "evolutionary" establishment because it dovetailed so well with what Religion had long taught - it is, in fact, the discovery that caused Albert Einstein to abandon his atheism.

The Bible says that in the beginning the Lord said Let there be light. Science says "hey, in the beginning there was suddenly for no particular reason we can detect an explosion of light". :shrug:
 
I did. As a Christian, I would have to say that it wasn't a terribly impressive argument. For example:



Is historically inaccurate. The Humanist position had long been the "Steady State" theory, which held that the universe had always existed. Big Bang theory was resisted by the secular "evolutionary" establishment because it dovetailed so well with what Religion had long taught - it is, in fact, the discovery that caused Albert Einstein to abandon his atheism.

The Bible says that in the beginning the Lord said Let there be light. Science says "hey, in the beginning there was suddenly for no particular reason we can detect an explosion of light". :shrug:

An eternal seed of eternal matter, and the light from God as the cause and force behind creation is a theory I sort of lean to. Not creation from nothing but creation in the sense of organizing self existing eternal matter with light from God as the organizing force.

This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.
8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;
9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;
10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.
11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;
12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fillthe immensity of space—
13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. D&C 88: 7-13
 
That's a valid point.

My only issue with the big bang theory is that it doesn't answer the question, "what existed prior to the bang?" How does a universe come into being from... nothing? Maybe it answers it; if it does, I haven't heard it.

That's neither a question the Big Bang theory answers nor is it a question the Big Bang claims to answer.
 
An eternal seed of eternal matter, and the light from God as the cause and force behind creation is a theory I sort of lean to. Not creation from nothing but creation in the sense of organizing self existing eternal matter with light from God as the organizing force.

This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.
8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;
9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;
10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.
11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;
12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fillthe immensity of space—
13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. D&C 88: 7-13

Very different conceptions of God, there.
 
Ergo my comment.

Then why do you take issue with the theory for not explaining something it isn't intended to explain. The Big Bang theory also doesn't give an explanation for Lyme's disease. Do you take issue with the Big Bang theory for not explaining Lyme's disease too? :roll:
 
That's a valid point.

My only issue with the big bang theory is that it doesn't answer the question, "what existed prior to the bang?" How does a universe come into being from... nothing? Maybe it answers it; if it does, I haven't heard it.

What existed before God? And you can't just throw out the old "well, God always existed" because you can't substantiate that other than "God said he always existed"

If you want to read an excellent book that goes into the whole "nothing" issue from an astrophysicist/subatomic particles view, read "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss, fascinating quantum mechanics explanations, but, it is quite bizzare, our brains have a hard time wrapping around the concepts.
 
What existed before God? And you can't just throw out the old "well, God always existed" because you can't substantiate that other than "God said he always existed"

If you want to read an excellent book that goes into the whole "nothing" issue from an astrophysicist/subatomic particles view, read "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss, fascinating quantum mechanics explanations, but, it is quite bizzare, our brains have a hard time wrapping around the concepts.
Why can't we throw out the ol' "God always existed?" Is God required to "play" by some set of rules now? Why would a true believer need anything other than Faith to "substantiate" God's omnipresence, omnipotence, or eternal nature?
 
Why can't we throw out the ol' "God always existed?" Is God required to "play" by some set of rules now?

Or, the "universe" always existed and there really is no such thing as "nothing" as defined by Krauss.

The problem with creationism is that, when you drill down to the root, the creationists are left with saying "then a miracle happened" a supernatural miracle that wasn't witnessed, can't be reproduced, can't be tested and defies the laws of physics. I'll take observation, scientific method, historical data, testability and replication any day over..."then, a miracle happened"
 
Or, the "universe" always existed and there really is no such thing as "nothing" as defined by Krauss.

The problem with creationism is that, when you drill down to the root, the creationists are left with saying "then a miracle happened" a supernatural miracle that wasn't witnessed, can't be reproduced, can't be tested and defies the laws of physics. I'll take observation, scientific method, historical data, testability and replication any day over..."then, a miracle happened"

So, I take it both Big Bang Dynamics and/or Spontaneous Generation in any form has been replicated, reproduced, observed or tested in a lab then?
 
So, I take it both Big Bang Dynamics and/or Spontaneous Generation in any form has been replicated, reproduced, observed or tested in a lab then?

The science behind it has been theorized.

Not so much for changing water into wine or any of those other miracles....
 
Back
Top Bottom