• 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

beefheart said:
The science behind it has been theorized.

Not so much for changing water into wine or any of those other miracles....
Click to expand...

Im sorry, I was simply going off of your previous statement where you point out that the "problem" with creationism is that it cannot be "witnessed, reproduced, or tested." It appeared as if you may have been making the false claim that spontaneous generation or big bang had been. :shrug:
 
FluffyNinja said:
Im sorry, I was simply going off of your previous statement where you point out that the "problem" with creationism is that it cannot be "witnessed, reproduced, or tested." It appeared as if you may have been making the false claim that spontaneous generation or big bang had been. :shrug:
Click to expand...

No worries, we have the science that actually can delve into the question about the start of the current universe that we all exist in, but how do you do science for "poof!, life appeared!"
 
MarineTpartier said:
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
Click to expand...

If you wanted an honest discussion of this issue (and I'm seriously not trying to be an asshole about this), you should have started it in the philosophy forum, not the religion forum (which specifically prohibits criticism of religion).
 
beefheart said:
No worries, we have the science that actually can delve into the question about the start of the current universe that we all exist in, but how do you do science for "poof!, life appeared!"
Click to expand...

Faith is irrational......I freely admit as much. And yet, I still have no reservations regarding my faith. True believers simply take many things on Faith and require no rational explanations. Crazy, I know. I believe that there is knowledge that will NEVER be ascertained through any degree of science; therefore we can continue to seek this knowledge in vain (which I suppose is a noble venture to some degree) while never obtaining it. Or we can take the approach of the faithful and just accept that some things are simply beyond human comprehension and we can die happy taking it on Faith that it may have just simply been "divine intervention" after all! :shrug: I don't know.....Im quite happy in my irrationality.....what else can I say? :)
 
FluffyNinja said:
Faith is irrational......I freely admit as much. And yet, I still have no reservations regarding my faith. True believers simply take many things on Faith and require no rational explanations. Crazy, I know. I believe that there is knowledge that will NEVER be ascertained through any degree of science; therefore we can continue to seek this knowledge in vain (which I suppose is a noble venture to some degree) while never obtaining it. Or we can take the approach of the faithful and just accept that some things are simply beyond human comprehension and we can die happy taking it on Faith that it may have just simply been "divine intervention" after all! :shrug: I don't know.....Im quite happy in my irrationality.....what else can I say? :)
Click to expand...

I can agree with that, and if someone wants to believe in things that can only be explained by faith, so be it....just don't try to teach that as science in public schools. (or tell me that I'm going to hell for not believing the story you believe in )
 
FluffyNinja said:
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?
Click to expand...

Virtual particles are constantly spontaneously popping in and out of existence. This has been and is being observed countless times at particle accelerators around the world and has been basically the backbone of modern particle physics for the past century or so. You have some reading up to do if this is news to you.

But it doesn't really have anything to do with the Big Bang theory.
 
Your religion has nothing to do with science, which has factual basis, and your religion has faith, Not fact.. Fact is we are all here, fact is science has proven results and I have never seen a true scientific report that insists we follow one way of life, or we will burn in hell fires. Politics has no business in religion. Now we have radical fringe infringing!,,,
 
the_recruit said:
Virtual particles are constantly spontaneously popping in and out of existence. This has been and is being observed countless times at particle accelerators around the world and has been basically the backbone of modern particle physics for the past century or so. You have some reading up to do if this is news to you.

But it doesn't really have anything to do with the Big Bang theory.
Click to expand...

Of course, being a simple-minded History Instructor, I'm certainly a lay person in regards to quantum physics and modern particle theory. However; it is my understanding that "virtual particles" are just that....virtual....in that they only exist for very limited amounts of time and do not carry the mass equivalency of their "real" particle counterparts? I realize that my explanation is probably quite simplistic, but please correct me if I am wrong. Then, be so kind as to explain to me how the observation of "virtual particles" can in any way be tied to the Big Bang Theory which, if true, resulted in the "generation" of very many (countless) REAL particles?
 
FluffyNinja said:
Of course, being a simple-minded History Instructor, I'm certainly a lay person in regards to quantum physics and modern particle theory. However; it is my understanding that "virtual particles" are just that....virtual....in that they only exist for very limited amounts of time and do not carry the mass equivalency of their "real" particle counterparts? I realize that my explanation is probably quite simplistic, but please correct me if I am wrong. Then, be so kind as to explain to me how the observation of "virtual particles" can in any way be tied to the Big Bang Theory which, if true, resulted in the "generation" of very many (countless) REAL particles?
Click to expand...

If they exist, are they any less real?
 
FluffyNinja said:
Of course, being a History Instructor, I'm certainly a lay person in regards to quantum physics and modern particle theory. However; it is my understanding that "virtual particles" are just that....virtual....in that they only exist for very limited amounts of time and do not carry the mass equivalency of their "real" particle counterparts? I realize that my explanation is probably quite simplistic, but please correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

They certainly have mass (or, more accurately, can have mass). The only difference is that they tend to last for very short periods of time (the length of time depends on how much mass it has, actually).

FluffyNinja said:
Then, be so kind as to explain to me how the observation of "virtual particles" can in any way be tied to the Big Bang Theory which, if true, resulted in the "generation" of very many (countless) REAL particles?
Click to expand...

Well, as I just said this doesn't really have anything to do with the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang theory does not say that the universe was generated by this mechanism.

But there's no reason a quantum fluctuation of universe-sized number of particles isn't possible. It's fundamentally the same, just less likely. Incredibly less likely.
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...

You do know that other "planets" have gone through the same process as Pluto, right? It has nothing to do with "changing their minds". It's about discovering new information. The first asteroid they discovered in the belt between Mars and Jupiter used to be called a planet, too. Then they discovered more asteroids in the same orbit, and called those planets, too. But they were a lot smaller than our main 8. Then they found more and more and more asteroids, and realized that there was an entire belt of them, and that they functioned totally differently than planets do. Up until recently, Pluto was thought to be alone in its orbit. Now we have discovered many more objects of similar size in the same orbit. Now it's called the Kuiper Belt.

You learned the most up to date information. Now there is more up to date information. You should be celebrating rather than lamenting. Science is about constantly learning new things and refining what we already know.

EdwinWillers said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. We have no conclusive data about what (if anything) existed prior to this universe. We don't know that anything did. We may never have such data. We might find it in black holes. We may someday learn to traverse universes or travel through time. But for now, our knowledge ends with this physical universe.

Of course, saying "god did it" doesn't really explain anything either...

FluffyNinja said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because we're talking about truth, not belief. Things are what they are, regardless of what you think about them. God doesn't conform to your opinion of him/her/it/they/whatever. Nor does the universe. Or the nature of humanity. Or basically anything else. Have some humility. Faith doesn't change reality.

Aderleth said:
If you wanted an honest discussion of this issue (and I'm seriously not trying to be an asshole about this), you should have started it in the philosophy forum, not the religion forum (which specifically prohibits criticism of religion).
Click to expand...

Or, you know, in the science forum. Where we would discuss the OP article if it contained any actual science. Just like threads about evolution, nobody ever tries to put the science denial threads in the science section. Evidence, I think, that they know their nonsense can't measure up.
 
cpwill said:
Very different conceptions of God, there.
Click to expand...

If you mean that is a very different conception of God between what the Catholic church and the Protestant churches have taught historically. Yes, different conceptions of God. Joseph Smith and other prophets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have taught that creation was not from nothing but that matter, which we and God and everything else is made up of is eternal.

"Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (D&C 93:29)

Addressing the issue of creation ex nihilo, Joseph Smith asserted in one of his final sermons: "Now, the word create…does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos-chaotic matter, which is element…. Element had an existence from the time [God] had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end" (HC 6:308-309).

Extending the concept of the eternal nature of matter to the substance of spirit, Joseph Smith revealed, "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter" (D&C 131:7-8).

Parley P. Pratt, an apostle and close associate of Joseph Smith, wrote, "Matter and spirit are the two great principles of all existence. Everything animate and inanimate is composed of one or the other, or both of these eternal principles…. Matter and spirit are of equal duration; both are self-existent, they never began to exist, and they never can be annihilated…. Matter as well as spirit is eternal, uncreated, self existing. However infinite the variety of its changes, forms and shapes; …eternity is inscribed in indelible characters on every particle" (HC 4:55).
 
Paschendale said:
You do know that other "planets" have gone through the same process as Pluto, right? It has nothing to do with "changing their minds". It's about discovering new information. The first asteroid they discovered in the belt between Mars and Jupiter used to be called a planet, too. Then they discovered more asteroids in the same orbit, and called those planets, too. But they were a lot smaller than our main 8. Then they found more and more and more asteroids, and realized that there was an entire belt of them, and that they functioned totally differently than planets do. Up until recently, Pluto was thought to be alone in its orbit. Now we have discovered many more objects of similar size in the same orbit. Now it's called the Kuiper Belt.

You learned the most up to date information. Now there is more up to date information. You should be celebrating rather than lamenting. Science is about constantly learning new things and refining what we already know.



It doesn't. We have no conclusive data about what (if anything) existed prior to this universe. We don't know that anything did. We may never have such data. We might find it in black holes. We may someday learn to traverse universes or travel through time. But for now, our knowledge ends with this physical universe.

Of course, saying "god did it" doesn't really explain anything either...



Because we're talking about truth, not belief. Things are what they are, regardless of what you think about them. God doesn't conform to your opinion of him/her/it/they/whatever. Nor does the universe. Or the nature of humanity. Or basically anything else. Have some humility. Faith doesn't change reality.



Or, you know, in the science forum. Where we would discuss the OP article if it contained any actual science. Just like threads about evolution, nobody ever tries to put the science denial threads in the science section. Evidence, I think, that they know their nonsense can't measure up.
Click to expand...

Precisely! Bingo! So you atheists who think you love science more than the rest of the galaxy does, can stop being so ****ing smug now. Cause one day you just might discover some new information, that is God. And you don't know that you won't, just as you didn't know about that asteroid. And that's all I need to say about that.
 
cpwill said:
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:
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing with that, yes, sudden explosion of light. What I argue with is the theory of why there was that explosion of light when we know exactly where it came from. God.
 
American said:
Precisely! Bingo! So you atheists who think you love science more than the rest of the galaxy does, can stop being so ****ing smug now. Cause one day you just might discover some new information, that is God. And you don't know that you won't, just as you didn't know about that asteroid. And that's all I need to say about that.
Click to expand...

Yes, new information. Not trying to bend discoveries to support old, debunked information. We might discover something that could be called divine out there in the universe. But it certainly won't be the things dreamed up by our ancestors. In order to actually be those things, we would have had to discover them long ago. New information expanded our understanding and lead us to discount previous wrong ideas, like pretty much everything that myths have asserted to explain natural phenomena. No world supported by turtles, no talking snakes, no land formed by the blood of dying gods, no worldwide flood, none of that.

Any divine thing we discover out in the universe will necessarily not be something that is interacting with us now or has done so previously. We would have had to discover it already if it were interacting with us, and all previous assertions of discovery have been demonstrated false. That is, as I said, why this sort of discussion is not in the science forum. It is about contradicting and discounting information we have discovered, not reaching conclusions based on that information.
 
beefheart said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'll look into it. Thx.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
I'm not arguing with that, yes, sudden explosion of light. What I argue with is the theory of why there was that explosion of light when we know exactly where it came from. God.
Click to expand...

Your use of the word "know" is exactly the problem
 
Aderleth said:
If you wanted an honest discussion of this issue (and I'm seriously not trying to be an asshole about this), you should have started it in the philosophy forum, not the religion forum (which specifically prohibits criticism of religion).
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
MarineTpartier said:
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
Click to expand...

Who is to say that God spoke and as a result, the "Big Bang" occurred? No one knows except God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom