KIA&SS wrote:

May I point out that people believing the world was flat was once widely accepted by the science community and world? May I point out that the earth being the center of the galaxy was once widely accepted by the scientific community and world?

A flat earth and the geocentric model never had conclusive evidence behind them. The big bang does.

And today's scientific community is much different than the one you're referencing.

KIA&SS wrote:

I believe I told everyone to find their own sources a couple of times in my post.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

KIA&SS wrote:

Exactly. None of them are as widely accepted. (AKA more people believe the big bang.)
And your point is?

My point is more cosmologists and astrophysicists accept the evidence for the big bang.

KIA&SS wrote:

So they refuted a couple of the arguments. (I read the article before I posted it.) And your point is? It still did not prove that the big bang was anything more then a theory, or that it is fact.

The big bang doesn't need to be fact for it to be a valid explanation of how the universe got to its present state.

KIA&SS wrote:

Through logical scientific experimentation. Through the use of true science fact and scientific method.

Which means the big bang uses both scientific fact and the scientific method.

KIA&SS wrote:

I love how you say, "many have been proven" but you don't state which ones.

That's not what I said, that's what your own article said. What's the point of supplying me with an article if you don't read it yourself?

KIA&SS wrote:

The meteor has crater. The big bang does not even have that. The big bang is not obvious it is just... how did you say it? The most widely accepted.
If the big bang was provable there would be no need to accept it or reject it.

People still reject the fact that the earth is a sphere. By your logic, that means it's not provable.

KIA&SS wrote:

But scientist don't claim the big bang as fact. They just claim it as an effort to explain. They don't even claim it is true. They claim it is an attempt, a theory.
It is a religious push to teach a specific belief in schools.

No, they claim it to be a valid explanation of how our universe came to its current state.

What scientists view as a theory and what you think a theory is are two, very different things.

You see a theory as a bunch of randomly collected thoughts that were thrown together. Scientists see a theory as something that has been tested, observed, and well-substantiated using the scientific method. The big bang is the latter.

KIA&SS wrote:

How am I stretching it? Does the big bang fit the definition or does it not?

No.

KIA&SS wrote:

Let me point out right here that Buddhist do not believe in god and therefore do not necessarily believe in creation either.

You could fit any belief into that definition. I guess most pilots are part of Bernoulli's religion, because most believe in Bernoulli's principle of flight. Not FACT of flight, principle of flight.

KIA&SS wrote:

I suggest everyone click the link themselves and make there own deductions about who wrote it. (No where does it claim a creation writer, in fact the whole site if you click on science has various view points.)

The site is dedicated to the existence of God.

KIA&SS wrote:

The big bang theory leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. Several answers have been proposed to address this fundamental question, but none has been proven—and even adequately testing them has proven to be a formidable challenge.

Which is an unanswered question, not evidence against the big bang. If we didn't accept anything simply because we didn't have all the answers, then science would be useless.

KIA&SS wrote:

The idea that the universe as we know it was born in a split second of exponential growth is cosmological gospel. But no one can agree on a single version of the theory called inflation. In fact, there now exist so many approaches, with such a wide range of predictions, that a few cosmologists have suggested inflation could never be disproved by observation.
Which Way to the Big Bang?

You mean to tell me that's there's debate within the scientific community? No way!!

By the way, scientists in this case aren't disagreeing with the concept of the big bang as a whole. They're disagreeing about a specific aspect of the big bang. This is how a theory gains more validity and traction. Through debate and testing.

KIA&SS wrote:

Yes, and?

You're saying the big bang deals with botany?

KIA&SS wrote:

Maybe you should learn it.

I know what faith means. And belief in the big bang isn't based off of faith, because there is proof of it.

KIA&SS wrote:

Which one?
And why don't you find the others reputable?
Could it be because their content simply doesn't line up with your beliefs?
Isn't that what some people say creationists do, ignore the facts that don't fit into their belief?

They're not reputable because they're written by people with a heavily biased agenda.

KIA&SS wrote:

It has a hole in the ground and if we could dig down far enough we would find the rock. Which would be the observable proof.

But we can't see the actual event, or observe the event itself. Which is what you've been raving about the last ten posts.

We can observe evidence that is left over from the event, just as we can observe evidence that the big bang left over.

KIA&SS wrote:

Who has observed the big bang? No one.

You can't observe an event that took place billions of years ago. It's Not Possible.
That does not mean we cannot find evidence of it. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that observations are limited to high definition video's of the event in question.

KIA&SS wrote:

How so? Since I seem to be the only one here trying to get it out.

Because you don't understand the basic concept of a scientific theory.

KIA&SS wrote:

Or are you folks so religious that you only look at one side of the battle?

I look at the sides who have no bias.

KIA&SS wrote:

So... Astronomy Magazine, the worlds best selling astronomy magazine isn't reputable enough for you?

Do you even read the sources you give me? I wasn't talking about Astronomy Magazine, because they're not the ones who said "If the universe is 4.5 billions years old."

Read your sources before you reply and waste my time.

KIA&SS wrote:

And your assuming the big bang.

You're red herring. Again.

KIA&SS wrote:

I haven't said what I am.

You're not fooling anybody, and it was a pathetic attempt to begin with.

*slow clap* Lukla, I think I love you.

Why do you keep saying "Big Bang Religion"? Define religion please. You need to stop doing something my friends call "I disbelieve and jump." Meaning with disbelief you can defeat anything.

I look at the sides who have no bias.

:rofl: I got to this statement and almost fell over with laughter! Your so biased its not even funny! Your posts are nothing but biased on the big bang's behalf oh ... and your not fooling anyone.

You're not fooling anybody, and it was a pathetic attempt to begin with.

Who exactly am I trying to fool?

You're red herring. Again.

And your biased. Again. (This has to stop its getting pointless.)

Why do you keep saying "Big Bang Religion"?

For you I will post the definition of religion yet again.
Religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.
The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.

Why I keep saying the Big Bang is a religion is because there is no solid (or conclusive) proof of the big bang. There is no proof of the big bang that can't be explained by another scientific reason.
I will tell you what I told my professor. "If you have conclusive proof show it to me."

The big bang doesn't need to be fact for it to be a valid explanation of how the universe got to its present state.

So at least you admit it isn't fact. You go right ahead and accept it as valid explanation. No one is trying to stop you. Just don't force me to learn or agree with your beliefs.

Which means the big bang uses both scientific fact and the scientific method.

What fact? What method? Show them to me. (With unbiased sources if you can find them )

What's the point of supplying me with an article if you don't read it yourself?

I read all of them.

People still reject the fact that the earth is a sphere. By your logic, that means it's not provable.

That is not my logic. By my logic people that believe the world is flat should go for a sale or go into space. Doing either would prove them wrong and thus make the fact not logically rejection-able.

What scientists view as a theory and what you think a theory is are two, very different things.
You see a theory as a bunch of randomly collected thoughts that were thrown together. Scientists see a theory as something that has been tested, observed, and well-substantiated using the scientific method. The big bang is the latter.

I see scientific theory exactly as it is defined. Nothing more or less.
Give me your well substantiated, by using the scientific method, evidence for the big bang. If it is irrefutable I will shut up. However if there is any other explanation for your proof then... my points will still stand.

No.

You are entitled to your opinion.

You could fit any belief into that definition. I guess most pilots are part of Bernoulli's religion, because most believe in Bernoulli's principle of flight. Not FACT of flight, principle of flight.

A principle is not a fact or a theory it is a principle. And the particular principle you have stated has observable evidence to back it up. The big does not. (And the big bang is not know as the principle of the big bang.)

Principle:An accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles. A fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics. A fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion.

Lumping the definition of theory, fact and principle together as one is the highest extent of foolishness. They are very different words with very different meanings.

The site is dedicated to the existence of God.

As I said, click the links yourself. Better yet go find your own sources.

Which is an unanswered question, not evidence against the big bang.

Perhaps it is only an unanswered question... it is a question that the big bang can't answer. If they answer it in the future I will again, shut up.

If we didn't accept anything simply because we didn't have all the answers, then science would be useless.

That is an all inclusive and untrue statement. Science is never useless. (Think Gravity or the law of thermodynamics.)

By the way, scientists in this case aren't disagreeing with the concept of the big bang as a whole. They're disagreeing about a specific aspect of the big bang. This is how a theory gains more validity and traction. Through debate and testing.

Test away! If the big bang is proven to in the future be a fact I will again shut up. Until then it is only a theory and a religion and I won't shut up.

You're saying the big bang deals with botany?

Do you have a point? Can you have botany without the big bang?

And belief in the big bang isn't based off of faith, because there is proof of it.

Show me your proof.

They're not reputable because they're written by people with a heavily biased agenda.

Buddy... your heavily biased. Oh... and so is National Geographic. So by your logic no one is reputable because everyone is biased unless they give both sides of the argument. Which I have done. Because I am not against the big bang.

But we can't see the actual event, or observe the event itself. Which is what you've been raving about the last ten posts.
We can observe evidence that is left over from the event, just as we can observe evidence that the big bang left over.

Your funny. But I never said that you have to be there to see it happen or to observe it. I did however say that no one has observed the big bang. Nor have they observed any 'left overs' that can be exclusively explained only through the big bang.
Show me your left over evidence.

You can't observe an event that took place billions of years ago. It's Not Possible.

You can if you recreate that event. Which scientists are trying to do. (On a much smaller scale obviously)

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that observations are limited to high definition video's of the event in question.

I am not laboring nor am I disillusioned.

Because you don't understand the basic concept of a scientific theory.

I understand scientific theory. I simply don't see the big bang as containing enough science to make it anything more then a religion with a touch of science attached. Just like creation is a religion with a touch of science attached. Keep both out of science class.

Do you even read the sources you give me? I wasn't talking about Astronomy Magazine, because they're not the ones who said "If the universe is 4.5 billions years old."

Yes I read them. All of them. Is the earth 4.5 billion years old or not? I do believe the Astronomy Magazine site said that the moon is moving away from us? And I do believe I said the other site I used simply for their calculations? And then I suggested everyone do their own calculations and find their own resources?
If you don't like my resources then find your own. I am more then willing to read them! Heck I suggested numerous times now FIND YOUR OWN RESOURCES! Don't trust my resources go find your own, but when you find them leave your beliefs at the door and actually just look at their facts or lack of facts.

Read your sources before you reply and waste my time.

If you think talking to me is waste of time go find something better to do. I read my resources. All of them. On both of the biased sides.


Let me make clear exactly what I believe. I believe that the big bang is lacking irrefutable proof. I believe creation is lacking irrefutable proof. I believe that the only reason this conversation is still going on is because the people who believe in the big bang really want to hang on to their beliefs despite the facts. I believe the only reason I am not having a debate about creation being scientifically provable is because there is no christian in here debating the matter. I believe religion (The big bang and creation) and belief should be kept out of my science class.
I believe laddergoat is right:

Of course it is, both sides of this argument are pointless. Believe what you want to believe, its your choice.

(As I said just keep your belief out of my science class.)

If you continue to attack my sources, because you obviously don't have any proof of your own to submit. I will compile a list of every source I have posted thus far. There are both sources for and against the big bang. (I still say FIND YOUR OWN RESOURCES) Likewise for creation. Why both sides? Because I am not taking either side so I don't care who believes what. All I care about are the facts contained within them.

Have fun studying... or don't. Your choice. Believe blindly. Or don't, your choice.

SS

Only people who can't prove their point tell people to find their own sources. LOL I dare you to have a debate with one of your professors and tell them to "find their own sources".

Only people who can't prove their point tell people to find their own sources. LOL I dare you to have a debate with one of your professors and tell them to "find their own sources".

My professor actually provides sources. I read and/or study them then provide my stand. Very few sources have been sited by anyone but me. However those sources that have been posted by others I have read.
If my professor behaved as some of the people here have and told me 'I don't like your sources' then I would tell him to provide his own sources and he would provide his own sources. That is what grown ups do... Adults... they provide answers and information. Not just accusation.

People who can't provide sources can't prove their point.

---------- Post added at 08:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 PM ----------

On a completely innocent unrelated note...
Why I love stupid people PremJohn.com

KIA&SS wrote:

My professor actually provides sources. I read and/or study them then provide my stand. Very few sources have been sited by anyone but me. However those sources that have been posted by others I have read.
If my professor behaved as some of the people here have and told me 'I don't like your sources' then I would tell him to provide his own sources and he would provide his own sources. That is what grown ups do... Adults... they provide answers and information. Not just accusation.

People who can't provide sources can't prove their point.

You clearly missed my point. Again, but it's okay.

You clearly missed my point. Again, but it's okay.

Apparently I did. That's okay. and too.

wow. what a great thread. 127 posts since March 1.

Yeah, at this point we're just arguing with a retard that won't take widely accepted scientific knowledge as evidence. I've kinda given up on the whole "Argue with the mentally challenged" game.

Yeah, at this point we're just arguing with a retard that won't take widely accepted scientific knowledge as evidence. I've kinda given up on the whole "Argue with the mentally challenged" game.

And I think I may be done arguing with brainwashed, close-minded, individuals that can't think for themselves or use a blasted calculator.
Yep... this dead horse has been thoroughly beaten... like an egg.

I accept that you are brainless... my evidence is, that I accept it.

KIA&SS wrote:

And I think I may be done arguing with brainwashed, close-minded, individuals that can't think for themselves or use a blasted calculator.
Yep... this dead horse has been thoroughly beaten... like an egg.

I accept that you are brainless... my evidence is, that I accept it.

Please listen to this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtYkyB35zkk]Tim Minchin: Storm - YouTube[/ame]

Yep, I love Tim Minchin, fucking brilliant.

Yes there is science that proves the bible wrong in many ways. That simple. The closer to god, the bigger the idiot.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours-Stephen Roberts

KIA&SS wrote:

I got to this statement and almost fell over with laughter! Your so biased its not even funny! Your posts are nothing but biased on the big bang's behalf oh ... and your not fooling anyone.

What does that have to do with which sides I look at? And how am I biased toward the big bang? I accept the big bang because it has empirical evidence backing it up.

KIA&SS wrote:

Who exactly am I trying to fool?

You're trying to make yourself look independent with the whole "I haven't stated my opinion" narrative.

Yet your posts paint a very clear picture of where your ideologies lie.

KIA&SS wrote:

And your biased. Again.

Everyone is slightly biased in an argument. The difference is, I'm not prejudiced toward any singular idea. I believe in what has been logically demonstrated.

KIA&SS wrote:

For you I will post the definition of religion yet again. Religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.
The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.

If you take that definition and interpret it literally, you could argue that any belief concerning the universe is a religion, even if it has been proven by science.

KIA&SS wrote:

Why I keep saying the Big Bang is a religion is because there is no solid (or conclusive) proof of the big bang. There is no proof of the big bang that can't be explained by another scientific reason.
I will tell you what I told my professor. "If you have conclusive proof show it to me."

You wouldn't accept the big bang if there was a recent discovery that proved it beyond all doubt. You're determined to disbelieve in the big bang, and no amount of proof will convince you otherwise.

KIA&SS wrote:

So at least you admit it isn't fact.

I never said it was a fact.

KIA&SS wrote:

You go right ahead and accept it as valid explanation. No one is trying to stop you. Just don't force me to learn or agree with your beliefs.

I'm not forcing you to do anything. I'm challenging you to stop giving credit to all these fallacious creationist websites and to use common sense.

KIA&SS wrote:

What fact? What method? Show them to me.

It uses evidence that has been gathered over several decades and combines it into a theory that has further been tested.
CMBR, the Toman tests, dark matter, dark energy, the age of stars, solar systems and galaxies and the overall structure of our universe. They all support the big bang, the big bang supports them, and no other model comes as close to explaining the expansion of our universe as the big bang.

As I've said numerous times before, you give no credit to the big bang because in your view it's nothing more than a "theory." But in science, a theory is something that has been tested and verified. It's something that has merit.
It's not your colloquial, everyday use of the term "theory."

KIA&SS wrote:

I read all of them.

Then why are you asking me why I haven't stated which predication have been proven, when it was your own article which stated that in the first place?

KIA&SS wrote:

That is not my logic.

That is your logic. You said, "If the big bang was provable there would be no need to accept it or reject it."

There is no need to accept or reject the fact that the earth is a sphere, but there are people who still do.

KIA&SS wrote:

Give me your well substantiated, by using the scientific method, evidence for the big bang. If it is irrefutable I will shut up. However if there is any other explanation for your proof then... my points will still stand.

People have already supplied you with websites giving evidence of the big bang. But so you'll quit asking, I'll give you some more.

The Big Bang and Other Explosions in Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics - David N. Schramm - Google Books
This one is massive and is more than you'll ever want to read.

Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang - Paul J. Steinhardt, Neil Turok - Google Books

The Big Bang - Joseph Silk - Google Books

KIA&SS wrote:

A principle is not a fact or a theory it is a principle.

It's still a proposition or belief, which falls under your definition of religion when taken in its most literal form.

KIA&SS wrote:

That is an all inclusive and untrue statement. Science is never useless.

And science isn't useless because we can still accept something as probable, even if we don't have every question answered.
This applies to anything. If our criminal justice system operated off the principle that every question had to be answered, we would rarely be able to convict defendants.

KIA&SS wrote:

Test away! If the big bang is proven to in the future be a fact I will again shut up. Until then it is only a theory and a religion and I won't shut up.

In science, nothing becomes a theory until it has strong evidence to back it up. Because the big bang is a scientific theory, then by definition it has substantial evidence backing it up. So the idea that you won't accept a scientific theory as a logical explanation of something, based solely on the fact that it's "just a theory," is irrational, misguided, and just flat-out stupid.

KIA&SS wrote:

Do you have a point? Can you have botany without the big bang?

No, but that doesn't mean the big bang deals with botany. The big bang explains the expansion of our universe. Anything that occurs as a result of that expansion is an entirely separate issue.

KIA&SS wrote:

Buddy... your heavily biased. Oh... and so is National Geographic. So by your logic no one is reputable because everyone is biased unless they give both sides of the argument. Which I have done. Because I am not against the big bang.

They don't need to give both sides. They just need to be reputable. An academic journal or educational website would be considered reputable. A creationist website, generally speaking, is not.

KIA&SS wrote:

You can if you recreate that event. Which scientists are trying to do. (On a much smaller scale obviously)

Yes and they're getting very close. 'Start of the Universe': mini Big Bang recreated - Telegraph

But as long as you have evidence which showed the event actually happened, re-creating the event is merely a formality.

KIA&SS wrote:

Yes I read them. All of them. Is the earth 4.5 billion years old or not? I do believe the Astronomy Magazine site said that the moon is moving away from us? And I do believe I said the other site I used simply for their calculations? And then I suggested everyone do their own calculations and find their own resources?

You're still not following me.

The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. It was your source which stated that the universe is 4.5 billion years old that I took issue with. Again, read the sources you supply me with.

I was referring to this website: Apologetics Study 15
Another creationist website, claiming that the solar system is not billions of years old, and you quoted the moon recession argument they used.

You seriously need me to debunk that for you?

As I said before, the site assumes earths gravity is a linear force. It neglects the fact that when the earth originally formed, it didn't have the same mass and therefore had less forceful gravity. It's also talking as though you had earth and then oceans the same evening. However, we estimate that water existed on earth from its beginning in some form, but that our oceans didn't form until billions of years later.
But regardless of that, I'm not even sure the argument it's trying to make. What exactly is the problem in having the moon closer to the earth? Larger tides?

More importantly, what does this have to do with the big bang?
And do you honestly think if all of this were true, scientists are just ignoring it?

KIA&SS wrote:

If you continue to attack my sources, because you obviously don't have any proof of your own to submit. I will compile a list of every source I have posted thus far. There are both sources for and against the big bang. (I still say FIND YOUR OWN RESOURCES)

You've been given proof throughout this debate, but instead of refuting it, you keep saying "it's just a theory."

I know how to find sources, thanks. I also know how to find reputable sources that don't make arguments based on petty 6th grade math problems.

manwilliams wrote:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours-Stephen Roberts

That contention is stupid. You're either atheist or you're not.

Here's the best way for me to put it:

I don’t believe in a religion, nor in anything spiritual or anything like that. Not because I choose not to believe in them, but because I can’t. This is because I personally can’t choose what I believe in. I just can’t. For example, I can say that I am a Christian, and that I believe in the Bible, and that Jesus turned water into wine, etc., but deep down I can’t genuinely believe that Jesus turned water into wine, I just can’t, and I can’t make myself believe it. And I personally can’t follow a religion I don’t believe
in. So in conclusion, seeing as there isn’t a religion I believe in, Idon’t follow a religion.

*I consider god being part of a religion

Please listen to this:

I've heard funnier but okay

Yes there is science that proves the bible wrong in many ways. That simple. The closer to god, the bigger the idiot.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours-Stephen Roberts

Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him. ~ Star Wars

Thirty seconds after we all die, we will all find out what our beliefs will have brought us too. Whether it be fading into nothing, or judged by God in that moment we shall surely know.

Lukla I am going to busy for awhile with your sources since the first one is at least a 600 + page book (No kidding its long!) I just want to know one thing... Have you read it? All of it? Because if you haven't, your comment of asking me if I read my sources (Which I did), might be considered a bit hypocritical. Just saying. *Goes to library to find books in paper format so I can actually read them.*

Also I would like to point out that all three of your sources seem at first glance to be biased on the big bang's behalf. Should I discount them simply because of that as you have discounted the creationist sites? (I don't discount either I read both.)

Yet your posts paint a very clear picture of where your ideologies lie.

I hope so. My ideology is get biased religion out of my science class.

The difference is, I'm not prejudiced toward any singular idea. I believe in what has been logically demonstrated.

I don't know why I am bothering even saying this but you have never seen the big bang logically demonstrated. No one has. No one has seen creation logically demonstrated either. It is just simply what you have chosen to believe.

If you take that definition and interpret it literally, you could argue that any belief concerning the universe is a religion, even if it has been proven by science.

True. You could argue that. Feel free to start anytime you like. Though... if you do I would have to point out religious discrimination toward Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Christians, Satanists, and just about every religion but the big bang because the only one allowed to be taught in science class is the big bang. Now... if you want to include all of the religions in science class, including the big bang, creation, and Greek river goddess's then I suppose I can live with being forced to learn all of you peoples blasted religions and make my own logical deductions about which one sounds more feasible. Why wouldn't that be fair?

You wouldn't accept the big bang if there was a recent discovery that proved it beyond all doubt. You're determined to disbelieve in the big bang, and no amount of proof will convince you otherwise.

Actually I would believe it. I have no problem believing it. I am not against the big bang. Despite your objections to the contrary, despite the lack of evidence, I believe in a big bang.
The only difference between me and you is I know that the big bang is only a belief. Logical? Maybe, maybe not but that is for each person to decide themselves.

I'm challenging you to stop giving credit to all these fallacious creationist websites and to use common sense.

You know... I could say stop giving credit to fallacious big bang books and use common sense but that would sound just as ridiculous as what you told me.

I have an idea... why don't we both use common sense and look at both sides? That way we can use our common sense to create a whole picture instead of half a picture.

Here is a list of the sources I & Lukla have used. (Sorry if I missed any.) Some are creationist (How that automatically makes them fallacious I would love for you to explain?) And some are big bang. (How that automatically makes them reputable I would love for you to explain?)
Warning! Most of these sites are very biased! So I recommend bringing common sense.

Sources posted by Lukla (page 3)
Evidence for the Big Bang
Big Bang Theory
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (This article is great by the way... it has a lot of if's in it though.)

Lukla (Page 4)
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

SS (Page 4)
www.irc. org/article/177/
Scientific Evidence that God Created Life

Lukla (page 5)
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

SS (Page 7)
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Who says the Earth revolves around the Sun? | The Genius Project )
Sir Isaac Newton: The Universal Law of Gravitation

SS (Page
Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Hubble Law - Answers in Genesis
BB top 30 problems
HowStuffWorks "Problems with the Big Bang Theory"
"There Was No Big Bang!" Say Several Leading Cosmologists (A Galaxy Classic)
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists
http://www.icr.org/article/177/
Creation: ?Where?s the Proof?? - Answers in Genesis
Scientific Evidence that God Created Life
Ive heard that the Moon is moving away from Earth by about an inch 25 cm each year Why is this happening - Astronomy Magazine
Apologetics Study 15
Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading
Is the earth's rotation slowing down?
I've Heard That The Earth's Rotation Is Slowing. How Long Until Days Last 25 Hours? | Popular Science
Origins of the Universe, Big Bang Theory Information, Big Bang Facts, News, Photos -- National Geographic
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Which Way to the Big Bang?

SS (Page 9)
Why I love stupid people PremJohn.com

(Not a source just a funny)

Lukla (page 10)
The Big Bang and Other Explosions in Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics - David N. Schramm - Google Books
Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang - Paul J. Steinhardt, Neil Turok - Google Books
The Big Bang - Joseph Silk - Google Books

Even with all of the above... for anyone else reading this thread you really should use your brains and go find your own sources. Also, try asking your science teachers questions... 50% of the time they will get upset and/or sidestep answering, if you question the big bang.


The fact is that this whole conversation is a result of Lukla trying to prove that the big bang is more then a belief. He calls it a well substantiated scientific theory. Using his source: (Please read it as I love this source) Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Listen, if "The Scientist Said It" is good enough for you then, great... but that sounds a bit to much like "The Pastor Said It" for me.

SS

Would not a better question be though, "Why does God's possible existence matter?"

Perhaps my outlook on such an issue may spark some thoughts in people's minds. We shall see.

The question "do you believe in [insert deity here]" is a question I have never been too much of a fan of. Not because of the question itself, but because of the results it brings about. When asked such a question, people, as per their usual habits, take a black and white stance; yes. Or no. And when not given such an answer, people become annoyed. Because what people usually are looking for when they ask this question are comrades and enemies; who is "on their side" and who is not.

But why should it be this way? Why should we divide ourselves up by such beliefs?

All too often I encounter individuals who follow a particular religion, and when I question them as to why they believe what they believe, they more often than not seem to have simply been born into that way of life, or coerced by means of threat or reward. By which I mean, take for instance, the religion of Christianity. Many a time when I have discussed the religion with members of the faith, when they have tried to convert me, they do so by one of two means. The threat of Hell, or the reward of Heaven.

But why, I ask you, should these at all have any bearing over my decision to worship any particular deity, or participate in any particular religion? Why should my reward or punishment for following any particular ideology have any weight? Say for instance, a man comes to you, and tells you that so long as you bully that one weird kid on the playground, you will be part of the "cool kids" at that school. And if you refuse, you will be bullied just like that weird kid. Would we not say that such actions are selfish and wrong? To purposefully harm others, who are causing no harm, simply to be rewarded, or avoid punishment? So what makes this situation any different when you replace the word "man" with "God"?

No, reward or punishment should not be a determining factor in anyone's actions in life, and yet, for many religious people, that is the very reason they follow the religion they follow. "Don't you want to go to Heaven? Don't you want to avoid damnation?" For a long time, this was my dilema as well. I was conflicted about various religious beliefs. Which ones were true, and which ones were false? And if I chose incorrectly, what would become of me? Should I go out of my way to advocate in others faces a particular supposed truth? Such it seems is a dilema for all religious people. But ultimately, after much thinking, I came to a conclusion I feel is rather unique in this modern age of conflict between those who take a vehement stance for or against a God or Gods: Why does it matter? Why should the existence of any God or Gods mean anything to us? Why should we care? Why should we bother following them? You see, it is in my view that what should drive someone to commit certain actions or hold certain opinions should not be that someone else told you to do them/hold them, but rather, out of a desire to ultimately, prevent harm, and increase the quality of life for all people. To simply be a good person. Now, some religions will say "But no matter how "good" of a person you are, you will never be accepted by God".

Which brings us back to the appeal of the reward. As I said before, would one call it truly "good" to commit an action one feels immoral, for the sake of reward, or because someone told you to? Do we not praise those who fight for what is "good", rather than give into what a higher power (a boss, government official, ect.) orders them to do, when it compromises their own sense of morality? So it should be with matters of religion and deities. It should not matter if they exist or not, what they want you to do or not, ect.


Do I believe in God? I can't say. I don't know, nor do I care; it is irrelevant. I will be the kind of person I think is good, caring, and right. Preventing harm, and showing love to others. And if, when I die, I find there is truly a god or gods, and they wish to punish me for not believing in them, or not following them when their orders compromised my sense of morality...

Then why should I have worshiped them in the first place?

My idea is that god is created by us humans. In the past, when we don't have the apparatus for us to prove or explain something, people made up the image of 'god' to satisfy many questions like weird happenings and death due to some known reason. I believe that the word of 'god' will slowly slip any as we continue forward, solving and explaining the unknown. Until there is no mysteries and unknowns.

Seriously? My thought that humans are not born intelligent, we are the exception to the rule of nature, mass producing ourselves across the globe and bringing nature down to her knees until we find out how stupid we are. We are not intelligent, we just like to be lazy and different from everyone and everything (even ourselves).

In my weird thought, 'god' is made by prophets, by claiming to be able to talk to god, they would be treated to the highest luxury since many people would want 'peace' and safety for their family. Lol... not sure about this last part.

No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions. ~ Charles P. Steinmetz