Big Bang theory makes no logical sense

Dr.Carter · Jul 2nd 2010, 11:09pm

zapfox wrote:

While I normally hold your opinions in high regard

Thank you.

It is generalizing and, quite frankly, rude to declare that all creationists are to be the object of ridicule.

Perhaps my wording was a little bit harsh, but I stand by the underlying idea. At the core belief of every creationist is the idea that modern science is wrong on a great deal of topics, if not all of them. To look at the science in radiocarbon dating and immediately deny it because it conflicts with your archaic views is something that I see as pure ignorance. It's not a case of 1% making the rest look bad, while there are varying degrees of creationism, even the most accepting creationists, by definition, reject some large elements of science.

Believing in creationism does not automatically equal an "inherent" belief that all science is wrong.

But it does. Don't confuse creationism with religion; creationists are fundamentalists, they believe the Bible is the literal word of God. They believe the Earth is 4,000 years old, and they also believe that fossils were placed there by God to test our faith. That spits in the face of everything science has taught us about the world.

Creationism is simply one sect in the large umbrella of religious ideologies. I don't have anything against religious people on a whole, but I do have a problem with certain types of religious people, Creationists being one of those types.

However, to say that all creationists believe that all science is essentially invalid is the same as saying that no person of devout faith can be a scientist, which I know for a fact is not true.

It's not the same at all. A religious astronomer might look at the beauty of the stars and say it's God's design; and while I don't agree with that, he isn't exactly rejecting established science in favor of his belief system. No signs point to the existence of a God, but we cannot disprove his existence, so for lack of a better word, he is not 'wrong' for believing what he does.

On the other hand, a Creationist looks at established science that can be theorized and proven, and rejects it straightaway. He isn't defying a implausibility like the person in the above paragraph, he is defying fact.

zapfox · Jul 2nd 2010, 11:27pm

Thank you for clarifying. Your original post makes much more sense to me now, especially after the example of the religious astronomer.

Dr.Carter · Jul 3rd 2010, 1:27am

zapfox wrote:

Thank you for clarifying. Your original post makes much more sense to me now, especially after the example of the religious astronomer.

It's no problem. A lot of the time the terms are used synonymously, which can lead to a lot of confusion.

xyz123456 · Jul 3rd 2010, 7:25am

Dr.Carter wrote:

...and they also believe that fossils were placed there by God to test our faith.

That's actually not entirely true. Most "creationist" Christians believe that most fossils, especially those of the dinosaurs and other extinct creatures, were formed during the Deluge, more commonly known as Noah's Flood. Their theory states that the Flood was a massively violent, worldwide event that would've drowned and buried millions of creatures in a relatively short time, as in several days to several weeks, and the petrification of their bones occurred during the following millennia. I've never met a Christian who actually denied the existence of dinosaurs as real creatures. Many even believe some dinosaurs may have been passengers on Noah's Ark. It isn't the fossils themselves that they take issue with, but more of an issue with the dating processes used to determine the true ages of said fossils.

Dayved · Jul 3rd 2010, 7:27am

I don't even english.

Dr.Carter · Jul 3rd 2010, 11:11am

rmg126 wrote:

I've never met a Christian who actually denied the existence of dinosaurs as real creatures. Many even believe some dinosaurs may have been passengers on Noah's Ark. It isn't the fossils themselves that they take issue with, but more of an issue with the dating processes used to determine the true ages of said fossils.

That's not entirely the point. I'm not saying Creationists don't believe in dinosaurs, in fact some of them go so far as to suggest that man and dinosaurs once walked the Earth together, but rather that their excuse for the age of fossils is almost ALWAYS attributed to divine intervention; perhaps not to test them, but if they do not argue that, they simply say that God has a plan for everything and that we can't understand it (a built in mechanism for shooting down any counterargument, if you will).

So while not all of them see fossils specifically as a 'test of fate', their arrogant and outright opposition to science is still ingrained into their belief system.

Agassi · Jul 3rd 2010, 10:20pm

Dr.Carter wrote:

That's not entirely the point. I'm not saying Creationists don't believe in dinosaurs, in fact some of them go so far as to suggest that man and dinosaurs once walked the Earth together, but rather that their excuse for the age of fossils is almost ALWAYS attributed to divine intervention; perhaps not to test them, but if they do not argue that, they simply say that God has a plan for everything and that we can't understand it (a built in mechanism for shooting down any counterargument, if you will).

So while not all of them see fossils specifically as a 'test of fate', their arrogant and outright opposition to science is still ingrained into their belief system.

The fosil record does not disprove creationism, in fact it supports it. Dinosaurs and man did walk the earth at the same time, and it really shouldn't surprise you. In ancient times people told stories and paint pictures of these beasts, long before people began to find fosils of them. As for carbon dating, this practice has no real accuracy.

Creationists do not deny scientific laws, but then again scientific laws don't present any problems. We are however, not ignorant enough to put faith into unproven scientific theories. The truth is that there is much more proof of creationist view than there is for any other. The problem is with whoever you get your information from. You state all these things that you think disprove our beliefs, but it's only what you have learned from other people with these views. You are much more uneducated than you think, and you really need to wise up before trying to disprove the oldest living belief system.

Esmo · Jul 3rd 2010, 10:23pm

Hang on, Creationism is nothing more than the belief that behind the origins of life, the universe etc., lies a 'creator'. On its own, it doesn't actually go into the logistics of what occured, nor does it adhere itself to just one religion, if any. So a creationist does not necessarily have to disagree with any scientific theory about how we came into being.

There are creationists worthy of derision, but you have to be specific if you're going to go about deriding them. Six-day creationists are worthy of derision.

Zen · Jul 3rd 2010, 10:25pm

I don't understand how this crazy idea that carbon is the only form of radiometric dating came to be.

You're not ignorant enough to put faith into unproven scientific theories supported by evidence and experts, but you're willing to put faith into an unprovable, arguably unobservable force? That's a bit of a strange position.

Its also humorous you think being the oldest living belief system makes it more credible or positive. I can name some other old belief systems. Slavery, that's a good one. Supported in the Bible, even. Racism, of course, is timeless. War, though that is a necessary evil.

I'd like to see this creationist proof. I've searched all over for it and can't seem to locate it. My mother even purchased me a book, "The Evolution Cruncher", but a couple pages in it lowered itself to accusing Darwin of witchcraft or some ridiculous excuse.

Edit: After reviewing your post again, what exactly IS the oldest living belief system? If you mean "Abrahamic" religion, Buddhism and Hinduism and Paganism and Zoroastrianism would like a word.

Esmo · Jul 3rd 2010, 10:29pm

AlexMason wrote:

The fosil record does not disprove creationism, in fact it supports it. Dinosaurs and man did walk the earth at the same time,

What's your evidence?

AlexMason wrote:

In ancient times people told stories and paint pictures of these beasts, long before people began to find fosils of them.

How do you know that no fossils were found? The only reason we come across fossils is because enough ground has eroded away to give us an impression that there's something more lying underneath. I expect people in ancient times did much the same thing, albeit with perhaps cruder excavation capability and techniques.

AlexMason wrote:

As for carbon dating, this practice has no real accuracy.

Fantastic. Good thing that carbon dating has no relevance to the fossil record which deals in millions, not tens of thousands of years (the latter being the limit of carbon dating - which is accurate, by the way, as long as you know its limits, which are not awful.)

AlexMason wrote:

and you really need to wise up before trying to disprove the oldest living belief system.

Being the oldest belief system does not immediately bestow it with veracity. Unfortunately, in fact, history demonstrates that it's the opposite.

LuklaAdvocate · Jul 3rd 2010, 10:30pm

AlexMason wrote:

The fosil record does not disprove creationism, in fact it supports it. Dinosaurs and man did walk the earth at the same time

Proof?

AlexMason wrote:

In ancient times people told stories and paint pictures of these beasts

And these were dinosaurs? What would you define as "ancient times?" During Greek and Roman rule?

AlexMason wrote:

As for carbon dating, this practice has no real accuracy.

How so?

AlexMason wrote:

The truth is that there is much more proof of creationist view than there is for any other. The problem is with whoever you get your information from. You state all these things that you think disprove our beliefs, but it's only what you have learned from other people with these views. You are much more uneducated than you think, and you really need to wise up before trying to disprove the oldest living belief system.

By "creationist view," I'll assume you're referring to the Genesis creation account. Do you accept this view over evolution?

Agassi · Jul 3rd 2010, 10:37pm

Zen wrote:

I don't understand how this crazy idea that carbon is the only form of radiometric dating came to be.

You're not ignorant enough to put faith into unproven scientific theories supported by evidence and experts, but you're willing to put faith into an unprovable, arguably unobservable force? That's a bit of a strange position.

Its also humorous you think being the oldest living belief system makes it more credible or positive. I can name some other old belief systems. Slavery, that's a good one. Supported in the Bible, even. Racism, of course, is timeless. War, though that is a necessary evil.

I'd like to see this creationist proof. I've searched all over for it and can't seem to locate it. My mother even purchased me a book, "The Evolution Cruncher", but a couple pages in it lowered itself to accusing Darwin of witchcraft or some ridiculous excuse.

Edit: After reviewing your post again, what exactly IS the oldest living belief system? If you mean "Abrahamic" religion, Buddhism and Hinduism and Paganism and Zoroastrianism would like a word.

The belief that God created the world and all that inhabits it. It was the very first belief before there was any other, because it is the only true belief. It has been proven, but only on the individual level. God proves Himself to those who are willing to accept Him. If He were to prove Himself to the point where doubt is no more then there would be no need for faith. Christianity requires us to put faith in what cannot be proven. If you close your heart to God you will never understand, but those who open it up will be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Zen · Jul 3rd 2010, 10:39pm

If you want to get dogmatic, I can talk about your blindness to the serenity of pure thought and distraction from reality by such thoughts, but that's your thing. If you can't defend our posts intellectually, admit it.

LuklaAdvocate · Jul 3rd 2010, 10:47pm

AlexMason wrote:

The belief that God created the world and all that inhabits it. It was the very first belief before there was any other, because it is the only true belief.

The first recorded religious belief, out-dating all the religions you see today, was the Mesopotamian religion. It was a polytheistic religion, meaning they believed in more than one God (in fact, they believed in thousands of God's). They also believed the earth to be flat, and that the sea was where the universe originated from.

Since this was the "very first belief," is it automatically the correct one? Keep in mind that this religion existed before Christianity. Thousands of years before Christianity, actually.

Dr.Carter · Jul 3rd 2010, 11:21pm

Esmo wrote:

Hang on, Creationism is nothing more than the belief that behind the origins of life, the universe etc., lies a 'creator'. On its own, it doesn't actually go into the logistics of what occured, nor does it adhere itself to just one religion, if any. So a creationist does not necessarily have to disagree with any scientific theory about how we came into being.

There are creationists worthy of derision, but you have to be specific if you're going to go about deriding them. Six-day creationists are worthy of derision.

Creationism with a capital C is often used to describe the specific ideology of what you would call 'Six-day creationists', and, at least in my experiences, does not apply to any doctrine that believes in the creation of the universe from a higher power. Just like Evolutionism vs. evolution, one is a specific ideology that is widely accepted but not proven, the other is merely a scientific theory that we can prove has happened. Perhaps it is just an American thing, but I would never refer to a religious person who believed that God caused evolution as a 'Creationist'.

AlexMason wrote:

The fosil record does not disprove creationism, in fact it supports it. Dinosaurs and man did walk the earth at the same time, and it really shouldn't surprise you. In ancient times people told stories and paint pictures of these beasts, long before people began to find fosils of them.

The fossil record specifically shows no dinosaur remains after 65 mYa, and human fossil records show no human remains before 200,000 years ago. That's a big gap you have to explain sir, something that I don't think some crude drawings on the side of a cave or an ambiguous Bible reference even come close to explaining.

As for carbon dating, this practice has no real accuracy.

First off, radiocarbon dating uses practical science, you use an archaic book written by men hundreds of years after the supposed events happened. Radiocarbon dating may not be perfect, but you can't simply deny its use just because it gives you conflicting evidence.

Secondly, a few posts into my argument I changed from 'radiocarbon dating' to 'radiometric dating', and for good reason. As Esmo said, Carbon-14 as a medium for radiometric dating only gives us a timeline of a few thousand years. However, Carbon-14 is simply one of many elements used in radiometric dating.

The truth is that there is much more proof of creationist view than there is for any other.

No, there simply isn't.

You sir, have many years of brainwashing to undo. I wish you the best.

Agassi · Jul 4th 2010, 1:28am

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

The first recorded religious belief, out-dating all the religions you see today, was the Mesopotamian religion. It was a polytheistic religion, meaning they believed in more than one God (in fact, they believed in thousands of God's). They also believed the earth to be flat, and that the sea was where the universe originated from.

Since this was the "very first belief," is it automatically the correct one? Keep in mind that this religion existed before Christianity. Thousands of years before Christianity, actually.

Being recorded first doesn't make it the first. When there was only one "religion" why would you record it?

Zen · Jul 4th 2010, 1:46am

So you're proposing you have evidence contrary to Lukla's post on polytheism?

LuklaAdvocate · Jul 4th 2010, 2:56am

AlexMason wrote:

Being recorded first doesn't make it the first. When there was only one "religion" why would you record it?

There has never been "one" religion. The Greeks, Sumerian's, Egyptians, etc. each had their own religion.

Are you suggesting that Christianity was the first religion? Even though Judaism and the Hebrew Bible out-date Christianity? Christianity borrowed much of the Hebrew Text while creating the Bible's Old Testament. By the way, Christianity spawned due to Jesus. Before Jesus existed, there was no such thing as Christianity, and there were religions before Jesus.

Are you honestly convinced that Christianity was the first religion?

And yes, I'm aware that being recorded first doesn't make it the first. There were religions before the Mesopotamian religion. However, since there are no documents exhibiting which religion was actually first, how can you claim a specific religion was first?

Neal · Jul 4th 2010, 3:58am

DaGame wrote:

Out of the blue a singular point appeared....exploded....and expanded. Already...Im lost.

We don't know that.

DaGame wrote:

If EVERYTHING has a cause and effect...what caused the formation of this singular point?

What made up this point? And what made those things up? and so forth?

If there's no such thing as nothing...what was here before the point and whats gonna be here after the universe dies?

Watching videos leave me with twice as many questions then answers so i'll like to have an intelligent discussion with you guys.
Come on throw your 2 cents in.

The question is meaningless. Since the universe is, by definition, all that exists, your question reduces to "where did all that exists come from." For something to "come from" something else, there must be something else. So to ask "where did everything that exists come from" is to ask "what is there other than all that exists."

If you literally mean where did the physical matter come from, likely it came from energy. But I presume that answer's not going to satisfy you. For every "where did X come from" question, and every answer "X came from Y," the next question will be "where did Y come from."

Most likely, the whole series of questions is meaningless. At 1 time, we didn't understand gravity and thought things just naturally fell down. People who ask "what holds the Earth up?" And for any answer "the Earth is resting on a turtle," you could follow up with "well, what holds the turtle up?" And, of course, the answer was that the original premise was wrong -- the Earth does fall.

Likely your premise is wrong too. For reasons we do not fully understand, no such infinite regress is necessary. Frankly, I don't think it's necessary that everything have something else it came from. I have no problem with the universe having had a 1st state. Obviously, the 1st state could not have "come from" anything as that would imply a state prior to the first state.

TheHeroicOne · Jul 4th 2010, 8:23am

AlexMason wrote:

The belief that God created the world and all that inhabits it. It was the very first belief before there was any other, because it is the only true belief. It has been proven, but only on the individual level. God proves Himself to those who are willing to accept Him. If He were to prove Himself to the point where doubt is no more then there would be no need for faith. Christianity requires us to put faith in what cannot be proven. If you close your heart to God you will never understand, but those who open it up will be filled with the Holy Spirit.

I agree with the gist of this, but the relevance is kind of off to me. Yes, on an individual level, but faith believing in what can't be proven is more relevant to "other worldly" as it's sometimes put things, like what was said earlier about another dimension likely being the basis for the big bang. In this world science can prove things, we're here, right? We can see the sky, if someone told us we'd believe them, but you might not believe someone if they told you a guy died on a cross and suddenly the world is saved. It's the other stuff like understanding certain social issues and elements of Christianity that can only be proven on a personal level. Really good idea though, from one Christian to another, just more to it to make it sound less like "IF U BELEEEV IN JEEEZUZ U BE SAASAVED" than the revelation to it.

Share

Tags