The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

Who'd have thought the BC&P thread would end up as an amateur physics discussion? Well, if it fills the time until we get a creationist back on the thread...

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Who'd have thought the BC&P thread would end up as an amateur physics discussion? Well, if it fills the time until we get a creationist back on the thread...

J C's probably waiting a couple of pages so he doesn't have to deal with the niggling threat of your reply to his 'answers'. Maybe you could start copypasting that instead of the initial questions?

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

J C's probably waiting a couple of pages so he doesn't have to deal with the niggling threat of your reply to his 'answers'. Maybe you could start copypasting that instead of the initial questions?

I'll be sure to repost it whenever he shows up again. I'll probably repost the questions anyway, since the only person who's even tried to answer them is J C. Wouldn't mind hearing from Santing, Soul Winner, Wolfsbane and randomers like Pahu and suki.

We seem to have more or less routed them though.

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not with the givens of both systems. God being eternal, self-existent is a given. Your materialistic universe, however, has only original energy as the given. It has to account, using physical/chemical explanations, for how that energy became so organised that basic life came about, and that evolved to the incredible complexity we see today.

Perhaps you need to read a bit of Pullman? In his promotion of atheism he resorts to pantheism - that matter itself has a desire/purpose that causes it to develop from simple energy to complex lifeforms.

A desperate attempt to avoid the truth about God, but a more coherent explanation of reality than your dead-dog mechanistic model.

...the Materialists case is even WORSE that you have said, Wolfsbane ... the original energy isn't even a given ... and it's origins must be explained by Materialistic processes ... which so far has been WITHOUT success!!!!:pac::):D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...the Materialists case is even WORSE that you have said, Wolfsbane ... the original energy isn't even a given ... and it's origins must be explained by Materialistic processes ... which so far has been WITHOUT success!!!!:pac::):D

Well surely, when we want to explain the origins of everything, including God or not, there are no givens? Givens are only for sub-systems. We can't take God as a given either. If He exists, then we need to understand His nature fully if we wish to explain everything.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by -JammyDodger-
How about a dimensionless infinite absolute-void?

...sounds like a perfect description of some people's mind!!!!:eek::pac::):D

....really guys, the Materialistic explanation for the origin of both matter and life is so hopeless, I'm amazed that grown men continue to believe in it!!!

...first there was nothing and then it blew up!!!:eek:

....life originated on crystals!!!:eek:

....muck can spontaneously evolve into Man!!!:eek:

....and the cow jumped over the Moon!!!:eek:

....lads and lassies 'pull the other one' ... or better still believe on the Lord Jesus Christ ... and be saved!!!!:)

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

Careful

The universe did (or probably did) come from "nothing", but that gets into an interesting discussion about what "nothing" is. In scientific terms it means a vacuum, but even in a vacuum there exists fields, just fields at zero-energy.

There is no scientific theory which supposes that the universe came from nothing.

J C

J C wrote: »

..first there was nothing and then it blew up!!!:eek:

Show me a scientific theory that states this.

....life originated on crystals!!!:eek:

That's one theory; but it definitely isn't the only prevalent one.

....muck can spontaneously evolve into Man!!!:eek:

I believe that there was one, or maybe two, intermediate steps.:rolleyes: But if you'd like to paraphrase biological evolution, then yes, that's it, essentially.

J C

...and here are few quotes to fill the 'dimensionless infinite absolute-void' ... that may be present in some peoples minds!!!!

Prof Marc Kirschner (b 1945) Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School
"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Missing Links The Boston Globe October 23, 2005


John Lennox Reader in Mathematics at the University of Oxford

"The fact that there are scientists who appear to be at war with God is not quite the same as science itself being at war with God. For example, some musicians are militant atheists. But does that mean music itself is at war with God? Hardly. The point here may be expressed as follows: Statements by scientists are not necessarily statements of science. Nor, we might add, are such statements necessarily true; although the prestige of science is such that they are often taken to be so." God's Undertaker (2007) p.18

"The sheer vehemence of the protest (against questioning Evolution) fascinates me. Why is it so strong? Furthermore, why is it only in connection with this area of intellectual endeavour that I have ever heard an eminent scientist (with a Nobel Prize to his name, no less) say in a public lecture in Oxford: 'You must not question evolution'? After all, scientists have dared to question even Newton and Einstein. Indeed, most of us were (rightly -- dare I say?) brought up to believe that questioning standard wisdom was one of the most important ways in which science grows. All science, however well established, benefits from being periodically questioned. So why is there such a taboo on questioning evolution? Why is this, and only this, particular area of science a no-go area, fenced off from being questioned? " God's Undertaker (2007) p.93

"If we are prepared to look for scientific evidence of intelligent activity beyond our planet, why are we so hesitant about applying exactly the same thinking to what is on our planet? There seems here to be a glaring inconsistency which brings us to the nub of the question we referred to in the introduction: Is the attribution of intelligent design to the universe science? Scientists, we emphasize, seem quite happy to include forensic medicine and SETI in the realm of science. Why, then, the furore when some scientists claim that there is scientific evidence of intelligent causation in physics (small furore) or biology (large furore)? There is surely no difference in principle. Is the scientific method not applicable everywhere? " God's Undertaker (2007) p.165-6

J C

....and here are a few more ideas to help fill the 'dimensionless infinite absolute-void' .... before I go to bed!!!

John Lennox Reader in Mathematics at the University of Oxford

"Of particular interest for our discussion is the statement, 'By faith we understand that the universe was formed by God's word, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.' This quotation from ancient biblical literature is remarkable in that it draws attention to a basic characteristic of information, namely, that information is invisible. The carriers of information may well be visible -- like paper and writing, smoke-signals, television screens or DNA -- but the information itself is invisible.

Yet information is not only invisible: it is immaterial, is it not? You are reading this book; photons bounce off the book and are received by your eye, converted into electrical impulses and transmitted to your brain. Suppose you pass on some information from this book to a friend by word of mouth. The sound waves carry the information from your mouth to your friend's ear. from where they are converted into electrical impulses and transmitted into his brain. Your friend now has the information that originated in your mind, but nothing material has passed from you to your friend. The carriers of the information have been material, but the information itself is not material." God's Undertaker (2007) p.168

"Incidentally, is it not to be wondered at that our archaeologist immediately infers intelligent origin when faced with a few simple scratches whereas some scientists, when faced with the 3.5 billion letter sequence of the human genome, inform us that it is to be explained solely in terms of chance and necessity? " God's Undertaker (2007) p.172

"What is being presented to the public is 'First, comes the science, and then comes the worldview'. I would want to argue that that may not be the case. That it may actually be the other way around -- that the worldview comes first and is influencing the interpretation of science." Expelled April 18 2008 57.37

Say but the words "I believe on Jesus Christ" and you WILL be saved (Acts 16:31).

JC, in your signature, should it not read "I believe in Jesus Christ", instead of "I believe on Jesus Christ"?;)

AtomicHorror

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

JC, in your signature, should it not read "I believe in Jesus Christ", instead of "I believe on Jesus Christ"?;)

It is, I think, a phrasing specific to the King James Bible.

AtomicHorror

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It is, I think, a phrasing specific to the King James Bible.

Ya, you're right. Just looked it up there!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....and here are a few more ideas to help fill the 'dimensionless infinite absolute-void' .... before I go to bed!!!

John Lennox Reader in Mathematics at the University of Oxford

"Of particular interest for our discussion is the statement, 'By faith we understand that the universe was formed by God's word, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.' This quotation from ancient biblical literature is remarkable in that it draws attention to a basic characteristic of information, namely, that information is invisible. The carriers of information may well be visible -- like paper and writing, smoke-signals, television screens or DNA -- but the information itself is invisible.

Yet information is not only invisible: it is immaterial, is it not? You are reading this book; photons bounce off the book and are received by your eye, converted into electrical impulses and transmitted to your brain. Suppose you pass on some information from this book to a friend by word of mouth. The sound waves carry the information from your mouth to your friend's ear. from where they are converted into electrical impulses and transmitted into his brain. Your friend now has the information that originated in your mind, but nothing material has passed from you to your friend. The carriers of the information have been material, but the information itself is not material." God's Undertaker (2007) p.168

"Incidentally, is it not to be wondered at that our archaeologist immediately infers intelligent origin when faced with a few simple scratches whereas some scientists, when faced with the 3.5 billion letter sequence of the human genome, inform us that it is to be explained solely in terms of chance and necessity? " God's Undertaker (2007) p.172

"What is being presented to the public is 'First, comes the science, and then comes the worldview'. I would want to argue that that may not be the case. That it may actually be the other way around -- that the worldview comes first and is influencing the interpretation of science." Expelled April 18 2008 57.37

So, we wait weeks and weeks for you to respond to our questions, then we refute your responses and you revert back to quote spamming mode again. You're getting tiresomely predictable, J C.

kiffer

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So, we wait weeks and weeks for you to respond to our questions, then we refute your responses and you revert back to quote spamming mode again. You're getting tiresomely predictable, J C.

Better than Sukikettle and her "I don't read long posts", or posts with quotes in them, or answer questions or ask questions...
scratch that, ever since I stopped expecting a response from suki I've been entertained by her posts...

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

if a human created artificial intelligence (something humans may do in the next 100 years, it would not only be odd of a human to then require worship and praise from this newly created intelligence, but in fact I think the rest of us would look at him oddly for demanding such a thing

What if you donated an organ to him? You'd at least expect some thanks and praise for at least undergoing the trauma for his sake if not least for the fact that you are minus an organ. Part of you is enabling him to live. If all life comes from God then part of Him is enabling you to love. I think He deserves thanks and praise for that if its true.

Wicknight wrote: »

the idea that we should worship something that created us is an ancient and rather primitive human idea that goes back to the days of kings and class society. It has little justification in a modern post-enlightenment society. We don't worship our kings, we don't worship our parents, we don't worship our gods.

But we do worship many other things. Idols in the Old Testament were false Gods that were given worship instead of God. Modern day idols are things like giving time to anything else except God. Most of our time is spent on ourselves and as such we have become the idols, the false Gods. The word "worship" is a contraction of two words 'worth' and 'ship'. When you buy something in the shop you are in essence ‘worthshipping’ it. It is 'worthy' of your money, especially something that is not essential to the continuity of your life like a CD or a cinema ticket or a new jacket. There is nothing wrong with these things in themselves but when they are more important to you than your creator then it seems perfectly reasonable to me why He would get pissed off about it. To not be even recognized and thanked at least once in year for things given by Him I appreciate might result in at least a divine eye brow getting raised figuratively speaking of course.

Wicknight wrote: »

and to be honest if God exists and is supposed to be perfect from a moral point of view he would be the first to agree with this. he would no more expect us to worship and praise him (why dyoes a god want praise?) than I would expect A.I created by me to worship and praise me.

You're anthropomorphizing God. You're attributing to Him a trait that sits comfortable with you for Him to have. If the God of the Bible exists then He has already revealed what He is like and He does not like His people worshipping things before Him. Now this might be ‘ancient’ and ‘primitive’ to you but to an eternal and immutable God those traits are not likely to change anytime soon. And if He does exist then it is His prerogative to be whatever way He wishes to be.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Naturalistic Explanation = Complex systems arising through complex processes.

Theistic Explanation = God, who has always been there, just made it by speaking.

Wonderful...

Occam's razor favors the theistic explanation. Just because the explanation is simple does not mean that the process that was wrought was simple. Bakers bake bread is a simple explanation to how we get bread but we all know that bread getting to us involves a lot more than that. Crops have to grow, they have to be gathered and processed, the resulting product from this processing needs to be mixed with other ingredients, heat needs to be employed at a precise temperature and for a precise length of time and a certain degree of cooling needs be observed in order to maximize the taste and of the end product and avoid injury to the taster.

Morbert wrote: »

When did the universe not exist?

When there was no universe? At the singularity? The point of infinite density and zero volume?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

How about a dimensionless infinite absolute-void?

How about 'nothing isn't'? Maybe John Barrow has some answers in his apt titled: "The book of nothing!" I'm halfway through his and Tipler's 'Cosmological Anthropic Principle' and look forward to this one too.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Wouldn't mind hearing from Santing, Soul Winner, Wolfsbane and randomers like Pahu and suki.

We seem to have more or less routed them though.

Re your other questions, I wouldn't have a clue really but I will say that I have a better idea than I did 2 weeks ago before I started Bill Bryson's "A brief history of nearly everything", I finished it last night and I have to say although it has 500 pages plus I'd recommend it to any layperson wishing to get a handle on some basic scientific history and how science has progressed over the past 4 or 5 hundred years. Brilliantly written and very funny in parts.

Morbert wrote: »

There is no scientific theory which supposes that the universe came from nothing.

There is. It's called the "Big Bang theory". Surely you've heard of it? When all matter space and time itself was condensed into an infinitely dense volumeless nothingness state from which popped everything. At least that is my understanding of it.

J C wrote: »

....and here are a few more ideas to help fill the 'dimensionless infinite absolute-void' .... before I go to bed!!!

John Lennox Reader in Mathematics at the University of Oxford

"Of particular interest for our discussion is the statement, 'By faith we understand that the universe was formed by God's word, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.' This quotation from ancient biblical literature is remarkable in that it draws attention to a basic characteristic of information, namely, that information is invisible. The carriers of information may well be visible -- like paper and writing, smoke-signals, television screens or DNA -- but the information itself is invisible.

Yet information is not only invisible: it is immaterial, is it not? You are reading this book; photons bounce off the book and are received by your eye, converted into electrical impulses and transmitted to your brain. Suppose you pass on some information from this book to a friend by word of mouth. The sound waves carry the information from your mouth to your friend's ear. from where they are converted into electrical impulses and transmitted into his brain. Your friend now has the information that originated in your mind, but nothing material has passed from you to your friend. The carriers of the information have been material, but the information itself is not material." God's Undertaker (2007) p.168

"Incidentally, is it not to be wondered at that our archaeologist immediately infers intelligent origin when faced with a few simple scratches whereas some scientists, when faced with the 3.5 billion letter sequence of the human genome, inform us that it is to be explained solely in terms of chance and necessity? " God's Undertaker (2007) p.172

"What is being presented to the public is 'First, comes the science, and then comes the worldview'. I would want to argue that that may not be the case. That it may actually be the other way around -- that the worldview comes first and is influencing the interpretation of science." Expelled April 18 2008 57.37

I take it you've read "God's Undertaker"? I'm adding it to cart as we speak

sukikettle

Kiffer get an afterlife hun

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

What if you donated an organ to him? You'd at least expect some thanks and praise for at least undergoing the trauma for his sake if not least for the fact that you are minus an organ.

Well no, I wouldn't. And I certainly wouldn't expect them to worship me

This is also ignoring the fact that God didn't donate anything to us. God creating the universe was as easy as me sitting here in this chair breathing. What "trauma" did God under go to create the universe?

Soul Winner wrote: »

If all life comes from God then part of Him is enabling you to love. I think He deserves thanks and praise for that if its true.

I know you do, but you seem to view these things differently to me, which is probably why you accept all this stuff as quite rational and proper.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But we do worship many other things. Idols in the Old Testament were false Gods that were given worship instead of God. Modern day idols are things like giving time to anything else except God.

That is a nonsense definition of worship designed purely to suit your religion. Me doing my dry cleaning is not worshipping false idols.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Most of our time is spent on ourselves and as such we have become the idols, the false Gods.

I can't really see anything more self obsessed than religion Soul Winner. You talk about people being obsessed with looking after themselves but your whole religion is based around saving yourself.

Besides I'm not sure why worshipping God is any better than worshipping yourself. It's not like God needs it or anything.

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with these things in themselves but when they are more important to you than your creator then it seems perfectly reasonable to me why He would get pissed off about it.

Not in the slightest. Why would he get annoyed by that? He is a god for crying out loud. You think a god get annoyed that one of his creations bought a cinema ticket?

Again if I created A.I I would not require, need or except my little creations to worship me. I wouldn't care if they even knew I existed. I wouldn't be creating them for the pay back, creating them to be worshipped by them. I would be creating them so they exist, and after that I wouldn't care what they thought of me.

It is bewildering to me that you guys assign a level of emotional neediness to a god that would seem a bit pathetic in a human.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You're anthropomorphizing God. You're attributing to Him a trait that sits comfortable with you for Him to have. If the God of the Bible exists then He has already revealed what He is like and He does not like His people worshipping things before Him.

But the whole Bible is anthropomorphizing God, that is the point and probably why he seems to pleasing and rational to you. He is basically a human, he acts like a human, he thinks like a human and he feels like a human, and one that acts in quite a flawed human fashion.

And more importantly he acts and feels and behaves like humans 5,000 years ago, strangely enough around the time the Bible stories started to appear in human culture.

To believe that an all powerful and eternal god would feel and behave like a mesopotamian king rather stretches the bounds of credibility.

And if God is just like an ancient king I see that as a pretty good reason not to worship him or take moral guidance from him.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Occam's razor favors the theistic explanation.

Only if one doesn't understand Occam's razor, which very few around here seem to.

The introduction of an assumption of a deity to explain something like the universe is a text book example of doing the opposite of Occam's razor. For a start "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything since no one can tell us what God actually did.

Gryphonboy

Equally, what “facts, laws, inferences or tested hypotheses” can satisfactory answer any of the following valid scientific questions in relation to evolution? None of the following questions are valid scientific questions. Using big words and scientific terminology you clearly do not understand does not make them scientific. Fail.

1. Have we observed any mechanism spontaneously generating life – it should still be there somewhere if Evolution is true? That’s not what evolution is. See Abiogenesis...Fail.2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility? See answer to question 1. Fail

3. If the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy, evolutioists would definitively conclude that they had found proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – so why do evolutionists not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is also proof of intelligence AKA God? It’s not an if / therefore question. Fail

4. If evolution is ongoing there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures. Why has not even ONE continuum ever been observed among either living or fossil creatures for a functioning useful structure? It is, there are and they have. Every fossil is an intermediary and every living organism is an intermediary between its parents and its offspring. Fail

5. Why do our Mitochondrial DNA sequences (which are inherited in the female line i.e. 100% from our mothers) show that all human beings are originally descended from ONE woman? Two words, Common Ancestor. There was a first ‘human’ woman but she wasn’t created from thin air, she was born just like the rest of us. Fail
6. Why do our Y-chromosome sequences (which are inherited in the male line i.e. 100% from our fathers) show that all men are originally descended from ONE man?See answer to question 5. Fail

7. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design and production of observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind? See, Theory of Evolution. It explains it quite well. Fail

8. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design of the observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are multiple orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems? See, Theory of Evolution. It explains it quite well. Fail, you do know what the theory of evolution is don’t you?

9. Why do some scientists continue to believe that the Human Genome was an ”accident of nature” – while they know that the super computers and gene sequencers that they had to use to decode it, were created through the purposeful application of intelligent design? I don’t know, why don’t you ask them. I do know that they don’t believe it was an accident of nature. Fail

10. Why do we observe great perfection and genetic diversity in all species when “dog eat dog” Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity necessary for the short-term survival of the individual? Please provide evidence of perfection in all species. Most biological systems fail within a relatively short period even if they survive predation for any length of time. Fail.

11. Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions most of the time? It is not the ‘only’ mechanism...see Descent, Migration(Gene flow), Genetic Drift and Natural selection. Nor does it invariably damage the genome. Most times it has no effect at all. Fail

12. Any putative ‘evolving organism’ is statistically just as likely to be taking two “critical amino acid sequence” steps backwards for every one step forwards, as it is to be going the other way around. If ALL critical amino acid sequences except the CORRECT one will confer NO advantage – how can a population “work up” to the correct critical amino acid sequence through “genetic drift” or Natural Selection ? Natural selection, that’s how. Are you even listening? Fail>

13. Why do we observe that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and not the other way around, if Evolution is true? I don’t understand the question. Therefore you fail!

14. How do you explain the origins of DNA when the production of DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”? Hard to say, there isn’t much fossil evidence of ancient dna/rna.

15. Why have we never observed any species to actually INCREASE genetic information over time if “upwards and onwards” Evolution is in action out there? What in Gods name are you blathering about? Fail

16. With odds in excess of 10 to the power of 1,800,000,000 against the production of the nucleic acid sequence of the Human Genome by accident – how do you explain it’s existence using random chance Evolution when the number of electrons in the known universe are only 10 to the power of 82? Making up odds and then using them to disprove an argument is the definition of a ‘Strawman’. Fail.

17. Why is it claimed that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a scientific mystery? See answer to question 1. Fail.

18. What is the evolutionary explanation for the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life? The Cambrian explosion is quite well explained by evolution. It certainly makes more sense than God looking at his creation and thinking, "You know what, I didn't create enough ****. Lets add some stuff."

19. Why is it claimed that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred? Source? Fail. At any rate, adaptation appears to have been taking place here, therefore...evolution.

20. Why is it claimed that fruit flies with an extra pair of wings is evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory? Because it is. Fail.

21. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like? The theory of evolution makes no philosophical/moral arguments. The evidence is what it is. Deal with it. Fail.

kiffer

sukikettle wrote: »

Kiffer get an afterlife hun

Ah suki...
This is what I mean. This post will keep me entertained for hours(*).
While obviously a version of "get a life", which in itself is insulting, one could also take it to suggest that I should get an afterlife as soon as possible... And seeing as you don't actually have an afterlife(**) till after your corporeal life is over, it could be taken as a suggestion that I should kill myself, or just die.
The subtle twist of 'die in a fire' and 'become an hero', a long with the hun at the end to try to take the edge off.


Of course suki I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant...


Now that you're posting again perhaps you would consider responding to the question I asked about tree rings?
I know you don't do the whole answering questions thing but my post was, to be frank, simple enough for a school child to get through.
I'm not asking you to deal with any complex ideas, chemistry, maths or physics. Your original response just poopooed carbon dating which was not mentioned in my post at all but failure to address the contents of the post is not suprising seeing as we know you didn't read the post because it was to long.

I'd quote the post here but I'm already worried that I might have hit your tl;dr limit. I'll link to it instead...

* entertainment time may not be hours
** you may have the promise/potential of an afterlife but not the thing itself.

AtomicHorror

Gryphonboy wrote: »

Equally, what “facts, laws, inferences or tested hypotheses” can satisfactory answer any of the following valid scientific questions in relation to evolution? None of the following questions are valid scientific questions. Using big words and scientific terminology you clearly do not understand does not make them scientific. Fail.

Welcome to the thread that Reason forgot. You may notice some dizziness and nausea initially. This is caused by the thread going in circles constantly.

Thank you for joining us :pac:

AtomicHorror

sukikettle wrote: »

Kiffer get an afterlife hun

I'm quoting you because I know you don't like it. That is all.

The Mad Hatter

Gryphonboy: That was your first post on Boards? Impressive...

As AH said, welcome to the megathread. Our resident creationist's (there's really only one left arguing) circles are getting smaller and smaller. Enjoy the show.

Soul Winner

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is. It's called the "Big Bang theory". Surely you've heard of it? When all matter space and time itself was condensed into an infinitely dense volumeless nothingness state from which popped everything. At least that is my understanding of it.

The Big Bang Theory states what happened after this singularity started to expand. It doesn't state anything about the singularity itself, nor does it say what happened before the initial expansion.

If you're discussing what happened in, or before, the singularity: then, you're not discussing the Big Bang Theory.

I'll say it again: I'm not aware of any generally, or even remotely, accepted scientific theory that states the universe came from nothing. If you can show me one, I'd be greatful.

2Scoops

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Our resident creationist's (there's really only one left babbling) circles are getting smaller and smaller. Enjoy the show.

FYP.

santing

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The Big Bang Theory states what happened after this singularity started to expand. It doesn't state anything about the singularity itself, nor does it say what happened before the initial expansion.

If you're discussing what happened in, or before, the singularity: then, you're not discussing the Big Bang Theory.

I'll say it again: I'm not aware of any generally, or even remotely, accepted scientific theory that states the universe came from nothing. If you can show me one, I'd be greatful.

The popular "All About Science" websites starts with:

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

The popular "All About Science" websites starts with:

Popular science websites are a great place to start learning about these kinds of topics, but you certainly shouldn't consider them to be the final word or the most up to date. They simplify by necessity. Fact is, there's a whole lot that is not understood about the nature of the early universe or the conditions "before" the big bang (or perhaps more accurately "outside" since time was also a product of the BB). There's even been a few recent physics papers suggesting tentative evidence of the interactions of our universe with possible other universes or with matter outside of our observable universe.

Mind you, a lot of it melts my brain entirely- I don't have the makings of a physicist.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is. It's called the "Big Bang theory". Surely you've heard of it? When all matter space and time itself was condensed into an infinitely dense volumeless nothingness state from which popped everything. At least that is my understanding of it.

The Big Bang theory does not claim this.

The popular "All About Science" websites starts with:

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

The "All about Science" website is wrong.

The Mad Hatter

Morbert wrote: »

The Big Bang theory does not claim this.

Could you give a fly-by tour of what it does claim?

Genuinely curious, btw.

santing

santing wrote: »

The popular "All About Science" websites starts with:

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

The quote you've given explains that the Big Bang Theory doesn't concern itself with what came before: read the highlighted bit carefully.

It's simple, the BBT doesn't even address the issue of what came before. If you're talking about what came before, you're not talking about the BBT.