A Creation Story for Materialists

[5stringJeff]

For all the atheists, materialists, etc. etc...

-------------------
In the beginning was Nothing and Nothing created Everything. When Nothing decided to create Everything, she filled a tiny dot with Time, Chance, and Everything and had it explode. The explosion spread Everything into Everywhere carrying Time and Chance with it to keep it company. The three stretched out together leaving bits of themselves wherever they went. One of those places was the planet Earth.

Read the rest... http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001610.html

 

[SpidermanTuba]

That's a pretty severe misrepresentation of cosomological theory. We've seen it all before. Science doesn't tell us what happened or what caused the Big Bang - it doesn't need to.

For all the atheists, materialists, etc. etc...

-------------------
In the beginning was Nothing and Nothing created Everything. When Nothing decided to create Everything, she filled a tiny dot with Time, Chance, and Everything and had it explode. The explosion spread Everything into Everywhere carrying Time and Chance with it to keep it company. The three stretched out together leaving bits of themselves wherever they went. One of those places was the planet Earth.

Read the rest... http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001610.html

 

[dilloduck]

That's a pretty severe misrepresentation of cosomological theory. We've seen it all before. Science doesn't tell us what happened or what caused the Big Bang - it doesn't need to.

Intersting----then why do creationists have to explain everything?

 

[5stringJeff]

That's a pretty severe misrepresentation of cosomological theory. We've seen it all before. Science doesn't tell us what happened or what caused the Big Bang - it doesn't need to.

Science doesn't need to explain the origin of matter?

 

[no1tovote4]

That's a pretty severe misrepresentation of cosomological theory. We've seen it all before. Science doesn't tell us what happened or what caused the Big Bang - it doesn't need to.

So you are saying there is a total lack of hypothesis or theory regarding the origin of the universe? I think you may not have as much knowledge of this subject as you attempt to convince us that you have.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

That's a pretty severe misrepresentation of cosomological theory. We've seen it all before. Science doesn't tell us what happened or what caused the Big Bang - it doesn't need to.

Science certainly does need to explain what caused the Big Bang. Physicists are currently trying to figure out what happened before the big bang through their equations. Kinda like backwards engineering. So far they can only theorize what conditions were like just after the big bang. But they're working hard to keep it coming and I know all of you are just as excited as I am to hear what they find!

 

[Harmageddon]

What fascinates me is the length to which these stories go to discredit scientific progress. Hey, at least there is progress.

How amazed I was reading Genesis in highschool,
my little mind could hardly comprehend the vastness of it all.

On the first day God creates the heaven and earth.
And there is darkness in the deep. Gods spirit moves over the waters.
He then goes on to create light and divides it from the darkness.
And calls the light day, and the darkness night.
Fair enough, seems reasonable.

Then he chills out for a bit, goes back to work, creates a firmament in the midst of the waters and thus shapes the heavens above and the dry earth and the wet seas beneath. So far for the second day.

After another well deserved rest, he busies himself with the creation of grasses, seeds and trees. And all is well. Time for a nap.

But then on the fourth day, God creates the bodies on the heavens, the sun, the moon and the stars.

There I was, with my scientific mindset, thinking the sun was the source of our light on earth.

Silly me.

By the way, the waters are fascinating in their own respect.
For nowhere does it state that God creates them.
They were already there.

How could this be?
Of course, I have the answer, but I'll let you ponder it for a bit.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Science doesn't need to explain the origin of matter?

Scientists do not need to explain what happened before the Big Bang to tell you what happened after. If that were true - the only acceptable scientific theory would be one which explains everything.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So you are saying there is a total lack of hypothesis or theory regarding the origin of the universe? I think you may not have as much knowledge of this subject as you attempt to convince us that you have.

There are plenty of plausible theories of what came before the Big Bang - but none convincing enough to be accepted as the truth of the matter.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Science certainly does need to explain what caused the Big Bang. Physicists are currently trying to figure out what happened before the big bang through their equations. Kinda like backwards engineering. So far they can only theorize what conditions were like just after the big bang. But they're working hard to keep it coming and I know all of you are just as excited as I am to hear what they find!

I would like to know about this work. Who is doing it?

 

[Nuc]

Intersting----then why do creationists have to explain everything?

Creationists who try to confuse religion with science may have to explain things. As long as they stick to religion and/or mythology, they can continue on faith as they have for aeons and no one really cares. Trying to spike the scientific punch with religion is problematic.

If a musician says an A minor scale, for instance, is good for creating a certain mood that is an opinion within his realm of knowledge. If a musician says the universe was created by the same series of musical notes, proof is required.

 

[manu1959]

Creationists who try to confuse religion with science may have to explain things. As long as they stick to religion and/or mythology, they can continue on faith as they have for aeons and no one really cares. Trying to spike the scientific punch with religion is problematic.

If a musician says an A minor scale, for instance, is good for creating a certain mood that is an opinion within his realm of knowledge. If a musician says the universe was created by the same series of musical notes, proof is required.

why do you equate the factual existence of Christ and his teachings with mythology and magic and the like....Christ’s teachings are every bid as valid as any other philosopher

 

[Nuc]

why do you equate the factual existence of Christ and his teachings with mythology and magic and the like....Christ’s teachings are every bid as valid as any other philosopher

The question was creationism, not whether or not Christ existed. Certainly there was a man called Jesus. The fact that he existed has nothing to do with science. End of story.

 

[manu1959]

The question was creationism, not whether or not Christ existed. Certainly there was a man called Jesus. The fact that he existed has nothing to do with science. End of story.

i saw the question ..... i am well aware what it was asking ..... i asked you a different question .... specifically about a phrase you favour whenever you speak of religion .... i will ask it a differnet way .... why do always denegrate religion when you speak of it ?

 

[Nuc]

i saw the question ..... i am well aware what it was asking ..... i asked you a different question .... specifically about a phrase you favour whenever you speak of religion .... i will ask it a differnet way .... why do always denegrate religion when you speak of it ?

If you tell me what phrase that would be helpful.

 

[manu1959]

If you tell me what phrase that would be helpful.

magic apples ... fairy tales ... mythology

 

[Nuc]

magic apples ... fairy tales ... mythology

OK, I have never said magic apples or fairy tales. If you disagree provide the link.

Mythology I have mentioned because all the major and most of the minor religions feature it. Would you care to disprove that? You can't, so just silence yourself.

 

[Harmageddon]

Dudes, the Big Bang has already been debunked.

Dozens of times. Check:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

So if some creationist/christian type of guy wishes to get scientists up on the walls over some sesame street explanation of the Big Bang theory he shall have to try a little harder. It's not surprising he's running after the facts by several decades, since most of these people have an inclination to do so.

Of course, the story is just his opinion on things, and a fairly well written one as well, so I've got no problems there. Freedom of expression for everybody!

So how about the water?

 

[dilloduck]

Dudes, the Big Bang has already been debunked.

Dozens of times. Check:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

So if some creationist/christian type of guy wishes to get scientists up on the walls over some sesame street explanation of the Big Bang theory he shall have to try a little harder. It's not surprising he's running after the facts by several decades, since most of these people have an inclination to do so.

Of course, the story is just his opinion on things, and a fairly well written one as well, so I've got no problems there. Freedom of expression for everybody!

So how about the water?

Not all Chistians believe in a strictly literal translation of the Bible. Try looking at Genesis metaphorically and remember when it was written.

 

[no1tovote4]

There are plenty of plausible theories of what came before the Big Bang - but none convincing enough to be accepted as the truth of the matter.

Which ones are plausible? What caused nothing to blow up and make something? If it was something that blew up where did that something come from? What observable data and evidence do they use to make one hypothesis more plausible than the other?