I have a question for those who hate creationism

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I, for one, do not ‘hate creationism,’ it’s clearly religion, not science, and should be treated as such. It’s the disingenuous, partisan politicians who try to pass it off as science in violation of the Establishment Clause I have disdain for.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, I'm sorry but I don't know that I'm wrong. I feel quite right keeping an open mind for ALL possibilities that I have recognized or have occurred to me or that are still to be introduced. Perhaps you allow for other possible explanations to be revealed. Many of your fellows who are what I call science religionists do not allow or any other explanation.

In one breath you say that the big bang is only the explanation we have and requires no faith and in the second breath you say that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe and nothing existed before the big bang? Do you know how implausible that sounds to somebody like me that wonders where the stuff of the universe came from to begin with. It just miraculously appeared? From nothing? Do you realize how unscientific such a concept is????

And yet some super/supreme being that has supposedly always "been" just went abracadabra and 'voila, here is the universe' is not 'miraculous'? And credible?

I didn't bring up a super/supreme being. So why did you?

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes even the big bang requires faith that the observable expansion of the universe has been expanding since the big bang and will always continue to do so. We do not know whether there is some kind of force field or whatever out there that the furthermost objects in this part of the universe (assuming there could be even more 'universes' out there) will and/or do eventually reach and then reverse and go the opposite or a different direction.

The big bang is the most plausible theory that science has come up with for what science is a capable of observing at this time. But it is a theory, not a fact, and does require faith to believe it is the ONLY possible way things could be what we observe.

Wrong fox, and you know it is wrong. No one anywhere ever stated that the big bang was the ONLY option. It is just the best one that we currently have. That requires ZERO faith. Period. You are trying to force the way you see things, with faith, on others that do not share that trait. Please stop, it is annoying.

Again the Big Bang is NOT an explanation for the origins of the Universe. It is only the most popular theory for why things behave the way they are currently behaving.

I think the author of the OP had a much larger vision than that when he started the thread. He can correct me if I am wrong about that.

Quite the contrary, the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe. That is the center of the theory. Before the big bang happened, as the theory goes, the universe and all the physical laws that it follows did not exist. Therefore it is the beginning. Anything before that is rather meaningless as time did not necessarily exist ‘before’ the big bang though there are some theories that are based in string theory that try and define what made up the material that the big bang started with. Those, however, are far beyond the scope of an internet board and my mathematical or scientific knowledge. I can’t begin to properly understand a fourth dimension let alone the many that string theory works with.

No, I'm sorry but I don't know that I'm wrong. I feel quite right keeping an open mind for ALL possibilities that I have recognized or have occurred to me or that are still to be introduced. Perhaps you allow for other possible explanations to be revealed. Many of your fellows who are what I call science religionists do not allow or any other explanation.

In one breath you say that the big bang is only the explanation we have and requires no faith and in the second breath you say that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe and nothing existed before the big bang? Do you know how implausible that sounds to somebody like me that wonders where the stuff of the universe came from to begin with. It just miraculously appeared? From nothing? Do you realize how unscientific such a concept is????

I did not mean to say that your supposition was wrong. What I meant was that you were wrong in your assertion that those who put stock in the big bang theory are doing so with faith as well as the assertion that anyone here is saying that is the only way it could have happened. The big bang is the best so far. Nothing is discounted but the evidence points to the current theory. When that evidence changes, so too will the prominent theory.

That explanation is quite scientific. Like I said, you would need to understand current string theory in order for it to make sense and I lack the knowledge to make that even remotely clear. Imagine if time did not exist. In that setting, where things ‘came’ from and where they are going are meaningless yet that is the vision that is currently being used. Strings that are one dimensional causing all that we see and experience. The overriding theory would be meaningless if not for the fact it can be proven mathematically AND makes accurate predictions of particles. It may not be intuitive but neither is quantum mechanics and that seem to be well established.

 

[Woyzeck]

I would prefer that we all have open minds and discuss all possibilities for the origins of the universe, scientific and non scientific and the pros and cons of each. But that's just me.

So Creationism. You want to talk about creationism. Or 'intelligent design' Whatever fancy name you want to use That's what you're implying here. Come out and say it. It's the only major non-scientific "theory" that ever gets brought up against the Big Bang.

Again the Big Bang is NOT an explanation for the origins of the Universe. It is only the most popular theory for why things behave the way they are currently behaving.

I think the author of the OP had a much larger vision than that when he started the thread. He can correct me if I am wrong about that.

So that's a yes on the creationism bit? You're trying super hard to not say it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I, for one, do not ‘hate creationism,’ it’s clearly religion, not science, and should be treated as such. It’s the disingenuous, partisan politicians who try to pass it off as science in violation of the Establishment Clause I have disdain for.

Nah! You reserve your disdain for the Free Exercise Clause as you impose your scientism on others.

We see ya clearly.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And you'd prefer we discuss... what? Creationism?

I would prefer that we all have open minds and discuss all possibilities for the origins of the universe, scientific and non scientific and the pros and cons of each. But that's just me.

So Creationism. You want to talk about creationism. Or 'intelligent design' Whatever fancy name you want to use That's what you're implying here. Come out and say it. It's the only major non-scientific "theory" that ever gets brought up against the Big Bang.

That is odd, isn't it? I've noticed that too. However, the Big Bang Theory and ID are not incompatible, and for that matter, the former is not incompatible with creationism either.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Other ideas. . . .

Why God did not Create the Universe

Big Bang Abondoned

 

[hortysir]

No, I'm sorry but I don't know that I'm wrong. I feel quite right keeping an open mind for ALL possibilities that I have recognized or have occurred to me or that are still to be introduced. Perhaps you allow for other possible explanations to be revealed. Many of your fellows who are what I call science religionists do not allow or any other explanation.

In one breath you say that the big bang is only the explanation we have and requires no faith and in the second breath you say that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe and nothing existed before the big bang? Do you know how implausible that sounds to somebody like me that wonders where the stuff of the universe came from to begin with. It just miraculously appeared? From nothing? Do you realize how unscientific such a concept is????

And yet some super/supreme being that has supposedly always "been" just went abracadabra and 'voila, here is the universe' is not 'miraculous'? And credible?

Your's is the only side of the BB/ID debate that belittles the other for their beliefs.

Any and everyone can easily see the difference in your's and FF's replies.

In fact, come to think of it, I don't believe I've ever heard a creationist say that their theory is the only one possible and that anyone that thinks differently is an idiot.

 

[FA_Q2]

wrog thread

 

[Montrovant]

No, I'm sorry but I don't know that I'm wrong. I feel quite right keeping an open mind for ALL possibilities that I have recognized or have occurred to me or that are still to be introduced. Perhaps you allow for other possible explanations to be revealed. Many of your fellows who are what I call science religionists do not allow or any other explanation.

In one breath you say that the big bang is only the explanation we have and requires no faith and in the second breath you say that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe and nothing existed before the big bang? Do you know how implausible that sounds to somebody like me that wonders where the stuff of the universe came from to begin with. It just miraculously appeared? From nothing? Do you realize how unscientific such a concept is????

And yet some super/supreme being that has supposedly always "been" just went abracadabra and 'voila, here is the universe' is not 'miraculous'? And credible?

Your's is the only side of the BB/ID debate that belittles the other for their beliefs.

Any and everyone can easily see the difference in your's and FF's replies.

In fact, come to think of it, I don't believe I've ever heard a creationist say that their theory is the only one possible and that anyone that thinks differently is an idiot.

Perhaps you haven't seen many of these arguments. I have many times seen creationists say they are definitely right; if they are right, every other theory is wrong, no other is possible. It is not just proponents of the Big Bang that discount others' beliefs.

 

[geauxtohell]

wrog thread

Better than facing the music in the on-topic threads.

Kind of like being an intellectual fugitive.

 

[AllieBaba]

And yet some super/supreme being that has supposedly always "been" just went abracadabra and 'voila, here is the universe' is not 'miraculous'? And credible?

Your's is the only side of the BB/ID debate that belittles the other for their beliefs.

Any and everyone can easily see the difference in your's and FF's replies.

In fact, come to think of it, I don't believe I've ever heard a creationist say that their theory is the only one possible and that anyone that thinks differently is an idiot.

Perhaps you haven't seen many of these arguments. I have many times seen creationists say they are definitely right; if they are right, every other theory is wrong, no other is possible. It is not just proponents of the Big Bang that discount others' beliefs.

You skipped over the part that illustrates the arrogance of the anti-creationists...the ones that say that all those who believe in a Creator are stupid, ignorant, brain dead, so on and so forth. It's their primary argument for ...some other theory. No specific theory (they don't have one). Their theory is just that GOD DOESN'T EXIST and so people who think he created the universe are worthy of ridicule.

 

[FA_Q2]

Your's is the only side of the BB/ID debate that belittles the other for their beliefs.

Any and everyone can easily see the difference in your's and FF's replies.

In fact, come to think of it, I don't believe I've ever heard a creationist say that their theory is the only one possible and that anyone that thinks differently is an idiot.

Perhaps you haven't seen many of these arguments. I have many times seen creationists say they are definitely right; if they are right, every other theory is wrong, no other is possible. It is not just proponents of the Big Bang that discount others' beliefs.

You skipped over the part that illustrates the arrogance of the anti-creationists...the ones that say that all those who believe in a Creator are stupid, ignorant, brain dead, so on and so forth. It's their primary argument for ...some other theory. No specific theory (they don't have one). Their theory is just that GOD DOESN'T EXIST and so people who think he created the universe are worthy of ridicule.

But who is making those statements? Mostly people like truth and dean…

What is the point of framing an argument against the likes of those…

 

[Shogun]

But then you have jumped from the theory of evolution to the primordial soup (abiogenetics) and I have been told by oh so many evolutionists that those two topics are not the same.

Which would be correct in my opinion, but either God (or some other intelligent being) created life or life was created by more luck than that of one hundred million lottery winners.

Immie

similar crazy odds are associated with being struck by lightening; but, it still happens. Your inability to fathom an occurrence doesn't mean said occurrence never happened. Science deals with evidence; not presupposed dismissal due to assumed odds of something happening. From digit bones in whales to blind cave tetra to the platypus, there is more evidence for evolution than there is biblical origin myths.

Wrong, the odds of being struck by lightning are nothing near the odds I indicated.

There is no "evidence" of Abiogenesis, no evidence of a primordial soup.

Immie

oh well.. i'm glad you were able to claim as much without citing nary a single comparative statistic!

 

[Old Rocks]

No, I'm sorry but I don't know that I'm wrong. I feel quite right keeping an open mind for ALL possibilities that I have recognized or have occurred to me or that are still to be introduced. Perhaps you allow for other possible explanations to be revealed. Many of your fellows who are what I call science religionists do not allow or any other explanation.

In one breath you say that the big bang is only the explanation we have and requires no faith and in the second breath you say that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of the universe and nothing existed before the big bang? Do you know how implausible that sounds to somebody like me that wonders where the stuff of the universe came from to begin with. It just miraculously appeared? From nothing? Do you realize how unscientific such a concept is????

And yet some super/supreme being that has supposedly always "been" just went abracadabra and 'voila, here is the universe' is not 'miraculous'? And credible?

Your's is the only side of the BB/ID debate that belittles the other for their beliefs.

Any and everyone can easily see the difference in your's and FF's replies.

In fact, come to think of it, I don't believe I've ever heard a creationist say that their theory is the only one possible and that anyone that thinks differently is an idiot.

LOL. Grew up in a very fundementalist family. Don't even try to tell that kind of BS.

 

[Old Rocks]

Your's is the only side of the BB/ID debate that belittles the other for their beliefs.

Any and everyone can easily see the difference in your's and FF's replies.

In fact, come to think of it, I don't believe I've ever heard a creationist say that their theory is the only one possible and that anyone that thinks differently is an idiot.

Perhaps you haven't seen many of these arguments. I have many times seen creationists say they are definitely right; if they are right, every other theory is wrong, no other is possible. It is not just proponents of the Big Bang that discount others' beliefs.

You skipped over the part that illustrates the arrogance of the anti-creationists...the ones that say that all those who believe in a Creator are stupid, ignorant, brain dead, so on and so forth. It's their primary argument for ...some other theory. No specific theory (they don't have one). Their theory is just that GOD DOESN'T EXIST and so people who think he created the universe are worthy of ridicule.

And there are a like number of creationists that state the same about those that cite the evidence for evolution that is all around us. From the genes within our cells to the rocks underneath our feet.

I don't pretend to know how the universe came to be. However, from the evidence that I see, evolution occurred, is occuring, and will continue to occur for as long as life exsts on this planet. And this fact looks to be completely independent of the existance, or lack thereof, of a Diety.

 

[Shogun]

Platypus Genome Explains Animal's Peculiar Features; Holds Clues To Evolution Of Mammals

 

[techieny]

Anybody have a good answer to what the object is depicted in the NASA SDO image of the sun 12/10?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

similar crazy odds are associated with being struck by lightening; but, it still happens. Your inability to fathom an occurrence doesn't mean said occurrence never happened. Science deals with evidence; not presupposed dismissal due to assumed odds of something happening. From digit bones in whales to blind cave tetra to the platypus, there is more evidence for evolution than there is biblical origin myths.

Wrong, the odds of being struck by lightning are nothing near the odds I indicated.

There is no "evidence" of Abiogenesis, no evidence of a primordial soup.

Immie

oh well.. i'm glad you were able to claim as much without citing nary a single comparative statistic!

i believe you once said its impossile to prove a negative..........or was it someone else

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Anybody have a good answer to what the object is depicted in the NASA SDO image of the sun 12/10?

mind re-posting the picture or a link?

i'll give you my 2 cents.