I would just like to say that I find major fault in the Big Bang theory. There was a massive explosion billions of years ago that created all the stars planets and matter in the universe. Where did the materials come from to create this massive explosion? It's just something that will never be proven. I believe we have too small a view to prove anything. We can only make assumptions based on what we see on and from our little planet. Just like religion, science relies very heavily on believing in something that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Faith.
I won't try to respond to that since I know so very little about physics myself.
This is the reply I sent to AiG's response to my original message. I sent it several weeks ago, and have yet to receive an answer. They've done a good job of proving exactly the opposite of what they're trying to do by not responding.
I appreciate your responding to my message. However, after reading through your response (and several of the links you included in it), I realized that you never actually answered my question.
The first one, in particular, I found a little irritating. The article starts with the question it is attempting to answer: "Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:
‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’"
Now, this is exactly the question I have. I am not a Christian. I went to church for a number of years, but I stopped recently. I didn't like the way the people in my congregation acted as if Christianity was "better" than all other religions. I'm not accusing all Christians of this, but the ones belonging to my church certainly were guilty of it. Also, I started questioning some of the ideals of Christianity. I didn't want to believe everything the Bible said just because a preacher told me to. Heck, a lot of it just didn't make sense to me. A lot of people told me that if I accepted it fully as God's word, and the truth, it would start to make sense. The problem was, there's no way I could be sure that it is in fact God's word. It was, in fact, written by men, and as you pointed out, man's word is fallible.
Anyways, the article was somewhat hypocritical. The first statement (above) was about how non-Christian friends of the author wanted proof of Creation anyone could believe. I was expecting that he would answer it. He didn't. He basically implied that you have to accept the Bible as God's word before you can believe creation. That flatly contradicts something else he wrote: "What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result. "
So, first he says this. You have to know how to think rather than just what to think. I agree with him 100% on this one. But then he goes on to imply that the Bible isn't true unless you make it true for yourself. He's contradicting himself; there is no living proof that the Bible is true, yet he says that you have to believe it before Creation? That doesn't make any sense. I know how to think. I have taken several science classes that focused on just that--how to think, and not to assume anything without evidence, and not to believe everything you are told.
Anyways, you still haven't answered my original question: I am not a Christian, and I'm not about to become one just because it's the in thing. Give me evidence of Creation's occurance. Or rather, give me a reason why I should believe the Creationist interpretation of the evidence. Thanks for your time.
Originally posted by The One Part 2
I would just like to say that I find major fault in the Big Bang theory. There was a massive explosion billions of years ago that created all the stars planets and matter in the universe. Where did the materials come from to create this massive explosion? It's just something that will never be proven. I believe we have too small a view to prove anything. We can only make assumptions based on what we see on and from our little planet. Just like religion, science relies very heavily on believing in something that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Faith.
It is spectacularly ill-educated and ignorant to call scientific theories about creation, based on observed and demonstrable evidence, 'faith'. Faith, by definition, is belief in ABSENCE of evidence.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It is spectacularly ill-educated and ignorant to call scientific theories about creation, based on observed and demonstrable evidence, 'faith'. Faith, by definition, is belief in ABSENCE of evidence.
Ill-educated? Who observed the creation of the universe? Who has successfully demonstrated the creation of matter? Who has observed, over millions of years, the evolution of any organism? Where is this evidence?
I'm neither religious or scientific (more likely a philosopher). Here are my thoughts on this whole Creation vs. Evolution.
First, the existence of God: How does the idea of God originates in a person mind? Ideas are effects, and their causes must be discovered. Some of our ideas seem to be "born with me (the individual)" some invented by me, whereas others "comes from without"
Our reason tells us that "something cannot derived from nothing", and also that "the more perfect.....cannot be a consequence of....the less perfect" Our ideas possess different degrees of reality, but "it manifest by natural light that there must be as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in the effect"
Some of our ideas, judging by the degree of their reality, could have their origin in myself. But the idea of God is so much objective reality that I (the indivual) wonder whether I could have produced that idea by myself. For "by the name God I (the individual) understands is a substance which is infinite, independent, all knowing, all powerful, and by which I myself and everything else, if anything else exists, have been created"
How can I (the individual), a finite substance, produce the idea of an infinite substance? Indeed, how could I know that I'am finite unless I could compare myself with the idea of a perfect being? The idea of perfection is so clear and distinct that I'am convinced that it could not proceed from my imperfect nature. Even if I (the individual) were potentially perfect, the idea of perfection could NOT come from that potentiality, for an actual effect must proceed from a being that actually EXIST.
Ask yourself "where did the idea of creation and evolution came to me?" From learning? From deduction? From my own self? No matter how you put the question the answer is the same "EXPERIENCE" and who gave you those experiences? Other individuals minds. Whether I chose either evolution or creation those ideas came NOT from me. But from someone else.
Experience gives us two sources of ideas, sensation and reflection. From the senses we recieved into our minds several distinct perceptions and thereby become conversant about objects external to us. You can chose Evolution or Creation, which ever one appeals to you. In the end it has been your choice. Those choices were yours, but not the ideas. You can always PM if you want to me about ideas. This is all I have to say in this thread. Thank you for taking the time to read this. 🙂
Originally posted by The One Part 2
Ill-educated? Who observed the creation of the universe? Who has successfully demonstrated the creation of matter? Who has observed, over millions of years, the evolution of any organism? Where is this evidence?
Who on Earth taught you that the Big Bang had to be observed or the creation of matter demonstrated in order for there to be evidence of it? Like I say, ignorance. Read through the thread; Omega has referenced the evidence that exists already. That is why it is a Theory, not a hypothesis. It so happens the evidence is not insubstantial.
Also, Winddancer, all that is not particularly consistent. If you want to be literal about it, you cannot conceive perfection. If it does not exist, it just means people are deluding themselves. In absolutely no way at all is this a logical step towards saying the infinite or perfect must exist; simply that people are mistaken in what they think.
The idea of evolution may have been taught for me but in origin it was simply arrived at through examination of available evidence- a VERY different process to how Creatonism was developed. And to imply they are equal is to ignore the simple fact that the extremes of each end are mutually exclusive.
Faith: belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. It seems to me that there is no logical proof that something as big as the universe was created from nothing. A God could created it, though. Other than the universe moving outward at an accelerating pace, there is no material evidence that a big bang ever occured. A God could have done that too.
And I asked you to read the thread and see what Omega has already referenced to, and you do not seem to want to. And to quote Omega in the space thread:
"No, Big Bang is established. You have everything from the microwave background (echo from the big bang), to Einsteins theory of general relativity (one of the most tested theories ever) predicting a Big Bang, as shown by professor Stephen Hawking. If you claim there is no proof of the Big Bang, you better show me what the WMA-probe has taken pictures off, and where Hawking is wrong."
We are accumulating more and more evidence for the Big Bang all the time. Like all good science, it is a theory open to question, modification, criticism, change, or even eventual abandonment. But one thing it is absolutely NOT doing, is being taken on faith.
The One Part 2> Allow me to respond, as I’m a scientist. The stars and planets were NOT created in the Big Bang. Claiming this shows a gross misunderstanding of cosmology. May I suggest you research the matter?
Stars didn’t form until millions of years AFTER the Big Bang, when the Universe had cooled sufficiently.
In the Big Bang equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were created. Essentially it’s the same as +1-1=0 that is matter and anti-matter equals nothing, that is how it was possible to created it out of nothing.
A slight variance in this amount right after Big Bang, effected the process so we were left with more matter THAN anti-matter.
How do YOU know it will not be proven? There is proof of Big Bang (see the evidence I’ve already listed).
You must also understand the following: Time itself started at the moment of Big Bang. There was no time before Big Bang. If you wait long enough the improbable happens. If you wait forever the impossible happens. Now remove the time-factor in the above.
Science does NOT rely on BELIEF.
The Big Bang left a 3 Kelvin microwave echo behind for us to study and test. Albert Einsteins general theory of relativity – when extrapolated backwards – predicts a beginning event of the Universe – a beginning singularity.
As for the creation of matter: THAT happens all the time. Find a web-page and read about particle-antiparticle creation and annihilation. The actual curvature of space creates matter.
So your claims ARE un-educated.
What is the fossil-record? Macro-evolution HAS been observed. Do yourself a favour and read this entire thread.
Now: I've supplied you with evidence AND more is elsewhere in this thread. Now, give me evidence, ANY evidence of a 6000 year old Universe created by a divine being.
Barf> Well, the author in question says it: You have to BELIEVE the Bible to be true, to accept Creation.
WindDancer> How did the idea of divinity originate in the human mind? A need for explanations for the unexplainable in our past.
Explain the objective reality of God, please. Where? And the idea of absolute perfection doesn’t go further than to the question: Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Omega
The One Part 2> Allow me to respond, as I’m a scientist. The stars and planets were NOT created in the Big Bang. Claiming this shows a gross misunderstanding of cosmology. May I suggest you research the matter?
The stars and planets were indirectly created by the Big Bang; or at least the materials for the stars and planets were created through the Big Bang.
Stars didn’t form until millions of years AFTER the Big Bang, when the Universe had cooled sufficiently.
In the Big Bang equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were created. Essentially it’s the same as +1-1=0 that is matter and anti-matter equals nothing, that is how it was possible to created it out of nothing.
+1-1=0, but the +1 and -1 were not present before the Big Bang. If they were, how did they get there? 0+0 does not equal +1 and -1.
A slight variance in this amount right after Big Bang, effected the process so we were left with more matter THAN anti-matter.
I would definitely agree with that. You would have to have an imbalance to keep the universe from folding in on itself.
First of all
How do YOU know it will not be proven? There is proof of Big Bang (see the evidence I’ve already listed).
You must also understand the following: Time itself started at the moment of Big Bang. There was no time before Big Bang. If you wait long enough the improbable happens. If you wait forever the impossible happens. Now remove the time-factor in the above.
Time is a manmade creation.
Science does NOT rely on BELIEF.
The Big Bang left a 3 Kelvin microwave echo behind for us to study and test. Albert Einsteins general theory of relativity – when extrapolated backwards – predicts a beginning event of the Universe – a beginning singularity.
Who's to say that Einstein was wrong? I'm not saying he is, but there is no way of knowing for sure precisely what happened 14 billion years ago without observing it
As for the creation of matter: THAT happens all the time. Find a web-page and read about particle-antiparticle creation and annihilation. The actual curvature of space creates matter.
So your claims ARE un-educated.
Yeah, I should have researched more about matter.
What is the fossil-record? Macro-evolution HAS been observed. Do yourself a favour and read this entire thread.
This is the root of the post. Georgia school officials have a problem with saying the humans evolved from monkeys, apes, worms, etc. The evolution of life on this planet has been guessed at, not confirmed. They don't want to teach it as fact until it's proven beyond a doubt. You can read that anywhere.
Now: I've supplied you with evidence AND more is elsewhere in this thread. Now, give me evidence, ANY evidence of a 6000 year old Universe created by a divine being.
The universe is not 6000 years old. No self-respecting person would believe that. The Sun does NOT revolve around the moon. But there very well could be a God.
WindDancer> How did the idea of divinity originate in the human mind? A need for explanations for the unexplainable in our past.
Explain the objective reality of God, please. Where? And the idea of absolute perfection doesn’t go further than to the question: Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?
How was science created? The need to explain the unexplainable. Is it not true that scientists make educated guess based on what they observe and apply it to what they are trying to explain? Sure, God could create a rock that he could not lift. And then he would lift it. But why would he? That's trying to put our limited understanding onto God. Science has never been able to disprove God.
I stand by my statement that science relies on belief as much as religion does only in a different way.
Prove to me that I and everybody else around you are not just different facets of your self conscience.
This is what I think (please note that there are just my opinions) Belief does not need proof or facts of any kind to exist; Science does. If there were no proof at all if the Big Bang occurred, it would be Religion, not Science. I cannot, nor do I think anyone else around us, are not just fabrications or inventions by our own subconscious. That is where my own personal belief comes in, I must Believe in what I see or taste or smell or touch, or else everything else falls apart. Every time I see something, I must believe that this is happening or else we would go insane trying to figure out what is real and what is a fabrication. If we were able to believe that nothing was real, then what could we turn to as reality? Where we normally draw strength would not exist anymore. This means that everyone, even the most dedicated of scientists must believe in something. They must believe in their proof, in their evidence, and that it is real and not just a figment of their imagination. This is where my own personal belief comes in. I believe in All the modern science AND in my religion, I still go to church on Sundays, But I do take what my Priest says with a grain of salt. I do not believe in almost the entire Old Testament. If you have ever read the book Angels and Demons by Dan Brown, I take my religion just like the scientist in the beginning who was murdered and discovered Anti-matter.
(Sorry If I got overly religious, I was just stating how I take the world)
The One Part 2> When matter is concerned, atoms were not formed until 300.000 years after the Big Bang. And that was mostly hydrogen and some helium. Eventually stars could form when gravity attracted enough matter together. A planet such as the Earth, which contains a lot of heavier elements could not form until after several star generations (which create these heavier elements).
So again you’re wrong.
0 is nothing, okay? 0 = 1-1. Still with me? So nothing equals 1 kg matter minus 1 kg matte (OR 1 kg matter plus 1 kg anti-matter). Let me know if you understand this.
Time is not a man-made creation. Time is required for change to take place, so that idea that “Time is a manmade creation” is utter nonsense.
”Who's to say that Einstein was wrong? I'm not saying he is, but there is no way of knowing for sure precisely what happened 14 billion years ago without observing it.”
Are you blind??? Explain to me the 3 Kelvin background microwave radiation then!!!
“This is the root of the post. Georgia school officials have a problem with saying the humans evolved from monkeys, apes, worms, etc. The evolution of life on this planet has been guessed at, not confirmed. They don't want to teach it as fact until it's proven beyond a doubt. You can read that anywhere.”
Where?
Read this thread fer petes sake. Evolution is not a guess, there is plenty of proof and as I already stated – macro-evolution HAS been observed.
“The universe is not 6000 years old. No self-respecting person would believe that. The Sun does NOT revolve around the moon. But there very well could be a God.”
Why?
“Sure, God could create a rock that he could not lift. And then he would lift it.”
But then he did NOT create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it.
“I stand by my statement that science relies on belief as much as religion does only in a different way.”
So you're simply saying, that no proof given to you would change your mind. You're simply preaching then.