sweetbilly Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 pyra, we have to assume that all matter in the universe is the same age if we are to believe in the big bang theory, i'm not saying it did not happen but if it did it's going to end up mimicing the bible's description. And yes, all other planets and solar systems are moving away at break-neck speeds. However, they cannot tell who is moving and who is not; because you have to triangulate earths possession in the galaxy, which can't be done from earth. This may sound a little far-fetched, but in all truth, they still don't know if the earth revolves around the sun, or if the sun revolves around us. The sun can be revolving around the earth for all the scientific community knows. Actually background radiation is all dependent on whether Einsteins theory of relativity is correct, as to the speed of light being constant; i'll bet it's not. So I would assume his theory is somewhat flawed. Tony, go to any college astronomy or geology dept and ask to see the evidence. I had to learn in college. Like all great scientists, I always questioned their findings. Search the web like I did, it's all on here. However you may need the help from a few scientists to understand some of the info. it's not absurd to think man can know how the earth formed, it's all common sense. Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 "Search the web like I did, it's all on here. However you may need the help from a few scientists to understand some of the info" Why don't you put up a link or two. Meanwhile, I go with the traditional view that the universe is between 8 and 12 billion years old and the sun is far older than 14,000 years. Hell, the Jurasic period, during which dinosaurs roamed the earth, was 70-200 million years ago...a bit longer than 14,000 years. Incidentally, Willard Libby, the Nobel Prize winning scientist who invented the Carbon-14 dating system, was a good friend of mine toward the latter part of his life. I met him during an interview I did with him for a magazine. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Originally posted by sweetbilly This may sound a little far-fetched, but in all truth, they still don't know if the earth revolves around the sun, or if the sun revolves around us. The sun can be revolving around the earth for all the scientific community knows. Please cite a legitimate scientific source, published after 1600 AD, that disproves heliocentricity. There are several things in the bible that coincidentally support science. This is not one of them. You speak a cute breed of scifibabble, but until you start citing some sources, you can't honestly expect us to believe you've scientifically proven creationism. Again, all I ask for are citations, before you make scientific assertions. Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Originally posted by sweetbilly pyra, we have to assume that all matter in the universe is the same age if we are to believe in the big bang theory, i'm not saying it did not happen but if it did it's going to end up mimicing the bible's description. The penny drops. You are a creationist. You're trying to explain away your bad reasoning with bad science. And yes, all other planets and solar systems are moving away at break-neck speeds. However, they cannot tell who is moving and who is not; because you have to triangulate earths possession in the galaxy, which can't be done from earth. Thus, because you cannot tell who is moving, for a lack of a refeence point, the assumption must be that we are standing still? Whodathunkit? PS - the universe consists of more than just the Milky Way. It may surprise you that there are blue-shifted stars right "next" to red shifted stars (as we view them), as well as ENTIRE blue shifted galaxies? Interesting, isn't it? Link Planets moving away at breakneck speeds? You just revealed your pretense at being a so-called expert. This may sound a little far-fetched, but in all truth, they still don't know if the earth revolves around the sun, or if the sun revolves around us. The sun can be revolving around the earth for all the scientific community knows. I'm having trouble dealing with this because it is so ridiculous. If you knew anything about gravitational computation you will not be spewing this garbage. You again attempt use a lack of a reference point to back up an assumtion without any proof or data whatsoever. Actually background radiation is all dependent on whether Einsteins theory of relativity is correct, as to the speed of light being constant; i'll bet it's not. So I would assume his theory is somewhat flawed. YOU'LL BET IT'S NOT?!?! God damn. Einstein must be wrong, then Do you have one iota of evidence to back up your assumption (as you admit to, yourself). Tony, go to any college astronomy or geology dept and ask to see the evidence. I had to learn in college. Like all great scientists, I always questioned their findings. Search the web like I did, it's all on here. However you may need the help from a few scientists to understand some of the info. it's not absurd to think man can know how the earth formed, it's all common sense. Yes, Tony, please DO go to a good geology, astronomy department, and find out the facts. Sweetbilly is bluffing. Any introductory textbook will destroy the crap he/she is spewing. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 While I think his science is off, I do admire him having the balls to nonchalantly dismiss Einstein's work Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Originally posted by sonofhud So there is a God? No one can assume anything about the age of anything. No one knows how old the universe, solar system, sun, or Earth is. To say that it is billions of years or 14,000 years old is absurd. How do you know this? From scientific guesses? I think they are all full of **** to be honest. I'll agree with you that much of scientific theory is pure mathematical guesswork, which is constantly under scutiny. But that is one of the cornerstones of the scientific method - that EVERYTHING is considered mutable. There is no such thing as an absolute fact in science, but everything we "know" is used as a springboard to further discovery. Does that mean that, if the root of the tree of knowledge is a fallacy, then the branches and leaves must be, as well?Perhaps, but the assumption is ALWAYS that the root IS in fact wrong, and that is why science is so introspective into its own methods and sceptical of its knowledge base, all the time, and it's that distrust of itself that is it's greatest strength. The irony of it is always how creationists unknowingly use in fact exactly the opposite tactic when quoting "bad" science to further their claims. In other words, the thinking of "evolutionary science is crap because you do not know all the facts, and creationism isn't, because we have this and that reference". It's laughable. Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Originally posted by dyermaker While I think his science is off, I do admire him having the balls to nonchalantly dismiss Einstein's work Heh, it's is rather amusing, isn't it? I'm still waiting for his/her bad science concerning evolutionary theory. That's going to be fun. Link to post Share on other sites
sweetbilly Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 ok Pap. if it's bad science then address it, chump! Until then, you're talking out the side of your face. If you're so sure the earth revolves around the sun, prove it; triangulate the earths place in the galaxy! Every astronomer knows that this has never been done; it's impossible to do from the earth. Edwin Hubble proved that our galaxy is at the center of the known universe just like biblical scripture says it is. All I said, is that science does not know if the earth circles the sun or if the sun circles the earth, at this point it is impossible to really know. If any "ol' textbook" will prove me wrong, let's hear it. I dare you, no I double dare you, to explain why if the sun is so old, giving evolution enough time to even happen, then why are the neutrinos, expected to be emitting from a hydrogen burning, main sequence sun missing? This is the only one I care about proving, but be careful if you can't explain this one simple question you may prove me right and call Einstein a fool. Science is my world, I've spent the last ten-years learning what we've just discussed, in and out of the classroom, and I know what I've learned. My instructors don't even want to tangle with me on this one. So you don't stand a snowballs chance in hell. Ok, you want links. here's a few that explain things like the existence of man and dinosaurs extemporaneously, geology, and some others like the expansion of the universe http://www.plution halos.com http://www.bible facts.com http://www.origins.com you can also type in "creation in the 21st century." or http://www.pinkoski.com as for the sun i'll have to find the evidence for it again, it's been years since i've need it use it, but you can try Sun+creationism+evolution+helioseismology. My name may be sweetbilly but I never said I was! Link to post Share on other sites
Pyrannaste Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Originally posted by sweetbilly Science is my world, I've spent the last ten-years learning what we've just discussed, in and out of the classroom, and I know what I've learned. My instructors don't even want to tangle with me on this one. So you don't stand a snowballs chance in hell. If you don't mind me asking, who are your instructors? Anyway, I checked out the links. I saw to what kind of websites they directed. I'll therefore ask you not for some more source, but for some more *reliable*, scientific source. Link to post Share on other sites
wideawake Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Originally posted by sweetbilly I dare you, no I double dare you "And there it was. The most horrible of childhood threats. The Double Dare." "No one could possibly walk away from such a slap in the face as this." "As sweetbilly and Pyrannaste eyed each other suspiciously across the playground the knew that only one of them would go home today unscathed..." Sorry sweety, I was just a little jealous that you were getting all the laughs on this thread.... Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 I had a beautiful reply all typed up, ownage brought to you on a silver platter, links and all, but when I clicked submit, it dissappeared in a 404. Back button destroyed my beautiful post I don't feel like typeing all that up again. Maybe next time Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Sweetbilly, 3 of your links weren't valid 1 of them is a hair/skin care place 1 of them is the personal website about an archaeologist. Originally posted by sweetbilly ok Pap. if it's bad science then address it, chump! Until then, you're talking out the side of your face. If you're so sure the earth revolves around the sun, prove it; triangulate the earths place in the galaxy! Fallacy: Argument ad Ignorantum; Argument from Ignorance Because you can't prove it, it's wrong. Sweetbilly, the burden of proof is on the person who is asserting things. In this case, you've made some outlandish assertions. 1. Earth is only 14000 Years old. 2. Earth doesn't revolve around the sun. 3. Einstein was wrong, in his theory of relativity. We want links to support them, preferably valid links, and links to like--studies, not personal christian websites. Link to post Share on other sites
sweetbilly Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Sorry, I haven't been to those sites in a while. Try these http://www.creationdiscovey.org for the age of the sun then go to Home.bluemarble.net/~hear...nning.html they will explain more than I can on L.S Link to post Share on other sites
wideawake Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Yeah, those links are real home runs.... Your scientific knowledge is apparently only surpassed by your skills with a web browser. My god man, how do you keep finding this site??!?!?!?! Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by sweetbilly Sorry, I haven't been to those sites in a while. Try these http://www.creationdiscovey.org for the age of the sun then go to Home.bluemarble.net/~hear...nning.html they will explain more than I can on L.S Neither of those are websites. Creationdiscovery.org gave me a DNS error, and the second one you put elipses in the middle of it, so I can't visit it. o_O Link to post Share on other sites
tac719 Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Just like to say, creation out of nothing(supposed). Darkmatter. Science and God go hand and hand. I'm with Dyermaker on all of this. Link to post Share on other sites
HokeyReligions Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Evolution is a well-proven hypothesis ?????!!!!! A hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess! It is theory, premise, suggestion, supposition, proposition, assumption. It is NOT proven! Now, I'm not bashing you. I believe that evolution is probably the closest we poor humans have come to understanding the beginning of life. I was just surprised at your phrasing and argument. Any one of us can find dozens of weblinks to sites that support our own beliefs. Many of those are from credible sources on any side of the argument. I think there is room for everyone's beliefs. Science does not rule out religion and religion does not rule out science. My grandmother told me that the Big Bang was God clapping his hands together to create the universe and heathens (her words) took God out of it. I don't believe like she did. I don't really care one way or another how life began. Its here and we have to deal with it and navigate through it to the best of our abilities. In the end we die - no matter what our beliefs. Link to post Share on other sites
tac719 Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Hokey is right. We are not God, so we cannot presume to know or ever to know everything. Science is all about curiosity, so is religion. HokeyReligions.. your.. avatar.. makes me.. feel.. like a.. heathen Link to post Share on other sites
wideawake Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Yeah Hokey! That damn avatar is making me think about creation in very novel ways.... Link to post Share on other sites
jeff_fff Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 First place, evolution and big bang are two entirely different disciplines; neither of which, btw, prove or disprove a god/s...or even attempt to. Evolution is biology, it's the change of lifeforms (not how life originated, that's abiogenesis); for which there's a vast and profound mountain of evidence. Big Bang, otoh, is the province of cosmology. Evolution is a fact, it's also a theory. The fact of evolution is that lifeforms have changed, and continue to change. The theory attempts to explain the changes. Originally posted by sonofhud K, I used to think that.....something called the gap theory. How do we know 1 day to God isnt an eternity to us....blah blah blah....God could have used evolution to create the Earth over billions of years....thus making the Earth as old as scients believe it is. To quote a devout biology teacher friend: genesis tells what god did; science tells how he did it. The notion of god fooling around with different time lines implies a god that deliberately lies to us. And with due respect, you've again made the common error of confusing evolution(biology) with the earth and space sciences. >My questions is why don't you believe he did so in seven days? Why don't you believe we all decended from Adam and Even? The family tree ends somewhere; we all of to be decendants of only 2 people somewhere down the line. Another common error -- individuals don't evolve, species do. The notion there had to be *two* original people, or two of any other species, is also another common misperception. To oversimplify, a modern definition of evolution is the genetic change in a population -- as an aside, an evolutionary event does not necessarily mean a speciation event; eg : a human population which changes hair color from blond to black -- an evolutionary event would have occured that did not result in a speciation event. Don't know how helpful a few brief paragraphs are about science disciplines requiring years of study to master -- nor btw, am I a scientist, though have been studying evolution on my own for a while. regards j Link to post Share on other sites
jeff_fff Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 What in ned are those ? You mean poor gentrys' polonium halos ? Link to post Share on other sites
jeff_fff Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 Spontaneous generation had zero to do with big bang; and for that matter, didn't claim something from nothing. Another common creationist fallacy, two really, is thinking they've disproved either BB or evolution, and hence creationist 'theory' is right. This analogous to claiming it's not snowing, so it must be raining. It's not an either/or situation. Link to post Share on other sites
Fred Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 I've thought a lot about these things. I've always been quite a science guy. I always took the Big Bang Theory as the truth of the matter. However, one day I saw a show which explained it more clearly than I had heard before. Before the creation of the universe there was nothing. Not even empty space! Well, if that was so, then where in hell did these gases come from that are suppose to have collided and exploded thus causing the universe. This to me was even more unexplanable and bizarre than if God Created the universe. Because frankly if there is absolutely nothing then you can't have gases to cause an explosion! That was the beginning of my changing my mind. After some really freaky and amazing things that have happened to me in the last year, I am now convinced that the Being we know as God not only exists but did indeed create all that we know. As for Adam and Eve, well perhaps religion and Darwin are both right. Did anyone ever think that when it was written in the bible that mankind was made in the image of God that it was possibly referring to the human soul or spirit? God is said to be a spirit, so when the Bible says we are in God's likeness maybe it is our spirit contained in our bodies that it is referring to. Perhaps, animals do not have souls and only human animals have them. Could it not be that Adam and Eve were the first people to have been given a soul or spirits, and this is how they became human? Anyway, I know for a fact that the spiritual realm exists and I believe more in God then ever before. Link to post Share on other sites
jeff_fff Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 IIRC -- before the BB it's postulated there was a singularity...before that, we don't know. My understanding, such as it is, is quantum mech predicts something from nothing, and some events have happened in the labs appearing to support the notion. The problem, or 'a' problem with first cause arguements is the fallacy that " don't know " equates to goddidit. It may indeed be goddidit, but we don't know that, either; and in any case, " don't know " means only " don't know ", not that there is or isn't a god or even gods, plural. No one claims BB is absolute fact, or that BB theory is complete. What IS claimed is there's evidence supporting BB -- indeed, to be a scientific theory means there's a body of supporting evidence. Lastly, BB, like evolution, makes no claim god/s exist or don't. j Link to post Share on other sites
HokeyReligions Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 http://twm.co.nz/holoUni.html Someone else posted this link before and I thought it was fascinating. Creationism, evolution, BB, etc. I think I'll go with the Life is a Hologram theory! It explains everything! I think, therefore you are! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts