• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

*Cordial* Debate Regarding Creation

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I was doing my daily devotional on Blue Letter Bible (if you are a Christian, this is a great website) and saw a link to a website called "Encouragement for Believers Science Update". This site isn't affiliated with BLB. It was just advertised on it. The article I read was astonishing. However, I do like to vet my sources and am hoping there are some users on this site that are more read in to this subject. The link to the article is provided below. It is a great read, cites many prominent scientists (Hubble, Hawking, etc), and at least seems to disprove the Big Bang Theory. Now, the article does state that their findings do not prove God exists or the creation "theory". However, it does disprove the Big Bang Theory. Please, do not turn this into a "You're going to hell because you don't believe in God!" or "Christians are just archaic idiots that don't believe real science!" threads. That's not the intent. The intent is good, honest debate citing sources and sound judgement. Thanks.
fms-found
 
I'm no physicist, but I usually check references as I read articles, especially if I'm reading extraordinary claims. The latest reference was from 2004 and the last one from a scientific paper was from 1974.

I'm extremely sceptical from my background in reading papers in the biological sciences that there is some genuine shift away from the Big Band Theory towards a new theory of heliocentrictity based on this article and its citations.
 

Interesting article.

It never ceases to amaze me that people push the BBT as fact, when it is impossible to have occurred.
 
As a Person with a Science background, I have personally never seen any conflict
between the groups of thought.
Faith, and a belief in an omnipotent God,
do not contradict man's interpretations of observations.
Any difference in the story, such as time, fall within the error margins.
Think about it this way, If a modern Scientist tried to explain a Laser to
person from the new stone age (say 3500 BCE).
I suspect something may be lost in interpretation.
 
Interesting article.

It never ceases to amaze me that people push the BBT as fact, when it is impossible to have occurred.

Prove your assertion, and show your work.
 

This is pretty simple, really.

The writer is taking snippets from "big names," removing their context, applying them across totally different hypothesis from different eras, and then just kind of sewing it all together in such a way as to make it appear to confirm what they already wanted to believe in the first place.

This is a really common tactic. It's how Ray 'Banana' Comfort "disproves" evolution, and it's how the quantum woo quacks make so much money.

They are relying on the ignorance of the reader in order to sell their point. The big names alone look impressive to someone who doesn't have any understanding of their ideas, or lacks any knowledge about the history of modern science.
 
Last edited:

Remember the last time we talked, and I told you NOT just to post links when I ask you questions? For Ion's sake, can you just answer me straight up instead of showering my with links to rather unimaginatively designed websites?

I mean seriously, the first paragraph actually says this: " First of all and most importantly, it contradicts the Bible which is absolute Truth."

What nonsense. He goes on to offer no proof as to why the Bible's "Absolute Truth" is superior, instead goes on to create positions for himself to knock down.

Seriously, I don't mind even if you Copy and Paste.
 

The Big Bang Theory Collapses
 







........
 
So, why have any debate or any science because if something contradicts the bible (cough...flat earth, moon providing it's own light..cough), then it is invalid. The bible is right because the bible says it is right, because it is the word of god because it says it is the word of god.

Well, this will certainly make the scientific method easier. Lets revise those periodic tables, from now on it is just air, earth, fire and water.

Xenu wept
 
The article I read was astonishing. However, I do like to vet my sources and am hoping there are some users on this site that are more read in to this subject. The link to the article is provided below.
Sorry, the article is complete bunk. As SmokeAndMirrors said, it's relying on the author's Christianity to find a predetermined conclusion and on the scientific ignorance of the general population to get away with false claims.

For example: the redshift. We observe the redshift because everything in the universe is moving away from us. Think of an ant on the surface of a balloon. From his perspective, he's standing still and the entirety of the balloon's surface and interior is moving away from him at varying speeds. However that's not because he's at the center, but because he too is moving away from everything else, because the entire balloon is expanding. (If you can visualize that balloon analogy well, it's also the explanation for #5.) Or here's a video.

Or the Gallactic Shells / Quantized Redshift. "Recent redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have produced no evidence of quantization in excess of what is expected due to galaxy clustering, [4][5][6][7] and consequently most cosmologists dispute the existence of redshift quantization beyond a minimal trace due to the distribution of galaxies across voids and filaments." Or, that's to say Evidence #2 doesn't even exist.

And by far the dumbest part of the entire article is #3 and #4. You just have to compare and contrast the two.

  • " ... no matter where we point our telescopes, we see the same uniformity in terms of the level of background radiation coming from outer space ... it suggests we are near the center of the universe"
  • " ... they expected to confirm an isotropic CMB just as the cosmological principle has always insisted. Instead, their data showed variations in the CMB revealing a cosmic north and south pole as well as a type of “cosmic equator” ... These observations would not be possible unless we were located in the center of this configuration. From the Biblical perspective, this makes sense and is further evidence of our central location in the universe."

The author is saying in #3 that because the CMB is isotropic, the Bible is correct, and then in #4 he says because the CMB is not isotropic, the Bible is correct.
 
Last edited:
Awww poor baby, the Big Bang is nothing more than fiction.....

No, that was crap. I didn't mean Copy and Paste the entire ****ing thing.

Jesus, now I have to dissect this whole thing.

Simply put, Darwin’s theory is easier to believe and has more immediate gratification. Men would rather believe that they are the gods of their own lives, than admit a responsibility to a higher, unseen being.

What? Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of mankind. That's a different topic.

First of all and most importantly, it contradicts the Bible which is absolute Truth. It would destroy the entire foundation on which Christianity stands- God’s love and personal care for us, despite our sin.

Amount of evidence offered for above claim: 0

econd of all, it is obviously false when compared to logical reason and scientific findings and laws.

Whole lotta' claims, no evidence.

Basically, it’s wrong and its detrimental to society.

Um, how?

The scientific definition of evolution is genetic change over time.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

If God specially created us, how were we created by chance refined by natural selection? Beware of logical fallacies and general misconceptions.

I love how he complains about them and then goes on and uses them in the next several sentences.

Big Bang- in the beginning was, was…? A flaming ball of mass?

A gravitational singularity no larger than a proton.

No wait, what came before that?

Asking what existed before the Big Bang is like asking what is North of the North Pole.

And where did all this energy come from?

All energy resided in that gravitational singularity.

Where did the mass come from?

All mass resided in that gravitational singularity.

Where did time come from?

Time is relative.

Where did the scientific laws come from?

Scientific laws are human interpretations of reality to the best of our knowledge.

Where did this dimension come from?

Define 'dimension.'

Science is the study of natural causes and effects.

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied."

Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The only thing laughable about this is how he sets up the argument so he can answer it, and then acts as if he just scored a major victory in this debate.


I like how he started out talking about evolution and then somehow connected this to the Big Bang Theory.

You know how much mass would be in the initial ball?

Hence, gravitational singularity.


Wha- what? What makes you think that would mean it become a black hole? Also, what does this have to do with Darwinism?


Repeat this experiment trillions of times and over the course of 13.7 billion years and tell me what happens.

The guy who wrote this does't even understand what he's talking about, and yet he thinks he has disproved it.
 

Did you actually read the article I quoted? :roll:
 
Alright, here we go again.

. According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago,

It's 13.7 billion years ago.

Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there.

All matter and energy was in the gravitaional singularity. The intense gravitational pull of such a dense singularity effectively means there is not time before the Big Bang. Like I said before; Asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what is North of the North Pole.


Here's the real story: He is correct in stating that originally, only Hydrogen existed. (Although I've heard Helium could've formed also). Well, guess what stars are made of? That's right, hydrogen. What starts as perhaps a few Hydrogen elements clumping together eventually grows larger and larger, until it has immense gravitational pull. In the center of that star, a process known as nuclear fusion occurs. Atoms combine to form heavier elements, such as iron and oxygen. Eventually, the star runs out of hydrogen, and collapses, no longer able to support itself. When that happens, it explodes, sending out all those heavier elements it formed. Over the course of a billion or so years, those elements began to swirl around another star, where they themselves begin to clump together. Long story short, eventually you get planets.


"Although the universe can seem in-homogeneous at smaller scales, it is statistically homogeneous on scales larger than 250 million light years. The cosmic microwave background is isotropic, that is to say that its intensity is about the same whichever direction we look at."

Australian study backs major assumption of cosmology

Don't respond just yet; I'm not done.
 
Physics, Science, Reality, Facts.

The problem is that most people stating that the BB couldn't have occured because science and physics says differently tend not to really understand the physics and science they are trying to comment on.
 
Time for editing has expired, so here's part two:


Man, look at all that evidence... that doesn't exist.




..............

Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories.

Evolution and The Big Bang Theory are two totally separate fields.

Eventually, all such theories will fail, for "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1 ). "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1 ).

And of course a bible verse, as he can't back up his claims with any real evidence.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…