• 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

American said:
Can you really prove the BBT? Seriously? You can report your observations, but can you prove it?
Click to expand...

There is a point in science when something has so much evidence for it, so much data backing it up that, even in the realm of new discoveries, it is true beyond reasonable doubt.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
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.
Click to expand...
The point of this thread is not to state your opinion of the subject but provide proof of your beliefs. You state that the quotes are taken out of context, that they are relying on the ignorance of the reader. If you know the context of the quotes taken, if you recognize the studies he is pulling from, post them so we can differentiate them for ourselves.
 
American said:
Can you really prove the BBT? Seriously? You can report your observations, but can you prove it?
Click to expand...

Can you prove the laws of thermodynamics?
 
MarineTpartier said:
The point of this thread is not to state your opinion of the subject but provide proof of your beliefs. You state that the quotes are taken out of context, that they are relying on the ignorance of the reader. If you know the context of the quotes taken, if you recognize the studies he is pulling from, post them so we can differentiate them for ourselves.
Click to expand...

The problem is that in order to debunk this entire thing, I'd need to write about 10,000 words and spend several hours basically doing an entire 10th grade science class. And frankly, I'm just not that committed, and the only people who will believe this are the people who already wanted to, so it's really not that important. They won't accept anything that contradicts what they want to believe.

But here is one basic, over-arching thing that is immediately apparent: cosmology has undergone a revolution in the last 40 years. The writer is taking pieces of of hypothesis done before that happened, and then combining them with hypothesis and theories done after, even though taken as a whole they clearly conflict with each other, in order to make it appear as though there's a consistent train of thought.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
The problem is that in order to debunk this entire thing, I'd need to write about 10,000 words and spend several hours basically doing an entire 10th grade science class. And frankly, I'm just not that committed, and the only people who will believe this are the people who already wanted to, so it's really not that important. They won't accept anything that contradicts what they want to believe.

But here is one basic, over-arching thing that is immediately apparent: cosmology has undergone a revolution in the last 40 years. The writer is taking pieces of of hypothesis done before that happened, and then combining them with hypothesis and theories done after, even though taken as a whole they clearly conflict with each other, in order to make it appear as though there's a consistent train of thought.
Click to expand...
At least provide some links. That's all I asking for.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Interesting article.

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

O dear God, a theory is never pushed as a fact. Theories explain facts.

More creationist mischaracterization because you don't have facts on your side and can't explain things like the expansion of the universe.
 
MarineTpartier said:
At least provide some links. That's all I asking for.
Click to expand...

All you really have to do is develop some sense of how many things have been learned, and how many things have been disproved or adjusted, since the 1970's. A simple timeline gives you an idea of how insane it is to take bits of stuff from the 70's and glue it on to bits of stuff from the 21st century thus far.

Timeline of cosmological theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cosmology since 1900

In the 1970's, we didn't even know what shape the universe was.
 
head of joaquin said:
O dear God, a theory is never pushed as a fact. Theories explain facts.

More creationist mischaracterization because you don't have facts on your side and can't explain things like the expansion of the universe.
Click to expand...
Hey, HOJ, the title of the thread contains the word CORDIAL. That means, unless you have undergone some sort of massive life changing event, you probably shouldn't have even looked twice at the thread once you read the title. I'm not trying to turn this into another "you're going to hell!" "no you're an ignorant Bible thumper!" thread. Your absence from this thread would definitely aid in my quest for that.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Hey, HOJ, the title of the thread contains the word CORDIAL. That means, unless you have undergone some sort of massive life changing event, you probably shouldn't have even looked twice at the thread once you read the title. I'm not trying to turn this into another "you're going to hell!" "no you're an ignorant Bible thumper!" thread. Your absence from this thread would definitely aid in my quest for that.
Click to expand...

Translated: you want creationists to be able to post their distortions of science with impunity. Got it.
 
head of joaquin said:
Translated: you want creationists to be able to post their distortions of science with impunity. Got it.
Click to expand...
Translation: There are many other people that have posted on this thread who are not creationists. I invited people, with the title of this thread, that do not believe as I do and enjoy hearing other's opinions on the matter. However, I did not invite flaming trolls to this thread which is where you come in. Your presence on this forum (not just this thread) has never been of benefit to anyone. Your sole purpose is to bait, flame, or troll people in order to anger them and illicit a response that results in an infraction. It's quite sad actually.
Do you have anything to contribute to the thread that involves constructive thought backed by a viable source or are you just here to end yet another potentially engaging thread?
 
I guess I have two general thoughts about this sort of thing.

First, there are a lot of unanswered questions in physics, and perhaps more importantly for the theme of this thread, quite a few assumptions whose ontological status is rather questionable. I really don't think physicists should be held up as the final arbiters of what is true or false about the physical world. Physicists are very good at what they do, which is manipulate mathematics in the light of experimental data. But they aren't, as a rule, so good at thinking through the ontological consequences of what they do. I've read interviews with physicists who were obviously very intelligent, but who did not seem to understand the necessity of holding concepts constant throughout an argument (for example). So if we're asking whether physics can accomodate creationism of at least a remote kind, the answer is that it can. It's not even especially difficult.

Second, there is another question that needs to be asked: what is the point? It does seem that the author of this article is setting out trying to hit a particular target. Now, physics can be conceived in a manner that is more or less consistent with what he says. But this doesn't mean that's a legitimate way to proceed, as physics can be conceived in a manner that is consistent with a bunch of different positions, including anti-creationist ones. It looks epistemically irresponsible to do so, regardless of the goal one is trying to hit beforehand. The answer that physics gives to the question about whether there is a God is a big fat question-mark.
 
So what now David, is that it?
 
MarineTpartier said:
Hey, HOJ, the title of the thread contains the word CORDIAL. That means, unless you have undergone some sort of massive life changing event, you probably shouldn't have even looked twice at the thread once you read the title. I'm not trying to turn this into another "you're going to hell!" "no you're an ignorant Bible thumper!" thread. Your absence from this thread would definitely aid in my quest for that.
Click to expand...

The irony of this post made me LOL.
 
MarineTpartier said:
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
Click to expand...
Interesting article, thanks.

As Christians we believe the biblical account. Of course our premises for believing it are several: 1) that God exists, 2) that the bible is His inspired word and, 3) that what He says in the bible about creating everything is true.

Christians and non-believers alike tend to want to "prove" their beliefs to one another, each putting on the other burdens of proof that neither's belief can meet. For instance, non-believers expect us to "prove" God's existence, which leads to Christians expecting non-believers to "prove" He doesn't -- when in fact neither can.

W/r to the creation - as a Christian I like reading all the scientific articles and "proofs" as much as I'm sure non-believers like reading their material. But the arguments just go around and around and around leading to very little that's constructive. We have our beliefs, they have theirs and neither can, as I said above, meet the burden of proof the other expects.

Given that, I'm led to ask one question, which probably isn't profound at all, but it assuages my interest in the mechanics (or physics if you will) of the question: assuming we were beings able to create a tree out of nothing, how many rings would we give it? It seems to me that were such a thing possible, the attendant arguments about the [true] age of the tree wouldn't change one iota from the arguments we see around the creation in general. There'd be those who believed our account, that we "created" it, and there'd be those who believed it was however old the empirical ring evidence said it was. And the burdens of "proof" each side expected of the other would be just as incredible as they are with this question.

Of course, such discussions hinge on similar premises as before: 1) that we are able to create a tree, 2) that how we related the event is credible, and 3) that our word on the matter is good.

But regardless our worldview, we ought also to know that even if we were successful arguing all three premises it wouldn't lead the hearer into [necessarily] wanting a relationship with us. The premises, regardless their truth, simply aren't capable of doing that. Put differently, one's desire to want a relationship with God doesn't hinge on their belief in what He created, that He created it, or even how He did it, but in who He really is - something only He can reveal in His own time.
 
MarineTpartier said:
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
Click to expand...

So far as I'm aware, there are any number of outstanding questions about the origin of the universe but some form of the BBT is accepted by just about all cosmologists. I'm not one of those for whom "scientific consensus" automatically ends the discussion, but I don't see any reason to step away from the BBT.

As for theology, I concluded long ago that a Supreme Being would be unimaginable and unknowable, so agnosticism is the view that satisfies me. If there is a Supreme Being then He/She/It will get along just fine without my allegiance, and if there isn't then I haven't troubled myself unnecessarily.:peace
 
EdwinWillers said:
Interesting article, thanks.

As Christians we believe the biblical account. Of course our premises for believing it are several: 1) that God exists, 2) that the bible is His inspired word and, 3) that what He says in the bible about creating everything is true.

Christians and non-believers alike tend to want to "prove" their beliefs to one another, each putting on the other burdens of proof that neither's belief can meet. For instance, non-believers expect us to "prove" God's existence, which leads to Christians expecting non-believers to "prove" He doesn't -- when in fact neither can.

W/r to the creation - as a Christian I like reading all the scientific articles and "proofs" as much as I'm sure non-believers like reading their material. But the arguments just go around and around and around leading to very little that's constructive. We have our beliefs, they have theirs and neither can, as I said above, meet the burden of proof the other expects.

Given that, I'm led to ask one question, which probably isn't profound at all, but it assuages my interest in the mechanics (or physics if you will) of the question: assuming we were beings able to create a tree out of nothing, how many rings would we give it? It seems to me that were such a thing possible, the attendant arguments about the [true] age of the tree wouldn't change one iota from the arguments we see around the creation in general. There'd be those who believed our account, that we "created" it, and there'd be those who believed it was however old the empirical ring evidence said it was. And the burdens of "proof" each side expected of the other would be just as incredible as they are with this question.

Of course, such discussions hinge on similar premises as before: 1) that we are able to create a tree, 2) that how we related the event is credible, and 3) that our word on the matter is good.

But regardless our worldview, we ought also to know that even if we were successful arguing all three premises it wouldn't lead the hearer into [necessarily] wanting a relationship with us. The premises, regardless their truth, simply aren't capable of doing that. Put differently, one's desire to want a relationship with God doesn't hinge on their belief in what He created, that He created it, or even how He did it, but in who He really is - something only He can reveal in His own time.
Click to expand...
Well said sir.
 
EdwinWillers said:
Christians and non-believers alike tend to want to "prove" their beliefs to one another, each putting on the other burdens of proof that neither's belief can meet. For instance, non-believers expect us to "prove" God's existence, which leads to Christians expecting non-believers to "prove" He doesn't -- when in fact neither can..
Click to expand...

Scientific theories don't prove anything and don't attempt to, since they are empirically based. They explain observable facts. Those that explain a lot of facts and especially important facts, with no facts contradicting the theory, are considered valid scientific theories.

Science can of course disprove invalid theories. Any facts that contradict an explanation invalidates the theory. The theory is disproven and can be rejected.

There are literally thousands of observable fact that contradict creationism. So even to the extent that it is a theory (and of course it isn't since it's simply based on faith in an ancient text, not on any testable hypothesis), creationism has been disproved and no rational person need consider it further.

Finally creationism has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a sub-cult of Christianity that propounds this interpretation of these texts. The vast majority of Christians reject this newfangled view of the bible. It is arguably a heresy, if you want to go that route.

So creationism is both bad science and bad religion. Try again.
 
Even if the conclusions from this article are correct (many aren't), how does that disprove the notion of an explosive singularity for the origin of the universe? How would our galaxy being in the center of the universe mean that the universe wasn't expanding? The article doesn't even dispute that the universe is expanding. And why would that have "enormous scientific and spiritual implications"? To begin, our galaxy moves. It moves independently of other galaxies. It is going to crash into Andromeda in about 4 billion years, and the two galaxies are going to merge into a bigger one that will move completely differently than the Milky Way presently does.

As to the many mistakes the article makes, it offers incomplete portions of theories. Everything appearing to be moving away from us does not mean that we are at the center of the universe. It means that the whole universe is stretching. Everything is moving away from everything else. As above, we know this because we are also moving. And other objects are moving away from each other the same way they're moving away from us.

This article throws around declarations of rationality and irrationality while selectively ignoring the facts that do not support its conclusion. And it paints science in a religious context in order to degrade the science. Science has no dogmas. "There is very little data that cosmologists can actually study – it is still largely a field for philosophical and mathematical speculation." That is a straight up lie and a wholly nonsensical conclusion that philosophy has more to tell us about the nature of the universe than observing and studying the universe does.

There is no such thing as galactic shells. The article asserts without explanation or analysis that the background microwave radiation wouldn't look uniform if we were not at the center of the universe. The data about the radiation does not suggest that at all. That's like finding a banana peel on the ground and saying it's proof that there's a subway nearby. The two aren't related.

The last two points are slight variations on the previous two. This article wraps itself up in scientific language to disguise the fact that it is denigrating science and making unfounded assumptions. It presents incomplete and out of context elements about red shift and background radiation and makes up conclusions that are contradicted by the very data that it is mischaracterizing. This article is, to be as cordial as possible, a piece of crap.

On the theological side, why is it important that we be the center of the universe? Isn't that a lot of hubris? And besides, even if our galaxy were at the center of the universe, and that being in the center made it special, why should we assume that we, very far from the center of our galaxy, are thus the most important thing in it? Wouldn't the special planet be one much closer to the galactic center? Perhaps the real most important species in the universe lives on a planet that orbits S0-102, which actually orbits the massive black hole in the center of the universe. Either way, every celestial body moves, so none of them could consistently occupy the center of anything.
 
Paschendale said:
Even if the conclusions from this article are correct (many aren't), how does that disprove the notion of an explosive singularity for the origin of the universe? How would our galaxy being in the center of the universe mean that the universe wasn't expanding? The article doesn't even dispute that the universe is expanding. And why would that have "enormous scientific and spiritual implications"? To begin, our galaxy moves. It moves independently of other galaxies. It is going to crash into Andromeda in about 4 billion years, and the two galaxies are going to merge into a bigger one that will move completely differently than the Milky Way presently does.

As to the many mistakes the article makes, it offers incomplete portions of theories. Everything appearing to be moving away from us does not mean that we are at the center of the universe. It means that the whole universe is stretching. Everything is moving away from everything else. As above, we know this because we are also moving. And other objects are moving away from each other the same way they're moving away from us.

This article throws around declarations of rationality and irrationality while selectively ignoring the facts that do not support its conclusion. And it paints science in a religious context in order to degrade the science. Science has no dogmas. "There is very little data that cosmologists can actually study – it is still largely a field for philosophical and mathematical speculation." That is a straight up lie and a wholly nonsensical conclusion that philosophy has more to tell us about the nature of the universe than observing and studying the universe does.

There is no such thing as galactic shells. The article asserts without explanation or analysis that the background microwave radiation wouldn't look uniform if we were not at the center
of the universe. The data about the radiation does not suggest that at all. That's like finding a banana peel on the ground and saying it's proof that there's a subway nearby. The two aren't related.

The last two points are slight variations on the previous two. This article wraps itself up in scientific language to disguise the fact that it is denigrating science and making unfounded assumptions. It presents incomplete and out of context elements about red shift and background radiation and makes up conclusions that are contradicted by the very data that it is mischaracterizing. This article is, to be as cordial as possible, a piece of crap.

On the theological side, why is it important that we be the center of the universe? Isn't that a lot of hubris? And besides, even if our galaxy were at the center of the universe, and that being in the center made it special, why should we assume that we, very far from the center of our galaxy, are thus the most important thing in it? Wouldn't the special planet be one much closer to the galactic center? Perhaps the real most important species in the universe lives on a planet that orbits S0-102, which actually orbits the massive black hole in the center of the universe. Either way, every celestial body moves, so none of them could consistently occupy the center of anything.
Click to expand...

Well put. In an infinite universe any location can as easily be called the center as any other.:peace
 
Ikari said:
Your post about how this is a cordial topic wasn't cordial in the least. Duh.
Click to expand...
Can you point out where I turned this into an inflammatory thread?
 
MarineTpartier said:
Can you point out where I turned this into an inflammatory thread?
Click to expand...

I mean I quoted that post so it's not a mystery. It's not a big deal, I just thought it was funny.
 
Ikari said:
I mean I quoted that post so it's not a mystery. It's not a big deal, I just thought it was funny.
Click to expand...
I know, I didn't take it as an insult or anything. I'm just tired of our mods sitting idly by while HOJ derails any thread he feels like. You did receive 2 likes from the guy. You may want to take a shower or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom