Anti big-bang case for a creator

[njaohnt]

Impossible. It is impossible that there even was a big bang. If there was a big bang, how did the complex life become? How did the molecules even stick together?

 

See

 

That is Case for a Creator, and all of those videos show how there could not be any big bang.

Edited December 31, 2011 by njaohnt

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

njaohnt, we are a science forum, and we don't allow non-science arguments in our mainstream science threads. In other words, do not answer scientific questions with religious (and non-mainstream scientific) answers in the mainstream science threads.

I moved your post to its own thread in the religious/philosophy forum where people can debate the merits of your points. Please go over our rules, and keep the discussion here.

[njaohnt]

!

Moderator Note

This is a mainstream science thread that requires mainstream accepted scientific reasoning and evidence-based posts. Religious arguments do not belong here.

 

njaohnt's post was split to its own thread and moved to the Religion forum in case anyone is up for a debate on its merits.

 

Don't post religious and non-scientific arguments in the mainstream science sub forums again, please.

Whoa whoa whoa, the rules say nothing about not posting religious arguments, and my post did not include anything religious(the video did, but not me). There are two similar rules:

 

Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument.

This is not my own theory, it is Case for a Creator's theory, and more people believe their theory, than the big bang(not inside the US, but the majority of the world believes this). Their theory is also completely scientific.

Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking.

Ordinary science? What's ordinary about the big bang? I'm only posting this so that if some administrator comes on here to see if you're wrong I have to say, this is ordinary science, maybe not to you, but like I said, the majority of the world believes this, and it is to me.

 

Also a similar rule from the administrator of this forum:

 

Please note that all posts that are baseless in scientific fact or that are outside of mainstream physics can and will be moved to the Speculations forum. Make sure that you think about the nature of your post before you hit the "post" button.

My post was not outside the mainstream of physics, the video included complete scientific evidence of that the big bang did not happen.

 

 

Put my post back, or I'll call an administrator.

[mooeypoo]

Non mainstream arguments are off topic in the mainstream science forums, which is why this thread wasn't deleted, it was moved to its proper place.

 

Your argument has no scientific arguments, which you are more than welcome to post right here in the current thread. Further, the argument you post is not the acceptable view in mainstream science, hence it does not belong as an answer to a mainstream-science question. This is a non-debatable rule.

 

We don't dismiss non-mainstream (or religious) claims off hand, we just don't use these in the mainstream science threads, because they're not mainstream science. Hence, the thread was moved to religion, since you are using religious arguments.

 

If you manage to prove your theory under the scientific method and have it accepted by mainstream science, I promise we will move the thread back to the mainstream science thread.

 

 

 

Please don't argue over moderation notes; this was an explanation courtesy to you, and we welcome the discussion -- under the rules that exist in this forum, rules that you agreed to when you signed up.

 

Also, feel free to call an administrator via our contact form. Be aware, however, that moderators do not act in a vacuum; we discuss actions and follow the rules.

 

 

 

We might be willing to consider moving this thread to speculations rather than religion, if you post actual speculative arguments (those must contain actual evidence, and not just claims or 'logic' arguments), as even speculations should follow the scientific method.

 

Do that, and we will certainly consider moving it there. It will not move back to mainstream science, though.

 

!

Moderator Note

Let me make this clear: Argument with moderation notes derails threads to off topic conversations, and that's unacceptable. You can debate the issue (and the merit/placement of your thread) HERE in your own thread.

 

We will move and start deleting posts you make in the other thread, and view it as thread hijacking.

 

Please follow our rules, we don't delete your opinions, but we do have a place for them. Feel free to use the "report" button and make your case to the staff. Don't hijack threads started by other people.

 

 

[Phi for All]

Impossible. It is impossible that there even was a big bang. If there was a big bang, how did the complex life become? How did the molecules even stick together?

That's a big-time FAIL for showing how the Big Bang was impossible. Urey-Miller was an experiment showing it very much WAS possible. Just because they were intelligent doesn't mean the Big Bang couldn't have happened without them. That's actually hilarious.

 

I think you need to look up the definition of "impossible"before you ever use the word again.

[njaohnt]

That's a big-time FAIL for showing how the Big Bang was impossible. Urey-Miller was an experiment showing it very much WAS possible. Just because they were intelligent doesn't mean the Big Bang couldn't have happened without them. That's actually hilarious.

 

I think you need to look up the definition of "impossible"before you ever use the word again.

Okay, here's the deal.

 

The molecules, and atoms, and everything came, and…what? How could they form life? How is all this here, you, me, the computer that I'm holding, the chair that I'm sitting in? How could all the particles form together?

 

Really, I can't see this being hilarious to you, but I think the big bang theory is WAY sillier than what I believe.

We'll see if you're laughing when you face eternity burning up in fire…while I'm looking down at you saying "Oh, why didn't he listen to me?".

 

Now SERIOUSLY! You shouldn't go down to the fire, and I don't want you to. If you change your ways, then you will thank me later. You'll thank me a lot.

 

What about the dude in South America somewhere that heals people? Now if not convinced yet, go down there, and see the healing in action. Here's how he does it:

He asks them what's wrong.

He does what he needs to do. Sometimes it's stick a stick up their nose, and it does even hurt. Sometimes he sends them to a healing room, where the people sit for three hours, and get healed. Once a guy went there, and the days after, blood poured out of his stomach. He saw that there had been an opening there. Now if you're not convinced, go there and see for yourself.

[mooeypoo]

njaohnt, we would really like to debate and learn from one another, but in order for this to happen, we need to make sure we speak the same language.

 

You came to a science forum, and we have certain rules of argument here. We are not theologians or apologetics. We don't go by "what makes sense to me" but what "follows the evidence".

 

I understand your confusion, but what you're saying shows a basic misunderstanding of what our modern physics says, what the big bang is, and what "evidence" means.

 

"The dude that said X" is no evidence, don't you agree? It also doesn't help us understand you. Take the time to find what duded you're talking about, post us a link to whatever he said or found so we can relate to the claim. I picked that in particular because it was the most extreme, but your post has no actual evidence, just your interpretation of what you think science says.

 

 

The main problem here is that you are asking a question about a complex subject that usually takes people quite a number of pre-requisite courses to study and a number of years. I'm not saying you can't understand it, not at all, but what I am saying is that you can't expect us to summarize it neatly in a forum post.

 

Here's a good resource for you to start with, it answers all your questions about the big bang (and more) and gives quite a lot of evidence for its existence - observations, experiments and reality-based arguments.

 

http://www.talkorigi...my/bigbang.html

 

I think it's only fair that you at least go over it before we continue to discuss the points you're raising. You will see that it answers them better than what we can put it in a forum post, and if you have questions about this page, feel free to post them.

 

Please remember, you're the one who chose to sign up to this forum and so you need to go by our rules.

 

If you want to debate with us, you really need to follow those rules you agreed to -- and the instructions of the staff, so you can stay in the forum and make your point. When we told you to stop mixing your personal interpretation with mainstream threads, we meant it. If your goal is to stay and convince us of your truth, you should at least follow the rules.

 

~mooey

[iNow]

The molecules, and atoms, and everything came, and…what? How could they form life? How is all this here, you, me, the computer that I'm holding, the chair that I'm sitting in? How could all the particles form together?

Have you been taking your lessons on science from Insane Clown Posse? Fucking magnets... how do they work?

 

 

 

 

Really, I can't see this being hilarious to you, but I think the big bang theory is WAY sillier than what I believe.

We'll see if you're laughing when you face eternity burning up in fire…while I'm looking down at you saying "Oh, why didn't he listen to me?".

 

Now SERIOUSLY! You shouldn't go down to the fire, and I don't want you to. If you change your ways, then you will thank me later. You'll thank me a lot.

And theists wonder why I mock them, or why I so frequently put forth that they are being disingenuous when they argue that religion and belief is all about love. It's because not only are they so often ignorant, but arrogant about it.

[mooeypoo]

We'll see if you're laughing when you face eternity burning up in fire…while I'm looking down at you saying "Oh, why didn't he listen to me?".

 

 

What I don't understand, really, is how a person can say this with such smugness and then claim non-believers are the ones that lack ethics.

 

You don't find this statement cruel, njaohnt, even if it's true?

[Fuzzwood]

Life is a definition, look it up.

[Phi for All]

The molecules, and atoms, and everything came, and…what? How could they form life? How is all this here, you, me, the computer that I'm holding, the chair that I'm sitting in? How could all the particles form together?

You're leaping over the almost 14 BILLION years in between the Big Bang and your computer being manufactured. If you can control your impatience, there are mountains of evidence you can check for yourself that support theories on ways life forms and evolves over such vast amounts of time. You can even keep your creator; perhaps He is much more patient and awesome and studious than you are, and provided the mechanisms that all those billions of years took advantage of.

 

Your argument from from incredulity is one of the weakest there is; it's single advantage is that of saving you all the time of actual learning. Don't be lazy, be smart, study up. How can you ridicule what you don't know?

[njaohnt]

You're leaping over the almost 14 BILLION years in between the Big Bang and your computer being manufactured. If you can control your impatience, there are mountains of evidence you can check for yourself that support theories on ways life forms and evolves over such vast amounts of time. You can even keep your creator; perhaps He is much more patient and awesome and studious than you are, and provided the mechanisms that all those billions of years took advantage of.

 

Your argument from from incredulity is one of the weakest there is; it's single advantage is that of saving you all the time of actual learning. Don't be lazy, be smart, study up. How can you ridicule what you don't know?

What I don't know? I do know(but to follow the rules of scientific evidence and this forum, I'll say that I think)! 14 billion years you say? No, I don't think so. They've found Noah's ark on a mountain, it's the same dimensions as the Bible told Noah to build it. If the earth were flooded with water 40 feet above any mountain, that would make the earth seem way older, it would create the layers in the earth that atheists talk about. Also, it makes perfect sense as to why everything that they find(fossils) is so big. The Bible says that all the water from the ground, and all the water from the sky came in for the flood. It also says that no one will live longer than 120 years, but before the flood, people were living long, 750-950 years. So, if there were a large amount of water in the sky, it could protect the world from the sun's radiation, so that things could live long, and grow big. That is enough evidence for me, to go against any other theory, but what really happened, I don't know, but I'm very sure that this is what happened.

 

Does that go against the rules forums mooeypoo? If it does break them, I am confused. If I broke the rules, give me an example of how I should have done this post.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What I don't know? I do know(but to follow the rules of scientific evidence and this forum, I'll say that I think)! 14 billion years you say? No, I don't think so. They've found Noah's ark on a mountain, it's the same dimensions as the Bible told Noah to build it.

Could you give me a link about that? I hadn't heard of this before.

 

If the earth were flooded with water 40 feet above any mountain, that would make the earth seem way older, it would create the layers in the earth that atheists talk about.

Could you give me a link about that? I've never heard any geologists say this, certainly.

 

Also, it makes perfect sense as to why everything that they find(fossils) is so big. The Bible says that all the water from the ground, and all the water from the sky came in for the flood. It also says that no one will live longer than 120 years, but before the flood, people were living long, 750-950 years. So, if there were a large amount of water in the sky, it could protect the world from the sun's radiation, so that things could live long, and grow big.

Hm. Is UV radiation really responsible for people dying at age 78 instead of living to 950? That seems unlikely. Perhaps you've read some research on the subject.

 

Does that go against the rules forums mooeypoo? If it does break them, I am confused. If I broke the rules, give me an example of how I should have done this post.

You may want to cite evidence for your claims; e.g. give a link to a geologist explaining how a flood would explain the complex geological formations observed on Earth.

[njaohnt]

Have you been taking your lessons on science from Insane Clown Posse? Fucking magnets... how do they work?

 

 

 

 

 

And theists wonder why I mock them, or why I so frequently put forth that they are being disingenuous when they argue that religion and belief is all about love. It's because not only are they so often ignorant, but arrogant about it.

Magnets don't work that way. Why didn't the person in the Case for a Creator succeed to take the substances, and create a life cell, from a broken life cell? The magnets didn't work. Why would they would they work 14 billion years before? Those substances don't attract each other enough.

 

What I don't understand, really, is how a person can say this with such smugness and then claim non-believers are the ones that lack ethics.

 

You don't find this statement cruel, njaohnt, even if it's true?

No, this isn't cruel. I'm just telling you non-Christians what's going to happen if you don't change.

[dimreepr]

What I don't know? I do know(but to follow the rules of scientific evidence and this forum, I'll say that I think)! 14 billion years you say? No, I don't think so. They've found Noah's ark on a mountain, it's the same dimensions as the Bible told Noah to build it. If the earth were flooded with water 40 feet above any mountain, that would make the earth seem way older, it would create the layers in the earth that atheists talk about. Also, it makes perfect sense as to why everything that they find(fossils) is so big. The Bible says that all the water from the ground, and all the water from the sky came in for the flood. It also says that no one will live longer than 120 years, but before the flood, people were living long, 750-950 years. So, if there were a large amount of water in the sky, it could protect the world from the sun's radiation, so that things could live long, and grow big. That is enough evidence for me, to go against any other theory, but what really happened, I don't know, but I'm very sure that this is what happened.

 

Does that go against the rules forums mooeypoo? If it does break them, I am confused. If I broke the rules, give me an example of how I should have done this post.

 

LOL is this a serious post? Try and get a pair of every single animal on this fair planet of ours on a single boat or ship, and you will know, the complexity of life.

Edited January 1, 2012 by dimreepr

[iNow]

Magnets don't work that way.

Magnets don't work what way? Not sure what you're talking about. I was comparing your arguments from incredulity as similar to the nonsense ICP put out.

[mooeypoo]

Magnets don't work that way. Why didn't the person in the Case for a Creator succeed to take the substances, and create a life cell, from a broken life cell? The magnets didn't work. Why would they would they work 14 billion years before? Those substances don't attract each other enough.

I don't know why he didn't, but the fact that tons of other people did, perhaps (just a suggestion here) perhaps perhaps he is biased. Or perhaps his methodology was flawed. Or perhaps he's not telling you the whole truth.

 

That's what happens in biased movies that try to convince you of an opinion rather than follow evidence. Anyone cn produce a movie that says anything. Movies are not evidence.

 

It's quite easy to watch one (or two or three) biased films that take all their iformation from biased scientists and make a biased conclusion. njaohnt, take a look at that movie again: All scientists are from the Discovery Institute - a Creationist organization (self professed, at times).

 

In science, we demand diverse evidence from mulitple sources. We require that more than one institution show repeatable results, and that no other evidence disprove it.

 

The movie is clearly biased, and relying on evidence from it is insufficient.

 

Here's your argument's problem: You want to argue scientifically but you don't want to use scientific sources. We're open for a discussion, but if you choose to debate scientifically, you need to go by scientific debate rules. Bring us evidence that are peer reviewed, repeatable, falsifiable, experimented and properly tested. We can talk about them then.

 

There are quite a lot of movies out there (in and out of youtube) that explain very clearly how chupacabra exists alongside UFO abductions. They, too, discuss things with "doctors" and "professors". Would you be convinced by them? I would hope not. Just like we require better evidence to your argument, you would (hopefully) demand better argument to theirs.

 

 

 

No, this isn't cruel. I'm just telling you non-Christians what's going to happen if you don't change.

Even if this is true, it shows of quite a cruel god that leads scientists (who go by evidence) one way and then punishes them. We're not bad people who chose to denounce a god on spite. We go by what the interpretation of the evidence show us. Is your god that cruel that he would punish us with boiling fire for all eternity? To be quite honest, my friend, if your god is that cruel, I would rather not be on his side.

 

 

[njaohnt]

n

 

The main problem here is that you are asking a question about a complex subject that usually takes people quite a number of pre-requisite courses to study and a number of years. I'm not saying you can't understand it, not at all, but what I am saying is that you can't expect us to summarize it neatly in a forum post.

 

Here's a good resource for you to start with, it answers all your questions about the big bang (and more) and gives quite a lot of evidence for its existence - observations, experiments and reality-based arguments.

 

http://www.talkorigi...my/bigbang.html

 

I think it's only fair that you at least go over it before we continue to discuss the points you're raising. You will see that it answers them better than what we can put it in a forum post, and if you have questions about this page, feel free to post them.

Okay, what about "something cannot come out of nothing" it doesn't really say why it can. Yeah, energy could have come out of nothing, but not matter.

 

Another thing, there is about 1/1 000 000 000 chance of something like this happen. Never mind you being a person on the earth. This also says that there has to be a soul in everyone. Imagine someone watching the big bang happen, they can see the whole universe and they are right outside the universe, and they know everything that happens in it. This will be hard to understand, but how can you be you? The person watching sees everything happen. Fast forward 14 billion years, here, you are. He sees the electricity go through your nerves, making you think, and veiw your screen. But how do you physically exist as you? Are you just a bunch of parts put together? How? Yeah, you are consistently thinking with your brain, but how are you you, and not everybody. Imagine that we all have souls controlling us, and then our souls all go in a box beside the person watching. Now what? We are beings being controlled by brains. That's basically what things in the universe are like now by the big bang theory. So how are thinking by you, and not just a brain. Like I said, this is hard to understand.

[dimreepr]

Okay, what about "something cannot come out of nothing" it doesn't really say why it can. Yeah, energy could have come out of nothing, but not matter.

 

Another thing, there is about 1/1 000 000 000 chance of something like this happen. Never mind you being a person on the earth. This also says that there has to be a soul in everyone. Imagine someone watching the big bang happen, they can see the whole universe and they are right outside the universe, and they know everything that happens in it. This will be hard to understand, but how can you be you? The person watching sees everything happen. Fast forward 14 billion years, here, you are. He sees the electricity go through your nerves, making you think, and veiw your screen. But how do you physically exist as you? Are you just a bunch of parts put together? How? Yeah, you are consistently thinking with your brain, but how are you you, and not everybody. Imagine that we all have souls controlling us, and then our souls all go in a box beside the person watching. Now what? We are beings being controlled by brains. That's basically what things in the universe are like now by the big bang theory. So how are thinking by you, and not just a brain. Like I said, this is hard to understand.

 

Plato say's the fundamental is the soul, so how can the soul have a number? Other than 1.

[njaohnt]

 

Even if this is true, it shows of quite a cruel god that leads scientists (who go by evidence) one way and then punishes them. We're not bad people who chose to denounce a god on spite. We go by what the interpretation of the evidence show us. Is your god that cruel that he would punish us with boiling fire for all eternity? To be quite honest, my friend, if your god is that cruel, I would rather not be on his side.

He's not the one punishing you. This is a fact of things outside our world. Here's the deal in point form:

The penalty for evil is to go to where evil is(hell)

However you don't have to pay the penalty, so, if you believe that Jesus paying that penalty for you, and you accept His gift, you don't have to go to hell, what Satan made for the sinners

God, however is good, He made good and He wants us to have a good life, but He can't give us that if we're stuck in hell paying for our evilness.

Those are the facts of the world going on outside our world. They are like things on earth, like gravity, or friction, or any fact our universe.

[mooeypoo]

He's not the one punishing you. This is a fact of things outside our world. Here's the deal in point form:

The penalty for evil is to go to where evil is(hell)

However you don't have to pay the penalty, so, if you believe that Jesus paying that penalty for you, and you accept His gift, you don't have to go to hell, what Satan made for the sinners

God, however is good, He made good and He wants us to have a good life, but He can't give us that if we're stuck in hell paying for our evilness.

Those are the facts of the world going on outside our world. They are like things on earth, like gravity, or friction, or any fact our universe.

 

Tell you what, we have quite a lot of topics about this subject in the religion forum. Feel free to contribute to this question there, since it's out of the topic we want to discuss here.

 

I'll participate if you open a new thread about this (in religion, of course), and you can also look at the other similar topics that we have already.

 

 

Let's stick to the topic of the big bang.

[njaohnt]

Plato say's the fundamental is the soul, so how can the soul have a number? Other than 1.

That's not a soul. The fundamental of the soul is the brain, but you are one of many.

 

LOL is this a serious post? Try and get a pair of every single animal on this fair planet of ours on a single boat or ship, and you will know, the complexity of life.

The Bible says that God told Noah to build the ark at more than 1.5 million feet cubed, though it could have been bigger, because it was measured in cubics back then, and there were many types of cubics, and this is according to the smallest type of cubic.

 

They think they've found Noah's ark here:

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

[mooeypoo]

That's not a soul. The fundamental of the soul is the brain, but you are one of many.

 

 

The Bible says that God told Noah to build the ark at more than 1.5 million feet cubed, though it could have been bigger, because it was measured in cubics back then, and there were many types of cubics, and this is according to the smallest type of cubic.

 

They think they've found Noah's ark here:

 

http://news.national...ligion-culture/

 

The bible is no proof, and "think" is no evidence.

[njaohnt]

 

 

 

You may want to cite evidence for your claims; e.g. give a link to a geologist explaining how a flood would explain the complex geological formations observed on Earth.

Here http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/geology

[iNow]

njaohnt - You may not realize this, but the source you shared is a very poor one, often quite wrong and nearly always quite biased. Perhaps you can use something a little more objective to support your claims?