Big Bang vs Creation

DarthOlsenTwins: Excellent post... though this isn't an evolution thread, and let's not turn it into one. I just wanted to commend you on this point.

Creationists often point to scientific explanations and call them backwards for this very reason... except when the scientific explanation might suit their theopolitical agenda.

Then you see them quoting scientists of every discipline in the hopes that these scientists rhetorical observations, not their actual research, will somehow boost the confidence in Creationism. Yet they will not hesitate to declare these same scientists unfit to reach the scientific conclusions in their research pertaining to their field of expertise when such research contradicts Creation.

In spite of Creationists' great desire for myth to be accepted as scientific fact, this sort of "badgering the witness" only serves to destroy Creationist credibility... because it demonstrates selective observation on their part. That belies objectivity... which is paramount to the scientific method.

 

there's a lot that i want to say here, but i will focus on this:

by natural evidences of orderliness in a universe that is by itself unintelligent, which houses unique and inexplicable intelligence,

you drastically overrate both the importance and the uniqueness of human intelligence. human intelligence is a product of human biology, which is itself no more or less a product of ordinary laws of chemistry and biology than rocks or anything else. there's nothing any more special or inexplicable about human life than there is about any other phenomenon. the sharp distinction that you're trying to draw between intelligent and unintelligent doesn't exist in the way that you think it does.

human evolution occurs within the same self-organizing framework within which everything else occurs and requires no special explanation.

to use your terms, human intelligence is not inexplicable. it's quite explicable, and is in fact in the process of being explained right now. ask your local cognitive science person.

 

I see a bit of backwards thinking here.

it's completely backwards reasoning, i agree.

let's say the beginning of time is point X, and the universe as we know it is point Y. the span of time is line XY. lines, of course, have no width or depth, and so there is precisely zero wiggle room.

we're at point Y. creationists look back at point X and say "wow. if you're going to get from point X to point Y, line XY is the only way to go! since even the tiniest variation from line XY will throw you completely off course and make your chance of hitting point Y virtually nil, there's no way we could have gotten here unless something was guiding us! there must be a God!"

however, that whole line of reasoning presupposes that someone, somewhere had intent to go from point X to point Y, rather than point Y simply being where things happened to end up. i agree, if you want to get from X to Y, you have to go through XY, but if there's no one trying to go to point Y, then point Y just happens to be another point along just another line, distinguishable from any other possible points only by the fact that we happen to be sitting there and, quite arrogantly, assuming that it's more important.

unless you assume from the get-go that someone is trying to make the universe the way it is, then the fact that it's this way and not some other way has no significance. unless you presume that someone was trying to create homo sapiens, the fact that homo sapiens popped up is not terribly important.

creationists presuppose that there is a God who is trying to make the universe exactly the way it is right now, and then use the fact that the universe is exactly the way it is right now as proof. that's completely circular logic.

 

There is no God making the universe the way we know it.
|
|
|
Science itself has never proven the existence of God
|
|
|
Thus, there is no God making the universe the way we know it.

Look.


Another circle.

This is a fun game.



Science will never prove the existence of God. I gave some thought to SnowDog's post about the infinite vacuum of the universe, and the lack of need for a Creator. It is quite a mental exercise just thinking about the concept of anything, be it spiritual or physical having no end or boundary. God having no beginning? The universe? There are certainly no answers to this in either the Bible or science, to my knowledge, so I shall not worry about it. Neither is there anything in the Bible that spells out exactly how the spiritual world and the physical one are linked, if at all. How do they coexist? How do theorized multiple universes coexist (or is that just sci-fi fancy)? I know not, but I believe it's possible to have a physical plane of existence and a spiritual one. They coexist somehow, maybe even linked but I can't say for sure.

It's ok to dismiss my belief in a God or even the spiritual world based on no scientific evidence. I don't mind. I know when I look at a snow-capped mountain in Colorodo Springs (I've made a few visits), or a purple and orange sunset while standing in my own back yard that I'm just seeing silicon, dirt, frozen water, air vapor, refracted light, etc., which is processed chemically in my brain. I know what the stars are, but I still revel in their beauty. I see the work of God in it. I feel it in my heart. That feeling is just more chemical reactions too, but maybe more.

Maybe it's dumb. Maybe it's goofy. It works for me anyway.

 

Phelps-Your the man.

 

"I see the work of God in it. I feel it in my heart. That feeling is just more chemical reactions too, but maybe more.

Maybe it's dumb. Maybe it's goofy. It works for me anyway."


I hope no one here thinks that I would think that your belief in a higher being is dumb or goofy. If believing in one comforts you, by all means do so.

Myself, I don't feel that there is a god, but I still see the beauty in all of those things Phelps described.

And not needing to believe in some higher being to protect/watch over me works for me.

Latre!

 

Phelps, I respect the conclusion to your post. All of us must realize that each individual has a way of looking at the universe that works for them. If you see the work of a divine creator behind existence, and receive a sense of comfort and hope in that, all the power to you. No one else has the right to tell you how to live. That courtesy should be extended to everyone.
I don't believe in categorizing my views, but I think the closest my personal philosophy comes to is Pantheism. I can't picture myself finding as much comfort or joy in any other theological mindset. But that's just me.

What some of you are saying about backwards reasoning reminds me of an excerpt from "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. Ishmael is telling an allegorical story to his pupil about an anthropologist on a beach talking to a jellyfish and its story of the origin of the jellyfish species.


"For many millions of centuries the life of the world was merely microorganisms floating helplessly in a chemical broth. But little by little, more complex forms appeared: single-celled creatures, slimes, algae, polyps, and so on."

"But finally," the creature said, turning quite pink with pride as he came to the climax of his story, "but finally jellyfish appeared!"

Nothing much came out of me for ninety seconds or so, except maybe waves of baffled bury. Then I said, "That's not fair."

"What do you mean?"

"What did the jellyfish mean when it said "But finally jellyfish appeared?"

"It meant that is what it was all leading up to. This is what the whole ten or fifteen billion years of creation were leading up to: jellyfish."

"I agree. And why doesn't your account of creation end with the appearance of jellyfish?"

I suppose I tittered. "Because there was more to come beyond jellyfish."

"That's right. Creation didn't end with jellyfish. Still to come were the vertebrates and the amphibians and the reptiles and the mammals, and of course, finally, man."

"Right."

"And so your account of creation ends, "And finally man appeared."

"Yes."


Hah. The irony.

 

There is no God making the universe the way we know it.
|
|
|
Science itself has never proven the existence of God
|
|
|
Thus, there is no God making the universe the way we know it.

Look.


Another circle.

This is a fun game.

you have misrepresented my position so violently that i had to identify the body from dental records.

first, you have me starting with the proposition that there is no God. that's a blatant misrepresentation. i didn't start with that premise. i started out with a bunch of data and tried to determine whether or not this data proved or even suggested the existence of an intelligent creator. there's no circular reasoning there.

second, you say that my next step is that science has never proven the existence of God, which, again, is not true. you asserted that scientific theories regarding the beginning are not logically sound without supposing the existence of a God who engages in intelligent design. i evaluated and, ultimately, refuted your arguments for lack of evidence. i didn't say that God was impossible, just that the evidence didn't suggest his existence.

the evidence didn't rule out the possibility of God. however, there's been no evidence presented that proved him to exist, either. in the absence of such evidence, Occam's Razor points to the nonexistence of God as it stands right now. nothing rules out the possibility of new evidence coming along and tilting the balance the other way, but right now that's not where things stand. I have no more reason to believe in God than I do to believe in the Tooth Fairy.

you're the one making the assertions 1) that God exists and 2) that current scientific models do not hold up logically unless you posit an active, intelligent creator. since you're making the assertions, the burden of proof is on you. so far, your evidence is lacking.

It's ok to dismiss my belief in a God or even the spiritual world based on no scientific evidence. I don't mind. ? I see the work of God in it. I feel it in my heart. That feeling is just more chemical reactions too, but maybe more.

Maybe it's dumb. Maybe it's goofy. It works for me anyway.

that?s fine. if you feel that that?s the way things are, that?s your business. however, it would then behoove you to acknowledge that your decision is based on emotional factors and not on reason, and to further acknowledge that the accusations you made when you argued that those of us who held the atheist position were using faulty logic were baseless.

you basically argued that we were ignoring pressing evidence of intelligent design, we refuted your evidence, and you admitted explicitly that your position doesn't hold water when judged on the basis of reason alone. if you simply prefer to trust your instinct here, that's your business, but don't try to pretend like the evidence is on your side here and don't insult the rationality of those of us who have heard the sales pitch but just ain't buying it.

 

Once again, a reminder - science cannot prove anything. The scientific method works to disprove a hypothesis or bring forth evidence in support of a hypothesis. Science is not a quest for truth, but for knowledge. Do we hope to find the truth? Of course, that's why we keep testing and modifying and improving "hypotheses" until they can be called "theories" and testing theories until they are such that we can call them "laws". But a good scientists will always say, "XYZ works, to the best of our current knowledge."

Just had to say that in response to comments about proving the existence of a Creator.

And to DarthPhelps who eloquently said:

I know what the stars are, but I still revel in their beauty. I see the work of
God in it.

As a professional astrophysicist and educator, many people ask me if knowing about stars and galaxies and such take away the beauty of it all. And to them, I always respond: I think the universe is made more beautiful in that humanity can begin to understand it.

 

Wonderful post, dustchick. (I love your username, BTW... we are all made of star dust, afterall.)

 

Actually, I did choose the name because I study interstellar dust.

 

Hehehehe... that's what I had guessed.

 

you asserted that scientific theories regarding the beginning are not logically sound without supposing the existence of a God who engages in intelligent design

Not exactly. What I am expressing is my belief in a Creator.

i didn't say that God was impossible, just that the evidence didn't suggest his existence.
I am agreeing with you here. That's why I stated that science will never prove the existence of God. Of course, dustchick (cool profession, btw) corrected the notion that science 'proves' things out at all, but I think we all know what I meant to convey.

...so far, your evidence is lacking.
Same thing. By the way, don't think I hold the opinion that scientific models are not logical. Quite the contrary.

you basically argued that we were ignoring pressing evidence of intelligent design

I did? Golly. I don't recall presenting any evidence of intelligent design.


don't insult the rationality of those of us who have heard the sales pitch but just ain't buying it

Did I do that? I thought that in fact I extended a peaceful and friendly gesture by belittling myself instead. You're still miffed. Wow.

Lastly, I was amused by this comment:
you have misrepresented my position so violently that i had to identify the body from dental records
I'll have to use that sometime.

To be fair, the circular argument is somewhat of a misrepresentation also. A creationist believes so because it is a core element in the Christian faith. (note: faith). Now, if a creationist were to say that the complexity and wonder of the universe is evidence of the Creator, then that would be incorrect, scientifically speaking. Rather than the circular argument, it should go like this:

A creationist presupposes the existence of a Creator. Period.

 

A creationist presupposes the existence of a Creator. Period.

To quote Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction: Exactamundo!

Excellent post, Phelps.

 

Informed people should know the following:

1. Evolution is not a scientific law. It is a mere hypothesis that falls quite beyond the pale of the scientific method (observation, experimentation, and verification).

2. There are numerous laws, e.g., the laws of thermodynamics, genetics, etc., which contradict evolutionary assertions.

3. Many scientists dispute that evolutionary dogma is true science. Evolutionist Robert Jastow, for example, has conceded that belief in the accidental origin of life is ?an act of faith,? much, he says, like faith in the power of a Supreme Being (Until the Sun Dies, New York: Warner Books, 1977, p. 52).

Theodore N. Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist with the Atomic Energy Commission, has said:

?Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact ... It is a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure jaggling ... If evolution occurred at all, it was probably in a very different manner than the way it is now taught? (Fresno Bee, Aug. 20, 1959).

It is hardly necessary, therefore, to yield to the pressures of evolutionary brow-beating. We ought not to be cowed down; we should be more aggressive, demanding that those who affirm their confidence in evolution argue their case logically.

Some have been thrust toward evolutionary ideology because they are repelled by the confused (and sometimes cruel) state of the religious world. Religionists have sacrificed their own children in the name of ?gods? (cf. Jer. 19:5). In the Far East the cobra is worshipped as deity. ?Christians? (so-called) have warred with the devotees of Islam.

Catholics allege that the bread and wine of ?the Eucharist? magically turn into the body and blood of Jesus, while Protestants insist that such does not occur. Some contend that ?baptism? is administered only by immersion, while others allege that ?sprinkling? or ?aspersion? will suffice. A rather unique view suggests that it takes all three ?modes? to constitute the ?one baptism? of Ephesians 4:5 (cf. Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, Peabody: MA: Hendrickson, 1998, p. 201).

This disunity has driven many to disenchantment with religion in general, which includes a rebellion against divine revelation. This, of course, is precisely what Jesus indicated. He admonished those who professed a loyalty to him to be ?one,? that ?the world might believe? (Jn. 17:20-21); the Lord thus implied that disunity would produce the opposite effect, i.e., unbelief.

But people need to realize that a departure from the original does not negate the genuineness of the original. The segmented status of ?religiondom? does not authenticate evolution. The fact of the matter is, the evolutionists are as divided as the religionists.

For example, Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, contended that biological life evolved here on earth. On the other hand, Sir Fred Hoyle has argued that ?spontaneous generation? occurred in outer space! Some Darwinians speculate that the evolutionary process has occurred quite gradually, over eons of time. Supposedly this explains the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Others (e.g., Richard Goldschmidt, and more recently, Stephen Gould of Harvard), suggest that evolution has proceeded rapidly, almost in snatches.

There is wholesale disagreement among the advocates of evolution. Those, therefore, who have fled from religion because of its disunity, have found no haven in Darwinism.

 

This is not an evolution thread.

 

v8er h8er

I am having trouble in seeing how anything in your post relates to the Big Bang and Creationism.

EDIT- And please don't misrepresent scientific law by stating that "informed people" should know that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics. This is complete hogwash, but as its not appropriate in this thread, I digress.

 

But you miss the fact that the second law does disprove the Big Bang by telling the author of that post not to bash you by calling you guys not intelligent.

 

Why is it that physicists and astronomers, those people who actually study the universe and have an understanding of the laws of physics, do not see the second law of thermodynamics as being violated, but Creationists do? Do you really think that scientists are lying to themselves and each other?

Just curious as to your opinion on this. Really, I'm not being snide, but curious.

 

Huh Giiett? ?

The hydrogen which formed one millisecond after the universe began is much more ordered and less entropic than the galaxies, stars, planets, and life-essential elements. The galaxies and stars are broken-up pieces of the primordial gas cloud. The planets and life-essential elements are the burned-up remains ? i.e. ashes ? of hydrogen gas. Thus, the big bang manifests, rather than violates, the second law of thermodynamics.

And remember, these "Laws" you talk about aren't infallible... there may be principles of thermodynamics we haven't yet observed or recorded. There is nothing concrete about any scientific theory, even the "Laws of Gravity" have been re-written by relativity and quantum science.

EDIT: Good point, dustchick. I've always wondered that as well.

 

Well, let's accept everything purely from the standpoint of the big bang theory. A sphere of highly compressed matter and solidified gas explodes and spreads it's contents across the infininite space around it. By luck and happenstance, everything that happened did exactly as non-creationist science has explained and continues to strive to explain.

There is still only one fundamental problem with all of this. Even if everything else happened by pure chance and bit of luck, where did the ball of compressed matter and gas come from? Something just doesn't come out of nothing, matter doesn't just create itself. To believe that this could happen without a creator seems to defy logic and science.

Inevitably all arguments lead back to a creator, for no matter how small you make the origin of everything, something had to create it.

 

"Inevitably all arguments lead back to a creator, for no matter how small you make the origin of everything, something had to create it."

Does the creator need a creator?

 

See, this is why I like Panthiesm... there's no problem with the idea of a Big Bang... because the universe is "god". Everything is divine, self-creating, and self-sustaining...

 

Darth Geist-Then he would'ent be the Creator.

 

Who/what created the creator?