Big Bang vs Creation

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by SaberGiiett7, Jul 30, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Creation is not a scientific theory. There are no falsifiable hypotheses possible when dealing with a supernatural matter. One cannot test whether god created the universe or not, if nothing can be traced directly to the hand of god... which would require that we can physically see the hand of god and link it to whatever one religion, out of hundreds, claims to have been created by him.

    The "Big Bang" theory, like any other scientific theory, is comprised of hypotheses that are tested and based on observable evidence... there is some evidence of the occurrence of the Big Bang... background radiation, for example.

    The half-life of radioactive isotopes, such as cesium, is far more accurate and reliable than the most expensive mechanical watch in the world... much less a testimony written 2000 years ago, or fifteen minutes ago for that matter, for which no evidence has been gathered since.
  2. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    Darth_SnowDog I don't want to be annoying but it's called Cs-137 because 'normal' Cesium is the one that appears 100% in nature and that Cesium does radiate a radiation of any kind :p

    I don't believe in any religion. So I believe in the bing bang theory.

    I just accept that the explosion appeared as religious people accept that God suddenly appeared created the Earth and the Heavens...

    And it's beyond the human comprehension why the bing bang appeared. We should accept this...
  3. dustchick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2000
    star 1
    Cesium-137 is a short-lived (half-life=30 years, I think) radioactive isotope that is mostly present in our environment from radioactive fallout.

    There are many other radioactive isotopes that occur in nature, such as the ones produced in supernovae explosions, which have much longer half-lives (millions of years) and are used to date meteorites.

    So, Cesium-137 may not have been the best example above, but the usage of radioactive isotopes for dating over long periods of time is well-established.
  4. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    It's 35 years, dustchick ;)

    and a nice example one that last long is
    Pb - 204 it's half life is 1,4 10^17 years

    So, Cesium-137 may not have been the best example above, but the usage of radioactive isotopes for dating over long periods of time is well-established.

    yup, that proves that the Earth and it's galaxy is older way older, then, for example, most Christians they believe that the Earth is a mere 6000 - 7000 years old.
  5. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    For the record, I was referring to Cesium-133... which is used often in cesium-beam atomic clocks. By utilizing as a standard of reference the exact frequency of the microwave spectral line emitted by CS-133, ~ 9.192 GHz, the cesium atomic clocks provide the international standard for the second today... bearing far greater accuracy compared to, say, an $80,000 Rolex President wristwatch which has an average accuracy of about +/- 1 minute per month.

    The US National Observatory's Cesium Atomic Clocks, such as model HP5071A, are manufactured by Agilent Technologies of Santa Clara, CA. However, since 1993, NIST-F1 is the United States' primary time and frequency standard. It is a cesium fountain clock developed by NIST Laboratories in Boulder, CO. By comparison to the Rolex President, the NIST-F1 has a frequency uncertainty of 2 x 10^-15... not gaining or losing a second in approximately 20 million years.
  6. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    ahha but Cs - 133 does not radiate by it self...

    Only with "help" of humans :)

  7. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Well, that doesn't change my comments on atomic clocks. I should have just said "radioactive isotopes" without giving some example that someone would inevitably nitpick over.

    Of course there are those who will try to debunk Carbon-14 dating, without really undestanding how it works.

    I'm just saying that, whether "assisted" by humans or not... radioactive isotopes are far more reliable than hearsay, written accounts and/or stories. As my figures above had shown, the frequency uncertainty of CS-133 (in its F=4 state) is so tremendously low that it is accurate for at least 20 million years... far longer than Creationists claim, without any evidence whatsoever, that the earth is only 6000 years old.

    "Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'does not!'"
    - anonymous
  8. dustchick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2000
    star 1
    Ah...agreement about radioactive dating by people who understand how it works. How refreshing! :)
  9. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    It all comes down to one crucial flaw to the Big Bang theory.How can the the matter that imploded out of nonething and is non-living make something alive and organic?So far all supporters of the Big Bang have dodged this 1 question that disproves their whole theory.
    The natural order of things points to things advancing leading to dis-order rather then become greater and greater.
  10. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    "We are star stuff."--Carl Sagan

  11. dustchick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2000
    star 1
    "Organic" as a scientific term means "carbon-bearing", and carbon is abundantly made in stars.
  12. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    VLM and dustchick = same mental wavelength :)
  13. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    Carbon as in rocks and minerals?That does'ent really sound very singled celled to me.
  14. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Er,
    You, me, and everyone else on Earth are carbon based bipeds. This carbon came from the explosion of stars.
  15. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    Okay I can see this is getting nowhere.If there was a void of nonetheness before the Big Bang were did the explosion come from?How could a void of absoulutly nothing make a material explosion?
  16. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Saber, there are many ideas out there floating around from quantum fluctuations, a time-like sigularity conjured by escaping beings from a dying universe, but what you just asked is the question every human being who has ever walked the Earth has asked at one time or another,
    "Where does it all come from?"

    And right now we do not have an answer, only guesses.
  17. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    So like Creatonism Big Bang theorists take a leap of faith?I thought the sole reason of Evoulutionary ideas were designed to give material reasons to diprove my idea of how the earth was made?
  18. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Its a leap of faith backed up by our observations of the activity of the Universe as we see it today.
    Many scientists cling to it, but most will be more than happy to replace it with another theory if something else fits the picture in a better way.
    But for now it is the leading idea.
  19. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    How can it be the leading idea?Americas leading scientists are no longer unified.There is no base to prove the theory.
    There is no possible way to explain creation of something through nothing.All you have to do is look around to see Gods hand on all creation.What are the odds that all that there is can come into bein through even a 100 million year progression?Its been proving not just nearly impossible but plain impossible.Once again nature tends to lean towards disorder.
  20. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Well, we were doing good for a moment, but once again someone takes only a part of a post.
    There is no 100% unity, but the Bing bang is the accepted theory by..........MOST.

    Even in disorder patterns can emerge, and no one ever said things came to be as they are over 100 million years since the current model holds the Universe as being between 12 and 13 billion years old(Last time I checked).

  21. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    I did'ent know the exact number you guys had for the Earths age so I took some ludicrous guess and it just happend to be even higher than that.Big Bang theologist have written themselves into a corner.They claim that Evolutionary ideas are scientificly sound yet they have no way of explaining the details of their idea of the Big Bang.For instance how was our planet created?If it was from a ridiculously large explosion how did the explosion of super-compressed matter
    make a totally differant element that exist on Earth(plantlife).I would say to these scientists if your going to develope a theory don't back it up by claiming that most of your ideas are "missing links".
  22. Master-Jedi-Smith Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 26, 2002
    star 4
    Why does there have to be a reason behind all of "this?" And by this I mean Earth.

    Evidence of how we know that Earth has been around longer than what the Bible says has already been stated.

    How do you dispute fossils, carbon dating, and natural events like the forming of lakes because of the ice age, and the Grand Canyon being formed over millions of years by the Colorado River (is that right? :p )

    How could anyone not believe that those things took time to come about? The same thing applies in the universe.

    If Earth was made by an all knowing being, what is the purpose for the other planets, stars, and galaxies? Nothing seems to suggest that they have any importance to a God. For crying out loud, people thought the world was flat and that everything revolved around it. How come such things are now dismissed, but some people still believe in creationism?

    How did we come from nothing? How did God come from nothing?

    Someone once posted in another thread when I asked that, that he has always been. Well, perhaps the energy that created us has always been there as well. Expanding and contracting. Who knows.

    Latre! :D
  23. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    First off if the "energys"you claim created us were omnipresent than how could that stand?Gods supernatural and energys are natural kinetic occurences.How would energys have the knowledge to create things through a superexplosion?God has always been because like humans he has a intelligent precense.
    Whats the purpose of other parts of our universe?I would suppose to further Gods glory through showing to humans on Earth that hes there and that he not the Big Bang created things.How ironic.The whole universe is his kingdom.And you said yourself there seems to be no blanting reason for there existence yet who are we to know what Gods uses are?




    Show me proof that all those things took as much time as you say they do to come about and i'll answer.
  24. Master-Jedi-Smith Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 26, 2002
    star 4
    Well, how intelligent was it to create a galaxy with only one planet full of life, and all the rest void of it?

    Latre! :D
  25. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    Look up i'm adding more to my last posts to answer you.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.