Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by SaberGiiett7, Jul 30, 2002.
Look up i'm adding more to my last posts to answer you.
For more facts as to the way I see things please read the authors post on the second page of Senate Floor in the locked thread titled scientific proof of gods existence.
What proof would satisfy you? Do you still believe that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around us?
To quote you, "All you have to do is look around."
Are you to have me believe that you think the Rocky Mountains were created in one day, or that the Continents were in the positions that they are today as they were millions of years ago.
Do you know what earthquakes are, or are they some mythological, leap of faith, scientific theory.
Does it not take time for things to happen? For trees to grow? People to evolve?
Or has the tree out in your front yard always been the same height, and have we always been sitting in front of a computer?
It's pretty easy just saying "God made it." instead of actually trying to figure out if he did or not.
But, I must apologize for assuming that you know the basic laws of physics and chemistry, or world history for that matter.
Sometimes I forget to whom I am "talking" to on these boards.
Not that I mean anything bad by that, but just that as you get older and learn more things, some of your views will change. That's all a part of growing up!
I hope in 15 years I am more knowledgable than I am right now!
If Gods a almighty bein why would he not be capable of creating even all this in 7 days?
Thanks for the insult epeccially cinsidering i'm 15 and your 28.
Look at my post again please.
I didn't mean to insult.
Oh sorry.So you think that when I get older I won't believe this any longer?
I don't know.
All the way up till 7th grade, I was raised catholic, and I probably did believe in the 7 days to create earth theory only because I wasn't exposed to any other explaination.
Overtime, I have seen many different things, and some I accept, and some I don't. But, it is for me to decide whether or not I believe them. Of backed up by reasonable facts, I will tend to believe them. If not, I won't, or will look into it further to make sure I don't believe it.
Time will only tell.
Your not going to hold this debate personally are you?
This is all for fun!
I love a good debate/discussion.
This is what makes this place so fun, plus I get to see how others think and what they believe.
Having a Psychology and Sociology degree, I live for this stuff.
It's okay, because we Christians don't believe in things as put across by Jedi Smith, and in a few years more he may figure that out as his knowledge increases.
Besides, he's just repeating from his indoctrination in secular thoughts.
What he doesn't realize is that there is no scientific evidence proving a Big Bang, only insufficient theories trying to explain how what is here is here.
On the astrophyisics side of things info involving c-decay rates seems to be pointing at a universe that may be too young for any sort of evolution.
Point being, there is far less actual verifiable info than must people realize regarding any sort of Big Bang. As said before I recommend Erich Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened. That doesn't lend itself to a creationist model of the universe, but it does indicate the inadaquacy of Big Bang Theory, and also reveals how little is actually known outside of speculations.
The beauty of speculation is that anyone can do it.
Good point Brooks.I'll leave you and Latre alone to duke it out all this debating has tired me!
There's no time like the present Darth_Brooks_.
What types of things don't christians believe in?
Remember, I was once a christian myself.
You aren't talking about the world still being flat or the sun and stars revolving around us? (I just like to bring that up because those are old beliefs that no sane person would still believe, but yet, the Bible is older than those beliefs, and people still believe it.)
I'm always ready to listen to what you have to say, but just like you, I don't have to believe it.
To each his or her own!
Edit: SaberGiiett7, that's "Latre! "
Hope to see you Latre!
It is odd to me how a creationist will ask for proof of the Big Bang, but when asked for proof of God all they do is point to a certain book.
Being an agnostic I believe in the possibilityof a "Higher Power", but I don't believe the Pope himself can tell me about the mind of God.
BTW, the Earth is etimated to be about 4.5 billion years old.
In response to some of the points brought up by SaberGiiett7 and Darth Brooks:
1. The Earth is significantly younger than the universe, so is the Sun. The Sun is at least a second generation star - we can tell that by the types of elements we observe in the Sun.
Solar systems form along with stars out of primordial materials like hydrogen, helium, and some carbon/silicon-based dust. The first generation of stars in the universe likely did not have solar systems.
The fact that the solar system did not form during the Big Bang is NOT a flaw in the Big Bang model - the Big Bang set things in motion and let them go.
2. How do you make something about of nothing? Well, an explosion is energy and Einstein taught us that mass and energy are equivalent - E=mc^2. (Well, actually E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2, but that's slightly off-topic.)
Modern physics does not allow us to speculate on what touched off the Big Bang, but modern astrophysical observations very well support the idea of a primordial explosion.
3. American scientists are divided on the Big Bang? Um, no. The Big Bang model is very young and is always changing, as any good scientific theory does in the face of better observations. I would say that a more accurate statement is that astrophysicists agree that all of the bugs in the model aren't worked out yet, but it is the best working model we have as of yet.
Being a scientist means letting the model go if a better one is presented. No models exists currently that work better than the Big Bang. But people are still looking. That's what makes us scientists - we are not content with knowledge we have, we always want to know more.
dustchick just made my WUL.
Okay, then, Dust Chick,
So what are your arguments against Erich Lerner's arguments against the Big Bang?
(Please don't tell me how strong the Big Bang theory is followed by a statement that you are unfamiliar with Lerner's book.)
You also didn't bother to address issue's involving rates of c-decay.
"3. American scientists are divided on the Big Bang? Um, no. The Big Bang model is very young and is always changing, as any good scientific theory does in the face of better observations. I would say that a more accurate statement is that astrophysicists agree that all of the bugs in the model aren't worked out yet, but it is the best working model we have as of yet."
What would some of those bugs be?
Additionally, if enough "bugs" at what point should we discard our current view of the BBT?
Like the necessity of CDM, which can't be proven at all beyond the necessity of a mathematical equation, right?
Why don't we start here.
(Allow me to say that I'm not averse to a Big Bang, and this is for the sake of argument, and further my Big Bang wouldn't be on the same chronological time clock as your own from a certain perspective, having more to do with Einstein's theory of Gravitational Time Distortion.)
Before getting into a debate we need to decide how infexibly we are going to respond to each other. Otherwise we are wasting each others most valuable commodity, time.
If you aren't going to bother reading my responses, or even acknowledging strong points made, or evident deficiencies in the BBT, then, again this becomes yet one more exercise in futility.
The Big Bang theory is really not a scientific theory at all, but more of a working hypothesis, and very underdeveloped as such things go.
We don't know how stars form, plain and simple. It's guess work at best, no matter how eductaed a guess, a hunch is still just a hunch.
I read all of the post posts and THIS dissucion/debate, is a tuffy. I cna give my opinion but Idon't ahve my books around to give quantifiable evidance.
Ok both theories require faith which isn't bad. It's good we wnat toserach.
Big bang, or Creation? Both.
God used creation tomake what's here, Now the time frame He used. I don't know, cold be 6, 24 hour periods, or thousands of years. Know what? I don't care how long it took, fact is HE did it and we can't. What he did is amazingly beautiful. (Stick your head outside some night,look straight up and I dare ya NOT to react to what you see of a star filled sky.) :-D
Here's the kicker it is entirly possible that the MATERIAL(Earth) is millenia old. Rememebr that energy can't be created nor destroyed? (We can't pull this one off but God can. He edidd it, IE; Big bang.)
THis material may be quit old but it's present configuration is young. make sense?
IE, it's been recycled. This has been showen in the unverse a lot of times. Stars bitting the big one, and later new worlds appear. Old material taking on some new clothing.
Yeah it may have holes,(Make a NICE deli sandwich with it eh?) may sound stupid, but I'm not married to it. I'm but a child and don't know everything, but I know the One who does. It's merely a deep Gut feeling. I've found very quickly the gut has been right when I'd listened.
Seeya' I'll be at Dexter's, anyone want lunch?
Please prove that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
Slightly off-topic, I realize. But, to my knowledge that has never been proven.
[blockquote]We don't know how stars form, plain and simple. It's guess work at best, no matter how eductaed a guess, a hunch is still just a hunch.[/blockquote]
Please go to a Library a get a book on star formation before you make such ridicluous and ignorant statements. How stars form is extremely well understood. Where do you get this information that Science does not know how stars formed?
Actually, not only is star formation well understood, but scientists have a detailed understanding of stellar evolution and the synthesis of elements based on the famous paper in the 1950s by Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle known simply as B2FH.
"Solar systems form along with stars out of primordial materials like hydrogen, helium, and some carbon/silicon-based dust. The first generation of stars in the universe likely did not have solar systems."
It is generally believed, in certain circles, that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.
However, such gas clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would rule out the needed collapse. So, a problem faced is to come up with a plausible mechanism for cooling the cloud down, theoretically speaking, right? Yes, that is correct. One scenario (operative term here) might be through molecular collisions radiating off enough heat .
However, allegedly the main element caused in the Big Bang theory was hydrogen, with helium to a much lesser extent, with all other elements speculated to have formed within stars. As helium can't form molecules at all, the only molecules to be formed would be H2, right? Sounds right to me. This is destroyed by ultraviolet light, right? And besides, molecular H2 depends upon dust grains to form, and those require heavier elements. So, this is pretty much untenable at the moment. The only coolant left then is atomic hydrogen, but that isn't a solution to the problem, as that would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot for collapse.
I hope you read my post immediately previous to this one.
"Please go to a Library a get a book on star formation before you make such ridicluous and ignorant statements. How stars form is extremely well understood. Where do you get this information that Science does not know how stars formed?"
Here's a quote for you, and the hopes you will renew your library card soon.
Abraham Loeb of Harvard?s Center for Astrophysics says: ?The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.?
I suppose he is making a ridiculous and ignorant statement?
I suppose you know how this makes you look?
"Apology accepted, Captain..."
p.s.,--You mentioned "Hoyle" above. I assume you meant Sir Fred Hoyle? If that is the case, then certainly you are aware Hoyle has spoken against the BBT?
Also, please tell me when and where scientists have dissected a star, or have actually made one?
Do you have a recipe book for cooking stars up? I'd like to check that one out.
How would a Creation Hypothesis explain the observed cosmic microwave background and the observed expansion of the universe? Also does anyone know of a creation hypothesis that is scientifically testable?