Canada Canadian Theological Debate Thread

...and whilst you dig out your references for a 30k year old earth, I'd like to touch ever so briefly on your statement:
Things like the 2nd Law of thermodynamics (A natural Scientific law that applies to absolutely everything) are thrown out the window JUST for [the big bang] to occur.

ummmm - what?

In a closed system, entropy will increase with time.

The universe began in a compact, highly organized state.

That is the 2nd law of thermodynamics and big bang theory respectivly. Where is the contradiction? Please, ppor.

 

Well its been years since I had my notes, but later I will search the net to show you proof of most of what I will say.

Look through Here to see some of the proof. Though I personally don't rely or think the 6000 year belief is exactly right.

Firstly, Saturns Rings are unstable...Scientists stated that after billions of years that there were stable.

Moon dust. Thought to have over a few hundred feet after the alotted time, it had vbirtually none.

Footprints along side dinosaur tracks found in Russia.

Extrapolation is a faulty measuring tool, the fact that after you extrapolate to far you go below 0. (Will find the model for this)

How the rock layer date the fossils and then in turn fossils date the rock.

I know these all probably seem flimsy, but I don't have anything here in Trenton

I will search the web for these

HAve you looked at the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

The second law is concerned with entropy (S), which is a measure of disorder. The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases. An increase in disorder (overall) is therefore spontaneous. If the volume and energy of a system are constant, then every change to the system increases the entropy. If volume or energy change, then the entropy of the system can actually decrease. However, the entropy of the universe does not decrease. The molecules in one's body exist in great order; this only happens because the entropy of the rest of the universe is increased to a greater amount than the entropy of the body is decreased.

Source

It states that everything goes from an orderly state to a disorderly state.

Like an Apple: Leave it out and it slowly becomes rotten.

Everything does this, its a proven scientific fact. Nothing on this planet goes the opposite.

In this way evolution is like a tornado hitting a junkyard and creating a 747.

And yet evolutionists say well iut does apply to everything...except evolution.

 

ARGH.
had a long detailed reply that was eaten by a system crash.

Can we take it on faith that I had a brilliant rebuttal that thoroughly and utterly convinced you? No? Fair enough.

I'll rebut again later - but perhaps in a new thread. The cretinism/evilution debate is sort of a seperate issue from theology in general and one that can very likely hijack the thread here.

 

Oh I have faith that you had a long rebuttal!

Its done it to me many times and then I lose what I was gonna say It happens

 

When we last left Tragic and Primrodo, Primrodo was providing a series of proofs that the world is of recent creation. Tragic is about to respond. Let's watch

---

Ah. I see you're using Kent Hovind as a reference point.
Now I know why the moon's made of cheese.

If you don't trust his 6000 year figure for the age of the Earth, then you really should be hesitant using him to derive a 30,000 year figure.

But let's deal with the issues you've raised...

Firstly, Saturns Rings are unstable...Scientists stated that after billions of years that there were stable.

Well, current belief is that the rings of Saturn may be a relatively recent phenomena - no more than 100 million years old. * But we'll know more about Saturn and it's breathtaking rings when the Cassini probe reaches orbit of Saturn in late 2004.

Now, the skill testing question is - if the rings of Saturn are only 100 million years old, what is the age of the planet Earth?

a) 30000 years old
b) 1 million years old
c) 100 million years old
d) 4 billion years old

The correct answer is e) the age of Saturn's rings have no bearing upon the age of the Earth one way or the other.

Moon dust. Thought to have over a few hundred feet after the alotted time, it had vbirtually none.

Ah... memories.
Been a while since anyone's posted the moon dust as a justification of a young earth.

The moon dust argument is based on estimates of dust accumulation made by scientists R. A. Lyttleton in 1956 and Hans Petterson in 1960. Keep in mind, however, that contemporaries of Petterson and Lyttleton had differing theories. Direct reading of outer space dust done by satellites, coupled with Surveyor 3 findings of micrometeorite bombardment impacting on the moon itself, demonstrated that Petterson's initial rudimentary calculations weren't even close.*

Footprints along side dinosaur tracks found in Russia.
I did a number of google searches to try and track down a source for this in order to ascertain it's validity - but no luck whatsoever.

There was a similar, oft cited, case in Pauxley, Texas. However these 'man-tracks' did not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Some were outright fakes, having been carved out of the soft limestone.

I would love to view the info on the Russian tracks, so if you do dig up a source, please post.

Extrapolation is a faulty measuring tool
Sorry - no idea what you're aiming at with this one. Please elaborate.

How the rock layer date the fossils and then in turn fossils date the rock.
This is not so. Whoever told you this desserves a swift kick in the rear for handing you such a gross and misleading oversimplification of the process.

I refer you to International Commission on Stratigraphy. Even a quick skim of their abridged guide will show how involved the measurements can be. I'll also refer you to an article on radiometric dating from the Association of Christian Geologists and an article from Talk Origins


HAve you looked at the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? It states that everything goes from an orderly state to a disorderly state. Like an Apple: Leave it out and it slowly becomes rotten. Everything does this, its a proven scientific fact. Nothing on this planet goes the opposite.

Okay.
Refresher on Thermodynamics and the second law (or SLoT to save me from carpal tunnel):

First, entropy. I know that the word is often used as a synonym for 'disorder' but do realize that what physicists mean by entropy or 'disorder' is quite different than the popular notion. *

Now, for

 

these have been very interesting arguments
but they are all theories, because none of us were there, there is no documented evidence.

i'm going to try for the classic question....who created the big bang?

 

but they are all theories, because none of us were there, there is no documented evidence.

That germs cause illness is a theory. That there is a force that causes an apple to fall from a tree is a theory.

A theory isn't a guess or a hunch. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

If 'no one was there to witness it' is your reason for invalidating a theory, you'd best open up the jails because lots of the people in there were sentenced for crimes which nobody witnessed but for which we had sufficient evidence to justify the theory that they committed the act.

Provided the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling, there is no reason not to accept it.

The evidence has been very well documented and continues to be.

Now - as for the classic question. For me, the question is not so much a 'who' as a 'what'. What was it that caused the big bang? And that's where the head begins to hurt a little because the big bang is also the beginning of time as well as space. And if time is non-existent, any talk of causation begins to be meaningless. So for me the answer is a big, 'I don't know'.

 

doesn't that "i don't know" drive you crazy?

That's what I'm getting at. People are curious, they come up with reasons and explinations for things because they want an answer. they put facts and thoughts and ideas together to form beliefs, religous, scientific or otherwise

As far as I know, my belif in a Creator does not go against anything in science...it answers the "i don't know" and it's more than just a comfortable, convienient answer for the unexplainedit logically makes sense that something starting the whole process

 

doesn't that "i don't know" drive you crazy?

Oy, does it ever.

 

i had a feeling it did

so what are you going to do about it? Science can't find an answer to the "i don't know"

 

There's a lot of things about this universe that I'll never know.

I'll likely not live long enough to know definitively if there is life outside of our solar system.

I'll likely never get to have first hand experience of viewing the planet from orbit, let alone setting foot on a planet other than our own.

What's happening on 79 Ceti this very moment? I don't know and never will. The light will take another 117 years to get here.

What happened to bring about the big bang? Current physics are unable to tell us anything prior to a fraction of a second after the event. Will we ever know? I don't know.

What do I do? I try to keep appraised of current findings, but that's to satisfy my own curiousity more than anything. I let politicians know I support the funding of exploration and research. I do what I can by allowing distributed computing programs to use my system. I go on and live my life. What else can anyone do?


---

addendum:
A puzzling question shouldn't be seen as a block in the road. If the problem is to great for any individual to surmount, it shouldn't be seen as cause to give up or surrender.

Rather, it should be seen as a rally call for all men, for all generations to work on. Sometimes it's the search for answers that's more fruitful than the answers themselves.

 

Concerning science, the big bang/evolution, and the age of our planet, the Bible is very open-ended. Personally, I believe everything the Bible says is true, but I don't believe that it says everything. For example, there is no mention of nuclear power anywhere in there (obviously).

Concerning Kent Hovind and others like him: people that create arguments for concepts that are scientifically ludicrous (IMO) embarass me. I think that man is fighting the wrong battle. As im_posessed said, the physical basis for Christianity is in the resurrection of Christ.

Concerning undebatable proof for the authenticity of the Bible: there is none. However, is it really logical to ask for proof? Or would it be better to determine what the probable solutions are?

 

When it all bolis dowon for me anyways...religion in any form is just man's need/want to know that there is someone tending the light at the end of the tunnel.

Some see it as a guiding light, others see it as a train. Some see it as a chemical/electrical reaction, some don't believe in light, and they all have their reasons.

Why is it that so many believe?
Why is it that so many don't?

Science "vs" religion will be a stalemate for a really long time. It's a catch 22 situation at best.

The psycology of religion is where the truth will be found...not in science. The best part is, it could still go either way.

 

Ah, but science and religion don't have to be at odds.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein

 

Good quote, Primrodo.

It is true that most religions are based totally on philosophy, and have nothing to do with science. However, I see Christianity as a religion that is both rooted in historical fact and in agreement with science.

With science, like I said, the Bible is open-ended. However, it contains more historical information based on more sources than any other literary work I have ever seen. Archaeological proof has been found for most (if not all) of the civilizations mentioned in the Bible.

 

I've always found that across the world there are so many different religions. They all have something in common, and have things that are radically different. We as human beings might be onto something greater out there but might just lack the ability to fully comprehend it yet.

Just a thought.

I myself am a Wiccan, I'm a avid practitioner of Witchcraft and love my religion with all my heart.

 

I find the most common problem with religion is interpretation. Some beleive things to be one way other beleive to be another. Like Kevin Smith Pointed out beleifs can be a bad thing. They result in wars, bigotry, hatred, division all because fo different beleifs. Now granted these are extremes but he has a point. Beliefs are difficult things to change, ideas however can be altered.

Though I beleive there is a higher power I think that we haven't quite got it right yet and I am hoping that I have the right idea.

However this doesn't mean I am going to go make a Kevin Smith Cult following his beleifs though I do enjoy his ideas about Women and sega.

"Hell hath no fury like a woman's scorn for Sega."

 

I'm glad someone finally posted in this thread. I was afraid that folks lost interest, so thanks!

I've always found that across the world there are so many different religions. They all have something in common, and have things that are radically different

The things that all religions have in common, from my point of view, are things that should be common sense anyway: be kind to people, give to the poor, always try to better yourself, etc. The things that are vastly different are the important issues in theology, and the claims that the founder of each religion has made. Personally, I am a Christian; if I'm not mistaken, Jesus is the only founder of a religion who claimed to actually be the Saviour of the world. He is the only one who offers redemption from sin on his own authority, I think. Please inform me if there is another.

Though I beleive there is a higher power I think that we haven't quite got it right yet and I am hoping that I have the right idea

In my previous post I stated one of my reasons for regarding the Bible as a reliable source of information. Jymm_Roquand, I believe you are correct in saying that we haven't got it completely right (look at the denominations of Christianity alone!). I just think that the Bible is the most trustworthy source that we have to get it right.

 

to the topic of science...fact in science can be changed and there are somethings that science can't prove.

There is documented evidence that esp exists; an overwhelming number of people claim to have used it at some point but science can't prove that it's there. a lot of people still believe it. to say that there is nothing because science can't prove it is not entirely true. My anthropology and psychology profesors both say that science can't prove a greater being with current technology and scientists don't even try but many of them still have faith.
If nothing but energy caused big bang then aren't we a part of that? wouldn't that make us a part of something bigger than ourselves?

 

I just think that the Bible is the most trustworthy source that we have to get it right.

Ok please do not think of me attacking you for this because again I don't think anyone has it right. On the fence of religion I tend to lean more often to spirituality then science and most often christianity.

However, I am not sure how credible a source the bible is. DOn't get me wrong it is a powerful tool for all christians and gives some great lessons on morality. But I tend to approach things not on blind faith but questioning it. Personally I think that in order ot have true faith you must question something. To just accept it can lead to folly and error. Esspecially in this world of the infomercial where there are a million guys out there ready to take advantage of you. Now I am not comparing the church to infomercials and con artists, but nevertheless in order to acept reality you must first question it. If it withstands your questioning then it is worth of having faith in.

Now my beleif in the bible is still something under question so from my point of veiw I am not sure how accurate or reliable it is. Yes I do think there are good things in there and valuable lessons to be learned, but to place my whole life following one book, that is a lot to invest into something I am not sure I can beleive. So until I can evidence to change my mind I am of the mindset that the bible is a tool, a resource not a flawless message from god showing us exactly who and what to be. Afterall it is written by man a flawed species who tends to put their own spin on things.

 

So until I can evidence to change my mind I am of the mindset that the bible is a tool, a resource not a flawless message from god showing us exactly who and what to be.

Just out of curiousity, what kind of evidence would it take for you to believe what the Bible is, for Christians, believed to be: the Perfect Word of God? What are you looking for?

 

To be honest when looking for evidence I am never quite sure what I am looking for...but again I don't beleive following the book blindly nor do I beleive it is without error as it was written by man...no matter how weel guided

 

Why don't you believe? Is there any specific reason why you feel you can't trust it, or is it just a "There's no way in the world that one book can be perfectly written."

 

As I said before I don't beleive in just blindly following something. Until I find a reason to have faith in it then I won't. I am waiting for that enlightenment.

 

Well aside from the spiritual side, the Bible has never been proven wrong, contradictory or anything.

In fact its a historical tool, scientists use it as such as well