brentaal Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Keep laughing...we'll see whose right in the last days... You totally owned him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Cmor, you could learn who is correct right now by learning about what Inflation Theory (i.e. Big Bang) actually says. "In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler." That's essentially all it says. It seeks to explain the expansion of spacetime, not its origin. "Big Bang" is a caricature (made up by creationists) of Inflation Theory and it's only the creationist caricature that says anything about coming from nothing. Please, don't wait until the end times, go to a public library tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 I don't need to go to the library to read more lies! I believe in the big bang...it just hasnt happeded yet.. "In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler." But if there was "Nothing", how is that possible ??????? This is undoubtedly true of the reckless estimates of evolutionists, whose theory requires such an enormous length of time that science can not concede it. I have started my research on evolution, creation, science and disprooving them, Wait a few years lol and i'll present it. I have started my research on evolution, creation, science and disprooving them, Wait a few years lol and i'll present it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Nowhere in inflation theory does it say anything about nothing. Evolution is unrelated to inflation theory. Go to the library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 *sneeze* Im out. Im alergic to bull**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brentaal Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Yet you seem to like it so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 *sneeze*Im out. Im alergic to bull**** Inflation theory starts with a singularity. A singularity is something, not nothing. Use your brain Cmor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Thats because the big bang is made up by scientists....either God created everything... or everything was created from .. wait....NOTHING. That is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. I don't know even know where to go, there's nothing I can say to convince you obviously of the truth. Do you think that there are no laws of science and that God created those laws? Just because science is involved doesn't mean God didn't create the science to set in motion what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted November 29, 2007 Veteran Share Posted November 29, 2007 Keep laughing...we'll see whose right in the last days... When is that exactly?, I asked for a date but you got angry with me :cry: Anyway, This is a really bad argument, if you don't think it happened and you have a reason, then fine, but you just think it's all made up for no reason at all. Edit: If you've "disproved" evolution, could you "disprove" gravity next, I'd like to be able to fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 When is that exactly?, I asked for a date but you got angry with me :cry:Come on now. No one knows the date. Some believe it will be soon rather than later and others believe the opposite, but it will happen. Maybe it'll be Global Warming that brings about the end time :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted November 29, 2007 Veteran Share Posted November 29, 2007 If the world ends with me sitting on a deck chair on a beach (desert, beach only difference is the water level) somewhere, I won't mind so much :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 If the world ends with me sitting on a deck chair on a beach (desert, beach only difference is the water level) somewhere, I won't mind so much :laugh: Well if Al Gore is right and we only have 8 years left, that might be happening, so stock on on SPF 80 and beach towels :p Sorry to get us off topic. Back now :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S. Veteran Posted December 2, 2007 Veteran Share Posted December 2, 2007 The Big Bang is not a theory of how the universe came into existence, it is a description of how it began, ie: of its first moments. So there's no conflict with the idea that without God there wouldn't be a Universe, or that of creation. Creationism, the so-called "fundamentalist" so-called "theory", results from confusion between the metaphysical and the physical; what is on the experimental plane of knowledge and what is on the supra-experimental plane of knowledge. Both atheists arguing from the Big Bang against God, and christians arguing from God against the Big Bang, dwell in the same confusion between metaphysical and physical. They probably just need to get a thorough explanation of the what the Big Bang theory says, and what it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Actually, the creationists aren't confusing the physical and metaphysical. They have to argue for a certain physical perspective in order to insert their metaphysics into the picture. Further, I don't recall any atheists using Inflation Theory against the existence of a god. Your comments don't seem to actually address anything that's happening. I do agree that people need to learn what Inflation Theory actually says, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primexx Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 either God created everything... or everything was created from .. wait....NOTHING. false dichotomy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S. Veteran Posted December 3, 2007 Veteran Share Posted December 3, 2007 Actually, the creationists aren't confusing the physical and metaphysical. They have to argue for a certain physical perspective in order to insert their metaphysics into the picture. Further, I don't recall any atheists using Inflation Theory against the existence of a god. Your comments don't seem to actually address anything that's happening.I oftened asked to atheists this question: "so if the world doesn't come from God, where does it come from then", and I so often heard "from the Big Bang, of course", as if the Big Bang was something different than the universe at its first moments. That's basically saying the universe comes from itself which is an empty statement and hence not answering the question. And I agree that creationists think they need to maintain the idea that God has created the world as described in Genesis (physical description) to maintain that of creation itself (metaphysical description), that was basically my point. The reason why they can't accept Big Bang is that they see is as a threat to the idea of creation, which implies that they give it a metaphysical interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 That response might've arose because they thought you were talking about the visible universe--baryonic matter and its organization--rather than the spatiotemporal fabric that houses it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S. Veteran Posted December 3, 2007 Veteran Share Posted December 3, 2007 That response might've arose because they thought you were talking about the visible universe--baryonic matter and its organization--rather than the spatiotemporal fabric that houses it.Then they were much more confused than I thought :laugh: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berserk87 Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 lets see... the amount of energy that it would have taken for earth to be made or 'made' would mean that in the beginner the earth would be very very hot, and would be mean the earth is a lot younger then scientists would have calculated, also carbon dating is flawed. now to find the articles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGS4-SS Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 lets see...the amount of energy that it would have taken for earth to be made or 'made' would mean that in the beginner the earth would be very very hot, and would be mean the earth is a lot younger then scientists would have calculated, also carbon dating is flawed. now to find the articles... Care to tell us how do you think the Earth was formed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 lets see...the amount of energy that it would have taken for earth to be made or 'made' would mean that in the beginner the earth would be very very hot, and would be mean the earth is a lot younger then scientists would have calculated, also carbon dating is flawed. now to find the articles... Carbon dating isn't flawed in any appreciable way. When used properly it has a relatively small margin of error, a few percent off at most. Carbon-14 dating's accuracy is easy to ascertain. Trees are the key to the truth. Trees stop absorbing carbon from the atmosphere when they die and this causes the radiometric "timers" to begin counting down. A sample of the tree can be carbon-14 dated. That same specimen that you sent to have dated will have tree-rings and by comparing the tree rings of that specimen with other fossil trees in that ancient forest you can use dendrochronological (tree-ring dating) techniques to figure out for yourself when that tree lived--the software to do this is free online. Compare the age you received from tree-ring dating with the age that the lab tells you was returned from the carbon-14 dating. They will converge on a single date, plus or minus a few percentage points. Carbon-14 dating agrees with tree-ring dating, and tree-ring dating cannot be doubted by any objective person who has observed the seasonal growth of trees. It follows, as a consequence, that carbon-14 (when used properly of course) cannot be doubted. Anyone who doubts the accuracy of carbon-14 dating is either ignorant of the science behind it or is blinded by religious prejudices to obvious truths like the seasonal growth pattern of trees. I fail to see how carbon dating even relates to this topic. You do know that carbon dating isn't used to date rocks, right? The Earth being hot when it first formed does not make the scientists' calculations give an older age. If anything, the hotness and subsequent cooling would cause the radiometric "timers" to be reset so if we read the timer we'll get a younger age. It's similar to letting sand fall through an hour-glass for a few minutes and then flipping the hour glass over--whatever time we read from the hour glass will be a few minutes shorter than it should be. Radiometric dating techniques give us a minimum age, not a maximum, and it's such heating events that switch the timers and allow us to learn of that minimum age. Please read this article: http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey_snake Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Anyone who doubts the accuracy of carbon-14 dating is either ignorant of the science behind it or is blinded by religious prejudices to obvious truths like the seasonal growth pattern of trees. (Y) Stupidly blinded I'd say. Carbon-14 dating is used to date a lot of artifacts which support historical biblical accuracy. (the cylinder of Nabonidus comes to mind) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berserk87 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 The Earth being hot when it first formed does not make the scientists' calculations give an older age. If anything, the hotness and subsequent cooling would cause the radiometric "timers" to be reset so if we read the timer we'll get a younger age. thats what i just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 That's not what you said. You said, "The earth is a lot younger than scientists would have calculated." In other words, the calculations provide inflated figures and the Earth is younger than those figures indicate. I said the calculations did not provide inflated figures and if anything a heating and cooling cycle would cause the calculations to give deflated figures, which is the opposite of what you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berserk87 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 i said the earth is younger then what most people say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts