Bad Science Atheists Accuse Christians of Believing
Offline 1.
All Christians are creations inherently but not all Christians are young-earth creationists.
In fact the smart ones aren't.
We believe in the Big Bang and Expansion of the Universe just like you do.
In fact I myself roll my eyes whenever I listen to some nutjob Christian who doesn't know anything about science spout
That the earth and even the universe is only 6,000 years old.
Not only is it very bad science, and would actually make God out to be a liar, since at the distances measured by science,
starlight would then therefore have to travel faster than light in order to reach us in the created timeframe.
In other words, imagine that the universe is as large and as vast as it is. OK
Now imagine that at the size the universe is, is a quasar 5 billion light years away in distance.
Well it can't possibly be both 5 billion light years away in distance AND SIMULTANEOUSLY only 6,000 Years Old.
Since Physics does not operate that way, Young Earth Creationism must be wrong because it makes God Out to be a liar.
Because of the vast distance the light from such a distance would have to go faster than the speed of light to traverse the universe and that's impossible
Does not compute
I had to say this just so the atheists know where i stand so as to clear up confusion between creationist and young earth creationist.
This is called a straw man argument-
Atheist says there cant be a god you theists believe the earth is only 6000 years old etc
And that's not what science says so the atheist thinks the christian is bonkers because his god can't get science right
So there must be no god
That's because christians don't know real science because many churches are biblical literalists that teach the creation story from genesis
Believe me back when iwent to church, i remember a guy saying there was no big bang god made the universe, etc
IM LIKE HELLO HOW DO YOU THINK H DID IT!?
BIG BANG PROVES GOD
- Login to post comments
Sure we can say that, its based on the argument the theists is making, some make the claim for young earth and a god that created a young earth, so sure we can make that argument that the god they are talking about doesn't exist....it's not a straw man argument.....it's arguing against the claims of the theist is making. I still don't see how the big bang proves god? at this point it proves that the big bang happened.....it proves that massive energy was released at the beginning of time in this universe......don't see how god comes into play, more specifically how it proves a specific god, i am assuming from your posts so far, the christian god.
If you're proposing that all atheists use the young earth creation argument to say there can't be a god, then that too is a straw man argument. I have never said such a thing. In fact when I ponder the various reasons why we shouldn't believe in God, young earth creationism isn't in my top ten.
So back to your specific breed of Christianity...
If you are proud to hold science near and dear, what scientific test have you used to prove the existence of God? I'd like to repeat it over here.
The big bang doesn't prove God, it proves a big bang. Where is your science sense now?
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
True, and the really smart ones are no longer Christian.
Then you will excuse me when I roll my eyes when you say...
Nice of you to attempt to mold your god around reality. But in the end it fails for the same reasons YEC fails. There is no evidence of any god, and much of what the christian god is credited with doing is in direct contradiction to our understanding of the universe. Simply playing with the wording of your magic book does not provide evidence of a god.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
At first I was going to respond. But Brian and Beyond said everything I was going to say, and then some. So I'll just agree with their well put statements.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
RadioBoy - pleased to meet you.
Yeah there are christians who believe empiricism is our best chance to understand reality - right up to the moment of the big bang.
I wonder, do you believe in an interventionist god? And what's your position on things like the existence of souls, abiogenesis and Satan?
Just how far does your objectivism extend?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
12 hours and no scientific proof of god. Weak.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
I roll my eyes when I hear Christians tell me the bible and science are compatible.
In an ironic way, I can respect the opionion of fundamentalist bible believers more than you. Basically you believe whatever is convenient. If you have a god at all it is convenience.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
...is if you first rewrite religion.
Don't get me wrong: I'm glad that our OP writer accepts (or at least, seems to accept) the proper age of the earth. This is a good thing. But the young-earth creationists do have one idea working for them: the fact that Christianity, in prior years, effectively taught young-earth creationism.
For example, as recently as 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released the following statement: "May, in particular, the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in these chapters, which concern the foundation of the Christian religion: amongst which are, the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the peculiar creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity and immortality; the precept given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the Divine precept and the persuasion of the devil under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer? No."
There are, of course, things to be careful about, here. For example, the "chapters" referred to are, of course, the opening chapters of the book of Genesis; "peculiar" in this context means "special;" and the fact that the "immortality" of Adam and Eve here discussed was thought to be taken away after the Original Sin to explain death in the current world. But not to be missed here is the big picture: the Vatican is dealing specifically with the question of whether or not Catholics were allowed to doubt the literal truth of the opening chapters of the Bible, and the answer was an unequivocal "No."
Thus, the common/customary/historical/traditional meaning attributed to Genesis was quite literal, and modern Christians who reject that meaning are constructing for themselves a new, previously unheard-of Christianity...which is not the Christian belief of the many centuries.
Religion and science have contradicted each other repeatedly over the centuries. Again, staying with the Catholic Church, (...since it's what I know best, and have the most resources on...) the Vatican's official assessment of heliocentrism in 1616 said, "...this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words."
In 1633, seven Cardinals of the Catholic Church pronounced the following against Galileo Galilei: "We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having held and believed a doctrine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture, that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture..."
In 1163, Pope Alexander III forbade clerics to study physics "or the laws of the world" on pain of excommunication.
The relevant pattern here is that, for many centuries, Scripture was understood by Christians (Catholic ones, in this case) to be quite literal in its statements about natural realities, and anything that challenged that was "heresy," evidence be damned. Thus in turn, this alleged "compatibility" between science and religion is an utterly modern creature, composed entirely of the defeat of the Church--and Scripture--at the hands of logic, mathematics and evidence.
Conor
Thank You to everyone for answering my post.
1. In earlier times, yes, Science and Religion seemed to conflict, even as far back as 1909 as another respondent indicated.
But how much did Science know about the universe back then?
They had not yet conceived of an ultimate beginning, the big, bang
Furthermore, until Edwin Hubble came along, science was of the belief at the time, that the milky way galaxy
contained the entirety of the universe.
In other words, if there is a God, who created the universe, what is revealed about the universe must reflect objective reality.
And think about this-
The time that will pass from the big bang until the end of the universe-
Which i mean when protons become unstable and break down and all black holes evaporate due to Hawking Radiation-
Will be on the order of 100 Cosmological Decades-
This is a very close to a googol years which is such a long period of time that the mind cannot comprehend it.
Surely a God whose created universe is not eternal but of such a long duration proves by premise
That God exists and is eternal truly
God Bless
And the scientific proof for god is?
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
What is the evidence to back up your claim that god exists....and that a being can live for so long.....and a being created the universe....so far you haven't proven squat.
"Surely a God whose created universe is not eternal but of such a long duration proves by premise
That God exists and is eternal truly"
There is nothing "surely" about that sentence at all other than that now a stupid sentence surely exists...
I'm bummed, I was hoping this guy would reconvert me.
Which god?
Why only one?
What made it?
Finally you tell us you are talking about the goddess Shirley. Have you ever seen her temple?
Shirley or surely is not evidence but an assertion without foundation. It is a statement of a preconceived conclusion. "Most Illogical" as pointy-eared guy once said to wheelchair guy.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
I agree that the big bang doesn't prove God. To say that God caused the big bang and evolution (stellar and macro) is the most obsurd standpoint as a christian. First of all, the big bang and evolution go against what a christian believes and what the bible says. I cant believe that the theists who started this forum believes God started the big bang and sides with evolution ;p. Why did i bring this up? The "big bang" theory has been proven wrong and could never have happend. The conservation of angular momentum disproves the big bang theory. Saying God did it as a christian shows how much you really know about what the bible says. As an athiest, holding to the big bang is saying that everthing came from nothing. Even if everthing came from a dot which came from nothing, you still have to deal with conservation of angular momentum.
Sadly, he cant back up his specific breed of christianity because its foundation is the same foundation of athiesm (facepalm). Stellar and macro evolution is a joke. THe philosophy of what athiesm stands on is sad. Your asking for scientific proof that God exists? The nature of the living cell provides strong evidence that it could not have originated by anything but intelligent design. The cell represents irreducible complexity, and it cannot be accounted for via the incremental changes called for by evolution. Darles darwin himself admitted "If it could be demonstrated that nay complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down".
THe conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself-not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Iferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science...The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell-to investigate life at the molecular level-is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design".
THe late agnostic astronomer Carl sagan unwittently provided a powerful example of incredible design. He notes the the genetic information in the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among neurons- about a hundred trillion, 10 to the 14th power bits. If you were to write this out in english, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the worlds largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty million books is inside the head of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a very small space.
Truth is, science reveals an intelligent design everyday. Your worldview is based on a philosophy that someone literally made up. The very foundation of what you believe, the filter for the science many people hold to today is Darwinian evolution. All of these scientific facts and "proof" come from a presuppostion and thats from the minds of James hutton, charles lyle, and lastly Charles Darwin. If James hutton is wrong, everything evolutionary science has been saying is wrong. Now you may say that new age science just confirms what they claim, well thats actually not at all true. Thats literally saying that new age science just confirms Circular reasoning which is the geological column, which is the foundation of evolution.
The scientific evidence is right in front of our eyes everyday. Micro biologists have said that there is no way that the complexity of even the simplest cell could have come from evolution but of something of great intelligence.
By the way, i see all of these athiests on this site spouting out what they think but i highly doubt most of them know really what their worldview is claiming. There is no purpose in an athiests life. I can get into that later. I do believe you athiests out there have a purpose, but with your worldview, there is none.
Look to the reply i gave to sapient on this matter. I could go into much more detail but thats just a skim on the surface
. Feel free to reply
Yet everything you state does not prove a designer at all, molecules occur naturally, there is zero evidence of a designer, the sun makes heavy elements naturally no designer required, even complex molecules form naturally, no designer is involved. As for the whole brain, in the end, they have natural explanations and how it happens, adding the designer does nothing to answer the question, yet it adds another level of complexity without ever explaining how that complex being came to be, yet a natural explanation is far more superior than adding a designer to which no proof can be given for, nor any proper explanation of how that complex being came to be. So where is this evidence......hence the biggest problem you have with your answer, you have no proof.
I haven't seen where anyone agrees that the singularity our universe expanded from was spinning. Could you please offer a reference that says it was?
Zachary-
The big bang does indeed prove God. And as a christian believer it is important thqt our beliefs reflect objective reality.
In the beginning, God said Let There Be Light
Sounds like the big bang to me!
Science and Faith are complimentary not contradictory and we should never be afraid to look to real science for proof of the existence of God
The repetition of nonsense does not make it other than nonsense. The word proof applies only to math and logic.
There was no light in the beginning. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the subject knows that.
What it does not sound like is Genesis 1:1. Have you never read it? Of course not.
As with just about every we know of the world it does show the Genesis creation story is no more than an entertaining fairytale for children.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Zachary: Where did you get the information that the singularity our universe expanded from was spinning? Please provide a reference
It's interesting to me how many questions theists skip over. I'm betting he won't answer my question. And this isn't the first time. That's pretty annoying.
Do you realize what you just said? You are saying that things then come from nothing. I am sorry but that seems awful illogical my friend. Your statement is flawed. Your using the sun, which had to created as well by something, to prove that things occur naturally. Where did the sun come from? You are going backwards not forwards. Actually you are switching the burden of proof on me. I dont understand why you did this because you dont have evidence or proof to back up where complexity comes from. You mention complex being (designer) which would be a metaphysical condition. Care to tell me where you believe origin came from then? I would love to hear. Please dont say it came from nothing.
You really need to think about what you just said. The big bang would of had to of spun. The universe itself has spirals. Every planet is spinning and the galaxies are as well. The universe is expanding. Thats why the LAW of conservation of angular momentum applies to our universe. No one will deny this and therefore wont deny that the big bang had to of spun.
You really need to think about what you just said. The big bang would of had to of spun. The universe itself has spirals. Every planet is spinning and the galaxies are as well. The universe is expanding. Thats why the LAW of conservation of angular momentum applies to our universe. No one will deny this and therefore wont deny that the big bang had to of spun.
You really need to think about what you just said. The big bang would of had to of spun. The universe itself has spirals. Every planet is spinning and the galaxies are as well. The universe is expanding. Thats why the LAW of conservation of angular momentum applies to our universe. No one will deny this and therefore wont deny that the big bang had to of spun.
No, that isn't correct. Nobody other than creationists believe that, at least that I can find. Again, please provide a reference that the singularity our universe expanded from was spinning.
No it doesn't. All you have to do is read Genesis and there are many contradictions if you believe in evolution and the big bang. Your using science to interpret the bible instead of using the bible to interpret science. Do you realize that your using the philosophy of James hutton and charles lyle and trying to fit it in with the bible?. I can give a list of problems for a theistic evolutionists according to the bible if you would like.
I did answer your question. If this was the question peraining to why the big bang had to spin i answered it. Just look at the universe today. Its spinning. I Gave a more detailed answer in the other post but if you need even more details i can give it from sources.
It is POSSIBLE our universe is spinning, but that would only be in relation to another universe. I want to know where you found the information that the singularity, from which all space and time as we know it expanded from, was spinning. That’s the only way for conservation of angular momentum to have been violated. Even with that proved though, you will have to prove that nothing else could account for the fact that about 7% more galaxies spin counter clockwise than clockwise, that our solar system spins retrograde to our galaxy, or that Venus spins retrograde to the rest of our solar system.
In other words given that our solar system coalesced out of a cloud with some angular momentum (and this really has nothing to do with the big bang), what are some possible explanations for Venus’ retrograde motion.
And yes, I want references.
Obviously you are ignorant of logic. If in reality something does come from nothing that is a fact. Logic has nothing to do with it. In fact the conservation laws are relatively recent. They have nothing to do with logic.
As to what you would like to hear, I would certainly like to hear your evidence that the cause was the one god you are talking about. Amun is another candidate. Why not him? Why not many gods? A cooperative effort? Why gods at all? What created them?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
So you are not only ignorant of logic but also ignorant of elementary physics.
Are posting this crap just to be laughed at? You are posting total gibberish. Why do you want to be taken as an idiot?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
You are not making any sense. We have never seen something come from nothing. No scientist has ever been able to create something from nothing. We do not witness things comming from nothing. Facts dont even exist without logic. The moment you throw out logic is the moment you become illogical. Just because something is recent does not make it illogical. The conservation of angular momentum will always be the same. Things are going to abide by it when spun around. Objects will always spin in the same way as they are spun. It does abide by logic. I dont understand why you even said that statement. To touch up on your other statement about the evidence that one God was the cause. You now are talking about metaphysical things. If you really want to talk about this i would be happy too. The truth is, you do not know about origin. Every theory you throw out is false. If you have another theory other then the big bang which is proven false, let me hear it.
Thats funny because how in the world is the universe expanding and how our the planets spinning then? The "big bang" would of had to spin. Tell me how the big bang didn't spin? I am refuting the big bang with the conservation of angular momentum. The big bang never happened. I am explaining how the false theory works. How in the world am i talking giberish ;p.
What does "failure to observe" have to do with anything? I have never seen a photon that did not enter my eye. I am confident they exist without observing them. How does logic get involved in this? What do you mean by nothing?
Facts are independent of logic. Again you have no idea what logic is. What the existence of a fact have to do with a manner of reasoning?
Show how the conservation of angular momentum is logical. The rest of the world calls that something like natural law.
You have never engaged in any formal study of logic or any science and therefore you use the words incorrectly. Do you believe you were infused with knowledge instead of having to go through the exercise of learning the subjects like mere mortals?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
You appear to have convinced yourself you have the answers that the greatest minds in physics, including wheelchair guy, do not pretend to have. Have you considered publishing? Or is there a conspiracy preventing you from publishing?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Zachary the ONLY reason astronomers now speculate the universe as a whole may have angular momentum is because 7% more galaxies spin counter clockwise than clockwise. Up until this was discovered science didn’t really speculate much because there isn’t any way to directly observe it spinning. There are no bodies outside of our universe that we can look at through a telescope and say “yep! Look at that! It’s spinning alright!” This is a very recent discovery.
But that has nothing to do with whether or not the original singularity was spinning. You are imagining a dot inside of something (space), spinning relative to that something. What you haven’t grasped yet is that THERE WAS NO SPACE.
As a kid I was taught that scientist believe a tiny dot kept spinning faster and faster until the centrifugal force was too great for it to withstand and it exploded into the universe. I’m guessing you have been taught something similar. Let me tell you a secret: THAT IS A LIE
They also lied to you about transitional fossils, Cambrian species, abiogenesis, Noah’s flood, nearly every number that started with “the chances of…,” mutations, irreducible complexity, science in the bible, that science and religion are compatible, and many, many other things.
So again, where did you get the information?
If it’s easier for you go ahead and give me the name and email address of your pastor and I can get the sources directly from him. Either that or provide a link to the earth shattering youtube video you watched or groundbreaking “scientific” article from The Institute for Creation Research.
Or stop spreading the same mythology that has already been refuted dozens of times. Even Ray admitted he was wrong about the banana…
The universe is comprised of everthing. Your talking about galaxies i believe. We actually do observe that other galaxies around us are spinning counter clockwise and the planets inside them are spinning counter to that. Even within our own galaxy certain planets spin counter to others. I have really no idea where you get that the big bang didn't spin. All you have to do is look it up wherever you want to in text books and on the internet. In order for the planets to be spinning in the firstplace as well as the galaxies, the big bang had to have had retrogade motion. We can see that the univese is expanding and even the "big bang" expanded. If you want other ways of refuting the big bang, the first and second law of thermodynamics make the big bang contradictory to these. The thoery that the big bang spun isn't something that no one hears about. Its what is taught. Your very confused saying that the bible and science are uncompatible. Do you know where you even get science from? Your philosophy will determine the resutls of the scientific data you get. From what i see, your philosophy comes from james hutton and charles lyle or Huxley. Everthing that you are saying in regards to science is determined by a presupposion. Let me tell you that the philosophy you interpret science with is.....wrong. I can explain that if you would like as well.
Zachary how hard is it to follow such a simple instruction?
The universe is everything? So is the universe also other universes? And of course we can observe other galaxies spinning! I said we cant observe anything outside of our UNIVERSE that would show our UNIVERSE is spinning (no, I'm not talking about galaxies. everything I posted was posted exactly as I meant it) relative to that something. Don't be such a moron!
You've dodged it 5 times now. Ready to dodge it again?
WHERE DID YOU GET THIS INFORMATION? Post a reference or a link. If you dodge it again (6 times), I will take it as you admitting you are wrong. I realize that is a logical fallacy, but this is like talking to a brick! Actually a BRICK would at least not come back with something even more stupid.
And do you really want to bring up thermodynamics before you have even made a single point?
If religion is in any way compatible with science, why has religion never made a single contribution to science? Why can't religion make a correct refuatation of even a SINGLE scientific principle? Why is god getting smaller?
Also, go look at the definition of retrograde before you try to tell me the big bang would had to have had retrograde motion. That does, at least, show CLEARLY how much time you have actually spent studying this stuff.
You, sweetheart, are a sheep!
When and where are you going to publish this Nobel Prize-worthy discovery?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
No. The universe is comprised of everything within the universe. If you want to use a term that applies to everything, everything would be the correct term. Multiverse may also work.
As far as spin goes, you are clearly a layman who came to his own conclusions without much information or evidence. Describing every detail of your mistake would take a long time. And I'd not do it true justice. Fortunately I don't have to dissect it into its myriad flaws. The simple fact is that noone has ever seen the big bang. Nor has any model of the big bang that I've seen incorporated spin as a factor.
There is no evidence or implication that the big bang or the universe spun, spins, or will spin. Maybe it did/does, but noone on this planet can say with any credibility either way.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Prove to us 'nothing' has ever existed. Such claims as the existence of nothing and 'random chance' are meaningless assertions unsupported by data or coherent hypothesis.
They are labels applied to imaginary human concepts that cannot be shown to exist.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Sure that may be true but that has never happened
I know you said "if in reality" as in you may be implying that it hasn't happened or been proved? We have never seen anything come from nothing so thats pointless. Facts can lead to a lie or lead to truth. If we get a fact and it doesn't coincide with logic, that fact becomes illogical! Making the fact unreasonable to believe.
Implying this, you are asking me to lay down the prime mover argument, the efficient cause argument, the possiblity and necessitiy argument, as well as the teleological argument, since they all work together. I can lay those down and see if you can refute them if you would like. Before i would establish those and answer the rest of the questions you stated, i must ask one question. Do you believe in absolute truth? Depending on your answer will determine many things.
Lets take a look at the definition of universe-all matter and energy in space: the totality of all matter and energy that exists in the vastness of space, whether known to human beings or not. I love how you are already assuming that other universes exist. By saying this you are now redifining the definition of universe. So i guess the universe, which is everything, is now everthing and then everthing else outside of it?
I am assuming that you believe in the big bang, for you wouldn't be defending it otherwise. Now the conservation of angular momentum is just one of many things that dispove the big bang. Even if you are correct, in saying you haven't seen any one ever say the big bang spun, it doesn't change anything in saying the big bang is false. The only reason why the textbooks and secular scientists hold to the big bang still is because they have no other explanation. It has been disproved for over 20 years. They are definetely not going to even think that it was God that did it. I would love to go into detail of how the big bang is false other then the conservation of angular momentum.
Now for the sources that you ask for. I am sorry that i did not give the sources sooner. I got caught up in the conversation and failed to see that i didn't give the sources
.
I could give you numerous links on the internet that talk about the big bang being false from the conservation of angular momentum. All you have to do is type this in yourself.
Now for an actual science textbook source. Prentice Hall General science, 1992, pg 69.
http://www.odec.ca/projects/2004/khak4a0/public_html/problems.html- Just a link i decided to put up of many
My buddy has a lot of science textbooks on the big bang which i have to look at as well.I will give you the sources later when i look at them
Now i know, despite the actual textbook i gave, that the sources i gave where not very good concerning that the big bang spun. For this i will have to have time to do good research for the specific sources
.
This is very interesting to me. Do you know that the big bang and evolutuion(macro, stellar,organic, chemical] is a religion! GIve me a scientifc principe and lets take a look at it from a creationists perspective
. What you fail to realize is that science is no different for a creationist. Whats different is the philosophy you interpret it through. You can get data but its from the philosphy you stand on that interprets the information. The real question is if your philosophy is true or false. I am telling you that your philosophy is coming from the late 1700's throught james hutton then to Charles lyle. If you want to talk about being a sheep like you said to me in the other reply, lets look at what your following. Your whole philosophy is based off of circular reasoning. The whole big bang and evolution ideas have no evidence to back it up. It takes more faith to be an athiest then it ever does to believe in a God.
What? Prove to you that nothing has ever existed? Would you now be implying that the universe is eternal? I dont believe that nothing has ever existed. I believe that God created the universe which would be saying the universe came from something. God is eternal, which would be implying that a necessary being must always exist. I may be wrong, but isn't the big bang saying that everything came from nothing? Random chance has everthing to do with your views my friend. What are the chances of a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a jet fighter? Since we know thats not possible or the chances are very slim, lets look at the chances that even the simplest cell which is billions more complicated then a jet fighter coming from nothing? I am sorry but your worldview is based on random chance. Not to mention what your worldview leads to in the end. I am not here to bash on athiests. I am here to show them the truth so that they may know the Lord man.
[
but none of us are arguing that nothing did it. The point I am making is that christians claim atheists insist the big bang came from 'nothing', which we do not. We have no proof there has ever been nothing.
What is this false dilemma you pose - that the big bang was the product of 'nothing' or your personal interpretation of an anthropomorphic god? Can you prove only 2 possible options exist?
And again you claim my position is based on random chance. This is silly. There is no such thing as random chance. Certainly not in this universe. As to what goes on outside of it, we cannot say and nor can you.
Making you today's master of assertions.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
use this groan-worthy argument ever again. Naturally occurring systems, including those we label as life, cannot be compared to the creations of man.
It's already proved that RNA can form from certain collections of biochemicals. We know RNA forms gene expressions and is closely related to DNA. We know that multicellularity is based on symbiotic organelles in a single housing teaming up into cooperatives. We know you, Zach, are a composite colony comprising 100 billion cells, none of which know you even exist. Furthermore, you are replete with a microbiome comprising another 100 billion microorganisms representing more than 2000 species of bug.
You, Zach, are a product of life itself. And life is a product of natural processes, the development of which can be largely mapped. There is no random chance associated with any of this. Paley's banal arguments are all thoroughly debunked.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Yes, I sometimes get a bit sidetracked about the meaning of chance in this context.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html covers it well.