Big Bang - Big Dud

This is false. The only people so involved are fundamentalist Christians.--Percy

quote:

---

This is false. The only people so involved are fundamentalist Christians.

---

No Percy you are false here. Here is a link for example to prove that. ::: The COLLAPSE of DARWINISM ::: Do you think there are not others in the world, such as some Jews etc as well?

Er, you're both wrong. Harun Yahya is the nom-de-plume of an Muslim anti-evolution organization. The Hindus Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson wrote Forbidden Archaeology, which includes some anti-evolution material. I've heard tell of small Native American religious anti-evolution groups.Of course, not every religious affiliation is involved in ant-evolution.

Better late than never.Please take any further discusssion of the Arkathon suspension to "Arkathon suspension"Adminnemooseus

I've opened a topic on your "collapse" video. Since you posted it is there any chance you want to defend it?I know you posted it as an example of "others" attacking evolution but maybe you actually think it has something to say.Also I'm not sure how it is an example of 'others' though I agree that non fundamentalist Christians do exist which want to attack evolution. Perhaps you could clarify. This looks like a literalist creationist Christian site.

That's not it exactly either. I know of deists and buddists and people of many other religions that support evolution. The ones that are trying to attack it are the literalist dogmatists (doesn't matter the religion).Let's be fair eh? The pope endorsed evolution after all.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

I know of deists and buddists and people of many other
religions that support evolution. The ones that are trying to attack it are the literalist
dogmatists (doesn't matter the religion).

---

The moose made it sound like it was one sided. I don't think there is a list from all world beliefs showing either side. Call them what you like but the door swings both ways there.
Ned
No I wasn't planning to talk about the site. I only quickly looked at it. It was simply proving moose wrong. As far as JonF saying not all this or that, I don't think he can really know that. Sometimes you religiously zealous proponents of evolutionary orgins think the whole world is on your side. If I were you I'd content myself simply with not being extinct yet.

I have also heard the concept that god made the universe and the best way to understand that is to study the creation, find out "how did he do that" -- including the mechanism of evolution.Seems to me the creation is a better source of information than any book.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

Seems to me the creation is a better source of information than any book

---

So then, you just look up at the creation, like the stars, and come up with things without any book? A superior type of stargazing! From this you can deduce that God did not make it all. Also that the book that tells us how He has done it, is not real. I thought it may have been a bad book, or books you were reading that had molded your opinion. Other ways? I'll say!

You send me to an audio/visual presentation? Can I suggest that you make your point in your message, as suggested in #5 of the Forum Guidelines? It's a huge world, and I'm sure one can find examples of almost anything, but you've drifted off the original point. If you follow the thread back a few posts you'll see this discussion began when JonF pointed out that people of all religions are involved in evolution's construction. He was speaking of scientists, of course. You turned this around and said people of all religious affiliations are involved in it's destruction. This is, of course untrue, since scientists who oppose evolution are almost exclusively fundamentalist Christian. If you want to quibble that a few are Moslem or Hindu or Jewish or whatever else I wouldn't argue the point and don't see its significance anyway.I'm not sure I understand why you would want to mischaracterize where opposiition to evolution stems from. Trying to make it seem that scientific opposition is far more widely diverse religiously than it actually is can only hurt you.--Percy

seems the BIG BANG is a misnomer as it implies an explosion......regardless I still think that all physical laws breakdown at the frontier of the expanding sphere of spacetime and that beyond that lies the same singularity stuff that is and was the initial singularity before time started as we know it and space filled in the gaps, so for lack of a better word relative to the unknown and since there is only one singularity I'm gonna call it NOTHING...no, hang on, I think I'll give it a consciousness and call it GOD insteadI think the interaction between this absolute singular nothingness and the real multiple somethingness or God and the universe accounts for energy still being created and channelled backwards thru spacetime (along with everthing else in between) even unto the beginning of our universe.I also think that blackholes pop in and out to keep the universe in equilibrium and balanced around a fixed centre and just as we can't see the curvature in the earth from sea level so can we not see the curvature of our spherically expanding, bubble membraned universe. In other words we cant see up to the frontier or backwards towards the centre as to see implies light in sum form but even that just keeps getting bent around so that we can't see beyond out universe or it's beginning only postulate theories based on observation requiring some form of light...catch 22, in the beginning God said let there be lightnow of course needless to say i am totally untrained but in a simple view of the universe it works for me...I realise that my view can be disproved but what would it take to prove ???Without traveling thru time to the creation and consequent evolution of space and time or to the space where time and space is still being created will we ever know ???...any way to avoid confusion would the big bang be better named the BIG SPREAD instead or if not then what ???thanks in advance and have a nice life...eZps...some of you may know I've posted this stuff before and got sum very legit answers but to be honest i got confused by the mathematics and big words so maybe some of you can school me up again if you would be so kind and......K.I.S.S

you're not tryingor very tryingyou're choiceseveral false conclusions of undistributed argument

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You could start by making sure that what you base your ideas on is the same as what we can actually see.For example, we can directly observe how black holes form, and how they behave once they are formed, and they do not in any way pop.Also, please avoid using fancy words like "Channeled backwards thru spacetime" which doesn't actually mean anything unless you can explain it.If you want a good model (doesn't have to inerrant) then start with observations and evidence from our real universe. Leave out EVERYTHING which you can't back up with actual observations. None of this "I think I'll" stuff: You have to be sure, and you have to be able to support your thoughts with actual evidence.

you're in bad shape. 'pop in and out' - Woo Hoo. Crazy talk.

oh yeah......actually it's the worm holes that "pop" in and out which to me are just black holes disconnected from the frontier or the centre acting as channels thru spacetimesorry...<<(EDIT)>>...now, how's about answering my questions instead...huh ???[This message has been edited by RingoKid, 04-01-2004]