Problems with the Big Bang theory

quote:

---

If not, then please explain to me how something can just move away from itself without an explosion, pop, whatever, if it is condensed in the first place.

---

It is just a feature of our universe. According to General Relativity, space will just expand or contract -- it is part of the nature of space itself. So, either the universe must expand, or it must contract. It happens to be expanding. And as space expands, it carries the material within along with it.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

Willfull ignorance of what? Oh, I know. Ignorance of the so-called "evidence" of things that occurred billions of years ago. "Evidence" that is lacking in so many areas it's pathetic. Oh, I know, maybe you were there, right? So you know exactly what the conditions were like right? Wake up!!! No one knows what the conditions were like back then....NOBODY!! All we can do is guess. Now, I realize that special creation takes a certain amount of faith also, it assumes alot, I will admit that. But you have got to realize that all these theories that keep getting labeled as "evidence" are just that...THEORIES. Both sides assume something, and both sides have faith in their sides. I am not an ignorant man. I am very learned. I would appreciate you not attacking my intelligence and I won't attack yours either.

Well, YOU may not know what it was like back then, and YOU might have to resort to guessing, but that is only due to ignorance. If someone looks at the record that has been left they can learn quite a bit about what the past was like, whether that past was a week ago, 200 years ago, 2 million years ago or 2 billion years ago. There are records in rocks, in fossils, in air trapped in amber and ice, in creatures living in water that has been issolated for millions of years. There are records left in the heavens as seen in WMAP. Theories are not evidence and no one on the science side ever claims that a theory is evidence. So that is just silly.But there is no theory or even model for Biblical Creationism that explains the evidence that is seen and available. Not really. I think that you have a strange idea of what faith is. Well, I did not attack your intellegence, just your knowledge. Being ignorant has nothing to do with intellegence, only with what you know.What I said is that on the Faith side, a claim of willfull ignorance is acceptable. On the Faith side it is acceptable to say that regardless of the evidence you wish to believe in some fantasy such as Biblical Creationism or a Young earth.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So why is it that the Grand Canyon, that for centuries was believed to be carved out over millions of years is now being shown to have been created in a matter of years? This was all over the news about a decade ago. It doesn't matter what you see now in the universe now, it's still only a guess as to what it was like EXACTLY, before it began or when it began. There are a lot of scientists that will agree with this point. When I was looking for people to back up their statements about something coming from nothing, they flooded me with ideas like "quantum fluctuations", and the Casimir Effect. I read all about them, as I had never heard of them, and they were in fact just theories. But these people had told me that they were hard evidence the matter can come from nothing. This is what I am talking about.But there is no theory or even model for Biblical Creationism that explains the evidence that is seen and available.Oh really? I could go on for quite some time on this one. The honey bees for instance. The only shape that maximizes honey storage (volume)is the octagonal sections they use. What about the communication they use by turning their bodies to tell the other bees where the nectar is? Please don't tell me they just learned how to "speak" to each other. What about the Arctic Terns, migrating tens of thousands of miles each year just to procreate? What kind of bird would do this unless it was created to do so? There are numerous animals in this world that have such amazing traits of survival, that one would have to be extremely closed minded to ignore the possibility of them being created.

I am sorry but that is simply far too simplistic to let go by. We have a thread looking at the Grand Canyon from the bottom up. The very bottom layer could not have been created in anything like a "matter of years". Sorry but that is simply nonsense. No body is claiming "EXACTLY" so it is just another strawman.The rest of your post is quite frankly PRATTs.It's time you stop misrepresenting what folk say.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

you need to read more literature dude...yes it can!!!! Now you are being ignorant

What percentage of the available evidence do we have?Of the percentage of evidence left undiscovered and uninterpreted, is it possible that current conventions of scientific understanding could be overturned significantly?What would the economic and institutional consequences of such a revolution?Would there be any indignant resistance by those currently involved in work that would be rendered irrelevant by new discoveries?Knowledge puffs up!

I see what you are trying to do, but this is where it fails... You are not educated in the fields you are trying to argue. It helps tremendously if one has been groomed in the areas you are discussing. Don't feel bad. I'm not either. I mean you cover geography and then the universe(quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, etc., etc.) Somehow, I don't think you have been heavily educated in these fields. Which is ok. I haven't either. It is just really tough to argue your point when you have not been submerged in said field for years. I see your passion and can appreciate it. I just think debating like this will only leave you upset trying to make your point. And most of them stink. The only one I have seen that I like is what follows along with the scientific evidence. It simply makes the most sense. Not to mention Biblical Creationism is quite new and part of the problem is some of these people are not even scientists or heavily educated with the fields they are arguing for either. Young earth creationism... say what? And their models get obliterated under scrutiny. The Bible is not meant as a literal interpretation. That should be very obvious. And do you know what the naturalist says to that? It is what it is. You can not argue it was engineered because there isn't any evidence of the engineer. Now, I believe everything was created from The Divine Creator that exists outside of our timeline. It simply has to come down to how grounded one is with their faith.Edited by xXGEARXx, : No reason given.

Please present any evidence you have for this assertion in the appropriate thread. Also, I challenge your statement that such disinformation about the Grand Canyon being carved out in a "matter of years" was "all over the news." I have followed the news for decades, be it science, politics, or religion, from multiple worldwide sources quite closely as part of my job. I would certainly have remembered any such nonsense being promoted that would overthrow the entire field of geoscience being "all over the news." Be prepared to defend this assertion with actual evidence.

I will when you provide evidence for all you nonsense you buffoon!!!

I will when you provide evidence for all of your nonsense got it?

I suggest that this isn't going to further the discussion.Please each of you pick one thing of the others that you disagree with and allow the other time to back up what they are saying.I think, DivineBeginning,that anglagard has made a clear choice of something for you to support. Could you ask anglagard for the particular nonsense (as you see it) that you would like supported?Once you both have that on the table the discussion may be able to continue.Edited by AdminNosy, : typo fix

I don't think anybody denies that this is probably the case. Knowledge advances, after all; it doesn't stay static.Which is exactly why creationism is false - it's been static all this time. Knowledge isn't like a stopped clock, right twice a day; knowledge does loop around to catch those who stood still. Those who don't advance and change as a result of new evidence are left behind.Knowledge does not advance to a position of ignorance.

jar said: to which scottness replied: Good questions even if irrelevant to what I said.We have 100% of the available evidence, but what I believe you meant to ask was what percentage of the total evidence would that be. The answer of course is unknown.Will new evidence change current theories and understanding? Certainly, GOD willing and the crick don't rise. That is how science works and knowledge grows.What will not happen is that Biblical Creationism, Young Earth or ID be supported. They are just plain refuted, falsified, wrong. They are interesting from a historical perspective as examples of early attempts to understand the universe but little else.The economic and institutional consequences as always will vary from hardly observable to large. Knowledge is almost always profitable. The more we know the better the economy.Would some people resist change? Again, hopefully. Science works through challenge. New ideas should be resisted until the support for them becomes overwhelming. Only when the new ideas better explain what is seen than the old ideas should they be adopted.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The way to what you seek, is to sell all of your posessions and give to the poor.Not the kind of profit most are looking for. But in the limited context you offer, you are correct.