Big Bang vs Creationism

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Well, the earliest forms of writing that we know of date back to the times of Noah (as figured in the 6k model). Since he would have been the greatest hero on the planet, whose singular efforts saved all of mankind, I find it odd that these early records make no mention of him. Assuming he and his clan were the sole survivors of the flood, all of the people of the Earth would be direct descendants of his and likely to know his story. Everyone would also know his god and understand the power of this god, but there was no mention of this god or any great monuments built to either Noah or his god.

Again, according to the 6k model, Moses came along a little more than 500 years after Noah had died. And yet, the Earth had already been repopulated by then. I am not going to try doing the math, but I am sure it would prove that it was impossible to have the size and number of populations in various places described in the Bible alone. If you also factor in populations that we also know existed at the time, even though not mentioned on the Bible, I am sure there is no possibility of any rational explanation how so many came from Noah's family in so short a period of time. Would actually doing the numbers be proof?

I never mentioned the Bible. I gave two specific hypotheses and asked you how to test them. I suppose this makes you yet another who selects one hypothesis based on his faith, then disparages the other. Seems to be a trend developing here.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
you can't disprove the non falsifiable. so in asking for a scientific method to disprove that there is some supreme being who set up the universe to make it appear in every measurable way to be billions of years old, you're committing a logical fallacy.

the scientific methods of disproving religious origin theories such as, 'we can take pictures of cosmic background radiation caused by the big bang' or 'we know from carbon dating and ice core samples that the earth is older than 6000 years' etc. are all overcome by a simple explanation that satan (or maybe god) is playing tricks on us.

Ah, so you again fall into the category of selectively choosing one based on faith. You offer no way to falsify hypothesis #1, but you implicitly support it, then disparage hypothesis #2. What logical fallacy have I committed? I can tell you yours right away.

further, it's hard to argue with someone who doesn't understand the basic terminology involved. evolution is evolution. there is no such thing, scientifically, as microevolution. we can observe evolution. it is merely the change over time of the rate of physical traits in a population of organisms.

and you've confused the origins of the universe with the origins of life and with diversity of species.

I am well aware of the terminology. Microevolution describes changes within a species over time, which has been well documented. Macroevolution describes one species evolving into another. Evolution is generally the model governing either or both of these phenomena. And no, I did not confuse the origins of the universe with the origins of life. I specifically stated assumptions regarding each separately in the hyoptheses.

 

[palehorse]

Cyclo - what is it that you are looking for exactly? A drawn out explanation of the scientific method itself? Or ones that apply to the Big Bang and Creationist theories specifically?

There are literally thousands of books on each subject that do just that.

I think some of us may be confused by your initial challenge... so can you please clarify?

As it stands, I think most of us who support the BBT do so based on actual scientific evidence that has been produced through millions of hours of research; where very little, if any, similar evidence exists to support Creationism.

One is supported by facts that can be demostrated and supported by the scientific method, while the other is simply taken on "faith," and cannot be demonstrated using the same scientific methods.

Sirjonk's cheesy moon is the perfect analogy!

In other words, one is seeing and believing, the other is simply believing.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
I love these threads because you get to see who's posts you can safely ignore in the future.

Yours is the only one so far. Everyone else has thoughtfully posted here. You're just trolling because you feel that you're somehow superior to the rest of us because you're an atheist and, therefore, free from reproach when failing to answer the simple question I posed in the OP. Unfortunately for you, I'm calling you out: either answer the question or get bent.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
No, but I think Occam's razor favors number 1.

This is the correct answer to the OP.
Both "theories" are actually incredibly similar (no surprise, the Big Bang theory was originally developed by the Catholic church).
A couple things to point out: neither Ex Nihilo nor Young Earth Creationism are actually supported by the Bible. The former has been subject to debate since the earliest Christians, the latter (with its 6,000 year figure) is actually a relatively modern (and decidely Protestant) belief based upon Ussher's chronology of the 17th century which was popularized by being printed in American publications of the King James Bible.

Another note just as a correction: radiocarbon dating cannot go back further than 60,000 years. Radiometric dating is used to date the age of the earth.

Regarding dating, it is important IMO to keep in mind that time is not absolute, but relative, and passes at different speeds relative to one's speed and position. I'm not even going to get into quantum theories regarding time, which speculate that time doesn't pass, we pass.

Regarding the make-up of the universe: the universe is space. It is a common fallacy for people to think of the Big Bang as an explosion within space, like a bomb. The Big Bang is actually an explosion OF space. What that is though, we don't really yet understand. Energy is that which moves matter. Matter is condensed energy. Matter-energy has always existed and always will. Information cannot be created or destroyed. What has not always existed and what will not always exist is space.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Wow...Do people really believe the universe is only 6000 years old?

Wow.

Yes. Yes they do.

And I for one am not ashamed of making fun of it.

There are plenty of reasons to not believe any of that crap. It's the idiot-child of a fact-less dogma that is backed up only by a book written, and re-written a thousand times over from over a thousand years ago. Keep in mind that christianity is just a rehash of other more basic and pagan religions for many MORE thousands of years prior. All written and made up by people, to keep less fortunate people in line and subservient.

Then, you have dating methods that are plenty accurate that prove objects can be VERY old. And those are only objects found on the earth. Then you have methods to figure out the approximate age of interstellar objects, far, far away from us. Even older yet. Then you have the background radiation that has been mathematically shown to match beautifully the theory of the big-bang.

I'll be fair, for a moment. Not fair to Creationism, it doesn't deserve it, but fair to those who have doubts about the big-bang period. So do I. There are an infinite possible ways the universe could have been created. It could be a constant, infinite abstract. It could be a constant expanding and contracting bubble. It could have periods of slight expansion and inflation, and we're only living in an expansion period. However, evidence and data shows that on it's current course, the universe should have had a beginning, at least as much of a beginning as we can imagine in our pathetic little brains.

Here's the deal, Creationists (I mean that in the most condescending way possible). The "big-bang" is a theory. It does not pretend to be "Truth" (with a capital 'T') like your ideas do. It can, and will change when better data and information comes along, and when it does, myself and the rest of the scientific community will rejoice with excitement as it should and does when breakthroughs are developed. The facts and truth are what is important, not "faith" and "Truth". We do not pretend to know everything, we only know that we are capable of figuring the truth out bit by awe-inspiring bit.

I don't know what else I can say on this subject without writing a book...

Why are you not ashamed to make fun of the young earth belief? Can you identify and feel the source of this need. No, of course you can't, because if you could you would discover your own doubt and self-hate. Then too, you would discover not only your own need to believe but your own fear of doubt. You would see that far from being a scientist, you are a person of faith.

But you can't see any of this because you don't know what you feel. You can't see where you are blind.

Uh, what?

My lack of shame for finding the thought of "Truth" ridiculous at best is not something that stems from a deeper self-doubt and self-hate. It stems from the fact that I know that they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I don't have faith, or belief. I only take evidence and theory, and change those theories based on new evidence. I don't need to understand everything, I only have a desire to know how things work, and the more information I can find the better! I am not scared because I don't know how the universe began, nor am I frightened because of my lack of knowledge about "the end" so to speak. I'm also certainly not scared of being wrong, because I find solstice in the fact that I spend my brain-power on trying to figure out how everything actually works, rather than believing man-made fair-tales.

I don't know where you're getting this fear of doubt and self-hate idea about me, I'm quite content with changing my mind based on data, and not knowing everything or having a belief in a happy-land for me to go to when I die. It's unnecessary and irrelevant to me.

I just enjoy life, and theories, and thought. I don't need any more than that. I don't need, nor do I have the capacity for faith.

It is not really that I think they're ridiculous or less than me (that is most cirtainly not true), but more because some of them feel they need to attack and even kill people based on those asinine beliefs. You wanna have faith in a higher-power? Fine, I don't care. But leave me out of it, I don't need to be wasting my time with it, and neither does the rest of the world when they can be spending their time on lucrative studies into the actual nature and mechanics behind the universe.

"And I for one am not ashamed of making fun of it." "some of them feel they need to attack and even kill people based on those asinine beliefs"

Mind telling me how making fun of them is going to protect you? You have, in my opinion, some funny beliefs. But, of course, I told you you don't know what you feel and so you intellectualize instead, and make yourself sound funny, at least to those who know what you feel.

And I believe religion can be quite lucrative, no?

My "making fun" isn't a defense, it is what it is.

Sirjonk's post is a fine example... He's right. How can I seriously argue with that kind of false-logic? What is there left except for amusement? The religious fundamentalist does not seek out discussion or debate, it seeks to tell you that you're wrong. I am exactly the opposite. When these two perspectives meet, what else can be done but laugh?

Also, for the last comment, I also disagree completely. I think that had religion/mysticism not existed at all, we would've been just as far along as a civilization, or further. There is NOTHING you get from religion that cannot be gotten elsewhere.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Trell
There is one main fault with the entire concept of this thread. The burden of proof is not on us to disprove a "theory" the burden of proof is on the person purporting the theory. SO it breaks down like this:

Big Bang Proof - Scientific evidence (carbon dating, background radiation, etc etc)

Creationism Proof - Book dictated by God and written up by random people over centuries, then translated and retranslated countless times.


So really The Big Bang has infinitely more proof then Creationism.

You didn't read the OP very carefully, or you would realize that carbon dating and background radiation are equally explained by hypothesis #2. Either that, or you've simply put your faith in one and decided to disparage the other like a lot of others here.

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Face it folks, the Bible was originally written by a collection of scholars who were tasked with finding a way to promote literacy; and, more important, a way to control the otherwise chaotic tribes. They set about transcribing different versions of the various myths, fables, traditions, and legends that had all been previously passed down through the ages by word-of-mouth

Their solution was a collection of stories that came to be called The Bible.

It worked... too well, in fact!

Islam, with their great work of fiction called The Quran, merely repeated the same process.

etc etc yada yada...

Now, let's get back to talking about reality, science, and sensical theories, such as The Big Bang Theory... The moment anyone mentions creationism, or Biblical stories, we may as well start talking about Tom Clancy or Harry Potter as well!

I'll ask you, too: if the Big Bang is a scientific theory and the other is nonsense, what experiment can you propose that would invalidate either? The answer, of course, is that you can't because it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. This just proves again that you put faith in what you've been told, just as the Creationists do, and you disparage them because they put their faith in the one that you do not.

Originally posted by: manowar821
Yes. Yes they do.

And I for one am not ashamed of making fun of it.

There are plenty of reasons to not believe any of that crap. It's the idiot-child of a fact-less dogma that is backed up only by a book written, and re-written a thousand times over from over a thousand years ago. Keep in mind that christianity is just a rehash of other more basic and pagan religions for many MORE thousands of years prior. All written and made up by people, to keep less fortunate people in line and subservient.

Then, you have dating methods that are plenty accurate that prove objects can be VERY old. And those are only objects found on the earth. Then you have methods to figure out the approximate age of interstellar objects, far, far away from us. Even older yet. Then you have the background radiation that has been mathematically shown to match beautifully the theory of the big-bang.

I'll be fair, for a moment. Not fair to Creationism, it doesn't deserve it, but fair to those who have doubts about the big-bang period. So do I. There are an infinite possible ways the universe could have been created. It could be a constant, infinite abstract. It could be a constant expanding and contracting bubble. It could have periods of slight expansion and inflation, and we're only living in an expansion period. However, evidence and data shows that on it's current course, the universe should have had a beginning, at least as much of a beginning as we can imagine in our pathetic little brains.

Here's the deal, Creationists (I mean that in the most condescending way possible). The "big-bang" is a theory. It does not pretend to be "Truth" (with a capital 'T') like your ideas do. It can, and will change when better data and information comes along, and when it does, myself and the rest of the scientific community will rejoice with excitement as it should and does when breakthroughs are developed. The facts and truth are what is important, not "faith" and "Truth". We do not pretend to know everything, we only know that we are capable of figuring the truth out bit by awe-inspiring bit.

I don't know what else I can say on this subject without writing a book...

I could copy and paste my response to palehorse and it would suit you just as well.

Originally posted by: Taejin
Disproving or proving the Big Bang Theory relies on indepth knowledge of physics that most of us here probably don't have.

Disproving creationism isn't possible, since creationism is made up bullshit with absolutely no evidence for it. It's kind of like how science can't prove or disprove religion because religion needs 'faith', and science doesn't rely on faith for its precepts and theories.

See above.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
First, you're seriously suggesting that god made things appear to be older than 6,000 years? And then you dare sling around Occam's Razor? Come on.

I have suggested no such thing. I asked you for a way to disprove it. As yet, you have failed to do so, since I don't believe "Come on" is a valid experimental design.

Second,

A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.

There are "unverifiable theories" that exist. Think String Theory.

There are, however, also phenomena that the Big Bang cannot explain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...2C_issues_and_problems

String theory is unverifiable as yet. However, there is no reasonable expectation of ever being able to prove or disprove either of the hypotheses in the OP ever.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Harvey
One quick and reasonable disproof of your second hypothesis would be the overwhelming BUAHahahahahahaha!!!! factor. :thumbsdown: :laugh: :thumbsdown:

Funny that those purporting to support the "scientific" hypothesis here are doing so only by disparaging the other with ignorance and bigotry.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Religious Hypothesis: the moon is made of cheese
Scientific Experiment: travel to moon, examine the substance of its surface
Scientific Test Result: the moon is made of rock
Religious Response: god changed the cheese to rock when man arrived

What's the point of having any discussion if you inject such arguments?

This is a false analogy. I simply said that the only thing different between hypothesis #1 and #2 are the initial conditions, which is a perfectly clear, mathematically precise statement that you have now distorted because you have realized the obviousness of what I have suggested: the difference between the two is philosophical, not scientific.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Cyclo - what is it that you are looking for exactly? A drawn out explanation of the scientific method itself? Or ones that apply to the Big Bang and Creationist theories specifically?

There are literally thousands of books on each subject that do just that.

I think some of us may be confused by your initial challenge... so can you please clarify?

As it stands, I think most of us who support the BBT do so based on actual scientific evidence that has been produced through millions of hours of research; where very little, if any, similar evidence exists to support Creationism.

One is supported by facts that can be demostrated and supported by the scientific method, while the other is simply taken on "faith," and cannot be demonstrated using the same scientific methods.

Sirjonk's cheesy moon is the perfect analogy!

In other words, one is seeing and believing, the other is simply believing.

There is absolutely nothing unclear about the OP. You are simply dancing around the simple question posed because it is so offensive to your senses to acknowledge that you have simply chosen to have faith in one model and not the other. There is no scientific way to discern between the two because all physical manifestations in the universe would be exactly equal whether either of these hypotheses were true.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ElFenix
you can't disprove the non falsifiable. so in asking for a scientific method to disprove that there is some supreme being who set up the universe to make it appear in every measurable way to be billions of years old, you're committing a logical fallacy.

the scientific methods of disproving religious origin theories such as, 'we can take pictures of cosmic background radiation caused by the big bang' or 'we know from carbon dating and ice core samples that the earth is older than 6000 years' etc. are all overcome by a simple explanation that satan (or maybe god) is playing tricks on us.

Ah, so you again fall into the category of selectively choosing one based on faith. You offer no way to falsify hypothesis #1, but you implicitly support it, then disparage hypothesis #2. What logical fallacy have I committed? I can tell you yours right away.

uh, no. i didn't mention how to show the big bang theory is wrong because i didn't think someone would take my explanation of how religious dogma isn't falsifiable and assume that meant i think there is no way to falsify a scientific theory.

lets ask ourself how the big bang could be falsified? oh, i know, new observation that doesn't fit into the theory. there are three possible outcomes: a) either the observation was wrong and subsequent observations will show that, b) the theory needs modified somewhat to account for the new information, or c) the theory is scrapped.

note how that is different from the dogmatic creationist approach that would ignore the evidence and claim god/satan/fsm is testing their faith.

not to mention that the fallacy you accuse me of doesn't fit the behavior you're claiming i committed.

I am well aware of the terminology. Microevolution describes changes within a species over time, which has been well documented. Macroevolution describes one species evolving into another. Evolution is generally the model governing either or both of these phenomena.

there is no scientific distinction between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. those terms were invented by creationists when it was shown that their understanding was wrong.

And no, I did not confuse the origins of the universe with the origins of life. I specifically stated assumptions regarding each separately in the hyoptheses.

you're the one who made the thread title, not me.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Face it folks, the Bible was originally written by a collection of scholars who were tasked with finding a way to promote literacy; and, more important, a way to control the otherwise chaotic tribes. They set about transcribing different versions of the various myths, fables, traditions, and legends that had all been previously passed down through the ages by word-of-mouth

Their solution was a collection of stories that came to be called The Bible.

It worked... too well, in fact!

Islam, with their great work of fiction called The Quran, merely repeated the same process.

etc etc yada yada...

Now, let's get back to talking about reality, science, and sensical theories, such as The Big Bang Theory... The moment anyone mentions creationism, or Biblical stories, we may as well start talking about Tom Clancy or Harry Potter as well!

I'll ask you, too: if the Big Bang is a scientific theory and the other is nonsense, what experiment can you propose that would invalidate either? The answer, of course, is that you can't because it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. This just proves again that you put faith in what you've been told, just as the Creationists do, and you disparage them because they put their faith in the one that you do not.

Most scientists do not set out to "disprove" a theory. The goal, in most cases, is to prove something. While disproving something is equally valuable, on occasion, it is generally not the point of advanced experimentation - it's simply a biproduct of those experiments.

Also, you need to read my latest post in this thread. In it, I question your entire intent with this thread. Now, after going back, I've found what appears to be your intent:

So, in short, your answer is no: you cannot suggest any way to disprove either hypothesis. Instead, you simply disparage one because of your own faith in the other. This was the entire point of the exercise.

So why did you bother asking if all you're going to do is pick or choose the replies that support your predetermined conclusion?

I can demostrate the BBT through a series of snow-balling experiments that ultimately support the theory itself. (There are many books that will connect the scientifically proven dots for you).

The same cannot be done with Creationism - the dots cannot be connected scientifically.

EDIT: So BBT is on its way to being scientifically proven one day; while Creationism, in terms of the scientifc method, can't even get off the ground!

As a counter to your OP, I would propose that you do the opposite: Scientifically prove each hypothesis true. I guarantee that you have more success with #1 than you will with #2.

My "faith" lies entirely in the scientific method.

As an aside, my Deism has its roots in the scientific method - physics specifically. I used to worship the energy throughout the Universe itself; but the unknowns surrounding energy led to my labeling it "God" - if, for no other reason, than "God" being the only English word to adequately describe that which defines and comprises everything!

In other words, I pray to the Universe' collective energy, and draw personal strength from energy within myself.

I know, I'm nuts...

 

[manowar821]

CycloWizard, to respond to you... I think you should take into account the fact that religion doesn't provide proof, therefor there is no proof necessary to disprove it. It's NEVER BEEN proven! The proof that religion is a farce is the lack of proof in it's favor, and there are a lot of scientific studies that have gone into providing even LESS proof for religion, if you get what I'm sayin'.

My earlier comment stills stands.. "You cannot kill that which is already dead" - However, it sure can try to kill YOU and eat your brains and soul. Brraaaainnnssss.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Religious Hypothesis: the moon is made of cheese
Scientific Experiment: travel to moon, examine the substance of its surface
Scientific Test Result: the moon is made of rock
Religious Response: god changed the cheese to rock when man arrived

What's the point of having any discussion if you inject such arguments?

This is a false analogy. I simply said that the only thing different between hypothesis #1 and #2 are the initial conditions, which is a perfectly clear, mathematically precise statement that you have now distorted because you have realized the obviousness of what I have suggested: the difference between the two is philosophical, not scientific.

Try again, and now include your statement to which I was responding:

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sandorski
#1) Not sure how to disprove it
#2 is easy, there's plenty of Older than 6000 years objects.

They could have been made to appear over 6000 years old when their initial states were defined.

You claim it's possible that objects that appear to current scientific tests to have existed for more than 6000 years were simply "magicked" into making it look like they were that old? And you accuse me of false analogy? I accuse you of stacking the deck. You cannot waive the God-Wand to respond to a logical criticism and expect to be taken seriously. Here's my same analogy using the discussion you just had:

Religious Hypothesis: earth is 6000 years old
Scientific Experiment: scientifically date various samples to well over 6000 years old, as well as various other proven methods of astronomical and terrestrial observation to demonstrate existence is billions of years old
Scientific Test Conclusion: earth is way the frack older than 6000 years
Religious Response: god changed the objects to make them appear really old when they are in fact only 6000 years

Not a false analogy, an EXACT analogy. You can't have rational discourse when one side resorts to using magic.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Harvey
One quick and reasonable disproof of your second hypothesis would be the overwhelming BUAHahahahahahaha!!!! factor. :thumbsdown: :laugh: :thumbsdown:

Funny that those purporting to support the "scientific" hypothesis here are doing so only by disparaging the other with ignorance and bigotry.

Funny that those trying to dismiss scientific understanding of observable phenomena have only their ooga booga mystery oil of a religion to offer as an alternative. :roll:

I call BULLSHIT!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Not a false analogy, an EXACT analogy. You can't have rational discourse when one side resorts to using magic.

That may be because of the following truism in Cyclo's world:

Scientific method < God's written word.

As long as that variable holds true, rational discussion is impossible.

I can't wait to see his response to my last post!

 

[BurnItDwn]

"prove" means absolute 100% no exceptions whatsoever.

I do not believe mankind has the capacity to "prove" either theory.

To make the best decision, you should make an informed decision.
To start, removing your bias, then examine the evidence, then base your opinion on that.

While I suppose it may be theoretically possible that the earth is only 6K years old and the overwhelming mountainous amounts of evidence suggesting otherwise are merely a trick played on humanity by a omnipotent comic, I do not seriously consider that a realistic option.

Can you disprove this statement; "Frankenstein created the earth 4,500,000,000 years ago and got into a fight with the flying spaghetti monster and time traveling Chuck Norris was the referee and then he challenged and defeated the victor?"

Any logical person could agree that Frankenstein is a character from a book and is not 4,500,000,000? years old. Even though my "theory" is contradictory to common sense, and completely baseless and lunatic, it's not easy to disprove.

There is more evidence of my theory that Frankenstein created the earth 4,500,000,000 years ago than there is of any creation 6000 years ago.
I have 1 piece of evidence supporting my "theory": radiometric dating
There are 0 pieces of evidence supporting the 6000 year earth "theory."

That obviously does'n make my "theory" correct though. The best theory currently available about the initial creation of the universe is the big bang theory. It may not be 100% known or 100% certain, but it's the best and most accurate theory that man has got thus far. To compare people who believe in the big bang (a theory with lots of evidence) to some sort of theological belief with no evidence whatsoever is an insult to intelligence and it's extremely offensive.

We believe in that theory not because we have lots of faith in it, but because it is the most logical explanation available, it is, for better or for worse, the "best" explanation available.

I am no Dawkins, I respect lots of people who have strong religious convictions, however, ideas that are contradictory to common sense and to all logic, I toss out the window.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Cyclo - what is it that you are looking for exactly? A drawn out explanation of the scientific method itself? Or ones that apply to the Big Bang and Creationist theories specifically?

There are literally thousands of books on each subject that do just that.

I think some of us may be confused by your initial challenge... so can you please clarify?

As it stands, I think most of us who support the BBT do so based on actual scientific evidence that has been produced through millions of hours of research; where very little, if any, similar evidence exists to support Creationism.

One is supported by facts that can be demostrated and supported by the scientific method, while the other is simply taken on "faith," and cannot be demonstrated using the same scientific methods.

Sirjonk's cheesy moon is the perfect analogy!

In other words, one is seeing and believing, the other is simply believing.

There is absolutely nothing unclear about the OP. You are simply dancing around the simple question posed because it is so offensive to your senses to acknowledge that you have simply chosen to have faith in one model and not the other. There is no scientific way to discern between the two because all physical manifestations in the universe would be exactly equal whether either of these hypotheses were true.

Which is why I find appeal in Occam's razor. It is in just such cases that it applies, in my opinion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
uh, no. i didn't mention how to show the big bang theory is wrong because i didn't think someone would take my explanation of how religious dogma isn't falsifiable and assume that meant i think there is no way to falsify a scientific theory.

lets ask ourself how the big bang could be falsified? oh, i know, new observation that doesn't fit into the theory. there are three possible outcomes: a) either the observation was wrong and subsequent observations will show that, b) the theory needs modified somewhat to account for the new information, or c) the theory is scrapped.

note how that is different from the dogmatic creationist approach that would ignore the evidence and claim god/satan/fsm is testing their faith.

not to mention that the fallacy you accuse me of doesn't fit the behavior you're claiming i committed.

Your knowledge of science is obviously insufficient to address this question, though you'd never admit it. If I have a set of governing equations subject to initial condition I1 and boundary conditions B1, I can solve the equations to get a description of whatever these equations describe subject to the specified conditions. If I change the initial condition to I2 as a solution at any time to the equations using I1 and keep the boundary condition B1, the new solution will exactly match the solution of the first case for all times greater than that used for I2. For example, du/dt=d^2u/dx^2, subject to u(t=0)=1-x, u(x=0)=1, and u(x=1)=0. The initial condition is also the steady state condition, thus the solution is the same as if the initial condition had been u(t=0)=0 as time becomes arbitrarily large.

In layman's terms, this simply means that the two cases I proposed in the OP would have absolutely identical physical characteristics at all points in the universe: there is no scientific way to discern between the two.

there is no scientific distinction between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. those terms were invented by creationists when it was shown that their understanding was wrong.

Wrong. Microevolution and macroevolution each bring up 8,000 scholarly abstracts published on Google Scholar.

you're the one who made the thread title, not me.

And you're the one who decided to go off on an anti-Creationist rant without, apparently, reading the OP. The OP clearly indicates how Creationism and the Big Bang are scientifically consistent, as I described previously in this post.

 

[jonks]

Maybe this will help:

Merriam-Webster definition of "theory":
2: abstract thought : speculation
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Apples and Oranges. Creation is a speculation, BBT is a scientific theory. The two should not be discussed together because one was invented from human imagination, the other pieced together from observable facts and evidence. They are not in opposition any more than Charles Xavier and Albert Einstein could be for the World's Smartest Man title.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
So why did you bother asking if all you're going to do is pick or choose the replies that support your predetermined conclusion?

I can demostrate the BBT through a series of snow-balling experiments that ultimately support the theory itself. (There are many books that will connect the scientifically proven dots for you).

The same cannot be done with Creationism - the dots cannot be connected scientifically.

EDIT: So BBT is on its way to being scientifically proven one day; while Creationism, in terms of the scientifc method, can't even get off the ground!

As a counter to your OP, I would propose that you do the opposite: Scientifically prove each hypothesis true. I guarantee that you have more success with #1 than you will with #2.

My "faith" lies entirely in the scientific method.

As an aside, my Deism has its roots in the scientific method - physics specifically. I used to worship the energy throughout the Universe itself; but the unknowns surrounding energy led to my labeling it "God" - if, for no other reason, than "God" being the only English word to adequately describe that which defines and comprises everything!

In other words, I pray to the Universe' collective energy, and draw personal strength from energy within myself.

I know, I'm nuts...

You can never prove a theory, you can only disprove it. As someone disparaging my scientific credentials, you should have known that. Unfortunately, you're just some ignorant kid who thinks he can talk down to me because I proposed a question that makes him feel uncomfortable about his unexamined belief system. I say it's unexamined because you don't even consider it a belief system: you think it's somehow scientific.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
You claim it's possible that objects that appear to current scientific tests to have existed for more than 6000 years were simply "magicked" into making it look like they were that old? And you accuse me of false analogy? I accuse you of stacking the deck. You cannot waive the God-Wand to respond to a logical criticism and expect to be taken seriously. Here's my same analogy using the discussion you just had:

How is mine a false analogy? See my response to ElFenix, since it exactly applies to your statements here as well. All objects, whether in the Big Bang or in Creation, must have had an initial state for all of their properties. I have simply proposed two models for how those initial states were described, both of which are entirely consistent with the observable universe today. You simply choose to believe that the initial states were fixed in one way while disregarding the other out of hand rather than for any scientific reason. I have never argued which is right or wrong, nor will I, because that is a philosophical question rather than a scientific one.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Wow...Do people really believe the universe is only 6000 years old?

Wow.

Yes. Yes they do.

And I for one am not ashamed of making fun of it.

There are plenty of reasons to not believe any of that crap. It's the idiot-child of a fact-less dogma that is backed up only by a book written, and re-written a thousand times over from over a thousand years ago. Keep in mind that christianity is just a rehash of other more basic and pagan religions for many MORE thousands of years prior. All written and made up by people, to keep less fortunate people in line and subservient.

Then, you have dating methods that are plenty accurate that prove objects can be VERY old. And those are only objects found on the earth. Then you have methods to figure out the approximate age of interstellar objects, far, far away from us. Even older yet. Then you have the background radiation that has been mathematically shown to match beautifully the theory of the big-bang.

I'll be fair, for a moment. Not fair to Creationism, it doesn't deserve it, but fair to those who have doubts about the big-bang period. So do I. There are an infinite possible ways the universe could have been created. It could be a constant, infinite abstract. It could be a constant expanding and contracting bubble. It could have periods of slight expansion and inflation, and we're only living in an expansion period. However, evidence and data shows that on it's current course, the universe should have had a beginning, at least as much of a beginning as we can imagine in our pathetic little brains.

Here's the deal, Creationists (I mean that in the most condescending way possible). The "big-bang" is a theory. It does not pretend to be "Truth" (with a capital 'T') like your ideas do. It can, and will change when better data and information comes along, and when it does, myself and the rest of the scientific community will rejoice with excitement as it should and does when breakthroughs are developed. The facts and truth are what is important, not "faith" and "Truth". We do not pretend to know everything, we only know that we are capable of figuring the truth out bit by awe-inspiring bit.

I don't know what else I can say on this subject without writing a book...

Why are you not ashamed to make fun of the young earth belief? Can you identify and feel the source of this need. No, of course you can't, because if you could you would discover your own doubt and self-hate. Then too, you would discover not only your own need to believe but your own fear of doubt. You would see that far from being a scientist, you are a person of faith.

But you can't see any of this because you don't know what you feel. You can't see where you are blind.

Uh, what?

My lack of shame for finding the thought of "Truth" ridiculous at best is not something that stems from a deeper self-doubt and self-hate. It stems from the fact that I know that they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I don't have faith, or belief. I only take evidence and theory, and change those theories based on new evidence. I don't need to understand everything, I only have a desire to know how things work, and the more information I can find the better! I am not scared because I don't know how the universe began, nor am I frightened because of my lack of knowledge about "the end" so to speak. I'm also certainly not scared of being wrong, because I find solstice in the fact that I spend my brain-power on trying to figure out how everything actually works, rather than believing man-made fair-tales.

I don't know where you're getting this fear of doubt and self-hate idea about me, I'm quite content with changing my mind based on data, and not knowing everything or having a belief in a happy-land for me to go to when I die. It's unnecessary and irrelevant to me.

I just enjoy life, and theories, and thought. I don't need any more than that. I don't need, nor do I have the capacity for faith.

It is not really that I think they're ridiculous or less than me (that is most cirtainly not true), but more because some of them feel they need to attack and even kill people based on those asinine beliefs. You wanna have faith in a higher-power? Fine, I don't care. But leave me out of it, I don't need to be wasting my time with it, and neither does the rest of the world when they can be spending their time on lucrative studies into the actual nature and mechanics behind the universe.

"And I for one am not ashamed of making fun of it." "some of them feel they need to attack and even kill people based on those asinine beliefs"

Mind telling me how making fun of them is going to protect you? You have, in my opinion, some funny beliefs. But, of course, I told you you don't know what you feel and so you intellectualize instead, and make yourself sound funny, at least to those who know what you feel.

And I believe religion can be quite lucrative, no?

My "making fun" isn't a defense, it is what it is.

Sirjonk's post is a fine example... He's right. How can I seriously argue with that kind of false-logic? What is there left except for amusement? The religious fundamentalist does not seek out discussion or debate, it seeks to tell you that you're wrong. I am exactly the opposite. When these two perspectives meet, what else can be done but laugh?

Also, for the last comment, I also disagree completely. I think that had religion/mysticism not existed at all, we would've been just as far along as a civilization, or further. There is NOTHING you get from religion that cannot be gotten elsewhere.

I am not defensive, he adamantly and defensively maintains. Hehe, you don't know what you feel so you dance, not knowing you do.

And, of course, you are profoundly arrogant. You get nothing from religion/mysticism because you know nothing about what can be had and think your knowledge is ultimate. You are a cave man thinking the shadows that appear on your cave wall are reality. You believe in your assumptions and don't know what you feel. The door to knowledge lies through the heart and there you are numb. You can't let yourself feel. And you haven't the faintest idea what I am talking about.

 

[ElFenix]

your creationism example merely tricks observers within the system to observe that the system is older the system in your example b is. that doesn't make the two examples 'scientifically' consistent.

science involves the ability to falsify hypothesis, theories, and sometimes even laws. your creationist example does not allow someone within the system to falsify the hypothesis that the universe/earth is only 6000 years old. therefore it is unscientific.

you can 'prove' anything by going outside of the system. doing so, however, is not science.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Maybe this will help:

Merriam-Webster definition of "theory":
2: abstract thought : speculation
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Apples and Oranges. Creation is a speculation, BBT is a scientific theory. The two should not be discussed together because one was invented from human imagination, the other pieced together from observable facts and evidence. They are not in opposition any more than Charles Xavier and Albert Einstein could be for the World's Smartest Man title.

It's obvious you didn't bother to read the definitions for "theory" that you cherry-picked from the dictionary, or you would see that the former is "speculation," which is exactly how you described Creationism.

Now, let me define something for you, also using Merriam-Webster:

Scientific Method:
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

So, BBT cannot be a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, at least not relative to my alternative hypothesis #2.