Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
Late to the party, just my .02 worth:
The Big Bang is a theory. And like any other theory, it is conjectural, has no solid basis in fact, and can not be proven conclusively.
From that point of view, so is argument for the existence of God ...You pays your money and you takes your point of view.
Cheers
-
@idahoj said:
The Big Bang is a theory. And like any other theory, it is conjectural, has no solid basis in fact, and can not be proven conclusively.
Nothing can be proven absoulutely 100%. Yes the Big Bang is a Scientific Theory. That means it is not guess work but backed by observations, experiments and calculations. The microwave background radiation is one verifiable evidence for the Big Bang, and the mathemathics of it all works perfectly until the first few moments from the birth of the Universe when all known laws of physics break down. That may be a clue in itself that there are other laws of physics we are not yet aware of.
On there other side the existence of a god, any god is based only on guess work and on creative but baseless arguments.
-
Same old creationist BS that is taken from an inventory of such stock responses on answersingenesis.com, godandscience.org or some other such site. These off-the-peg responses which are designed to make creationist look like they know what they're talking about don't make them any less BS...as they've been shown to be a million times before by real scientists. I'm not about to waste my time making that a million and one.
The fact that you're still going on about explosions shows that you didn't even look at the article that shows your original analogy to be entirely faulty.
@dantheman said:
All this is is a failed meiosis...
Of course it is. So what? If the new type of goatsbeard can pollinate itself and make new fertile offspring but only makes sterile seed with the old kind of goatsbeard, then...
IT'S SPECIATED! It's a new species!
A new species is a new species, no matter how many times creationists move the goalposts and redefine the term. It's about time creationists developed their own method of Taxonomy instead of muscling-in on the one developed by real scientists (who made the rules in the first place, so get to dictate what defines a species).
It could have its own single, immutable kingdom, covering all life forms, called Deus Me Facit (God made me). Then we'd all know where we stand. -
@alan fraser said:
S
IT'S SPECIATED! It's a new speciesYes it is, BUT, NO NEW information was "created", it all existed before.
As for the beginning of life, even if a scientist could make life, it still needed an intelligent designer (the scientist) to make it. That alone would not prove anything (not that science can prove anything) but would merely state that we a bloody smart.
-
@dantheman said:
@alan fraser said:
S
IT'S SPECIATED! It's a new speciesYes it is, BUT, NO NEW information was "created", it all existed before.
As for the beginning of life, even if a scientist could make life, it still needed an intelligent designer (the scientist) to make it. That alone would not prove anything (not that science can prove anything) but would merely state that we a bloody smart.That's a fallacy.
'Information' is ever changing.
New 'information' is arising all of the time.
The relationships of bits of stuff changes over time.
That relationship is 'information'.
'Information' is not 'created'.
It's simply a snapshot of the relationship of 'stuff' at any given moment.
How things interact to produce this 'information', is beyond prediction: if it were all 'preordained' then why would we bother ??? -
@unknownuser said:
BUT, NO NEW information was "created"
The creationist information "theory" just annoys the hell out of me because it just doesn't make any sense in real terms. Yes we can compare some aspects of DNA with computer code but it's not anywhere near equivelent in the way they work.
DNA is chemistry not information, we humans just try to make sense of it as such. There is no programmer that makes chnages to the code or add line to the code in order to make new speciesand there isn't a need for one.
Speciation aka evolution works through small gradual mutations of the DNA that changes in minute ways how some gene works.If a mutation happens in a gene that controls the growth hormone for example, then those individual affected by the mutation might grow larger or smaller and this in change could provide benefits like being able to hide easier from predators or reach to food on trees or something. Because the individuals have an advantage over the "normal" population they live longer better lives and can mate more times, have more offspring and pass one that mutated hormone gene.
Over a long time other mutations happen. Ones are helpful for the small individuals and others for the large ones and makes the two types live in more and more different environments until they are separated or become so different that they don't interbreed anymore even if it were possible. As changes become more pronunced between them they become different species.That's what speciation is and that's how evolution works. New genes don't appear overnight when god feels like writing a few.
-
I command thee to stop....
-
-
What if God is the singularity? One with the universe. Is everywhere and nowhere. Is like magnetism encompassing the full range between positive and negative. Are there any Buddhist out there? Isn't the Buddhist nature in everyone? Doesn't early Buddhist literature talk about being one with the "void"? Don't physicists talk about the big bang coming from a singularity and all of us being made of star dust ie. the basic building blocks of the universe. It could be that those on both sides of the argument are simply opposite poles of the same phenomenon.
-
Does the exit of universe is well indicated in case of trouble ?
-
@unknownuser said:
What if God is the singularity? One with the universe. Is everywhere and nowhere.
Actually, money too, Everywhere and nowhere.
-
@solo said:
The way I see it is that the idea of a God creating the universe is based in thought and faith only, no facts no proof, nada.
Perhaps just not the sort of evidence you'd like to see?
@unknownuser said:
The theory of a big bang, has facts and proof yet it's not enough to decisively convince the faithful.
What theists dispute the big bang? I'd argue that theists were onto the big bang before scientists. Not in scientific terms perhaps, but theists posed that the universe had a beginning before atheists came around to the idea.
@unknownuser said:
What will it take? maybe this:
Have scientists at the LHC found the Higgs or not?
With rumours of the possible discovery of the Higgs, the BBC's Pallab Ghosh looks at what's likely to be announced at a press conference at Cern.
BBC News (www.bbc.co.uk)
Maybe this is not the smoking gun, but by Jove it certainly is exciting and could answer many questions and solve many unknowns.
Maybe exciting but I've seen a lot of these sorts of articles over the years about a revolutionary discovery just around the corner. They don't tend to pan out on such a regular basis though and when they do the implications tend to be less widespread than is anticipated. Don't get me wrong, it's fascinating stuff, it's just a lot to ask of theists to speculate on the implications of faith regarding every theoretical new discovery that hasn't quitehappened yet.
-Brodie
-
Perhaps the most interesting part of that article about the LHC (as far as this thread is concerned) is that even if, by next Spring, the scientists have conclusively found no sign of the Higgs boson,they will be equally jumping for joy...because they will have almost conclusively proven that one of the major pillars of modern physics will have been found to be faulty...leading to a flurry of new research.
This is exactly the opposite of what creationists would have people believe...that orthodox science gangs up against them, because their 'theories' don't fit the standard model. They don't fit because they're fairy stories, not because they represent any viable challenge.
Scientists like nothing better than to kick over the apple cart...but they need the evidence...and creationists don't have any. Or at least they don't have any unless they intend redefining the word 'evidence' now, like they have 'speciation'. If they do that, then we might as well save all that money spent on the 'real science' of forensics, DNA profiling etc. We can just declare people guilty because a little voice in your head tells you they are...or you feel with every fibre of your being that they are...or even that it's just 'obvious' that they are. -
Sigh......
-
the beauty of the Night
but is not only beauty
it is strength
is everywhere. * created it. And it seems it last before and after us. What is the point to define it ? It can only be to find the way to eternity.(but eternity holds it all, that is why scientists keep worried all the time)
-
I think it is clear as water solo
what is it that you don´t get to be sure ? -
but it is not to believe if eternity exists or not
it is a fact for the universe -
These verses seem apropos to this thread. Draw your own conclusions.
Romans 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, ...
Mark 13:13 - And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Mark 13:30-37
30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
34 For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.
-
Why this animated gif, that 'simon le bon' posted in another thread, why does it remind me what we're all trying to say here?
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/Spendauballet/iSimon/BoiteStop.gif
Great animation IMO. Thank you simon. -
@michaliszissiou said:
Why this animated gif, that 'simon le bon' posted in another thread, why does it remind me what we're all trying to say here?
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/Spendauballet/iSimon/BoiteStop.gif
Great animation IMO. Thank you simon.Simon's gif reminds me of a project we did in design school that required we demonstrate the use of levers. I designed this little blue panel that his a series of lever. The last lever was exposed and labeled pull in this direct. When the instructor came to critique my project, he pulled the lever and another lever moved forward with a banker's pin pointed at the handle of the first lever.
I don't remember my grade.
Advertisement