A question or two that STILL need an answer...

The Earth, and I would imagine the Universe, are guided by Natural Laws. In Natural Law, there must be a "first cause" (google if you are unsure what that means).

Now, I believe the creation of the Universe to have occurred through SUPERnatural means. Thus, the creation of the Universe did not have to adhere to Natural Law, and thus did not have to adhere to the "first cause" law.

If there is a "God" who created the Universe, he supersedes Natural Law, and does not need a "first cause."

reply to post by sirnex


The arguments I posed for the BBT are not arguments that are logical when it comes to applying them to MY belief. MY belief is, as I said, NOT BASED IN SCIENCE....If it was, then sure, you could call me a hypocrit for believing in it despite the lack of observational evidence.

And again with the name calling. Arrogant, foolish, hypocritical...what else do you have? Oh yes, and go look for the names that I have called you.

Respectfully
A2D

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

The arguments I posed for the BBT are not arguments that are logical when it comes to applying them to MY belief. MY belief is, as I said, NOT BASED IN SCIENCE....If it was, then sure, you could call me a hypocrit for believing in it despite the lack of observational evidence.

Oh come on, what a cop out attitude that is. Can you directly observe God creating the universe, yes or no?

They can claim whatever they want about the big bang...the simple fact of the matter is that it is postulated from observances that we make AFTERWARDS...we have no way of knowing that what we THINK caused what we observe is really what happened.

Your disbelief and argument against the Big Bang Theory is very applicable here. The religious role of thought in regards to the universe is that observing the universe and life within it is evidence of God's handiwork. Or should we get into a biblical quote argument now, where I quote the bible and you call me ignorant and tell me that isn't what that verse "really means".

And again with the name calling. Arrogant, foolish, hypocritical...what else do you have? Oh yes, and go look for the names that I have called you.

Oh please, grow up for a minute. You don't want to be called out on certain traits of character, then don't act out those traits.

Let's at least TRY to understand why you were called a hypocrite; Because your arguing against the BBT as the event itself has never been observed or recreated. Yet, you blindly and happily believe God created the universe despite the same exact arguments against BBT being equally applicable to God as well. No, I don't care for your cop out's, use them as much as you would like, it's BS rubbish.

Why were you called arrogant? For developing an unfounded opinion of me, that's why. Because I argued against the reasoning behind your disbelief, you automatically assumed without reason and despite explanation, one different thing about me. You wish to continue call me closed minded?

Here is another observation of your character, liar. I never said you were foolish, and yes I reread everything to make sure what I'm saying is valid here. You wish to lie and misrepresent without understanding and unfounded biased opinions of me and sit there and whine about how mean I am? You are your own person buddy, you get treated how you want to be treated.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by sirnex]

reply to post by sirnex


How is that a cop out attitude? Everybody and their grandmother knows creationism is based on faith...not scientific observations....

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by sirnex

 

How is that a cop out attitude? Everybody and their grandmother knows creationism is based on faith...not scientific observations....

It's the *line of reasoning* employed.

BBT is wrong because it hasn't been observed nor recreated.

God is wrong because it hasn't been observed nor has the act of creation been repeated.

*edit to add:

To say that the same line of reasoning is not applicable solely based upon formation of idea is a complete hypocritical cop out. It need not matter at all how the idea is formed, as the basis of argumentation wasn't even developed upon where that idea arose, it was based upon lack of observation and reproducibility. Don't argue with me if you can't employ a mediocre of common sense.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by sirnex]

reply to post by sirnex


BBT is supposedly scientific. The best scientific evidence is observational evidence. BBT LACKS observational evidence.

Creationism is faith-based. You tell me, is observational evidence relevant when it comes to faith?

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


How about you just link the page you're copy / pasting from?

Your claim is that the big bang doesn't have "observational evidence"... That's flat-out bull, because the theory is based off what is observed about hte universe. everything about the universe points towards the big bang theory. There are some parts that haven't been puzzled out explicitly, but their solution is bound to only increase the solidity of the theory. This is how you get a theory, by observing, gathering evidence, and using it as a framework to build your theory around. You seem to think it goes the other way, that you make the theory and then hunt for evidence of it.

You're making a "gap" argument here, and you very well should know better than that. "There's a part we don't understand" does not invalidate the many, many, many, many more parts that we DO understand... Especially when it's clearly only YOU who "doesn't understand" (the deep field galaxies aren't very evolved because we're seeing them as they appeared BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO. Anyone who understands what "light years" means should grasp that easily)

And I really must ask. Why are you complaining that there is no evidence... while simultaneously saying you won't trust the evidence? With this position, your argument amounts to nothing other than "Nuh uh, not gonna believe it, no way, never, no how"

Why? Why do people like you insist on this crap? Are you trying to be hip and reject "what everyone else is doing"? 'Cause if so, it just makes you look stupid, and you should stop.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


The deep field galaxies ARE very evolved...that's the problem lol...

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


From your copy / paste list (by the by, it's polite to give reference links. when you don't, it's technically plagarism)

The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.

Emphasis mine. You're arguing with your own source.

i believe life did start out as from one point of infinity then as i am a firm believer in a supreme entity, life began to expand

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


All my sources have previously been cited thank you very much.

I don't feel it is necessary to cite them every time I refer to them...I believe once will suffice.

And...your excerpt doesn't substantiate your claims.....

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


You're terribly confused.

First, you're clearly copy / pasting a list here. I don't know if you understand half of what it's talking about, it's probably just from a site claiming to "debunk" the big bang, but i'd like to see if the people publishing the site do.

I have strong suspicions they don't, and this is where you get confused. They are claiming that the deep field galaxies are not evolved enough for the big bang to be true. The only way this argument even makes sense is if the people making the claim have no concept that light takes time to travel, and these suckers are a teensy bit distant from us.

I am countering the claim made in your list that pointing out that seeing these galaxies as unevolved is exactly what you would expect if the big bang were true. You then claimed precisely the opposite of the source you quoted to back your argument earlier.

I honestly don't think you have the first clue what you're talking about. grats on post count though.

reply to post by The Riley Family


Paragraphs are your friend.

Just sayin...

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


not that they are too UNevolved...it's that they are TOO EVOLVED...what didn't you get about that the first time?

reply to post by IntastellaBurst

God is Gay.

Parsing that assertion leads off in so many directions!

Gay = Happy? Excited?

I've heard God described as "Vengeful" or "Wrathful" especially when its time for a flood to erase everything and start over.

I've heard God described as "arrogant" and "jealous" especially when there is a challenge from a drinking buddy about the faithfullness of someone called Job.

I've heard God described as "Love", and a person can be giddy in love, which is sorta happy and excited. So maybe... But then again, those that claim "God is Love" seem to be the same people who go out of their way to take people who disagree with that assertion and burn them at the stake. So maybe there is something missing there too.

Gay = Homosexual?

I always thought that God, at least the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God, was other than sexual. Not asexual, non nonsexual, not gender unspecific. Sexuality is clearly something mundane and of this world. God is clearly ineffable and not of this world. Any reference to sex in relation to God is just meaningless.

On the other hand, God got Mary pregnant, so not only must the above paragraph be untrue, but then so too is your original assertion.

Then again, maybe it isn't your original assertion that is wrong... maybe the description of the miracle of Jesus' virgin birth got it wrong. Maybe the miracle is that Jesus was really born of the homosexual liason between God and Joseph!

Wow, I think I need another smoke

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

not that they are too UNevolved...it's that they are TOO EVOLVED...what didn't you get about that the first time?

and what didn't you get about your own source saying that they are insufficiently evolved?

Have you ever asked the universe(God?) your questions, OP?

You may just receive not only the answers, but way more!

Stuff happens indeed. Good luck in your journey!

reply to post by rnaa


right....THE FRANCIS FILAMENT...WHICH I SOURCED ALREADY...exhibits "unevolved" traits rather than "highly evolved traits"...please explain to me HOW...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f48bc8dcf08.jpg[/atsimg]

This is what is referred to as the francis filament...it's a cluster of MATURE galaxies approximately 300M light years long...and approx. 10.8B LY away...you tell me...is that a substantial amount of time after the BB to produce such a cluster?

I guess your right...if these looked like what they did 10.8B years ago...they'd be formed like this[end sarcasm]...SOMETHING IS WRONG IN THIS PICTURE...

A2D

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

reply to post by rnaa


Went back and took a look.

Oofta tooey, saw it wasn't pretty.

Point well takin, thanks for sayin.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Explain this(paraphrased):

Francis filament - ...

Almost every evolutionary astronomer would concur that two billion years, according to the evolutionary timeline of cosmic formations, is not enough time for the formation of such a cluster.

I can find no evidence for this assertion except from the various anti-science web sites like "Answers In Genesis" that you quote.

In fact mainstream astronomy seems to think that two billion years is plenty of time for the structures to form. See the long discussion here between an Arp adherent and an 'mainstream' adherent. (Note: this is a forum discussion between an Arp follower ( dgruss23) and a 'mainstream' apologist (cougar) from shortly after Francis' publication. It isn't necessarily a 'winner' for either side, but does have some interesting debate).

...Of course, you can go the Arp route and say that the galaxies in this structure are actually relatively nearby but have high intrinsic redshift. And of course, you'd have to support that claim, which Arp can't even do. Unless you want to come up with another "theory" to support your first "theory"...maybe call it "the theory of intrinsic faintness"...

Wait, now you are dissing Arp? The guy who is presenting probably the most severe test for the Big Bang? He certainly seems to be embraced by all the Creationist sites similar to the one that you quoted. I don't understand where you are coming from here.

Arp's explanation is actually quite interesting, but in the end it is wrong to say that it challenges the Big Bang. His work may in fact explain some objects, but not the Francis Filament nor the many many distant galaxies discovered since, and not in such a way that the Big Bang is under threat.

Does the big bang theory "predict" these circumstances? Or are they simply anomalies and exceptions that we can slide under the rug until we come up with some other BS excuse?

Nothing is slid under the rug. Just because a new discovery doesn't have an immediate answer doesn't mean the problem is swept under the rug. Lots of people were/are working on it. Arp is one who came up with an interesting answer early on. That doesn't mean he is right. His work was challenged by others and found wanting.

Even before the Francis Filament, (but not before Arp who has been arguing against Big Bang forever), there were opposing descriptions of how all the structures in the universe were formed. "Bottom Up" holds that small structues like stars were formed first and then clumped into larger and larger structures. "Top Down" holds that the largest structures, like super clusters, were formed first and then the smaller structures 'condensed' out of them.

The "Bottom Up" model doesn't seem to have a good explanation for the Francis Filament. But the "Top Down" model has no problem with it. So the Francis Filament actually served as 'ammunition' between the two models. The discussion continues to this day, with point-counterpoint, and hybrid models still going at it. All healthy debate and no rug sliding anywhere.

By the way, the Francis Filament was noticed in 2004 and since then the deep field research taken on by the Hubble and other telescopes have found that the Francis Filament is not unique and Arp's explanation is not required to account for their formation at such early states in the universe.

Edit: left out the link, sorry.

[edit on 19/12/2009 by rnaa]