Any Young-Earth Creationists?

[Ravager]

Belief in a god by its nature is close-minded and ignorant because you only ever consider a single possibility that has no evidence beyond myths and the song and dance of charlatans who are allowed to tell you what to think while your skull is still soft. Religious people can never be objective for this reason. Because they can't be objective in their reasoning, they aren't rational in their reasoning. And since their reasoning is fundamentally irrational, pretty much every argument they make in favor of magical super beings with no evidence to back their claims can be discounted with a healthy dose of skepticism.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. ~Christopher Hitchens

[Rhambuk]

in 50 years when I die if i go to heaven and see you there ill concede.

in the meantime im going to bed

[Zadrian]

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A couple things to start. 1) I'm not talking about the big bang in any way, rather the origination of matter that would be required to substantiate a big bang. 2) I'm not making an argument towards a Christian worldview in any way.

You're making a number of stereotypical assumptions under the guise that an argument questioning if matter could have been created is an abomination to all 'life sciences'. Relax and try to embrace independent thoughtful discussion as opposed to insult.

I do find it humorous that in posts such as yours there is a blatant acknowledgement of nearly complete ignorance about the working of the universe accompanied by a direct assertion that it is certainly not what is described by any religion.

So your original post was not at all implying that you think there could be a creator? Or were you just playing devil's advocate because it was fun? All you did was put words into the dude's mouth. If you want to have a discussion, then have a discussion, but don't come at me as if you posted something other than some hypothetical "conversation."

Stating that we do not have an answer how the big bang came to be is not an "acknowledgement of ignorance about the working universe." That is just the fact of the matter. Let me give you an easy example of what I meant:

We didn't at first think, "Ok there was a big bang, how can we prove it?"
We first observed that the universe is expanding, and then made our conclusions that at a certain point in time, the universe must have been dense.

There are many models and experiments to suggest this. There are even roadblocks in certain concepts because recently, it was discovered that the expansion of the universe may actually be speeding up, unlike previously though - so the universe is ever changing which is why I cannot give you definitive answers (even if I had the knowledge of Stephen Hawking).


You were asking an impossible question about the origin of the Big bang, because there currently is no answer (which would then possibly lead into the trap of, "well then it COULD be a creator") but that doesn't really work because, what I was saying, in somewhat of a comical attempt, was that the way the universe was viewed in ancient religious texts, as well as contemporary ones, is not parallel with how humanity views the world and the universe. The way our world and universe function is a lot more agreeable with what life and physical sciences teach us with our current evidence.

It can easily be said that there can be an alternate plane where some spiritual beings exist, but the answer to that is only peoples' faiths.

[Hailto]

Originally Posted by Rhambuk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

in 50 years when I die if i go to heaven and see you there ill concede.

in the meantime im going to bed

You're going to burn in hell for denying our lord and savior jesus christ.

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not making something up, it's simply an exercise in logic. In the physical universe, everything requires a creator. There is no exception. God is the creator of the physical universe and therefor would not be subject to it's laws. This makes it perfectly logical that God does not require a creator since he is THE creator. God is the original source from which all things come from.

You cannot say the universe always existed because science(the very thing you proclaim to worship) states that this is false. First of all there's the big bang which suggests the universe began at some point. Second of all there are the laws of thermodynamics which tell us there is a finite amount of energy within the universe and the fact that it is in a constant state of entropy until the inevitable death of the universe and thus all things within it.

You know what happened at the big bang? I'd like to know! Was time tick tick ticking just the same as it is now, or are the physics of it undetermined with our current understanding? Right now there's some talk about how the universe will end if a particle they just discovered turns out to be the Higg's Boson and it turns out to have a certain mass and it points to the universe blinking out of existance in a few billion years. No universe, no time. So, in the framework of time, yes, the universe has always existed and that is not in itself illogical. I'm no astrophysist, btw, I'm just a guy who likes to play EQ and watch Nova.

[vaylorie]

Originally Posted by Zadrian [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So your original post was not at all implying that you think there could be a creator? Or were you just playing devil's advocate because it was fun? All you did was put words into the dude's mouth. If you want to have a discussion, then have a discussion, but don't come at me as if you posted something other than some hypothetical "conversation."

Stating that we do not have an answer how the big bang came to be is not an "acknowledgement of ignorance about the working universe." That is just the fact of the matter. Let me give you an easy example of what I meant:

We didn't at first think, "Ok there was a big bang, how can we prove it?"
We first observed that the universe is expanding, and then made our conclusions that at a certain point in time, the universe must have been dense.

There are many models and experiments to suggest this. There are even roadblocks in certain concepts because recently, it was discovered that the expansion of the universe may actually be speeding up, unlike previously though - so the universe is ever changing which is why I cannot give you definitive answers (even if I had the knowledge of Stephen Hawking).


You were asking an impossible question about the origin of the Big bang, because there currently is no answer (which would then possibly lead into the trap of, "well then it COULD be a creator") but that doesn't really work because, what I was saying, in somewhat of a comical attempt, was that the way the universe was viewed in ancient religious texts, as well as contemporary ones, is not parallel with how humanity views the world and the universe. The way our world and universe function is a lot more agreeable with what life and physical sciences teach us with our current evidence.

It can easily be said that there can be an alternate plane where some spiritual beings exist, but the answer to that is only peoples' faiths.

My original post was calling out inconsistencies in numerous arguments in this thread, albeit in a jovial tone. My point, which you still don't understand, is that the question at the time was not if the big bag happened, nor was it related to the process that eventually developed the theory. The question was about matter coming into existence by means of it being created, not what happened to the matter once it already existed.

Without making any presumptions regarding any religion, one can say that matter was created at some point by something or someone. Stating that this leads into a 'trap' that it could be a creator is an obvious conclusion of something being created.

While I must not have the robust understanding of religious views regarding the way in which the universe works that you do, I can say that it is possible if not probable that matter was at one point created. This to me being the most logical explanation available at the time through science for the appearance of matter. Who or what created it and what happened after that would be a different discussion.

Also notable in your post is the acknowledgement that the universe is constantly changing but that the Big Bang is credible given the observations over a (relatively) short period of time.

[Zadrian]

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My original post was calling out inconsistencies in numerous arguments in this thread, albeit in a jovial tone. My point, which you still don't understand, is that the question at the time was not if the big bag happened, nor was it related to the process that eventually developed the theory. The question was about matter coming into existence by means of it being created, not what happened to the matter once it already existed.

Without making any presumptions regarding any religion, one can say that matter was created at some point by something or someone. Stating that this leads into a 'trap' that it could be a creator is an obvious conclusion of something being created.

While I must not have the robust understanding of religious views regarding the way in which the universe works that you do, I can say that it is possible if not probable that matter was at one point created. This to me being the most logical explanation available at the time through science for the appearance of matter. Who or what created it and what happened after that would be a different discussion.

Also notable in your post is the acknowledgement that the universe is constantly changing but that the Big Bang is credible given the observations over a (relatively) short period of time.

On the contrary, i did understand your point, which is why i said that there currently is no answer to your question.

What I fail to see is your logic for the creation for the pre-big bang conditions. I mean, to me it seems like there is just as much a chance that a "creator" exists as there is for these conditions to just blink into existance.

The only reason for settling on either answer is to not drive oneself crazy with questions.

The only logical answer is that none of us will know anything until we die.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

^ creationism confirmed scientifically proven, deal with it heathens

[Zadrian]

Evolution.

Also, please stop stating that just because there are inanimate objects that humans created, that must mean there is a god. That's a bad analogy.

Your idea of DNA is also somewhat innacurate.

I found this article for you.

http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/a...fe-itself.html

[Hailto]

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How is there no evidence? There is so much evidence that I seriously can't believe that people still don't believe in God in 2013.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]