Why is creationist theory so incompatible with the big bang? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Why is creationist theory so incompatible with the big bang?


Gunhaver
03-29-2012, 23:52
Think about it.

If I were God (gonna capitalize it this time because it's me we're theoretically talking about here) and I've existed for all time with no beginning, when I get around to creating the universe I just might be up for one hell of a fireworks show. I might reach out and touch a point in empty space to create a nucleation point where I would focus a great deal of my God energy until...


Bang!!!

And then, using natural forces that I had created to do the huge bulk of the work for me, I would guide the resulting release of energy into the various galaxies and nebula and stars and planets that we know today. It would have to be somewhat boring to be in complete control of everything all the time with no surprises so I would let this process go on for quite some time and just enjoy the show while maybe shuffling the electromagnetic spectrum around a bit here or adjusting the amount of anti matter there until I had everything just right. Then I would choose a planet of just the right type and focus my attention on it for the Grand Life Project.

It would be a rather Godly way to go about it.

Isn't it possible that science could be uncovering more and more clues to god's mechanism for creation? It seems to me to be very presumptuous of anyone to insist that they know otherwise.

samurairabbi
03-30-2012, 00:11
A Creationist concept raises an interesting question: Why does an event happen only once, if the Creator could repeat it at will? An answer to this is possible, but that answer would be as intricate as any answer a "non-creationist" would come up with.

This question is a reversal of the standard question when I was in school half a century ago: Why does God allow evil to continue. An indirect answer: A believer in God must explain evil ... but the aetheist must explain everything else.

Blast
03-30-2012, 03:42
I've always contended that God set everything in motion and created the laws of physics to govern the universe. I never implied that God is in constant control and causes all events.
God alone created life however.

Gunhaver
03-30-2012, 05:00
I've always contended that God set everything in motion and created the laws of physics to govern the universe. I never implied that God is in constant control and causes all events.
God alone created life however.

This thread has nothing to do with you or what you think. Frankly, even though you deny far less established scientific fact than most creationists here I find your combination of arrogance and ignorance far more off putting than just the typically encountered ignorance and dishonesty.

Rumbler_G20
03-30-2012, 05:22
This thread has nothing to do with you or what you think. Frankly, even though you deny far less established scientific fact than most creationists here I find your combination of arrogance and ignorance far more off putting than just the typically encountered ignorance and dishonesty.


Wait. You asked a question then got nasty when you got an answer you didn't like.

What do you call that if not arrogant and ignorant?:rofl:

You religious nuts crack me up . . . . :upeyes:

Animal Mother
03-30-2012, 05:26
I've always contended that God set everything in motion and created the laws of physics to govern the universe. I never implied that God is in constant control and causes all events.
God alone created life however.How do we differentiate the events that happen through purely naturalistic means, in harmony with the laws of physics, and those that God directly creates?

John Rambo
03-30-2012, 06:23
Think about it.

If I were God (gonna capitalize it this time because it's me we're theoretically talking about here) and I've existed for all time with no beginning, when I get around to creating the universe I just might be up for one hell of a fireworks show. I might reach out and touch a point in empty space to create a nucleation point where I would focus a great deal of my God energy until...


Bang!!!

And then, using natural forces that I had created to do the huge bulk of the work for me, I would guide the resulting release of energy into the various galaxies and nebula and stars and planets that we know today. It would have to be somewhat boring to be in complete control of everything all the time with no surprises so I would let this process go on for quite some time and just enjoy the show while maybe shuffling the electromagnetic spectrum around a bit here or adjusting the amount of anti matter there until I had everything just right. Then I would choose a planet of just the right type and focus my attention on it for the Grand Life Project.

It would be a rather Godly way to go about it.

Isn't it possible that science could be uncovering more and more clues to god's mechanism for creation? It seems to me to be very presumptuous of anyone to insist that they know otherwise.

No. No, no, no.


Creationism holds that God created all life as it is today. It disavows evolution. We KNOW evolution is a fact. We know we evolved from lesser beings. How much 'lesser' were those beings? Jury is still out on that, but they sure as hell weren't Homo Sapien Sapiens.

Some people (mostly creationist crazies) disagree and say everything from "Microevolution is real, macroevolution is fake!" to "Satan planted those bones we found!" and just come off sounding like they're off their meds.

Even the churches realized creationism was wrong. Thats why many, if not most, have moved to intelligent design. When the churches even accept it, its time to stop being thick-headed.

Keyhole
03-30-2012, 06:44
This is exactly why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdocQHsPCNM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Brasso
03-30-2012, 07:02
Because creationists have rejected the roots of their faith for RCC fairy tales. The Bible has no problem with it at all.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

Kingarthurhk
03-30-2012, 07:40
No. No, no, no.


Creationism holds that God created all life as it is today. It disavows evolution. We KNOW evolution is a fact. We know we evolved from lesser beings. How much 'lesser' were those beings? Jury is still out on that, but they sure as hell weren't Homo Sapien Sapiens.

Some people (mostly creationist crazies) disagree and say everything from "Microevolution is real, macroevolution is fake!" to "Satan planted those bones we found!" and just come off sounding like they're off their meds.

Even the churches realized creationism was wrong. Thats why many, if not most, have moved to intelligent design. When the churches even accept it, its time to stop being thick-headed.

You assume. Genesis lays it out plainly the process that was used, and that life was originally created good, and at the end God called his creation very good. So, it started in a place of perfection, but was transformed by sin to resemble something else completely from the original design. In that tranformation was adaptation. If there were no ability to adapt, all life would have been destroyed.

Yet another compassionate and patient aspect of a God who then came to this earth endured all of the aspects of that transformation, though never having sinned Himself, and then died for something He created.

Creation and evolution as defined by present day evolution cannot coexist just like a square circle cannot coexist. Creation was not a squircle.

IndianaMatt
03-30-2012, 11:38
Creationist theory is incompatible with any type of science, because it is not science but rather fanciful conjecture.

While all science involves some speculation or theorizing, creationism makes claims that are so arbitrary, disconeccted from anything remotely resembling the scientific method, and plain fantasy, it can scant be called "science."

Roering
03-30-2012, 12:37
Think about it.

If I were God (gonna capitalize it this time because it's me we're theoretically talking about here) and I've existed for all time with no beginning, when I get around to creating the universe I just might be up for one hell of a fireworks show. I might reach out and touch a point in empty space to create a nucleation point where I would focus a great deal of my God energy until...


Bang!!!

And then, using natural forces that I had created to do the huge bulk of the work for me, I would guide the resulting release of energy into the various galaxies and nebula and stars and planets that we know today. It would have to be somewhat boring to be in complete control of everything all the time with no surprises so I would let this process go on for quite some time and just enjoy the show while maybe shuffling the electromagnetic spectrum around a bit here or adjusting the amount of anti matter there until I had everything just right. Then I would choose a planet of just the right type and focus my attention on it for the Grand Life Project.

It would be a rather Godly way to go about it.

Isn't it possible that science could be uncovering more and more clues to god's mechanism for creation? It seems to me to be very presumptuous of anyone to insist that they know otherwise.

I've often thought this way. Maybe not quite in your particular but ultimately there is no recording in scripture as to the specifics in the way everything came to be.

Someone once said that "mathematics is the language in which God wrote the universe".

Brasso
03-30-2012, 15:13
The whole idea of string theory and vibrations of energy lines up with the idea that God spoke everthing into existence too.

steveksux
03-30-2012, 16:00
Big Bang actually is fairly compatible with creation theory. Its just that Religious folks are always way too concerned about who's doing the banging. :whistling:

Randy

Kingarthurhk
03-30-2012, 16:10
Big Bang actually is fairly compatible with creation theory. Its just that Religious folks are always way too concerned about who's doing the banging. :whistling:

Randy

Look at my tag line. I like things that go bang.:rofl:

dbcooper
03-30-2012, 18:32
Creationist belief and the big bang theory are quite compatible

Not so with the young earth creationists however

dbcooper
03-30-2012, 18:35
The whole idea of string theory and vibrations of energy lines up with the idea that God spoke everthing into existence too.


Multiverse theory, good reading (not to be confused with the underverse, Kill the Furion!)

Brasso
03-30-2012, 18:50
What would be the odds of that?

Kingarthurhk
03-30-2012, 18:55
Creationist belief and the big bang theory are quite compatible

Not so with the young earth creationists however

Young Earth creationism is consistent with scripture. An attempt to marry the two is merely a squircle.

Animal Mother
03-30-2012, 20:31
Young Earth creationism is consistent with scripture. An attempt to marry the two is merely a squircle. That may well be true. The problem is that young Earth creationism isn't consistent with observed reality.

G26S239
03-30-2012, 21:01
You assume. Genesis lays it out plainly the process that was used, and that life was originally created good, and at the end God called his creation very good. So, it started in a place of perfection, but was transformed by sin to resemble something else completely from the original design. In that tranformation was adaptation. If there were no ability to adapt, all life would have been destroyed.

So sin made perfect into not perfect by transforming it through adaptation?

If there had been no ability to adapt (via sin) all life would have died off?

Ergo sin was the salvation of life on earth. :thumbsup:

Great theory but I was not aware up to now that Yahweh had made plants and non human animals with the ability to be capable of sin or cognizant of sin.

Anyway the adapt and be guilty of sin or don't adapt and go extinct choice that I infer in your post seems consistent with my understanding that God (if he existed) designed everything as a test with an eye to failing most of the class.

Blast
03-30-2012, 21:39
This thread has nothing to do with you or what you think. Frankly, even though you deny far less established scientific fact than most creationists here I find your combination of arrogance and ignorance far more off putting than just the typically encountered ignorance and dishonesty.
Awww... is the poor little atheist offended?:crying:
You have a talent for lying and and building piles of strawman BS.
Can't take you seriously at all.

Blast
03-30-2012, 21:41
How do we differentiate the events that happen through purely naturalistic means, in harmony with the laws of physics, and those that God directly creates?
Again you presuppose without evidence. So therefore you line of questioning has no merit.

Gunhaver
03-30-2012, 22:12
Awww... is the poor little atheist offended?:crying:
You have a talent for lying and and building piles of strawman BS.
Can't take you seriously at all.

I honestly don't think you can take anything seriously.

Your first response lead me to believe that you thought that my OP was in response to your beliefs on another thread. I was making it clear that that was not the case.

I have no problem with people that understand science and believe in a creator. They are simply theorizing on an initial cause and that's to be encouraged. The problem arises when they claim that the mere existence itself of life or anything else they deem too complex is proof enough of their theory. That's called argument from ignorance and it's apparently the only kind of argument you know. That's not how it works and if you understood science as well as you claim, you would understand that.

Now if you can bring yourself to focus a bit I'd like you to point out where I lied or presented any strawman arguments. Make claims, back them up. Can you dig it?

Animal Mother
03-30-2012, 22:23
Again you presuppose without evidence. So therefore you line of questioning has no merit.What am I presupposing? Are you not claiming there are both events which are purely natural and involve no divine intervention as well as events directly controlled by the hand of God? I'm simply asking how we are supposed to differentiate between the two.

Blast
03-30-2012, 22:24
I honestly don't think you can take anything seriously.

Your first response lead me to believe that you thought that my OP was in response to your beliefs on another thread. I was making it clear that that was not the case.

I have no problem with people that understand science and believe in a creator. They are simply theorizing on an initial cause and that's to be encouraged. The problem arises when they claim that the mere existence itself of life or anything else they deem too complex is proof enough of their theory. That's called argument from ignorance and it's apparently the only kind of argument you know. That's not how it works and if you understood science as well as you claim, you would understand that.

Now if you can bring yourself to focus a bit I'd like you to point out where I lied or presented any strawman arguments. Make claims, back them up. Can you dig it?
As opposed to self creation, self order, self creation of life, etc. etc.
You are doing the very thing you accuse believers of doing.
You are postulating on theory. Not hard evidence. You can only hope things are as you believe. I keep hearing atheists screaming "overwhelming evidence" but all that is presented is theory and conjecture and principles. None of which is evidence.

Gunhaver
03-30-2012, 23:20
As opposed to self creation, self order, self creation of life, etc. etc.
You are doing the very thing you accuse believers of doing.
You are postulating on theory. Not hard evidence. You can only hope things are as you believe. I keep hearing atheists screaming "overwhelming evidence" but all that is presented is theory and conjecture and principles. None of which is evidence.

What has been presented as overwhelming evidence that you consider to be conjecture?
Life does not create or organize itself. It does self replicate once it gets going but the initial "creation" is merely an organization of chemical compounds based on the natural properties of those compounds under specific conditions. As has been pointed out to you in a logic trap that you walked right into, the claim that this cannot be true because we don't yet know or can't replicate those conditions is as foolish as the claim that fusion can't be true because we can't do it ourselves. Both fusion and life are naturally occurring phenomena, one simply being much more complex. Just like mechanics and electronics, one was much more complex than the other and required a good deal more time to work out the details.

What natural law states that we should have figured it all out by now?

steveksux
03-31-2012, 07:57
Look at my tag line. I like things that go bang.:rofl:Touche!... not the banging I was thinking of, but... :supergrin:

Randy