Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: Nature
February 18, 2012 at 6:06 am
(February 18, 2012 at 1:41 am)brotherlylove Wrote: (February 17, 2012 at 4:46 am)Zen Badger Wrote: He needs to understand that the real issue is not evolution but the age of the universe. That is what really fucks his fairytale.
Actually, this is mutual; evolution cannot be true if the Earth is not old. Here is some evidence for a young earth:
http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4a.htm
All of which has been refuted.
For example the depth of dust on the moon...
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...X8e-q5dD5Q
As for comets, look up where they come from.
I could go on but those two rather easy example show the ineptness of your argument.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 28
Threads: 0
Joined: February 7, 2012
Reputation:
0
RE: Nature
February 18, 2012 at 6:14 am
(February 18, 2012 at 1:41 am)brotherlylove Wrote: Since time, space matter and energy had a beginning, it means the cause is timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful and transcendent.
According to the big bang theory time, space and matter had a beginning, and this is exactly the outdated view point I was talking about. Who's to say that these things didn't always exist? It's only the human mind that has to try and assign a beginning to everything (although some things obviously do have a beginning).
Anyway, the problem isn't whether omnipotent beings exist or not, the problem is how human religions view them, and I think that everything points to religions having been invented by humans thousands of years ago, both to explain the unexplainable and to control other humans.
Posts: 2254
Threads: 85
Joined: January 24, 2010
Reputation:
29
RE: Nature
February 18, 2012 at 7:25 am
(February 18, 2012 at 6:14 am)Thorham Wrote: According to the big bang theory time, space and matter had a beginning, and this is exactly the outdated view point I was talking about. Who's to say that these things didn't always exist? It's only the human mind that has to try and assign a beginning to everything (although some things obviously do have a beginning). You don't understand Big Bang theory.
Its not a cosmogonical theory, its a cosmological theory. Its only concerned with explaining the early development of the Universe, not the origin of reality itself.
Posts: 28
Threads: 0
Joined: February 7, 2012
Reputation:
0
RE: Nature
February 18, 2012 at 7:37 am
(February 18, 2012 at 7:25 am)Welsh cake Wrote: You don't understand Big Bang theory.
Its not a cosmogonical theory, its a cosmological theory. Its only concerned with explaining the early development of the Universe, not the origin of reality itself.
But isn't that a relatively new idea? I thought that for some time it was believed that there was 'no before the big bang'.
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: Nature
February 18, 2012 at 7:42 am
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2012 at 7:43 am by Zen Badger.)
(February 18, 2012 at 7:37 am)Thorham Wrote: (February 18, 2012 at 7:25 am)Welsh cake Wrote: You don't understand Big Bang theory.
Its not a cosmogonical theory, its a cosmological theory. Its only concerned with explaining the early development of the Universe, not the origin of reality itself.
But isn't that a relatively new idea? I thought that for some time it was believed that there was 'no before the big bang'.
More a case of we have no way of knowing what was before the big bang.
Though when you think it through the logical conclusion would have the universe to eventually coalesce into one enormous blackhole.
It would then be possible for the whole shebang to start over again
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 12512
Threads: 202
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
107
RE: Nature
February 18, 2012 at 8:06 am
For the uneducated....let me google that for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Posts: 42
Threads: 3
Joined: January 25, 2012
Reputation:
1
RE: Nature
February 18, 2012 at 9:16 am
(February 18, 2012 at 6:14 am)Thorham Wrote: According to the big bang theory time, space and matter had a beginning, and this is exactly the outdated view point I was talking about.
I get the impression from the bolded 'theory' that you are suggesting that the big bang theory is just an idea. In science nothing ever goes from theory to fact. There is no amount of evidence that we can have that will graduate the big bang theory to the big bang fact. In science we start with a hypothesis. Once evidence is collected that backs up the hypothesis then it is graduated to theory and that is as far as it goes. Electricity is still 'just a theory' but I would say we have a pretty good understanding of what it is and how it works.
The Big Bang Theory, Evolution, Special Relativity, and General Relativity are some of the strongest and unbreakable theories in science. They are as close to facts as science will allow.
“You don't get to advertise all the good that your religion does without first scrupulously subtracting all the harm it does and considering seriously the question of whether some other religion, or no religion at all, does better. ”
― Daniel C. Dennett
Posts: 1327
Threads: 37
Joined: January 15, 2012
Reputation:
15
RE: Nature
February 18, 2012 at 9:21 am
(February 18, 2012 at 9:16 am)Nebuloso Wrote: The Big Bang Theory, Evolution, Special Relativity, and General Relativity are some of the strongest and unbreakable theories in science. They are as close to facts as science will allow.
When christoholics start in with the "only a theory" crap I just ask them to step off a roof because gravity is just a theory also. Usually they drop the "just a theory" argument.
Posts: 12586
Threads: 397
Joined: September 17, 2010
Reputation:
96
RE: Nature
February 18, 2012 at 9:21 am
He probably doesn't understand what a "theory" is in science. Most of them seem to ignore, or be completely unable, to grasp the concept.
Posts: 12512
Threads: 202
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
107
RE: Nature
February 18, 2012 at 11:11 am
Again more proof of the scientific illiteracy of theists.
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
|
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
