Creation Muesum

[downbeatplumb]

Why does anyone need to give a "version" of how the universe came into being? "I don't know" is the only honest answer anyone can give. Adopting some ancient narrative as The Truth that must be defended at all costs is arbitrary, dishonest, and idiotic.

Minimalist stated that creationism is bs. obviously that statement has to be based upon something other than "i don't know".

Creationism can be safely ignored as a possibility because it does not have anything going for it. All it says is magic man dun it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdocQHsPCNM

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNDGgL73ihY

---

Here's the thing, the big bang requires just as much faith as creationism. You can't accept the idea of a creator, but you CAN seem accept creation happening spontaneously out of nothing.

Thought you guys referred to that as magic?

Do you know anything about quantum physics. Things happen spontaneously all the time. 

It is a mistake to assume that the universe "came to exist" and has not instead always existed in some form.

If that's what you want to "believe", fine. But you have no evidence for that being the case.

I think that Rob is corect but our current observations cannot go to a time before the big bang so we just don't know. You can believe whatever silly thing you like but I'll reserve my verdict till there is some evidence.

[Esquilax]

Minimalist stated that creationism is bs. obviously that statement has to be based upon something other than "i don't know".

Gosh, perhaps it's based on the fact that absolutely no aspect or claim of creationism has been demonstrated to even be possible, let alone true? That several aspects of creationism (here's a timeless creator!) are downright incoherent conceptually?

Maybe those things?

Here's the thing, the big bang requires just as much faith as creationism. You can't accept the idea of a creator, but you CAN seem accept creation happening spontaneously out of nothing.

Thought you guys referred to that as magic?

No, we actually have evidence for the big bang, like cosmic microwave background radiation. Not that I'd expect you to understand something before you open your mouth, since you apparently don't even know what the big bang is, based on your description. I'll give you a hint: the big bang is an event, it says nothing about the state of affairs before it, so your insipid "creation happening spontaneously out of nothing," shit is just a strawman.

Your desperation to put a scientifically supported hypothesis on the same level as your magic just so story is cute, though.

If that's what you want to "believe", fine. But you have no evidence for that being the case.

Which is why Rob specifically said he doesn't know a page before he posed that comment. Good to see that not only are you not bothering to comprehend the basic concepts you're talking about, you also aren't taking in what people are saying to you before you disagree with them.

[Jenny A]

Why does anyone need to give a "version" of how the universe came into being? "I don't know" is the only honest answer anyone can give. Adopting some ancient narrative as The Truth that must be defended at all costs is arbitrary, dishonest, and idiotic.

Minimalist stated that creationism is bs. obviously that statement has to be based upon something other than "i don't know".

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNDGgL73ihY

---

Here's the thing, the big bang requires just as much faith as creationism. You can't accept the idea of a creator, but you CAN seem accept creation happening spontaneously out of nothing.

Thought you guys referred to that as magic?

It is a mistake to assume that the universe "came to exist" and has not instead always existed in some form.

If that's what you want to "believe", fine. But you have no evidence for that being the case.

Ah you object to the big bang because it involves something from nothing?  It necessarily so.  Wait a little and someone more versed than I in current theories about the beginning of the universe will come along and explain that something from nothing is a rather stylistic view of the big bang.  The evidence for the big bang, is however real.  There are several separate lines of evidence supporting it.  First the observable universe is expanding as if from a single point. Second, it explains cosmic background radiation.  Third the prevalence of the various types of atoms in the universe are what you would expect had the universe been created in a rapid bust of heat.  http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/foc...-big-bang/

But setting the big bang aside, to posit a god made universe you are left with similar something from nothing problems.  God proponents first assume that something has always existed, that is god.  Second, god then creates the world from nothing.  Oddly this later appears to be a contradiction of Genesis and Greek mythology as well, as god actually simply light from dark and waters from waters and so on. The basis materials are assumed.  In Genesis this is the depths of the waters.  In Greek mythology it's chaos.  Take your pick, but it isn't nothing in either case.

The result is two assumptions.  One is that a god that always existed.  And other is either that things that always existed and god put them in there present form or god creating things out of nothing.

The difference between the big bang and god, is there is evidence of the big bang.  The other difference is that the big bang does not attempt to push the story back further than the evidence.  What was there before the big bang?  So far we don't know.  Labeling that ignorance god is not useful or warranted.

[Huggy Bear]

Minimalist stated that creationism is bs. obviously that statement has to be based upon something other than "i don't know".

Gosh, perhaps it's based on the fact that absolutely no aspect or claim of creationism has been demonstrated to even be possible, let alone true? That several aspects of creationism (here's a timeless creator!) are downright incoherent conceptually?

Maybe those things?

the reason you can't understand the concept of a "timeless creator", is because you're not spiritual. the bible states that God is a spirit,

John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

can you tell me what a "spirit" is made of? If you don't know what a spirit is, how can you understand it's existence? The closest thing you'll get to describing God from a natural point of view, is as light.

1 John 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Light is formed from energy. mass is also formed from energy.... Do the math.

Here's the thing, the big bang requires just as much faith as creationism. You can't accept the idea of a creator, but you CAN seem accept creation happening spontaneously out of nothing.

Thought you guys referred to that as magic?

No, we actually have evidence for the big bang, like cosmic microwave background radiation. Not that I'd expect you to understand something before you open your mouth, since you apparently don't even know what the big bang is, based on your description. I'll give you a hint: the big bang is an event, it says nothing about the state of affairs before it, so your insipid "creation happening spontaneously out of nothing," shit is just a strawman.

Your desperation to put a scientifically supported hypothesis on the same level as your magic just so story is cute, though.  

Strawman you say? Not according to Lawrence Krauss, who stats that (around 40:40 of the video)

Why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is there had to be, if you have nothing in quantum mechanics you'll always get something.

If that's what you want to "believe", fine. But you have no evidence for that being the case.

Which is why Rob specifically said he doesn't know a page before he posed that comment. Good to see that not only are you not bothering to comprehend the basic concepts you're talking about, you also aren't taking in what people are saying to you before you disagree with them.  

Then he should of left it at "I don't know". He's bitten by his own snake, if he want to offer suggestion on how the universe began, then he has to provide the evidence along with it.

[robvalue]

I didn't say that's the case, I said it's a mistake to rule it out.

Try saying it with me, "I don't know how the universe began, or if it even began."

You don't know. No one knows. It might be liberating for anyone to give it a go, rather than clinging to pre-packaged answers of no substance. It's OK to admit it, it's not a weakness. It's far better than pretending to know things you can't possibly know.

[The Valkyrie]

I would never go to the creation "museum" for several reasons.

First and foremost doing so would put money in the hands of that con-man Ken Ham.

Secondly I would not give any support to any group that is anti-science and lies to kids

[robvalue]

True, I would never give them money either.

I once heard it said spending money is like voting, I like that analogy. And I won't vote for deceit like this.

[Esquilax]

the reason you can't understand the concept of a "timeless creator", is because you're not spiritual. the bible states that God is a spirit,

So, I just want to be clear here: I literally just get through pointing out that the majority of the aspects of creationism have not been demonstrated as possible, and your immediate response is to lean heavily on an aspect of creationism that hasn't been demonstrated as possible?

Besides, the incoherent nature of the "timeless creator" concept has nothing to do with the physicality- or otherwise- of god. It has to do with the nature of time, which is measured in specific demarcations as applied to events that happen and are apprehended by minds. If god exists, chose to create a thing, and then had creation happen, those things are all distinct events that happened and can be measured in units of time. Events occur in a temporal framework, there is literally no possible way they could not.

can you tell me what a "spirit" is made of? If you don't know what a spirit is, how can you understand it's existence? The closest thing you'll get to describing God from a natural point of view, is as light.

I don't really care. It's not my job to learn every detail of your specific fanfiction of your religion's undemonstrated claims. You can't come into a discussion like this one and seriously expect us to follow along with you before you demonstrate the shit you're talking about even exists first.

Light is formed from energy. mass is also formed from energy.... Do the math.

The math says that "it's in the bible!" is not sufficient justification for a concept or claim.

Strawman you say? Not according to Lawrence Krauss, who stats that (around 40:40 of the video)

Why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is there had to be, if you have nothing in quantum mechanics you'll always get something.

Am I Lawrence Krauss? Is any other cosmologist besides Lawrence Krauss, Lawrence Krauss? No? Then why do you think we should all be beholden to what Krauss says, rather than what we actually think?

Oh, and just as further evidence that you have no idea at all what you're talking about: You apparently don't know the difference between the big bang, which is an event describing the expansion of a singularity- the nature and previous history of which is currently unknown- of spacetime into a universe which gradually developed into the one we had now, and the creation of the universe. Because I'll give you a hint, Huggy: that singularity wasn't nothing. It was, in fact, everything there ever has been. Literally the opposite of nothing, so if you're going to talk about the big bang, then "from nothing" is, indeed, a strawman.

Then he should of left it at "I don't know". He's bitten by his own snake, if he want to offer suggestion on how the universe began, then he has to provide the evidence along with it.

He did leave it at "I don't know," genius. He then proceeded to point out how the "began to exist" language unjustifiably taints the discussion with certain assumptions that are, themselves, unjustified. There's a quote from Aristotle here that I think is apt, and illustrates so clearly the difference between yourself and people like Rob:

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

[Athene]

I could care less about the stupid adult patrons, but the thought of kids that don't know any better, being led to believe that this is actual science is disheartening. Those poor kids don't even have a chance.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Is this seriously an argument? People thinking that Bronze Age tribal sheepherders in the desert with a direct line to God, a God who couldn't be bothered to contact the astronomers in Babylon or China, knew more about the way the universe operates than Hawking or Krauss?

REALLY!?!

These same "direct line to God" sheepherders got Mendelian genetics absolutely backward, with the story of the man from whom Israel gets its name became wealthy enough to Be Somebody, in Genesis 30. Such a simple thing which, even though it's simple to understand once explained, to be fair nobody knew until Gregor Mendel published his paper on genetics in 1866 (and which was mainly ridiculed and ignored for another 35 years after that) in an obscure journal.

So it's no shame on the Bronze Age tribal sheepherders who didn't know that; we've only really known it for about a century. But if they had a direct line to the Creator of the Universe... it's a little hard to understand why they wouldn't have known that the story of Laban's flocks and Jacob's "cleverness" in making the sheep mate in front of striped sticks was total bollocks.

The shame comes when you don't recognize what this means, in terms of using the Bible stories as a shield against learning new information. The only reason I've ever seen for people to suggest that scientists, who have confirmed evolution through millions of experiments in the past century and a half, with each new type of evidence falling seamlessly in line with the other types (when we discovered rapid DNA scanning technology, in 1985, for instance, there was no reason for that data to back up what other scientists had said; it could have destroyed the Theory of Evolution utterly-- it should have, if it had been wrong all along), is that they have a comfortable mythology to which they'd rather cling.

As I have said before and will probably have to say again, this is why you see Christians who are top-level evolutionary biologists and cosmologists (my own physics professor was a Christian, and he spent almost as much time trying to get me to come back to the church as he did helping me with my differential equations) but never the other way around. (Edit: I mean non-Abrahamic-religion Creationists.)

It's easy to run, in a cowardly fashion, to the one spot you know the scientist will say, "Well we have some ideas but we don't know", rather than to face the MOUNTAIN of evidence for things we do know.

There are basically only two things we don't know: the very first microsecond of the universe and what the exact process was that caused life to emerge on this planet. And those are really the only two things you ever see Christians asking us about. Why?

Because you all know that, anywhere we're not forced to admit "we don't know yet", you get trounced by a mountain of fact that disproves your mythologies. Sure, from time to time you'll try to throw shade on some process we do understand, because some Creationist told you there are "problems" with it (like Carbon dating), even though those "problems" are well-understood and accounted for (and accepted 100% by honest Christians... just not Creationists who've sworn to ignore all evidence that conflicts with their presuppositions, as documented above). No scientist, Christian or atheist, starts with any proposition that cannot be falsified-- proved false.

And that makes all the difference.