First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
THE BIG BANG...
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 5/4/09 , edited 5/4/09

Ukonkivi wrote:


sarahD413 wrote:
I would believe that the world is flat dear, but as we all know, its not. :D

And as we all know, the Big Bang is real.
But apparently there are some people too fucktarded to believe or understand science outside of their understand.
I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand science. Religion does that to people.


4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 5/4/09 , edited 5/4/09
-I know I just posted recently but the Big Bang Theory technically supports the Creation Theory, the Christian one at least. The order it's done in is the same. Surprisingly the universe was just "made of nowhere" according to BBT (the "baby universe" was just gravity and some other stuff compressed in some small space that just expanded, I remember seeing this on a video but forgot the details).
But I'm going to say what I really wanted to say now that i said something on topic. Who in CR has endowed themselves in science AND their own religion? Like who can actually incorporate both sides? I know I've tried at least twice, just now and in the man=ape thread.

-Religious people, don't cop out and say science is "theory" or whatever. It has standards, it's not like they're trying to disprove religion. They're both seperate fields of study. You should really look into both before yapping away. Like if you haven't taken an anthropology class don't say anything involving human beginnings, you're just going to get pwn and the only people you're convincing are the lower masses. As far as "should we do stem cell research" that's a different story because it has to do with the direction of where people want to go with it, not the past like BBT and evolution.

-Science people, I know it's hard to be forgiving to religious people, especially ones who know little about their beliefs. But I will say at least try to take a class on religions and also ask questions from leaders of the religions like gurus and preacher. Try to learn about it from both sides but lower your guard while doing so. By that I mean don't try to filter out what a guru or preacher might be saying, really listen to them. I've done so for biology and anthropology and other fields of science. I totally understand from their perspective and I keep that knowledge in mind while I post here in Ext D. Oh and most importantly learn the context of the religious teachings, that's a mistake that's made by both religious and non-religious people.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/4/09 , edited 5/4/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The Big Bang is naturalistic propaganda... there are SO MANY problems and holes within it. Some scientists genuinely study it for scientific value, but many also use it to push the naturalistic philosophical view and disregard anyone who disagrees with it as a ignorant religious moron... Scientists are some of the most prejudice people on earth. I personally do not believe in the Big Bang and I am highly skeptical of the theory for scientific reasons/ http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers


WHy is it everytime I look at any of your postings there from Bad sources from people who don't even know anything about the topics there attacking?

Look for and check out the sources for your Source you might see why I always point out why your sourses are no good before you post them, then you save us a lot of time going over this crap every time. Not trying to be an ass this time, I am just pointing out that your sources are bad, and you can see that for your self if you took a look at them for there sources.

You might wanna use a real scientest as well, and Not just some Holy bible thumper with no education in what there attacking.







They aren't bad sources and the science behind them is accurate. They are Christian sources, but just because they are Christian doesn't make them bad. They use real science to back what the Bible says and disprove what others try to push as fact. This page lists a few of the scientists who work for Creation Ministries http://creation.com/about-us. most have Ph.D. in what they are researching and talking about, they are just as educated as evolutionary scientists and big bang theorists.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 5/4/09 , edited 5/4/09

digs wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The Big Bang is naturalistic propaganda... there are SO MANY problems and holes within it. Some scientists genuinely study it for scientific value, but many also use it to push the naturalistic philosophical view and disregard anyone who disagrees with it as a ignorant religious moron... Scientists are some of the most prejudice people on earth. I personally do not believe in the Big Bang and I am highly skeptical of the theory for scientific reasons/ http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers


WHy is it everytime I look at any of your postings there from Bad sources from people who don't even know anything about the topics there attacking?

Look for and check out the sources for your Source you might see why I always point out why your sourses are no good before you post them, then you save us a lot of time going over this crap every time. Not trying to be an ass this time, I am just pointing out that your sources are bad, and you can see that for your self if you took a look at them for there sources.

You might wanna use a real scientest as well, and Not just some Holy bible thumper with no education in what there attacking.







They aren't bad sources and the science behind them is accurate. They are Christian sources, but just because they are Christian doesn't make them bad. They use real science to back what the Bible says and disprove what others try to push as fact. This page lists a few of the scientists who work for Creation Ministries http://creation.com/about-us. most have Ph.D. in what they are researching and talking about, they are just as educated as evolutionary scientists and big bang theorists.


Actually digs I might have to disagree with you on this one. I've taken a quick look at bigbangneverhappened link and I myself find it quite biased and here's what I've noticed and what I have to say about each.

-Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
It's science. Deep down inside the field not everything makes it out alive. The theories are like musicians who are trying to go mainstream, it's really that hard. So what if there's unstable measurements of the element count of the past. Every one of those measurements is made from different angles, and they may not always be right. Even if this stuff is disproven, the idea that the universe is made out of "nothing" is still out there because of other theories that are more well supported.

-Large-scale Voids are too old
They are called "voids" for a reason. That void is what is considered nothingness. Oh, and you don't even want to hear what I've heard from a graduating physics student, even he doesn't want to believe the following: the universe has no beginning. That's right, according to some guy he somehow drew from his conclusions that the universe has been continually expanding and contracting with no beginning or end. The Big Bang as we know it may not have been the first one. Scary.

-Surface brightness is constant
I had to re-read this one a couple times but I got it somehow. Correction, the galaxy as we know it now isn't what it was when it first started. It could be that such said galaxies were made while the universe was stablizing so their brightness could be evidence of a different rule of physics that the universe was once in before it stablized.

-Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
Dark matter has been in fact proven mathematically proven. As for the other two I don't know of. Dark matter doesn't exist now obviously becuase they were all negated by matter.

-No room for dark matter
"While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter"
What does he mean by this, the ordinary matter that we have today? Of course there's less of it than the dark matter that has onced existed. He even contradicts himself by presenting this, he just said there was no evidence of dark matter.

-Ya this is as far as I went and I've already pointed flaws in this arguement. If it wasn't for the big bang that made the universe, what other scientific explaination is out there?
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/4/09

crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The Big Bang is naturalistic propaganda... there are SO MANY problems and holes within it. Some scientists genuinely study it for scientific value, but many also use it to push the naturalistic philosophical view and disregard anyone who disagrees with it as a ignorant religious moron... Scientists are some of the most prejudice people on earth. I personally do not believe in the Big Bang and I am highly skeptical of the theory for scientific reasons/ http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers


WHy is it everytime I look at any of your postings there from Bad sources from people who don't even know anything about the topics there attacking?

Look for and check out the sources for your Source you might see why I always point out why your sourses are no good before you post them, then you save us a lot of time going over this crap every time. Not trying to be an ass this time, I am just pointing out that your sources are bad, and you can see that for your self if you took a look at them for there sources.

You might wanna use a real scientest as well, and Not just some Holy bible thumper with no education in what there attacking.







They aren't bad sources and the science behind them is accurate. They are Christian sources, but just because they are Christian doesn't make them bad. They use real science to back what the Bible says and disprove what others try to push as fact. This page lists a few of the scientists who work for Creation Ministries http://creation.com/about-us. most have Ph.D. in what they are researching and talking about, they are just as educated as evolutionary scientists and big bang theorists.


Actually digs I might have to disagree with you on this one. I've taken a quick look at bigbangneverhappened link and I myself find it quite biased and here's what I've noticed and what I have to say about each.

-Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
It's science. Deep down inside the field not everything makes it out alive. The theories are like musicians who are trying to go mainstream, it's really that hard. So what if there's unstable measurements of the element count of the past. Every one of those measurements is made from different angles, and they may not always be right. Even if this stuff is disproven, the idea that the universe is made out of "nothing" is still out there because of other theories that are more well supported.

-Large-scale Voids are too old
They are called "voids" for a reason. That void is what is considered nothingness. Oh, and you don't even want to hear what I've heard from a graduating physics student, even he doesn't want to believe the following: the universe has no beginning. That's right, according to some guy he somehow drew from his conclusions that the universe has been continually expanding and contracting with no beginning or end. The Big Bang as we know it may not have been the first one. Scary.

-Surface brightness is constant
I had to re-read this one a couple times but I got it somehow. Correction, the galaxy as we know it now isn't what it was when it first started. It could be that such said galaxies were made while the universe was stablizing so their brightness could be evidence of a different rule of physics that the universe was once in before it stablized.

-Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
Dark matter has been in fact proven mathematically proven. As for the other two I don't know of. Dark matter doesn't exist now obviously becuase they were all negated by matter.

-No room for dark matter
"While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter"
What does he mean by this, the ordinary matter that we have today? Of course there's less of it than the dark matter that has onced existed. He even contradicts himself by presenting this, he just said there was no evidence of dark matter.

-Ya this is as far as I went and I've already pointed flaws in this arguement. If it wasn't for the big bang that made the universe, what other scientific explaination is out there?


I agree that some of his arguments are old and hard to understand, I prefer the second link (Creation ministries).

I don't think science can explain the origins of the universe, I personally believe in the Biblical creation account in Genesis, so I believe that God created all that is in existence.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/4/09

digs wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The Big Bang is naturalistic propaganda... there are SO MANY problems and holes within it. Some scientists genuinely study it for scientific value, but many also use it to push the naturalistic philosophical view and disregard anyone who disagrees with it as a ignorant religious moron... Scientists are some of the most prejudice people on earth. I personally do not believe in the Big Bang and I am highly skeptical of the theory for scientific reasons/ http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers


WHy is it everytime I look at any of your postings there from Bad sources from people who don't even know anything about the topics there attacking?

Look for and check out the sources for your Source you might see why I always point out why your sourses are no good before you post them, then you save us a lot of time going over this crap every time. Not trying to be an ass this time, I am just pointing out that your sources are bad, and you can see that for your self if you took a look at them for there sources.

You might wanna use a real scientest as well, and Not just some Holy bible thumper with no education in what there attacking.







They aren't bad sources and the science behind them is accurate. They are Christian sources, but just because they are Christian doesn't make them bad. They use real science to back what the Bible says and disprove what others try to push as fact. This page lists a few of the scientists who work for Creation Ministries http://creation.com/about-us. most have Ph.D. in what they are researching and talking about, they are just as educated as evolutionary scientists and big bang theorists.


Actually digs I might have to disagree with you on this one. I've taken a quick look at bigbangneverhappened link and I myself find it quite biased and here's what I've noticed and what I have to say about each.

-Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
It's science. Deep down inside the field not everything makes it out alive. The theories are like musicians who are trying to go mainstream, it's really that hard. So what if there's unstable measurements of the element count of the past. Every one of those measurements is made from different angles, and they may not always be right. Even if this stuff is disproven, the idea that the universe is made out of "nothing" is still out there because of other theories that are more well supported.

-Large-scale Voids are too old
They are called "voids" for a reason. That void is what is considered nothingness. Oh, and you don't even want to hear what I've heard from a graduating physics student, even he doesn't want to believe the following: the universe has no beginning. That's right, according to some guy he somehow drew from his conclusions that the universe has been continually expanding and contracting with no beginning or end. The Big Bang as we know it may not have been the first one. Scary.

-Surface brightness is constant
I had to re-read this one a couple times but I got it somehow. Correction, the galaxy as we know it now isn't what it was when it first started. It could be that such said galaxies were made while the universe was stablizing so their brightness could be evidence of a different rule of physics that the universe was once in before it stablized.

-Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
Dark matter has been in fact proven mathematically proven. As for the other two I don't know of. Dark matter doesn't exist now obviously becuase they were all negated by matter.

-No room for dark matter
"While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter"
What does he mean by this, the ordinary matter that we have today? Of course there's less of it than the dark matter that has onced existed. He even contradicts himself by presenting this, he just said there was no evidence of dark matter.

-Ya this is as far as I went and I've already pointed flaws in this arguement. If it wasn't for the big bang that made the universe, what other scientific explaination is out there?


I agree that some of his arguments are old and hard to understand, I prefer the second link (Creation ministries).

I don't think science can explain the origins of the universe, I personally believe in the Biblical creation account in Genesis, so I believe that God created all that is in existence.


Like I said if "god" created everything, all he created is Hydrogen and Helium, everything else formed during the big bang and in stars/supernova.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/4/09

Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The Big Bang is naturalistic propaganda... there are SO MANY problems and holes within it. Some scientists genuinely study it for scientific value, but many also use it to push the naturalistic philosophical view and disregard anyone who disagrees with it as a ignorant religious moron... Scientists are some of the most prejudice people on earth. I personally do not believe in the Big Bang and I am highly skeptical of the theory for scientific reasons/ http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers


WHy is it everytime I look at any of your postings there from Bad sources from people who don't even know anything about the topics there attacking?

Look for and check out the sources for your Source you might see why I always point out why your sourses are no good before you post them, then you save us a lot of time going over this crap every time. Not trying to be an ass this time, I am just pointing out that your sources are bad, and you can see that for your self if you took a look at them for there sources.

You might wanna use a real scientest as well, and Not just some Holy bible thumper with no education in what there attacking.







They aren't bad sources and the science behind them is accurate. They are Christian sources, but just because they are Christian doesn't make them bad. They use real science to back what the Bible says and disprove what others try to push as fact. This page lists a few of the scientists who work for Creation Ministries http://creation.com/about-us. most have Ph.D. in what they are researching and talking about, they are just as educated as evolutionary scientists and big bang theorists.


Actually digs I might have to disagree with you on this one. I've taken a quick look at bigbangneverhappened link and I myself find it quite biased and here's what I've noticed and what I have to say about each.

-Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
It's science. Deep down inside the field not everything makes it out alive. The theories are like musicians who are trying to go mainstream, it's really that hard. So what if there's unstable measurements of the element count of the past. Every one of those measurements is made from different angles, and they may not always be right. Even if this stuff is disproven, the idea that the universe is made out of "nothing" is still out there because of other theories that are more well supported.

-Large-scale Voids are too old
They are called "voids" for a reason. That void is what is considered nothingness. Oh, and you don't even want to hear what I've heard from a graduating physics student, even he doesn't want to believe the following: the universe has no beginning. That's right, according to some guy he somehow drew from his conclusions that the universe has been continually expanding and contracting with no beginning or end. The Big Bang as we know it may not have been the first one. Scary.

-Surface brightness is constant
I had to re-read this one a couple times but I got it somehow. Correction, the galaxy as we know it now isn't what it was when it first started. It could be that such said galaxies were made while the universe was stablizing so their brightness could be evidence of a different rule of physics that the universe was once in before it stablized.

-Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
Dark matter has been in fact proven mathematically proven. As for the other two I don't know of. Dark matter doesn't exist now obviously becuase they were all negated by matter.

-No room for dark matter
"While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter"
What does he mean by this, the ordinary matter that we have today? Of course there's less of it than the dark matter that has onced existed. He even contradicts himself by presenting this, he just said there was no evidence of dark matter.

-Ya this is as far as I went and I've already pointed flaws in this arguement. If it wasn't for the big bang that made the universe, what other scientific explaination is out there?


I agree that some of his arguments are old and hard to understand, I prefer the second link (Creation ministries).

I don't think science can explain the origins of the universe, I personally believe in the Biblical creation account in Genesis, so I believe that God created all that is in existence.


Like I said if "god" created everything, all he created is Hydrogen and Helium, everything else formed during the big bang and in stars/supernova.


not really, why couldn't he have created the planets and stars as well at once? There are some flaws behind the hydrogen and helium only form of the creation of matter.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/4/09

digs wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The Big Bang is naturalistic propaganda... there are SO MANY problems and holes within it. Some scientists genuinely study it for scientific value, but many also use it to push the naturalistic philosophical view and disregard anyone who disagrees with it as a ignorant religious moron... Scientists are some of the most prejudice people on earth. I personally do not believe in the Big Bang and I am highly skeptical of the theory for scientific reasons/ http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers


WHy is it everytime I look at any of your postings there from Bad sources from people who don't even know anything about the topics there attacking?

Look for and check out the sources for your Source you might see why I always point out why your sourses are no good before you post them, then you save us a lot of time going over this crap every time. Not trying to be an ass this time, I am just pointing out that your sources are bad, and you can see that for your self if you took a look at them for there sources.

You might wanna use a real scientest as well, and Not just some Holy bible thumper with no education in what there attacking.







They aren't bad sources and the science behind them is accurate. They are Christian sources, but just because they are Christian doesn't make them bad. They use real science to back what the Bible says and disprove what others try to push as fact. This page lists a few of the scientists who work for Creation Ministries http://creation.com/about-us. most have Ph.D. in what they are researching and talking about, they are just as educated as evolutionary scientists and big bang theorists.


Actually digs I might have to disagree with you on this one. I've taken a quick look at bigbangneverhappened link and I myself find it quite biased and here's what I've noticed and what I have to say about each.

-Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
It's science. Deep down inside the field not everything makes it out alive. The theories are like musicians who are trying to go mainstream, it's really that hard. So what if there's unstable measurements of the element count of the past. Every one of those measurements is made from different angles, and they may not always be right. Even if this stuff is disproven, the idea that the universe is made out of "nothing" is still out there because of other theories that are more well supported.

-Large-scale Voids are too old
They are called "voids" for a reason. That void is what is considered nothingness. Oh, and you don't even want to hear what I've heard from a graduating physics student, even he doesn't want to believe the following: the universe has no beginning. That's right, according to some guy he somehow drew from his conclusions that the universe has been continually expanding and contracting with no beginning or end. The Big Bang as we know it may not have been the first one. Scary.

-Surface brightness is constant
I had to re-read this one a couple times but I got it somehow. Correction, the galaxy as we know it now isn't what it was when it first started. It could be that such said galaxies were made while the universe was stablizing so their brightness could be evidence of a different rule of physics that the universe was once in before it stablized.

-Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
Dark matter has been in fact proven mathematically proven. As for the other two I don't know of. Dark matter doesn't exist now obviously becuase they were all negated by matter.

-No room for dark matter
"While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter"
What does he mean by this, the ordinary matter that we have today? Of course there's less of it than the dark matter that has onced existed. He even contradicts himself by presenting this, he just said there was no evidence of dark matter.

-Ya this is as far as I went and I've already pointed flaws in this arguement. If it wasn't for the big bang that made the universe, what other scientific explaination is out there?


I agree that some of his arguments are old and hard to understand, I prefer the second link (Creation ministries).

I don't think science can explain the origins of the universe, I personally believe in the Biblical creation account in Genesis, so I believe that God created all that is in existence.


Like I said if "god" created everything, all he created is Hydrogen and Helium, everything else formed during the big bang and in stars/supernova.


not really, why couldn't he have created the planets and stars as well at once? There are some flaws behind the hydrogen and helium only form of the creation of matter.


Because it didn't, plus we've seen stars and planets forming so we know that god didn't do them all at once, stars and planets are still forming to this very day, and there are virtually no flaws behind hydrogen, helium, and lithium being the only elements that existed in the early universe roughly 14 billion years ago, it's been proven that stars fuse elements into heavier elements, stars fuse hydrogen into helium, and helium into heavier elements, super massive stars can fuse elements all the way up to iron, but nothing heavier then iron as super massive stars don't have enough energy / power to fuse iron an iron atom into anything heavier, all elements heavier then iron were created in supernova. Thus god did not create the planets, planets are recycled star dust, that gathered together under its own gravity to form a planet, stars work the same way, planets, people, buildings, everything heavier then lithium is recycled star dust.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/4/09

Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The Big Bang is naturalistic propaganda... there are SO MANY problems and holes within it. Some scientists genuinely study it for scientific value, but many also use it to push the naturalistic philosophical view and disregard anyone who disagrees with it as a ignorant religious moron... Scientists are some of the most prejudice people on earth. I personally do not believe in the Big Bang and I am highly skeptical of the theory for scientific reasons/ http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers


WHy is it everytime I look at any of your postings there from Bad sources from people who don't even know anything about the topics there attacking?

Look for and check out the sources for your Source you might see why I always point out why your sourses are no good before you post them, then you save us a lot of time going over this crap every time. Not trying to be an ass this time, I am just pointing out that your sources are bad, and you can see that for your self if you took a look at them for there sources.

You might wanna use a real scientest as well, and Not just some Holy bible thumper with no education in what there attacking.







They aren't bad sources and the science behind them is accurate. They are Christian sources, but just because they are Christian doesn't make them bad. They use real science to back what the Bible says and disprove what others try to push as fact. This page lists a few of the scientists who work for Creation Ministries http://creation.com/about-us. most have Ph.D. in what they are researching and talking about, they are just as educated as evolutionary scientists and big bang theorists.


Actually digs I might have to disagree with you on this one. I've taken a quick look at bigbangneverhappened link and I myself find it quite biased and here's what I've noticed and what I have to say about each.

-Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
It's science. Deep down inside the field not everything makes it out alive. The theories are like musicians who are trying to go mainstream, it's really that hard. So what if there's unstable measurements of the element count of the past. Every one of those measurements is made from different angles, and they may not always be right. Even if this stuff is disproven, the idea that the universe is made out of "nothing" is still out there because of other theories that are more well supported.

-Large-scale Voids are too old
They are called "voids" for a reason. That void is what is considered nothingness. Oh, and you don't even want to hear what I've heard from a graduating physics student, even he doesn't want to believe the following: the universe has no beginning. That's right, according to some guy he somehow drew from his conclusions that the universe has been continually expanding and contracting with no beginning or end. The Big Bang as we know it may not have been the first one. Scary.

-Surface brightness is constant
I had to re-read this one a couple times but I got it somehow. Correction, the galaxy as we know it now isn't what it was when it first started. It could be that such said galaxies were made while the universe was stablizing so their brightness could be evidence of a different rule of physics that the universe was once in before it stablized.

-Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
Dark matter has been in fact proven mathematically proven. As for the other two I don't know of. Dark matter doesn't exist now obviously becuase they were all negated by matter.

-No room for dark matter
"While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter"
What does he mean by this, the ordinary matter that we have today? Of course there's less of it than the dark matter that has onced existed. He even contradicts himself by presenting this, he just said there was no evidence of dark matter.

-Ya this is as far as I went and I've already pointed flaws in this arguement. If it wasn't for the big bang that made the universe, what other scientific explaination is out there?


I agree that some of his arguments are old and hard to understand, I prefer the second link (Creation ministries).

I don't think science can explain the origins of the universe, I personally believe in the Biblical creation account in Genesis, so I believe that God created all that is in existence.


Like I said if "god" created everything, all he created is Hydrogen and Helium, everything else formed during the big bang and in stars/supernova.


not really, why couldn't he have created the planets and stars as well at once? There are some flaws behind the hydrogen and helium only form of the creation of matter.


Because it didn't, plus we've seen stars and planets forming so we know that god didn't do them all at once, stars and planets are still forming to this very day, and there are virtually no flaws behind hydrogen, helium, and lithium being the only elements that existed in the early universe roughly 14 billion years ago, it's been proven that stars fuse elements into heavier elements, stars fuse hydrogen into helium, and helium into heavier elements, super massive stars can fuse elements all the way up to iron, but nothing heavier then iron as super massive stars don't have enough energy / power to fuse iron an iron atom into anything heavier, all elements heavier then iron were created in supernova. Thus god did not create the planets, planets are recycled star dust, that gathered together under its own gravity to form a planet, stars work the same way, planets, people, buildings, everything heavier then lithium is recycled star dust.


"Because it didn't" doesn't disprove what I said. We haven't seen stars or plants form, we only speculate how they may form (however we know more of stars than planetary formation). The universe is quite young (possibly 12,000 years or younger). There are so many theories and facts that disprove a billions of years old universe, plus a big bang would also violate laws of light.
1957 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / England
Offline
Posted 5/4/09 , edited 5/4/09

Ukonkivi wrote:


sarahD413 wrote:
I would believe that the world is flat dear, but as we all know, its not. :D

And as we all know, the Big Bang is real.
But apparently there are some people too fucktarded to believe or understand science outside of their understand.
I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand science. Religion does that to people.




559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / Feminism is made...
Offline
Posted 5/4/09



"Because it didn't" doesn't disprove what I said. We haven't seen stars or plants form, we only speculate how they may form (however we know more of stars than planetary formation). The universe is quite young (possibly 12,000 years or younger). There are so many theories and facts that disprove a billions of years old universe, plus a big bang would also violate laws of light.


Interesting. Earth's rocks are older than the Universe. Even the hominids! Anyway, can you actually elaborate as to why Bing Bang violated the "Laws of Light?"
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/4/09

digs wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The Big Bang is naturalistic propaganda... there are SO MANY problems and holes within it. Some scientists genuinely study it for scientific value, but many also use it to push the naturalistic philosophical view and disregard anyone who disagrees with it as a ignorant religious moron... Scientists are some of the most prejudice people on earth. I personally do not believe in the Big Bang and I am highly skeptical of the theory for scientific reasons/ http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers


WHy is it everytime I look at any of your postings there from Bad sources from people who don't even know anything about the topics there attacking?

Look for and check out the sources for your Source you might see why I always point out why your sourses are no good before you post them, then you save us a lot of time going over this crap every time. Not trying to be an ass this time, I am just pointing out that your sources are bad, and you can see that for your self if you took a look at them for there sources.

You might wanna use a real scientest as well, and Not just some Holy bible thumper with no education in what there attacking.







They aren't bad sources and the science behind them is accurate. They are Christian sources, but just because they are Christian doesn't make them bad. They use real science to back what the Bible says and disprove what others try to push as fact. This page lists a few of the scientists who work for Creation Ministries http://creation.com/about-us. most have Ph.D. in what they are researching and talking about, they are just as educated as evolutionary scientists and big bang theorists.


Actually digs I might have to disagree with you on this one. I've taken a quick look at bigbangneverhappened link and I myself find it quite biased and here's what I've noticed and what I have to say about each.

-Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
It's science. Deep down inside the field not everything makes it out alive. The theories are like musicians who are trying to go mainstream, it's really that hard. So what if there's unstable measurements of the element count of the past. Every one of those measurements is made from different angles, and they may not always be right. Even if this stuff is disproven, the idea that the universe is made out of "nothing" is still out there because of other theories that are more well supported.

-Large-scale Voids are too old
They are called "voids" for a reason. That void is what is considered nothingness. Oh, and you don't even want to hear what I've heard from a graduating physics student, even he doesn't want to believe the following: the universe has no beginning. That's right, according to some guy he somehow drew from his conclusions that the universe has been continually expanding and contracting with no beginning or end. The Big Bang as we know it may not have been the first one. Scary.

-Surface brightness is constant
I had to re-read this one a couple times but I got it somehow. Correction, the galaxy as we know it now isn't what it was when it first started. It could be that such said galaxies were made while the universe was stablizing so their brightness could be evidence of a different rule of physics that the universe was once in before it stablized.

-Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
Dark matter has been in fact proven mathematically proven. As for the other two I don't know of. Dark matter doesn't exist now obviously becuase they were all negated by matter.

-No room for dark matter
"While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter"
What does he mean by this, the ordinary matter that we have today? Of course there's less of it than the dark matter that has onced existed. He even contradicts himself by presenting this, he just said there was no evidence of dark matter.

-Ya this is as far as I went and I've already pointed flaws in this arguement. If it wasn't for the big bang that made the universe, what other scientific explaination is out there?


I agree that some of his arguments are old and hard to understand, I prefer the second link (Creation ministries).

I don't think science can explain the origins of the universe, I personally believe in the Biblical creation account in Genesis, so I believe that God created all that is in existence.


Like I said if "god" created everything, all he created is Hydrogen and Helium, everything else formed during the big bang and in stars/supernova.


not really, why couldn't he have created the planets and stars as well at once? There are some flaws behind the hydrogen and helium only form of the creation of matter.


Because it didn't, plus we've seen stars and planets forming so we know that god didn't do them all at once, stars and planets are still forming to this very day, and there are virtually no flaws behind hydrogen, helium, and lithium being the only elements that existed in the early universe roughly 14 billion years ago, it's been proven that stars fuse elements into heavier elements, stars fuse hydrogen into helium, and helium into heavier elements, super massive stars can fuse elements all the way up to iron, but nothing heavier then iron as super massive stars don't have enough energy / power to fuse iron an iron atom into anything heavier, all elements heavier then iron were created in supernova. Thus god did not create the planets, planets are recycled star dust, that gathered together under its own gravity to form a planet, stars work the same way, planets, people, buildings, everything heavier then lithium is recycled star dust.


"Because it didn't" doesn't disprove what I said. We haven't seen stars or plants form, we only speculate how they may form (however we know more of stars than planetary formation). The universe is quite young (possibly 12,000 years or younger). There are so many theories and facts that disprove a billions of years old universe, plus a big bang would also violate laws of light.


No, we have seen stars forming, you can find pictures of them forming in nebula if you look. Research something first before making a stupid statement. And the universe is quite old, we've dated stars to be far older then 12,000 years, Sol, our sun is far older than that, it's roughly 4.5 billion years old, not a mere 12,000 years, also there is a metal poor star in the milky way called HE 1523 that is 13.2 billion years old, just slightly younger than 13.7 billion year age of the universe. Our solar system is estimated to be only about 4.6 billion years old. Again do some research before making stupid statments.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/4/09

Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The Big Bang is naturalistic propaganda... there are SO MANY problems and holes within it. Some scientists genuinely study it for scientific value, but many also use it to push the naturalistic philosophical view and disregard anyone who disagrees with it as a ignorant religious moron... Scientists are some of the most prejudice people on earth. I personally do not believe in the Big Bang and I am highly skeptical of the theory for scientific reasons/ http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers


WHy is it everytime I look at any of your postings there from Bad sources from people who don't even know anything about the topics there attacking?

Look for and check out the sources for your Source you might see why I always point out why your sourses are no good before you post them, then you save us a lot of time going over this crap every time. Not trying to be an ass this time, I am just pointing out that your sources are bad, and you can see that for your self if you took a look at them for there sources.

You might wanna use a real scientest as well, and Not just some Holy bible thumper with no education in what there attacking.







They aren't bad sources and the science behind them is accurate. They are Christian sources, but just because they are Christian doesn't make them bad. They use real science to back what the Bible says and disprove what others try to push as fact. This page lists a few of the scientists who work for Creation Ministries http://creation.com/about-us. most have Ph.D. in what they are researching and talking about, they are just as educated as evolutionary scientists and big bang theorists.


Actually digs I might have to disagree with you on this one. I've taken a quick look at bigbangneverhappened link and I myself find it quite biased and here's what I've noticed and what I have to say about each.

-Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
It's science. Deep down inside the field not everything makes it out alive. The theories are like musicians who are trying to go mainstream, it's really that hard. So what if there's unstable measurements of the element count of the past. Every one of those measurements is made from different angles, and they may not always be right. Even if this stuff is disproven, the idea that the universe is made out of "nothing" is still out there because of other theories that are more well supported.

-Large-scale Voids are too old
They are called "voids" for a reason. That void is what is considered nothingness. Oh, and you don't even want to hear what I've heard from a graduating physics student, even he doesn't want to believe the following: the universe has no beginning. That's right, according to some guy he somehow drew from his conclusions that the universe has been continually expanding and contracting with no beginning or end. The Big Bang as we know it may not have been the first one. Scary.

-Surface brightness is constant
I had to re-read this one a couple times but I got it somehow. Correction, the galaxy as we know it now isn't what it was when it first started. It could be that such said galaxies were made while the universe was stablizing so their brightness could be evidence of a different rule of physics that the universe was once in before it stablized.

-Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
Dark matter has been in fact proven mathematically proven. As for the other two I don't know of. Dark matter doesn't exist now obviously becuase they were all negated by matter.

-No room for dark matter
"While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter"
What does he mean by this, the ordinary matter that we have today? Of course there's less of it than the dark matter that has onced existed. He even contradicts himself by presenting this, he just said there was no evidence of dark matter.

-Ya this is as far as I went and I've already pointed flaws in this arguement. If it wasn't for the big bang that made the universe, what other scientific explaination is out there?


I agree that some of his arguments are old and hard to understand, I prefer the second link (Creation ministries).

I don't think science can explain the origins of the universe, I personally believe in the Biblical creation account in Genesis, so I believe that God created all that is in existence.


Like I said if "god" created everything, all he created is Hydrogen and Helium, everything else formed during the big bang and in stars/supernova.


not really, why couldn't he have created the planets and stars as well at once? There are some flaws behind the hydrogen and helium only form of the creation of matter.


Because it didn't, plus we've seen stars and planets forming so we know that god didn't do them all at once, stars and planets are still forming to this very day, and there are virtually no flaws behind hydrogen, helium, and lithium being the only elements that existed in the early universe roughly 14 billion years ago, it's been proven that stars fuse elements into heavier elements, stars fuse hydrogen into helium, and helium into heavier elements, super massive stars can fuse elements all the way up to iron, but nothing heavier then iron as super massive stars don't have enough energy / power to fuse iron an iron atom into anything heavier, all elements heavier then iron were created in supernova. Thus god did not create the planets, planets are recycled star dust, that gathered together under its own gravity to form a planet, stars work the same way, planets, people, buildings, everything heavier then lithium is recycled star dust.


"Because it didn't" doesn't disprove what I said. We haven't seen stars or plants form, we only speculate how they may form (however we know more of stars than planetary formation). The universe is quite young (possibly 12,000 years or younger). There are so many theories and facts that disprove a billions of years old universe, plus a big bang would also violate laws of light.


No, we have seen stars forming, you can find pictures of them forming in nebula if you look. Research something first before making a stupid statement. And the universe is quite old, we've dated stars to be far older then 12,000 years, Sol, our sun is far older than that, it's roughly 4.5 billion years old, not a mere 12,000 years, also there is a metal poor star in the milky way called HE 1523 that is 13.2 billion years old, just slightly younger than 13.7 billion year age of the universe. Our solar system is estimated to be only about 4.6 billion years old. Again do some research before making stupid statments.


Here is a link that debunks some of the arguments stating that the world is billions of years old http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa. It also provides support for a young earth & universe.

@Jewishplayer- here is an article on how the Big Bang violates light laws. http://creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang. Also, the earths rocks have faulty dating systems, and evolutionary scientists may date it millions of years old, while others use more accurate methods and find them to be several thousands of years. Here is a good article on how radiometric dating is flawed and inaccurate (it states they have dated living snails to be over 2000 years old using these methods...). http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments/Hartman.xhtml
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/4/09

crunchypibb wrote:
Who in CR has endowed themselves in science AND their own religion? Like who can actually incorporate both sides? I know I've tried at least twice, just now and in the man=ape thread.


I don't think it's possible for science and religion to completely coordinate with each other. Anyone who tries to equally incorporate both into their world view will inevitable lean towards one side or the other. The absolutism of religion does not coincide well with the constant changing and expanding of science. However, science and spiritiality can compliment each other very well, depending on the person.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/4/09

digs wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The Big Bang is naturalistic propaganda... there are SO MANY problems and holes within it. Some scientists genuinely study it for scientific value, but many also use it to push the naturalistic philosophical view and disregard anyone who disagrees with it as a ignorant religious moron... Scientists are some of the most prejudice people on earth. I personally do not believe in the Big Bang and I am highly skeptical of the theory for scientific reasons/ http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers


WHy is it everytime I look at any of your postings there from Bad sources from people who don't even know anything about the topics there attacking?

Look for and check out the sources for your Source you might see why I always point out why your sourses are no good before you post them, then you save us a lot of time going over this crap every time. Not trying to be an ass this time, I am just pointing out that your sources are bad, and you can see that for your self if you took a look at them for there sources.

You might wanna use a real scientest as well, and Not just some Holy bible thumper with no education in what there attacking.







They aren't bad sources and the science behind them is accurate. They are Christian sources, but just because they are Christian doesn't make them bad. They use real science to back what the Bible says and disprove what others try to push as fact. This page lists a few of the scientists who work for Creation Ministries http://creation.com/about-us. most have Ph.D. in what they are researching and talking about, they are just as educated as evolutionary scientists and big bang theorists.


Actually digs I might have to disagree with you on this one. I've taken a quick look at bigbangneverhappened link and I myself find it quite biased and here's what I've noticed and what I have to say about each.

-Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
It's science. Deep down inside the field not everything makes it out alive. The theories are like musicians who are trying to go mainstream, it's really that hard. So what if there's unstable measurements of the element count of the past. Every one of those measurements is made from different angles, and they may not always be right. Even if this stuff is disproven, the idea that the universe is made out of "nothing" is still out there because of other theories that are more well supported.

-Large-scale Voids are too old
They are called "voids" for a reason. That void is what is considered nothingness. Oh, and you don't even want to hear what I've heard from a graduating physics student, even he doesn't want to believe the following: the universe has no beginning. That's right, according to some guy he somehow drew from his conclusions that the universe has been continually expanding and contracting with no beginning or end. The Big Bang as we know it may not have been the first one. Scary.

-Surface brightness is constant
I had to re-read this one a couple times but I got it somehow. Correction, the galaxy as we know it now isn't what it was when it first started. It could be that such said galaxies were made while the universe was stablizing so their brightness could be evidence of a different rule of physics that the universe was once in before it stablized.

-Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
Dark matter has been in fact proven mathematically proven. As for the other two I don't know of. Dark matter doesn't exist now obviously becuase they were all negated by matter.

-No room for dark matter
"While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter"
What does he mean by this, the ordinary matter that we have today? Of course there's less of it than the dark matter that has onced existed. He even contradicts himself by presenting this, he just said there was no evidence of dark matter.

-Ya this is as far as I went and I've already pointed flaws in this arguement. If it wasn't for the big bang that made the universe, what other scientific explaination is out there?


I agree that some of his arguments are old and hard to understand, I prefer the second link (Creation ministries).

I don't think science can explain the origins of the universe, I personally believe in the Biblical creation account in Genesis, so I believe that God created all that is in existence.


Like I said if "god" created everything, all he created is Hydrogen and Helium, everything else formed during the big bang and in stars/supernova.


not really, why couldn't he have created the planets and stars as well at once? There are some flaws behind the hydrogen and helium only form of the creation of matter.


Because it didn't, plus we've seen stars and planets forming so we know that god didn't do them all at once, stars and planets are still forming to this very day, and there are virtually no flaws behind hydrogen, helium, and lithium being the only elements that existed in the early universe roughly 14 billion years ago, it's been proven that stars fuse elements into heavier elements, stars fuse hydrogen into helium, and helium into heavier elements, super massive stars can fuse elements all the way up to iron, but nothing heavier then iron as super massive stars don't have enough energy / power to fuse iron an iron atom into anything heavier, all elements heavier then iron were created in supernova. Thus god did not create the planets, planets are recycled star dust, that gathered together under its own gravity to form a planet, stars work the same way, planets, people, buildings, everything heavier then lithium is recycled star dust.


"Because it didn't" doesn't disprove what I said. We haven't seen stars or plants form, we only speculate how they may form (however we know more of stars than planetary formation). The universe is quite young (possibly 12,000 years or younger). There are so many theories and facts that disprove a billions of years old universe, plus a big bang would also violate laws of light.


No, we have seen stars forming, you can find pictures of them forming in nebula if you look. Research something first before making a stupid statement. And the universe is quite old, we've dated stars to be far older then 12,000 years, Sol, our sun is far older than that, it's roughly 4.5 billion years old, not a mere 12,000 years, also there is a metal poor star in the milky way called HE 1523 that is 13.2 billion years old, just slightly younger than 13.7 billion year age of the universe. Our solar system is estimated to be only about 4.6 billion years old. Again do some research before making stupid statments.


Here is a link that debunks some of the arguments stating that the world is billions of years old http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa. It also provides support for a young earth & universe.

@Jewishplayer- here is an article on how the Big Bang violates light laws. http://creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang. Also, the earths rocks have faulty dating systems, and evolutionary scientists may date it millions of years old, while others use more accurate methods and find them to be several thousands of years. Here is a good article on how radiometric dating is flawed and inaccurate (it states they have dated living snails to be over 2000 years old using these methods...). http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments/Hartman.xhtml


The earth is billions of years old, life has been on it for hundreds of millions of years, that has been proven, your not going to disprove it with your creationism bullshit. Creationism is and has always been crap. The earth is billions of years old, I don't care what useless crap you link me to, the earth is billions of years old, besides there is no way it's only 12,000 years old, explain the dinosaurs and their skeletons, explain the 6' dragonflies we've found frozen in amber, explain the life on earth that's been here for millions of years, explain how if the earth is only 12,000 years old, homo sapien has been on it for 250,000 years, and homo(humans) have been on earth for 2 million years, and last time I checked 2 millions years > 12,000 years. your argument is worthless and holds no ground.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.