Creationism - good or bad?

[FishFace]

This is only a classroom talk. In reality, what you said never happen. Besides, if some scientist did what you said, then he or she would NEVER get anywhere throughout an entire life, no matter how hard he or she works.

Incorrect. General relativity is the classic example. It explains every piece of data that Newtonian gravity does - the orbits of every planet except mercury, motion under gravity on earth and so on but it also accurately predicts mercury's orbit, and can be tested and verified by other tests which highlight the slight differences.

The germ theory of disease explained everything spontaneous generation did - why meat goes rots - but it also explains why if you boil and seal some soup it doesn't go mouldy, but if you boil soup and leave it open to the air, it does.

 

[shernren]

Evidently I know more than you, but you have license to post on these matters. I like to be rather heavy handed with condescension. Sometimes it helps to shorten a discussion that is going nowhere.

I'm glad to see that you are actively endeavoring to be Christlike in your discussions with brothers in the faith, constantly considering them more highly than yourself and laboring to see how you can edify both those in direct dispute and those reading silently on the sidelines.

As it is, if I at this point labeled you an illiterate troglodyte insisting on defeating 400 years of Western Christian scientific tradition with nonsensical babble, I would be doing nothing more than playing to your beat. But I have higher standards than yours.

Its all well and good to know that we are not talking about little marbles sticking together to make atoms. But, we are in no better of a position to understand, refute or prove the following:

Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

If the light at the end of the tunnel is infinitely bright, how is the length of the tunnel and the amount of digging of any significance before that ultimate issue of origins? It remains supernatural.

Oh good busterdog, if only you could have said right from the beginning that this was the issue of contention! Then I would have heartily agreed with you and shaved quite a few tense moments off my experience on Christianforums.

Of course the origin of nature is ultimately supernatural.

Of course all things hold together in God - by Christ's bidding and permission, for His glory, in His purposes, to His commands. When have I ever said any different?

That, of course, doesn't prevent the theories of Setterfield and Arp from being clearly unphysical speculation, and it doesn't put the slightest dent in the unparalleled consistency of astronomical observations with the Big Bang model.

You tell me that the thousands of scientists who have invested their lives in these fields don't know a thing, and that they should stop being so cocky about their expertise. What should I make, then, of a lawyer without a single physical discovery to his name who thinks he knows better than those thousands of scientists combined? You asked earlier, "why does a physics student's opinion mean anything?" Maybe it's about time you stopped and asked yourself: why does your opinion mean anything?

I provided a semi-technical description of the physics that holds an atom together. You could not cite one fault with it. I offered (the fifth time now, if I count correctly) to teach you as much math as you could possibly need to understand how pulsar data invalidates the Setterfield hypotheses. You never took it up. (Never let it be said that physics is closed to the unconventional!) I've provided before semi-technical descriptions of how many independent studies of the deep universe, whether they be high-z supernovae or CMB anisotropy caused by baryonic acoustic oscillations, combine to give concordant parameters for the Lambda-CDM model of the Big Bang. You did not ask me to clarify further, nor (again) could you point out a single thing that was wrong. And in response you have not cited me a single physical problem with the Big Bang that I have not dealt with.

Of course, you have every right to dismiss the Big Bang. I have absolute respect for anyone who openly discloses that, before and above any physical evidence, s/he has decided that the universe is 6,000 years old and that any physical theory to the contrary must be wrong despite any appearance of being correct. But don't pretend that it was a scientific choice, and that the decision to reject the Big Bang is a scientific decision. And indeed - if science really isn't that big a deal, why do creationists like you make such a big deal of being scientific?

 

[busterdog]

I'm glad to see that you are actively endeavoring to be Christlike in your discussions with brothers in the faith, constantly considering them more highly than yourself and laboring to see how you can edify both those in direct dispute and those reading silently on the sidelines.

Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

You mean the Christ speaking here? I think being honest is pretty Christ like.

I make overt what was implicit in your posts and Pauls. Smarmy condescension is no more Christlike than telling you all the pretense of intelligence you adopt is undeserved -- on the several points in this thread. I am sure you have plenty of intelligence, it is just not as evident when used to avoid an issue.

Your insults are of the dishonest type. Your backhanded reference to troglodytes is a typical legalism by which you break the rules. Are there extra points for being cutesy and saying things indirectly? I forgot that rule. Its like the cheap shots you take in creation that infer a point indirectly with the hopes of avoiding censure.

I like my beat just fine, but the way. I hope those who lurk don't think I am going to spend five pages backing into a perfectly obvious position just for the sake of protecting your sensibilities.

 

[shernren]

I'm awaiting a response of substance to the content I have presented.

 

[busterdog]

I'm awaiting a response of substance to the content I have presented.

You don't even remember the OP or the point you were responding to, apparenlty.

The OP complains that creationism supports belief in the supernatural.

My point is that science cannot seperate supernatural from natural. It appears that a number of problems about what is remain fundamentally supernatural.

You don't know how an atom is held together and as far as you know, it is held together supernaturally.

I quoted content regarding the nature of the particles that you "know" about, which "knowledge" points amply to things about which we can only guess.

So, your response is in the thread.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Well I haven't read much of the old posts, but reading the original post, I believe the question really doesn't have any relevance at all.

The OP is asking whether creationism is good or bad for the Church. And my response is this-if creationism is true (whatever form), but you come to the conclusion that it has negative effects, then would you abandon it for something that you feel is more suitable?

What futility. Who cares whether creationism is good for us or bad for us... that shouldn't be the question. The question should be what is true and what is false, and whatever is true should be embraced and held to, and whatever is false should be deemed heretical. We shouldn't believe in things just because we think they would be good for us... we should believe in things because God tells us to. And what does the Word of God say? In my opinion, I don't believe you can truly marry evolution together with Scripture, without disregarding some of it in some way. It is quite obvious to me that the Scriptures plainly teach that God created the universe and all that is in it in 7 days. Now if I were to abandon that just because I thought society could be turned off by it, I would be making a compromise with the world and turning my back on part of what God plainly says.

I could honestly care less of what the world thinks of me in the end, my only goal is to live out the will of God. If that means I am hanged or burned at the stake, then so be it. I will not compromise my beliefs so others may feel comfortable.

 

[shernren]

The OP complains that creationism supports belief in the supernatural.

My point is that science cannot seperate supernatural from natural. It appears that a number of problems about what is remain fundamentally supernatural.

You don't know how an atom is held together and as far as you know, it is held together supernaturally.

I quoted content regarding the nature of the particles that you "know" about, which "knowledge" points amply to things about which we can only guess.

So, your response is in the thread.

I explicitly described the forces that hold an atom together.

Because we don't have a conclusive unified field theory, we don't understand what holds an atom together?

Well, here's what reality looks like:

At a fundamental level, atoms are really just electrons orbiting around a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons, which are basically quarks held together by gluons. That's really it.

What are the fields involved in this model? There are three: the electromagnetic field, the strong nuclear field, and the weak nuclear field. The electromagnetic field keeps the electrons around the nucleus. The strong nuclear field keeps the nucleus together. The weak nuclear field - well that one just messes the individual quarks up once in a while to give us the interesting phenomenon of beta decay. And believe it or not, we have had a fairly complete description of each of them since about 1940; the most recent important developments with any of those independent fields was in the 70's with the discovery of CP symmetry violation by the weak nuclear force and experimental confirmation of quarks and gluons for the strong nuclear force.

Busterdog has ranted about unified field theories. Firstly, yes, as far as I know, there is no adequate field theory unifying gravity with the other three forces - however, gravity is not required in an atom. Gravity is an exceedingly weak force on anything other than solar-system scales. Not convinced? Stand up and jump in the air - you've just overcome the gravitational pull of an entire planet, if only for a second. The elementary particles that make up an atom have extremely low mass. Gravity is simply overwhelmed by every other force at work.

So what unified field theories are there for the three "atomic forces"? Surprisingly enough, we have a lot of ideas, mostly in the form of GUTs - Grand Unification Theories; we just haven't tested any of them yet. Do you know why? Because just about all the ones we have right now yield identical predictions within the energy range of any current supercolliders. In particular, none of them predict any difference at the atomic level from what we already knew about the forces before this. At the energy level where unified fields matter ... there are no atoms.

I don't have my book on quantum measurement with me right now - it's in transit with a friend from Melbourne, due to weight restrictions. But essentially, Bell's theorem is a statistical statement that allows us to distinguish between a hidden-variables approach to quantum mechanics and a true indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. In every experiment performed thus far Bell's theorem has checked out, leaving less and less margin for any hidden-variables formulation. Miracle? Hardly. Just good science at work.

Please, rest assured that we physicists know what we're doing.

You didn't respond to this post the first time round.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I explicitly described the forces that hold an atom together.

Even keeping with the idea that we can explain how an atom is held together (I don't know if we really can, just stating), this doesn't remove any possibility of the universe being held together supernaturally. Those forces that you speak of may even be the instruments in which God uses to hold the universe together. Looking at all of creation and seeing how the natural things can be recorded, systemetized and explained just proves how involved creation was, and how God is a god of sense and order.

However we believe or can even prove that an atom is held together has no bearing on whether those forces are of supernatural origin. According to the book of Colossians, Christ is "before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Based on this testament, I must believe that whatever we can view and examine externally is only a tool in which Christ is using to hold all things together on an entirely different plane of existence.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

You tell me that the thousands of scientists who have invested their lives in these fields don't know a thing, and that they should stop being so cocky about their expertise. What should I make, then, of a lawyer without a single physical discovery to his name who thinks he knows better than those thousands of scientists combined? You asked earlier, "why does a physics student's opinion mean anything?" Maybe it's about time you stopped and asked yourself: why does your opinion mean anything?

Romans 1:22-23

In professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Sounds like today's scientist...

The reason why creationists can dismiss so much "evidence", and why their opinions matter are because they are based on the only real form of truth, the Word of God. Anything that ever so slightly contradicts the Word of God should be dismissed as heresy, such as the big bang theory and the macro-evolution theory. You simply cannot marry the two together. The creation story given in Genesis will in no way coincide with the modern theories given by man. It simply cannot be done, the contradictions are enormous and have no answer. The literal six day creation view is the only view that consistently and literally interprets scripture in the right manner. Whether it agrees with scientific evidence today really doesn't matter at all. Scientific evidence and theories change day by day, as they have through all of history. But Scripture stands firm and is relevant to even the most recent events, always being true and never faultering.

Of course, you have every right to dismiss the Big Bang. I have absolute respect for anyone who openly discloses that, before and above any physical evidence, s/he has decided that the universe is 6,000 years old and that any physical theory to the contrary must be wrong despite any appearance of being correct. But don't pretend that it was a scientific choice, and that the decision to reject the Big Bang is a scientific decision. And indeed - if science really isn't that big a deal, why do creationists like you make such a big deal of being scientific?

I don't know if this question was asked earlier, but I would like to ask a scientific question about the big bang theory. Now I'm no scientist, but that doesn't nullify my questions or ideas.

The conservation of angular momentum, in one example, would say that if a spinning mass composed of many objects were to release itself, the individual particles released would spin in the same direction as the initial mass was spinning, correct? As I understand it, the big bang theory is a classic example of this. A swirling ball of energy which for some unknown reason exploded, would cause all that came forth from it to spin in the same direction as the initial ball of energy, would it not? And we can observe that planets, even entire galaxies are spinning in opposite directions from one another. Does this not contradict the conservation of angular momentum? I have yet to hear a very detailed synopsis of this idea, and it is usually just ignored. But I think it creates a pretty large problem. Just one problem is enough to destroy the entire theory.

 

[busterdog]

You tell me that the thousands of scientists who have invested their lives in these fields don't know a thing,

Wouldn't it be great for you if I really said and thought that? Now go find something out of context to vindicate yourself.

I explicitly described the forces that hold an atom together.

And I posted exactly on point. You refuse to acknowledge the limits of that knowledge. Apparently it is easier to say I think they know "nothing" than to address the "limits" of that knowledge.

You didn't respond to this post the first time round.

See above. I get tired of your game about whose court the ball is in. As far as I am concerned, the discussion is over.

 

[busterdog]

And we can observe that planets, even entire galaxies are spinning in opposite directions from one another. Does this not contradict the conservation of angular momentum? I have yet to hear a very detailed synopsis of this idea, and it is usually just ignored. But I think it creates a pretty large problem. Just one problem is enough to destroy the entire theory.

One can always invent a substance to solve any problem. Asteroid collisions and dark matter -- things no one has seen are said to account for the many anamolies. But saying "God did it" is too undisciplined and far-fetched, apparently.

 

[mark kennedy]

One can always invent a substance to solve any problem. Asteroid collisions and dark matter -- things no one has seen are said to account for the many anamolies. But saying "God did it" is too undisciplined and far-fetched, apparently.

Right, and going on the assumption that God didn't do it is more scientific.

 

[Paul365]

The OP is asking whether creationism is good or bad for the Church. And my response is this-if creationism is true (whatever form), but you come to the conclusion that it has negative effects, then would you abandon it for something that you feel is more suitable?

No, obviously not. The question that I'm asking myself is if Creationism can have good effects even though it is wrong.

Romans 1:22-23

In professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Sounds like today's scientist...

You are free to reject today's science. That's perfectly ok.

But it's not ok, in my opinion, to replace correct science by wrong counter-science. That's what some Creationists are doing.

The conservation of angular momentum, in one example, would say that if a spinning mass composed of many objects were to release itself, the individual particles released would spin in the same direction as the initial mass was spinning, correct?

Wrong. The conservation of angular momentum says that the sum of the angular momentums of the individual particles is equal to the angular momentum of the whole spinning mass.

As I understand it, the big bang theory is a classic example of this. A swirling ball of energy which for some unknown reason exploded, would cause all that came forth from it to spin in the same direction as the initial ball of energy, would it not?

No. In fact, if one galaxy rotates right, another one has to rotate left when a zero initial angular momentum is to be conserved.

 

[shernren]

See above. I get tired of your game about whose court the ball is in. As far as I am concerned, the discussion is over.

Never let it be said that us TEs don't possess patience ...

You tell me that the thousands of scientists who have invested their lives in these fields don't know a thing,

Wouldn't it be great for you if I really said and thought that? Now go find something out of context to vindicate yourself.

And I posted exactly on point. You refuse to acknowledge the limits of that knowledge. Apparently it is easier to say I think they know "nothing" than to address the "limits" of that knowledge.

I quite dramatically overstated my point there. Well caught.

But seriously. I gave you a post essentially describing what holds an atom together. If I had to tell you anything more, I would have to go into the mathematical nuts and bolts of Maxwell's equations, the Yukawa interactions, and quantum chromodynamics - and you don't seem to react too well to mathematics, as most people don't, so I've really done everything I can for you. And what have you done in return?

You keep insisting that there is some kind of "limit", not just on science in general, but on the particular area of what we know about what holds an atom together ... but you don't make clear what that "limit" is. You mention unified field theory - may I say again that at the energy levels where unified field theory applies we don't even have atoms any more, so that unified field theory quite literally doesn't tell us anything about what holds an atom together. Insisting that because we don't have a GUT, we don't know what holds an atom together is like insisting that I don't own any money unless I own Fort Knox - that's the rough order of magnitude we're talking about. Other than that, you don't mention any discrepancies, any gaps, any anomalies, anything basically to support your ideas. I could even have helped you along, you know. For example, scientists are still working on why certain "magic numbers" of nucleons seem to give extremely stable nuclei. The fact that you were unable to marshall these areas of knowledge shows that you probably don't know what you were doing.

And I'm hardly inclined to push you along a path you don't understand. Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian springs.

Even keeping with the idea that we can explain how an atom is held together (I don't know if we really can, just stating), this doesn't remove any possibility of the universe being held together supernaturally. Those forces that you speak of may even be the instruments in which God uses to hold the universe together. Looking at all of creation and seeing how the natural things can be recorded, systemetized and explained just proves how involved creation was, and how God is a god of sense and order.

However we believe or can even prove that an atom is held together has no bearing on whether those forces are of supernatural origin. According to the book of Colossians, Christ is "before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Based on this testament, I must believe that whatever we can view and examine externally is only a tool in which Christ is using to hold all things together on an entirely different plane of existence.

Amen and amen, brother!

Yes, we can explain how an atom is held together. That doesn't tell us anything about why. After all, the universe is hardly obliged to exist. It's even less obliged to be well-behaved.

Here are my personal thoughts on the matter:

I be a theistic wannabe physicist.

And as a wannabe physicist, I think wannabe physicists are heavily governed by a mechanistic metaphor for nature. X exerts force on Y which exerts force on Z etc. etc. The funny thing is that as you go higher in physics, the mechanistic metaphor actually becomes less and less applicable. Nuclear physics doesn't really use "force" except as "slang". Everything you've heard about quantum mechanics etc. being really postmodern has a grain of truth in it: one of the most fruitful ways to view QM is to consider that a particle takes all possible paths between A and B (even the ones that go faster than light / backward in time / etc. etc.) and somehow "add them up" over the underlying field to get the most probable path. Not only is this approach more correct, it's also computationally a whole, whole lot easier than the good old X forces Y forces Z approach of classic Newtonian physics. (And Newton didn't come up with it, by the way, because he had no notion of energy. Poor guy.)

Anyways. I think Mallon hit it right on the head, because the mechanistic metaphor really doesn't work. Even on a macroscopic level (billiard balls etc.) the "other" approach works a lot more cleanly and simply than the force-force approach. As such, as a physicist, I find it entirely self-consistent and reasonable to consider the universe as an organic whole, and to consider God's role in the universe as a top-down causative agent (top-down causation being similar to considering, say, that when I get mad I make my brain secrete certain chemicals, instead of saying that when my brain secretes certain chemicals they make me get mad). There's just so much cultural baggage associated with the superiority (and mechanical nature!) of science that students just don't break free.

That be what I believe.

Essentially, that people in general have a very blinkered view of physics (even - and perhaps especially! - those who criticise it) and that, understood properly, physics has never been in danger of squeezing God out of anything.

Romans 1:22-23

In professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Sounds like today's scientist...

The reason why creationists can dismiss so much "evidence", and why their opinions matter are because they are based on the only real form of truth, the Word of God. Anything that ever so slightly contradicts the Word of God should be dismissed as heresy, such as the big bang theory and the macro-evolution theory. You simply cannot marry the two together. The creation story given in Genesis will in no way coincide with the modern theories given by man. It simply cannot be done, the contradictions are enormous and have no answer. The literal six day creation view is the only view that consistently and literally interprets scripture in the right manner. Whether it agrees with scientific evidence today really doesn't matter at all. Scientific evidence and theories change day by day, as they have through all of history. But Scripture stands firm and is relevant to even the most recent events, always being true and never faultering.

And I respect what you believe. If you want to throw science out of the window altogether, suits you. Your loss, not mine.

But anybody who claims that science can't do what it does with finesse, or that creationism is science, I am opposed to.

I don't know if this question was asked earlier, but I would like to ask a scientific question about the big bang theory. Now I'm no scientist, but that doesn't nullify my questions or ideas.

The conservation of angular momentum, in one example, would say that if a spinning mass composed of many objects were to release itself, the individual particles released would spin in the same direction as the initial mass was spinning, correct? As I understand it, the big bang theory is a classic example of this. A swirling ball of energy which for some unknown reason exploded, would cause all that came forth from it to spin in the same direction as the initial ball of energy, would it not? And we can observe that planets, even entire galaxies are spinning in opposite directions from one another. Does this not contradict the conservation of angular momentum? I have yet to hear a very detailed synopsis of this idea, and it is usually just ignored. But I think it creates a pretty large problem. Just one problem is enough to destroy the entire theory.

Well firstly, it's not guaranteed that all the fragments of an exploding object will spin in the same direction. I honestly don't know, but I'm pretty sure that it's possible for some fragments to spin in the opposite direction, as long as the total angular momentum is still the same as before. Kind of like how if you throw a grenade away from you, some pieces will still fly back towards you - so if you throw a grenade spinning counterclockwise, some pieces will spin clockwise so that others can spin counterclockwise even more. (Not something you should try at home, obviously.)

But that's not really the answer. Essentially you are thinking of what comes at the start of the Big Bang as a big lump of energy - in other words, a small region of space chock-full of energy surrounded by a whole big universe of empty space with no energy. Well, scratch that. Imagine instead a whole big universe of space chock-full of energy. Then imagine that whole big universe (an infinite one, in fact) expanding (getting "more infinite", in other words, whatever that means) so that all the energy gets smeared out over lots and lots and lots of new space, after which the universe cools down into what we have today. From that point of view, concepts like angular momentum conservation don't really make sense.

If you want to go more into the technical stuff of it, feel free to ask. However, since you have openly declared that your origins beliefs will be independent of scientific evidence - and I respect that - I'm not sure how much help or interest it would be to you.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

No, obviously not. The question that I'm asking myself is if Creationism can have good effects even though it is wrong.


You are free to reject today's science. That's perfectly ok.

But it's not ok, in my opinion, to replace correct science by wrong counter-science. That's what some Creationists are doing.


Wrong. The conservation of angular momentum says that the sum of the angular momentums of the individual particles is equal to the angular momentum of the whole spinning mass.


No. In fact, if one galaxy rotates right, another one has to rotate left when a zero initial angular momentum is to be conserved.

Well, I don't feel that creationism is wrong or that anything has ever been brought forth to prove that it is wrong. You just state that it is wrong so many times that you start believing it. Actually, this technique has been done before in history by Hitler. Not that I am equating scientists with him, but seriously - the majority of people who don't know a thing about science accept that the big bang theory and evolution is true only because it is spoken of as truth, and they don't see the leap of faith taken. This is why they are called theories. You can offer as much information as you wish, but of course, you will never be able to prove that the big bang or macro evolution ever took place. There has not been one single instance where either have been recreated and observed, and therefore an element of belief is involved, making it just as much of a religion as creationism. But I know you won't accept that, although it makes total logical sense. In my mind, I have yet to see one proof that the big bang or macro evolution ever took place.

I have not supported my beliefs with wrong science. My statement was an example of the conservation of angular momentum, and I know that the example fits within the law. Shernren didn't seem to have a problem with my example.

Essentially, that people in general have a very blinkered view of physics (even - and perhaps especially! - those who criticise it) and that, understood properly, physics has never been in danger of squeezing God out of anything.

First of all, you seem to be very kind and willing to discuss in a cooperative manner, so thank you for that.

I agree that physics itself has never tried squeezing God out of anything, it's some of the people who use physics in order to do so. Physics on its own cannot accomplish anything in the mind of a man. The concept of physics and the laws we have identified are made up entirely on a humanistic scale that makes sense to us. You may say that we are simply identifying things in nature and creating equations to define those laws as constants, which is partially true. But physics is a byproduct of human reason, something that we have identified ourselves. How do we know that this "physics" we speak of is a universal constant? How do we know that the physical laws of our galaxy and our planet are the same in another galaxy, or were the same at the time of the big bang? Universalism tends to be an implication that not many people see. We do not know that these physical laws have always existed, and that they exist everywhere, hence, we cannot be sure about the modern scientific theories prevailing today. And this is why I stick with what the Bible implicitly says, because the Bible is always correct and will never faulter, and science has no bearing on what is true. Science uses humanistic concepts, which leave room for error. The Scriptures were written by God, and I would rather err on the side of God than the side of man.

Well firstly, it's not guaranteed that all the fragments of an exploding object will spin in the same direction. I honestly don't know, but I'm pretty sure that it's possible for some fragments to spin in the opposite direction, as long as the total angular momentum is still the same as before. Kind of like how if you throw a grenade away from you, some pieces will still fly back towards you - so if you throw a grenade spinning counterclockwise, some pieces will spin clockwise so that others can spin counterclockwise even more. (Not something you should try at home, obviously.)

I don't think this is correct. This is the example that I have always heard - You know those things at parks that kids can get on, and have other kids push them in around and around to get them going really fast? I don't know how to explain it... anyways if the kids were to get pushed so fast that they were hanging off of it completely horizontally, and eventually flew off, they would spin whatever way they were being pushed in. If the ride was being pushed clockwise, they would fly off spinning clockwise. Also, what is interesting is that they would never hit each other. The spinning objects would propel away from the initial explosion, making it impossible for them to hit each other.

But that's not really the answer. Essentially you are thinking of what comes at the start of the Big Bang as a big lump of energy - in other words, a small region of space chock-full of energy surrounded by a whole big universe of empty space with no energy. Well, scratch that. Imagine instead a whole big universe of space chock-full of energy. Then imagine that whole big universe (an infinite one, in fact) expanding (getting "more infinite", in other words, whatever that means) so that all the energy gets smeared out over lots and lots and lots of new space, after which the universe cools down into what we have today. From that point of view, concepts like angular momentum conservation don't really make sense.

I've never heard that view of the big bang? The big bang has always been thought of (as far as I've been taught) as one tiny, tiny, tiny little dot holding enough energy to produce everything in the universe today, and eventually exploding into it. I never said there was empty space around it, I think the theory states that it was the only thing in existence. Some scientists even believe that nothing was there in the beginning, and nothing exploded (huh?) into everything we have today. Your theory is a new one. And, as far as the conservation of angular momentum not being applicable during the time of the big bang, then how are any of our other laws applicable? If none of our laws our applicable during that time, then where did they come from? Were they there before the big bang or were they created by the big bang?

Another quick question - if stars are made up by elements, but the stars are what produce the elements through fusion, then what came first? The big bang seems to show that only hydrogen was present in the beginning, so, where did our elements come from? Never gotten an answer to that one either, other than nucleosynthesis, which is another theory.

If you want to go more into the technical stuff of it, feel free to ask. However, since you have openly declared that your origins beliefs will be independent of scientific evidence - and I respect that - I'm not sure how much help or interest it would be to you.

Oh I am very interested in science and God's creation, I just don't base my beliefs off of it. There is only one source of truth to me, the Word of God. Experiential truth can ruin theology and is dangerous, so I keep experimental science away from it.

 

[Paul365]

Well, I don't feel that creationism is wrong or that anything has ever been brought forth to prove that it is wrong. You just state that it is wrong so many times that you start believing it. Actually, this technique has been done before in history by Hitler.

I was not stating that Creationism is wrong. I was stating that your idea of angular momentum conservation was wrong.

You might look it up in Wikipedia to avoid further embarrassments. By the way, where does the creationist fascination with Hitler come from? I noticed that they use him all the time in their arguments, no matter if it fits or not.,

Not that I am equating scientists with him, but seriously - the majority of people who don't know a thing about science accept that the big bang theory and evolution is true only because it is spoken of as truth, and they don't see the leap of faith taken. This is why they are called theories. You can offer as much information as you wish, but of course, you will never be able to prove that the big bang or macro evolution ever took place. There has not been one single instance where either have been recreated and observed, and therefore an element of belief is involved, making it just as much of a religion as creationism.

You're confusing "belief" and "theory" here. A scientific theory can never be proven, only falsified.

The reason why we think that theories - such as evolution or Big Bang - are true is not because we "believe" in them, but because they describe our observations well.

Oh I am very interested in science and God's creation, I just don't base my beliefs off of it. There is only one source of truth to me, the Word of God. Experiential truth can ruin theology and is dangerous, so I keep experimental science away from it.

Do not forget that God not only wrote a book. He also created a world.

So you can find God not only in the scripture but also in the world around us, including Big Bang and evolution. Truth, whether experimental or not, can never ruin theology. Truth can only ruin untrue theology.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I was not stating that Creationism is wrong. I was stating that your idea of angular momentum conservation was wrong.

No, obviously not. The question that I'm asking myself is if Creationism can have good effects even though it is wrong.

Huh?

You might look it up in Wikipedia to avoid further embarrassments.

And I know you copied and pasted it from wikipedia, so I don't think you know what you are talking about. You stated the theorem but I don't think you know how to apply it.

You're confusing "belief" and "theory" here. A scientific theory can never be proven, only falsified.

The reason why we think that theories - such as evolution or Big Bang - are true is not because we "believe" in them, but because they describe our observations well.

I'm sorry but, as far as your definition is concerned they are the same thing. They both require belief in order to think they are factual. You believe that the big bang and evolution is true whether you recognize it or not.


Do not forget that God not only wrote a book. He also created a world.

So you can find God not only in the scripture but also in the world around us, including Big Bang and evolution. Truth, whether experimental or not, can never ruin theology. Truth can only ruin untrue theology.

There is a big difference between special revelation (Scripture, Christ, miracles, etc.) and general revelation (nature). One cannot come to a saving relationship through faith in Christ with only general revelation. There are some things to be learned about the character and design of God's universe by studying it, but the Bible was His direct Word to us. The Universe is not a message to us, only a means for us to exist. You are in a way, trying to equate Scripture with nature, which is entirely false. One is meant for our salvation, one is not.

 

[gluadys]

Huh?

There is a big difference between special revelation (Scripture, Christ, miracles, etc.) and general revelation (nature). One cannot come to a saving relationship through faith in Christ with only general revelation.

That's true. One cannot come to a saving relationship in Christ with general revelation alone. But let us ask a few more questions.

Has anyone claimed that we can come to a saving relationship with Christ through general revelation alone?

Is general revelation a revelation? Why do the scriptures do often point to creation as testimony to the glory of God if it is not revelation --- not enough for a saving relationship to Christ, but still a genuine revelation.

Is general revelation true?

Does truth ever disagree with truth? Can the truth of general revelation ever disagree with the truth of scripture?

There are some things to be learned about the character and design of God's universe by studying it, but the Bible was His direct Word to us.

Did the universe not also come directly from God?

You are in a way, trying to equate Scripture with nature, which is entirely false. One is meant for our salvation, one is not.

That depends. If one was claiming that one could find salvation through studying nature you would be right. But I don't see anyone making that claim.

But if it is a matter of what comes from God, both nature and scripture come from God. If it is a matter of which speaks truth, both speak truth. Do you not agree?

Scripture gives us a more important truth (the way to salvation) but it does not give us a truer truth, if you get what I mean.

 

[busterdog]

Did the universe not also come directly from God?

Scripture says no.

There is the bondage of decay that intervenes between what God made and what there is now.

All of creation groans.

Was the Satan's torment of Job "directly" from God? No. Then neither is the world you observe.

 

[gluadys]

Scripture says no.

There is the bondage of decay that intervenes between what God made and what there is now.

You try to put an awful lot of assumption into three little words. Let us remember that the person who penned these words said earlier in the same letter that creation is such a powerful testament to the creator that even those without the law are without excuse for not worshipping him. Doesn't sound as if "bondage to decay" affects that witness.

And in another letter Paul refers to Christ as the one "in whom all things hold together". Presumably this includes all things in creation. Even a creation in bondage to decay.

So what is the implication of the phrase? You say it "intervenes" between creation as it was originally and as it is now. That's ok. After all if we don't know creation as it was originally, neither did Paul or David or any of the writers of scripture who use creation to point to God.

All we really need to know is how creation works now in its bondage to decay, because even in its bondage to decay, it is still in the hands of its Creator who still upholds its order.

Where does scripture ever say that creation's current bondage to decay makes it a liar about itself?