My Creation Science Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Nothing, I was just responding to your comment.

Incidentally, are you for throwing out the Ten Commabdments?

 

[quatona]

I'm talking as an atheist now.

From what I think would be an atheist's perspective.

If I was an atheist, it wouldn't be "creatio ex nihilo" that I would think be unpopular; it would be "God" that I would have a problem with.

Well, you can have a problem with both.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, you can have a problem with both.

That's true.

But I'm addressing this comment:

Creationists who come up with that sort of remark, seem to overlook the fact that creation ex nihilo is, and always has been, a Christian dogma. In fact, before it became established as most likely true, the big bang theory was unpopular amongst atheist scientists for that very reason.

... in Post 218.

 

[RickG]

Incidentally, are you for throwing out the Ten Commabdments?

Well, originally there were 613, I didn't throw any of them out.

 

[Kenny'sID]

They are able to establish that there was, after all, a big bang event. That's a major accomplishment.

Paul, no doubt something happened, even if one is strictly creation. See, you are calling it a big bang event, while some are citing precisely what took place, and though I still think it's ridiculous for them to think they have any idea how it started, to me it's even more ridiculous to think it simply started.

Some admit they don't know because they have no scientific proof? That's fine, then I would recommend they look beyond science, but many refuse to and they have their own reasons for that. At the same time, if we look at the big picture, and view it from a proper perspective, science can overwhelmingly prove creationism, but only if we let it.

Some choose to depend on their own understanding and what they perceive the science says, and some choose to look at both....who is right? The way I see it, we will all find out soon enough. The problem with that? It's very serious business and it will be too late for some when that day comes, but in the end, it was what they wanted and what they chose so....so be it....it's not like they weren't warned.

I guess it comes down to, if I/we are wrong about it all, there is no consequences for anyone, not as far as we know, but if the Christian side is right, the consequence is huge, but too late for some to change and not be affected by that consequence.

If I got too far from topic there, oh well.

 

[Kenny'sID]

On a scale of 0 - 100, with zero being all doubt, and 100 being all certainty, how sure are you, your god exists?

!00% for the long haul

You said that, because the universe was expanding now, that doesn't mean that it was always expanding. Well, yes it does mean that, unless you can come up with something which would have started it expanding. Anything else would be a violation of Newton's First Law of Motion.

Well, no it doesn't.

One would have to ask themselves if Newtons law could have even applied before there was anything. At the very least don't assume it would.

Creationists who come up with that sort of remark, seem to overlook the fact that creation ex nihilo is, and always has been, a Christian dogma. In fact, before it became established as most likely true, the big bang theory was unpopular amongst atheist scientists for that very reason.

I'm getting mixes signal here...is it a fact or most likely?

My guess is you don't understand the concept of the events of the onset of the big bang.

I understand the concept of assumption.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . . . If I got too far from topic there, oh well.

Well, the challenge of the opening post is to find a creationist contribution to science that consists of actual, original, creation science work.

We're just keeping the thread alive until something along that line shows up.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thats probably because the word EXPAND is confusing you.

The Bible says "stretchest."

There's a big difference.

Indeed; 'stretchest' is the poetic choice of the English translation - it no more means 'expand' in this context than it does in other descriptive literature, e.g. "The valley stretched out before him...". Literal readings of poetic language make for absurd implications.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed; 'stretchest' is the poetic choice of the English translation - it no more means 'expand' in this context than it does in other descriptive literature, e.g. "The valley stretched out before him...". Literal readings of poetic language make for absurd implications.

Then skip the poetry, if it confuses you.

Expand means it grows larger from forces applied from within, whereas stretch means it grows larger from forces applied from without.

Satan's term, "Big Bang," is interpreted by his followers as an "expansion," not a "stretching."

But, of course, you scientific methodists already know that, don't you?

 

[RickG]

I understand the concept of assumption.

Ah! Assumption, of the most misrepresented terms with respect to science, by the creation science community. No Kenny, as a layman it is more than evident that you do not understand what what the term "assumption" represents in the greater scientific community. Scientific assumptions are base on facts and falsifiable evidence. We assume the sun will rise and set everyday based on the earths rotation which is observable and measurable. We assume when we drop a ball it will fall to the ground because we observe and understand the effects of gravity. We assume things in science from experience, observation and testing which yield repeatable results. "Assume" in science doesn't mean, well the think, or maybe, as you indicate. We assume the big bang because we observe it expanding and observable WMAP and other physical observations that are unique only to the big bang theory.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Satan's term, "Big Bang," is interpreted by his followers as an "expansion," not a "stretching."

But, of course, you scientific methodists already know that, don't you?

'Satan's term' ? It was Fred Hoyle who coined the term, as a jibe (he was a strong proponent of 'Steady State' theory). So you appear to be suggesting that the chief (and unrelenting) supporter of 'Steady State' theory was Satan...

 

[AV1611VET]

So you appear to be suggesting that the chief (and unrelenting) supporter of 'Steady State' theory was Satan...

If the shoe fits ...

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well, the challenge of the opening post is to find a creationist contribution to science that consists of actual, original, creation science work.

We're just keeping the thread alive until something along that line shows up.

In that case, this thread may be on CPR for a long time.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Ah! Assumption, of the most misrepresented terms with respect to science, by the creation science community. No Kenny, as a layman it is more than evident that you do not understand what what the term "assumption" represents in the greater scientific community.

Sure I do...simple term, and it's written all over most if not all of your so-called evidence. Layman? sure, but it hardly takes a genius to discern assumption from fact. But no matter, I could push your nose right into examples, and you'd just start whining and making more excuses...seen to much of that already to even bother trying.

Raise all the stink you wish...doesn't change the facts.

WThay, I have the time...go ahead, give a short explanation of the events of the big bang, and let's see how it goes.

 

[lesliedellow]

Sure I do...simple term, and it's written all over most if not all of your so-called evidence. Layman? sure, but it hardly takes a genius to discern assumption from fact. But no matter, I could push your nose right into examples, and you'd just start whining and making more excuses...seen to much of that already to even bother trying.

Raise all the stink you wish...doesn't change the facts.

WThay, I have the time...go ahead, give a short explanation of the events of the big bang, and let's see how it goes.

So much empty bombast.

 

[RickG]

Sure I do...simple term, and it's written all over most if not all of your so-called evidence. Layman? sure, but it hardly takes a genius to discern assumption from fact. But no matter, I could push your nose right into examples, and you'd just start whining and making more excuses...seen to much of that already to even bother trying.

Then you should be able to provide an example from one of the mainstream science peer review peer review and show how the use of the word assumption is used specifically as a guess. Frankly, I seriously doubt that you have ever even read an actual scientific paper, yet you think you know all about it. The two most misrepresented terms in the creation science community are "assume" and "theory".

 

[doubtingmerle]

WThay, I have the time...go ahead, give a short explanation of the events of the big bang, and let's see how it goes.

Quantum fluctuation. Boom. Particles. Inflation. Expansion and cooling. Stars. Galaxies.

And that is a brief history of the universe in 10 words. Satisfied?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Challenge to the OP.

Then you should be able to provide an example from one of the mainstream science peer review peer review and show how the use of the word assumption is used specifically as a guess. Frankly, I seriously doubt that you have ever even read an actual scientific paper, yet you think you know all about it. The two most misrepresented terms in the creation science community are "assume" and "theory".

Yet no answer to my challenge....

WThay, I have the time...go ahead, give a short explanation of the events of the big bang, and let's see how it goes.

....just the usual go here and look at this. You want me to do the work while you just point to information? I've done that before with Atheists challenges, showed the assumptions, then they just start whining... "you just don't understand, you don't know the definitions the these words, you , you , you, excuse after excuse". So you do some work here, I'll meet you half way...put it on the table and let's examine it.

Let's keep it simple, and take it one step at a time so y'all aren't able to get yourself and the reader lost in your added complications, with added rules and double standards that always seem to accompany this type of thing...It's a very simple and doable request.

And that is a brief history of the universe in 10 words. 1

No not in the least. You can either take the challenge, not take the challenge, or play games and make excuses.

Give me a reasonable short explanation (the term short is relative in case ya'll decide to play the usual contrary games) of how it began. You touched on it enough already, so it should take little effort on your parts to get started. And when I tell you part of it is assumption, you can have fair option to explain in detail how it is not, since it is evidently so complicated, a layman as myself cannot understand it.

"You just don't understand" is not going to cut it here...you make me understand. There is very little one man can understand in this world that another cannot, and if you cannot make me understand it, then I can only draw from that, you cannot understand it or your info is wrong and you are using my "lack of understanding" to cover that fact.

You can confide in others, play around with it awhile, adding whatever point you like from different individuals in order to get your presentation just right and try to cover all your bases, and/or Rick can just lay it out, but lets just have one layout, keep it organized, and let me know if it is still in the creation stage.. If Rick isn't up to it, anyone/everyone can have at it. We'll take it step by step, which is always the best way for anyone to explain and for others to understand anything.

Fair enough?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So much empty bombast.

Seriously? The challenge was anything but bombastic. Just as with your conclusions to the beginning of it all you see what you want to see and here is dead proof of that.

Now show me how bombastic you are by evading the challenge. No excuses, no whining, no putting it off on me as the reason you won't take it, either do it or don't.

 

[RickG]

Challenge to the OP.
Yet no answer to my challenge....

....just the usual go here and look at this. You want me to do the work while you just point to information? I've done that before with Atheists challenges, showed the assumptions, then they just start whining... "you just don't understand, you don't know the definitions the these words, you , you , you, excuse after excuse". So you do some work here, I'll meet you half way...put it on the table and let's examine it.

Let's keep it simple, and take it one step at a time so y'all aren't able to get yourself and the reader lost in your added complications, with added rules and double standards that always seem to accompany this type of thing...It's a very simple and doable request.

You have presented no challenge with respect to the OP. Everyone is waiting on you. And contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, the point of the OP is not to discuss whether the creation science paper is correct or not, but whether or not it presents original data and research. Understand?