Big Bang Big Hoax.

[Wonderfulcross]

First of all, I responded to someone's comment about the big bang, but something went wrong, and now I can't seem to find it. So now I'm pretty much retyping the whole thing. If you see this same post twice, I apologize.

The theory of creation has been the same for thousands and thousands of years. Nothing has been added to it, nothing has been taken away. And through all those years, science has come along to only prove creation more and more. And as for evolution, there's only confusion.

I don't know what it is with you guys, but you can't seem to make up your mind. Every year you keep changing your facts over and over again. It goes something like this throughout the years:

We evolved from monkeys
No, it was pigs
We didn't evolve FROM them, we share a common ansector

The universe was formed 3 billion years ago
No it was 3.5
No, it was 4
No, I think it was 4.5
The big bang was a collision of two asteroids
No, it was an explosion of matter
Are you kidding? It was an expansion
Maybe God creatd the big bang!
We can't explain the thing with the conservation of angular momentum.
Don't worry, that law isn't relevant to retrograde planets.


The sad thing is, this stuff is coming from pretty much the same people. What's even worse is that they have the nerve to tell us this: "Why can't you make up your minds like we do? You guys are following some dumb fantasy you can't even explain yet. Evolution is real science." Yeah right. By the time all of these changes are done, you'll be able to state your overall theroy in about 4,000 years.

Anyway, back to the big bang. The theory about where we all came from. THe THEORY. A theory is an idea that is not yet proven. A law is proven by science and can be relied upon and referenced to. If, hypothetically, a theory is in contradiction with a law, this theory most likely is not true. Isn't it weird how the big bang totally contradicts the LAWS of thermodynamics, entropy, probability, and the conservation of angular momentum? A theory isn't proven. A law is proven. The big bang contradicts these laws, therefore it contradicts fact. If it contradicts fact, that means that it is simply not true. Fact cannot contradict fact. It just doesn't work that way. So from now on, when you say that you believe in the big bang, you are saying that you believe something that is in total opposite of facts and laws and was never proven true in the first place. People who believe in the big bang, you make NO sense at all. You're arguing with facts.

 

[Maxwell511]

The universe was formed 3 billion years ago
No it was 3.5
No, it was 4
No, I think it was 4.5
The big bang was a collision of two asteroids
No, it was an explosion of matter

I have never heard of any of these assertions before reading your post. Where did you hear them?

A theory isn't proven. A law is proven.

How was Snell's law proven? Or alternatively prove Snell's law to me.

 

[Lucretius]

Laws aren't proven. Laws are parts of theories. Theories encompass laws, facts, and other sorts of goodies. You threw out a bunch of Kent Hovind PRATTs about the Big Bang but did not discuss any of them. Do you even know how any of those laws you listed work?

 

[peter22]

First of all, I responded to someone's comment about the big bang, but something went wrong, and now I can't seem to find it. So now I'm pretty much retyping the whole thing. If you see this same post twice, I apologize.


To start off, I'd like to say that evolutionists are clueless. Don't be offended, because you constantly announce this to the public. The theory of creation has been the same for thousands and thousands of years. Nothing has been added to it, nothing has been taken away. And through all those years, science has come along to only prove creation more and more. And as for evolution, there's only confusion.

I don't know what it is with you guys, but you can't seem to make up your mind. Every year you keep changing your facts over and over again. It goes something like this throughout the years:

We evolved from monkeys
No, it was pigs
We didn't evolve FROM them, we share a common ansector

The universe was formed 3 billion years ago
No it was 3.5
No, it was 4
No, I think it was 4.5
The big bang was a collision of two asteroids
No, it was an explosion of matter
Are you kidding? It was an expansion
Maybe God creatd the big bang!
We can't explain the thing with the conservation of angular momentum.
Don't worry, that law isn't relevant to retrograde planets.


The sad thing is, this stuff is coming from pretty much the same people. What's even worse is that they have the nerve to tell us this: "Why can't you make up your minds like we do? You guys are following some dumb fantasy you can't even explain yet. Evolution is real science." Yeah right. By the time all of these changes are done, you'll be able to state your overall theroy in about 4,000 years.

Anyway, back to the big bang. The theory about where we all came from. THe THEORY. A theory is an idea that is not yet proven. A law is proven by science and can be relied upon and referenced to. If, hypothetically, a theory is in contradiction with a law, this theory most likely is not true. Isn't it weird how the big bang totally contradicts the LAWS of thermodynamics, entropy, probability, and the conservation of angular momentum? A theory isn't proven. A law is proven. The big bang contradicts these laws, therefore it contradicts fact. If it contradicts fact, that means that it is simply not true. Fact cannot contradict fact. It just doesn't work that way. So from now on, when you say that you believe in the big bang, you are saying that you believe something that is in total opposite of facts and laws and was never proven true in the first place. People who believe in the big bang, you make NO sense at all. You're arguing with facts.

You're 100% right.

 

[z3ro]

...

So, do you plan to do this often? I mean make threads about things you've already been corrected on. Because it'll get boring really fast if you do.

 

[TheBear]

To start off, I'd like to say that evolutionists are clueless.

Tell me, is this one of your 'witnessing' tactics? Start out swinging, right out of the gate?

Not a very impressive or inviting start.

 

[lemmings]

The theory of creation has been the same for thousands and thousands of years.

And this is a good thing? Roughly 500 years ago, during the Black Death, people thought that the plague was caused by God’s wrath rather than sanitation because of the Church. In turn millions flocked into churches for salvation but only received more death, thousands others traveled between villages on pilgrimages beating themselves seeking salvation, these people spread the plague.

Nothing has been added to it, nothing has been taken away.

Except your goal posts on how to prove evolution keep moving, and you have added an entire new theory called Intelligent Design to get it into the school system.

And through all those years, science has come along to only prove creation more and more.

Science has proven that our observations can be explained by natural processes rather than a super natural god.

And as for evolution, there's only confusion.

Our increased understanding of genetics and geology has only made evolution simpler to understand for those willing to.

We evolved from monkeys
No, it was pigs
We didn't evolve FROM them, we share a common ansector

The last one is and has always been the stance of evolutionary biology ever since it was introduced. It has never changed.

The universe was formed 3 billion years ago
No it was 3.5
No, it was 4
No, I think it was 4.5
The big bang was a collision of two asteroids
No, it was an explosion of matter
Are you kidding? It was an expansion
Maybe God creatd the big bang!
We can't explain the thing with the conservation of angular momentum.
Don't worry, that law isn't relevant to retrograde planets.

Big fan of Hovind's lies I see.

THe THEORY

Don't ever use caps lock.

Isn't it weird how the big bang totally contradicts the LAWS

Really, what have you seen that all the other astronomers haven’t?

thermodynamics, entropy, probability, and the conservation of angular momentum

Please, tell me how the Big Bang counters those laws.

The big bang contradicts these laws, therefore it contradicts fact. If it contradicts fact, that means that it is simply not true. Fact cannot contradict fact. It just doesn't work that way. So from now on, when you say that you believe in the big bang, you are saying that you believe something that is in total opposite of facts and laws and was never proven true in the first place. People who believe in the big bang, you make NO sense at all. You're arguing with facts.

Don't rush it by posting PRATTS please, take your time.

 

[peter22]

500 years ago, medieval folk believed diseases were caused by imps shooting poison arrows at them.

Obviously modern medical science is wrong.

 

[TheBear]

500 years ago, medieval folk believed diseases were caused by imps shooting poison arrows at them.

Obviously modern medical science is wrong.

The scary thing is, I know some Christians who would prefer doing away with all modern science, and taking us back to the Dark Ages!

 

[DrunkenWrestler]

To start off, I'd like to say that evolutionists are clueless.

I thought this was about the big bang? Perhaps your clueless about evolution and/or the big bang?

The theory of creation has been the same for thousands and thousands of years. Nothing has been added to it, nothing has been taken away.

That's the difference between science and superstition. Scientist change the theory to fit the facts. Pseudoscientists change the facts to fit the theory.

Pseudoscientists assume their theories are true a priori, and will only entertain evidence that are confirmations of their theories, while ignoring or rationalizing away with ad hoc hypothesizes any contradictory data.

And through all those years, science has come along to only prove creation more and more.

No it hasn't. Show us some peer review journals that state this. It seems that you are clueless. Don't be offended.

It goes something like this throughout the years:

We evolved from monkeys
No, it was pigs
We didn't evolve FROM them, we share a common ansector

The first two on the list are your own constructed strawmen arguments. It's easier attacking starwman arguments than actually having to know what evolution is and geninuely try to refute it, huh? Common creationist tatic.

The universe was formed 3 billion years ago
No it was 3.5
No, it was 4
No, I think it was 4.5

I see where your problem is, you're confusing the Earth with the universe.

The big bang was a collision of two asteroids
No, it was an explosion of matter
Are you kidding? It was an expansion
Maybe God creatd the big bang!
We can't explain the thing with the conservation of angular momentum.
Don't worry, that law isn't relevant to retrograde planets.

Just out of curiosity, did you hear #1 from a reliable source? Or did you make that up too? Cite it, please.

THe THEORY. A theory is an idea that is not yet proven.

You're equivocating the ordinary definition of the words "theory" and "proof" with their meanings in the scientific parlance. You claim to have so much knowledge on how science works, I would have expected you to make this distinction... not.

Gravity is only a theory, and hasn't yet been proven. While you're at it, look up "law." Nothing in science is ever proven, only confirmed to varying degrees.

Isn't it weird how the big bang totally contradicts the LAWS of thermodynamics, entropy, probability, and the conservation of angular momentum?

Wow, such an obvious blunder hasn't yet come across the minds of many great scientists after all these years! Quick, report this now and secure yourself a Nobel prize!

 

[HumanisticJones]

The big bang was a collision of two asteroids

Seriously... what? When was this ever a theory on the origin of the cosmos?

We can't explain the thing with the conservation of angular momentum.
Don't worry, that law isn't relevant to retrograde planets.

As long as there is one body rotating the "correct" direction faster than other things rotating that way, something can rotate the other way and still have the same net angular momentum in the system. Besides, planets weren't shot out of the big bang. Where you got that idea I'd like to know.

 

[USincognito]

Poe?

 

[Lucretius]

Poe?

His name is WonderfulCross with a Christian Icon... I'd say legit.

 

[USincognito]

His name is WonderfulCross with a Christian Icon... I'd say legit.

I did a search of his posts, and yeah, I'm inclined to agree now. Ah well, dissecting the OP will give me something to do later on tonight.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Poe?

I hope so. The amount of fail in the OP might cause a local space-time collapse otherwise.

 

[Jengu]

To start off, I'd like to say that evolutionists are clueless.

What does evolution have to do with the Big Bang? You know... the topic of the thread?

Don't be offended, because you constantly announce this to the public.

Please do provide examples of this.

The theory of creation has been the same for thousands and thousands of years.

This is a good thing? All that means is that Creationists are unwilling to allow their theory to adapt, grow, and change, so they create rationalizations when future generations find evidence that has been proven wrong.

Nothing has been added to it, nothing has been taken away.

What does any of this have to do with the big bang?

And through all those years, science has come along to only prove creation more and more. And as for evolution, there's only confusion.

Where has science proven the hypothesis of Creationism? What evidence is there that supports this hypothesis, that has been discovered using the scientific method?

I don't know what it is with you guys, but you can't seem to make up your mind. Every year you keep changing your facts over and over again.

It's called adapting to new information. You see Wonderfulcross, people sometimes like not just covering their ears when new information is presented, and CHANGING their theory based on this new information so that it is more accurate. I know it may not make sense right now, but I'm sure that you'll get it eventually.

It goes something like this throughout the years:

We evolved from monkeys
No, it was pigs
We didn't evolve FROM them, we share a common ansector

You know what's interesting? I've only heard Creationists say that things "EVOLVED FROM" something else. If you can provide at least ONE evolutionist that says that, I'll discuss it with you.

The universe was formed 3 billion years ago
No it was 3.5
No, it was 4
No, I think it was 4.5

You see, people ADAPT to the new evidence provided in order to estimate how old the Earth is. Previously, the evidence stated that the earth was not 4.5 Billion years old, or we just didn't realize it. Now however, we recognize that that's where the evidence leads us. If a different date ends up being supported by evidence, then we'll change the date! Amazing isn't it!

Oh, and by the way, it was the Earth that was formed 4.5 Billion years ago. Not the universe.

The big bang was a collision of two asteroids
No, it was an explosion of matter
Are you kidding? It was an expansion

Once again, I've never heard of any pro-Big Bang scientist saying that the big bang was two asteroids colliding into eachother. Please do provide evidence that shows that Pro-Big Bang scientists believe the first one. I'm sketchy about the second one, considering that I've heard it before, but it could end up being false. However, right now the idea is that the Big Bang is in fact the universe expansion.

Maybe God creatd the big bang!

You know, you need evidence to back up your claims. Please do so, then I'll consider your hypothesis.

We can't explain the thing with the conservation of angular momentum.
Don't worry, that law isn't relevant to retrograde planets.

Ah, rehashed Kent Hovind-nonsense.

The sad thing is, this stuff is coming from pretty much the same people.

Which people are those?

What's even worse is that they have the nerve to tell us this: "Why can't you make up your minds like we do? You guys are following some dumb fantasy you can't even explain yet. Evolution is real science."

Evolution is REAL science. Science is, according to Dictionary.com "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." Evolution is knowledge of the physical material world gained through observation and experimentation. Therefore, Evolution is real science. That was simple enough. In addition, Creationism is a fantasy. I believe in a theory supported by a gigantic amount of evidence. You believe in a magical garden with talking snakes.

Yeah right. By the time all of these changes are done, you'll be able to state your overall theroy in about 4,000 years.

Like I said earlier, Evolution adapts due to new evidence. As you proudly stated earlier, Creationism hasn't changed in over a thousand years. This is because creationists shut their ears closed the moment that any evidence that seems to contradict them comes up. Not because it is true.

Anyway, back to the big bang. The theory about where we all came from. THe THEORY.

NO!!! DOn't tell me you don't know what a scientific theory is?

A theory is an idea that is not yet proven.

I KNEW IT!!! OK, here is the definition of scientific theory from Wikipedia. "In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence."

A law is proven by science and can be relied upon and referenced to.

Here is the definition of a scientific law from Wikipedia.

"A scientific law, or empirical law, or empirical generalisation is a law-like statement that generalises across a set of conditions (e.g. time, countries, temperatures). To be accorded law-like status a wide variety of these conditions should be known, i.e. the law has a well documented history of successful replication and extension to new conditions. Ideally boundary conditions, where the law fails, should also be known.
A scientific law concerns the physical or social world, it therefore must have empirical content and therefore be capable of testing and potentially falsifiable. Analytic statements that are true or false by logic alone are not scientific laws, though may feature as part of scientific theories."

If, hypothetically, a theory is in contradiction with a law, this theory most likely is not true.

It's a good thing that Evolution isn't in contradiction with any laws then, isn't it?

Isn't it weird how the big bang totally contradicts the LAWS of thermodynamics, entropy, probability, and the conservation of angular momentum?

Prove it. You can't just make assertions, you need to prove them.

A theory isn't proven. A law is proven. The big bang contradicts these laws, therefore it contradicts fact.

Do you now concede that you have the wrong definitions of theory and law? Also, you have yet to prove that any scientific law contradicts the theory of Evolution.

If it contradicts fact, that means that it is simply not true. Fact cannot contradict fact. It just doesn't work that way.

You still haven't proven that it does contradict fact.

So from now on, when you say that you believe in the big bang, you are saying that you believe something that is in total opposite of facts and laws and was never proven true in the first place.

Please back up this assertion.

People who believe in the big bang, you make NO sense at all. You're arguing with facts.

PROVE IT.

Oh and by the way, when you start a thread about the Big-Bang, you normally don't go on a rant about evolution in the middle of it. Just a side note.

 

[Morcova]

To start off, I'd like to say that evolutionists are clueless.

It might help in the future if you understood what the difference between evolution and the big bang is before you go calling people, "clueless".

 

[Elduran]

Wow, an attack piece on the big bang that confuses cosmology with evolution on several occasions, insults the opponents of the OP's stance, and completely misrepresents science.

So, we have ignorance, insulting and lying, all in one post. Bravo OP, you've really helped show that your side is better

 

[Elduran]

Just to show that I wasn't just dodging points...

The theory of creation has been the same for thousands and thousands of years. Nothing has been added to it, nothing has been taken away. And through all those years, science has come along to only prove creation more and more. And as for evolution, there's only confusion.

To translate this into reality, "Science learns from its mistakes and betters itself over the years. Creationism doesn't"

Plus it's outright false anyway. Take a random sample of creationists, even from within the UK, and put them in a room together, and they will disagree on countless issues that you're claiming have been constant for millennia. Dinosaurs on the ark? Global or local flood? Age of the earth? How did fossils form? Meat eaters/death before THE FALL(tm)? The list goes on.

Don't pretend it's only scientists that disagree, creationists do so just as much. The difference is that creationists argue on interpretation of an old book rather than with real evidence.

I don't know what it is with you guys, but you can't seem to make up your mind. Every year you keep changing your facts over and over again. It goes something like this throughout the years:

We evolved from monkeys

We share a common ancestor with monkeys.

No, it was pigs

We share a common ancestor with pigs.

By the way, whoever told you that science EVER claimed that we evolved from pigs was lying. To the very best of my knowledge, that has NEVER been claimed by anyone.

We didn't evolve FROM them, we share a common ansector

First thing you've said that's correct!

The universe was formed 3 billion years ago
No it was 3.5
No, it was 4
No, I think it was 4.5

Still much better than 6-10 thousand

And you're thinking of the age of the earth, not the universe. The universe is about 3 times older than your largest figure there.

The big bang was a collision of two asteroids

No-one ever claimed this

No, it was an explosion of matter

Closer, but still never claimed

Are you kidding? It was an expansion

Better, but still an over-simplification

Maybe God creatd the big bang!

No-one has ever proposed this as science

We can't explain the thing with the conservation of angular momentum.

There is no problem with the "thing with angular momentum" except in the eyes of creationists.

Don't worry, that law isn't relevant to retrograde planets.

No-one ever claimed that angular momentum doesn't apply. Your interpretation of the law is just wrong.


Time to go to work.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

[....]
To start off, I'd like to say that evolutionists are clueless....

Most Ironic Post Ever!