My Big Bang Challenge

[inquiring mind]

Not really analogous, in the Bible the Flood kills most people and totally destroys all of humanity's civilisation.

Would you be comfortable with describing Genesis 1:1 as a disaster because of all the pain an suffering that occurred after the beginning?

Man (Adam) was responsible for the outcome after Genesis 1:1.

 

[Shemjaza]

Man (Adam) was responsible for the outcome after Genesis 1:1.

But none of that would have happened if the world hadn't been created.

I'm trying to find a fair comparison to the assertion that the beginning of the naturalistic universe is a disaster because of ultimate negative events. Why wouldn't the same logic apply to a supernaturalistic universe, especially since there is intent and agency in that scenario?

 

[Bradskii]

Man (Adam) was responsible for the outcome after Genesis 1:1.

Hmm. So if you do wrong, it's OK to punish your children. And their children. Et cetera. Ad infinitum.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, since I don't believe in it, it's no big deal to me.

But it seems it's just something that I don't think evolutionists have thought about.

And to be frank and honest about it, I'd like to say AMEN, if I hear a preacher say from the pulpit that evolution is predicated on a universal natural disaster.

I have no qualms in saying the Flood was a worldwide miraculous disaster.

Do you have any qualms in saying the Big Bang was a universal natural disaster?

Again though, a disaster means that it has to ruin something. If there was nothing to ruin, can it be called a disaster? Can you ruin nothing?

 

[VirOptimus]

A challanged semantic thread, how unoriginal.

 

[inquiring mind]

Hmm. So if you do wrong, it's OK to punish your children. And their children. Et cetera. Ad infinitum.

From my standpoint, and surely anyone's, the answer is no. But, through our actions we have made it a world of good and bad... and when people use poor judgment, it seems as though its always the innocent that pay, even Jesus suffered because of this.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Can the Big Bang Theory be considered a natural disaster on a universal scale?

I don't think that something very hot and dense expanding and cooling justifies that description as it didn't create great harm, damage, or suffering.

Great harm, damage, and suffering came much later, and not on a universal scale.

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't think that something very hot and dense expanding and cooling justifies that description as it didn't create great harm, damage, or suffering.

Great harm, damage, and suffering came much later, and not on a universal scale.

I bet you're talking about that big mountain-sized asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I bet you're talking about that big mountain-sized asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.

Not specifically, but that's included.

 

[inquiring mind]

Not specifically, but that's included.

You're not beating-up on Genesis 1:1 are you?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You're not beating-up on Genesis 1:1 are you?

I was referring to the big bang in the first instance and the appearance of life in the second, not origin myths.

 

[Mr Laurier]

What "singularity"?

The one that became our universe

Has the Big Bang been plutoed now?

Huh?

Which originated from a catastrophe ... correct?

Not even remotely

There was no life to hate in 13,800,000,000 BC.

And???

And for those alive today, whether they hate life or love life, they're headed for a life-changing catastrophe.

Ok.... Please do tell

It's called "death".

And there it is. The appeal to fear of death.
O knew there was a reason for this bizzare thread.
It was so you could spring the fear of death on us.

 

[Mr Laurier]

It's the old catastrophism vs uniformitarianism debate.

I suspect evolutionists would shun calling the Big Bang event a "catastrophe," since evolution runs on the principle of uniformitarianism, whereas creationism runs on the principle of catastrophism.

Evolutionists do not exist.
Evolution has never run on any principles of uniformitarianism.
Creationism run on gullible people.

 

[Mr Laurier]

A person can view life however he wants: good or bad.

But I'm talking about a universal natural catastrophe that occurred LONG before life allegedly showed up.

You can't put the universe back into that atom, can you?

There was no atom.
The baby universe was too hot for atoms to exist.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think that something very hot and dense expanding and cooling justifies that description as it didn't create great harm, damage, or suffering.

Great harm, damage, and suffering came much later, and not on a universal scale.

But according to the BB model, the entire universe was encapsulated into that "primordial atom."

Just sitting there, in the middle of nowhere, minding its own business.

Then WHAM!

It literally flies to pieces.

Spewing out ylem and heat and whatnot.

And the ylem congealed into what we see today.

And in the end ... thermal equilibrium.

Frozen to death at zero degrees Kelvin!

Not even getting any heat from Brownian motion.

Dead as a door nail.

I call that a disaster.

 

[AV1611VET]

And there it is. The appeal to fear of death.
O knew there was a reason for this bizzare thread.
It was so you could spring the fear of death on us.

I'm talking about physical death.

You know ... when your telomeres quit working?

And I don't need to appeal to it.

The fear of death is ingrained in us.

But life isn't the only death in the BB model.

In the end, even physical matter is going to die.

It's called "heat death."

And there's no cure for it.

I call that a universal natural disaster.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolutionists do not exist.

The following disagree with you:

1. Wikipedia
2. dictionary.com
3. Merriam-Webster
4. vocabulary.com
5. Collins English Dictionary
6. Cambridge English Dictionary
7. yourdictionary.com
8. The Free Dictionary
9. Urban Dictionary
10. Lexico.com
11. Macmilland Dictionary
12. creation.com
13. Conservapedia

Famous evolutionists include:

1. Charles Darwin
2. Richard Dawkins
3. Theodosius Dobzhansky
4. Stephen Gould
5. Ernst Mayr
6. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck

 

[VirOptimus]

The following disagree with you:

1. Wikipedia
2. dictionary.com
3. Merriam-Webster
4. vocabulary.com
5. Collins English Dictionary
6. Cambridge English Dictionary
7. yourdictionary.com
8. The Free Dictionary
9. Urban Dictionary
10. Lexico.com
11. Macmilland Dictionary
12. creation.com
13. Conservapedia

Famous evolutionists include:

1. Charles Darwin
2. Richard Dawkins
3. Theodosius Dobzhansky
4. Stephen Gould
5. Ernst Mayr
6. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck

Anything that agrees with conservapedia is highly suspect.

 

[AV1611VET]

There was no atom.

Perhaps Georges Lemaître didn't get the memo?

The baby universe was too hot for atoms to exist.

If you don't like what a scientist called it (primordial atom), then what do you call this "baby universe"?

Can you think of a better term?

 

[AV1611VET]

Anything that agrees with conservapedia is highly suspect.

Do you agree with Conservapedia in this respect?

If not, don't throw the baby ("evolutionist") out with the bathwater.

Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.