My Big Bang Challenge

[Bradskii]

...serendipitous 'catastrophe'.

I've never seen a catastrophe described as serendipitous.

 

[Shemjaza]

I've never seen a catastrophe described as serendipitous.

Unless you're a war profiteer...

 

[Mr Laurier]

But was the Big Bang itself a natural catastrophe?

How can you say it wasn't, if the Primordial Atom doesn't exist anymore?

At least, not in its original state?

Again, if the eggs in your refrigerator suddenly expanded and broke apart, wouldn't you have a mess?

Ylem!

The Big Bang was not a disaster. Not in any sense of the word.

The so-called "primordial atom" model was refuted a few decades ago.
We have moved on. The world changes. Join us. we have cookies.

 

[AV1611VET]

The so-called "primordial atom" model was refuted a few decades ago.

I'm not aware of that.

What has it been replaced with?

And even if it has, did it not refer to a universal natural catastrophe circa 13,800,000,000 BC?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

AV, why does the Big Bang NEED to be a catastrophe or a disaster to you?

 

[Mr Laurier]

I'm not aware of that.

What has it been replaced with?

The singularity

And even if it has, did it not refer to a universal natural catastrophe circa 13,800,000,000 BC?

No.
It refers to the origin of our universe.
Only a "catastrophe" to those who hate life, and who long for death.

 

[Mr Laurier]

AV, why does the Big Bang NEED to be a catastrophe or a disaster to you?

Exactly.
Someone seems to view life as a bad thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, why does the Big Bang NEED to be a catastrophe or a disaster to you?

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?

 

[AV1611VET]

The singularity.

What "singularity"?

Has the Big Bang been plutoed now?

No. It refers to the origin of our universe.

Which originated from a catastrophe ... correct?

Only a "catastrophe" to those who hate life, and who long for death.

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

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

It's called "death".

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly. Someone seems to view life as a bad thing.

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?

 

[Bradskii]

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

If you're talking about the evolution of the universe, then scientists use it as their start point. But I think you're talking about Darwinian evolution. In which case, you're right. Evolutionary scientists don't think about it at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you're talking about the evolution of the universe, then scientists use it as their start point. But I think you're talking about Darwinian evolution. In which case, you're right. Evolutionary scientists don't think about it at all.

I'm referring to cosmic evolution.

Cosmic evolution is the output of the "Disaster of 13.8," for lack of a better term.

That is: 13,800,000,000 BC.

The year the Primordial Atom ceased to exist as such, and spewed forth ylem, which is supposedly what we are.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've never seen a catastrophe described as serendipitous.

I thought "catastrophe" can be a technical word for virulent change, not necessarily bad.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm referring to cosmic evolution.

So the big bang is cosmologist's start point. They obviously refer to it. But why do you keep referring to it as a disaster? We're nearly 100 posts in and you haven't explained that yet.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought "catastrophe" can be a technical word for virulent change, not necessarily bad.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

So the big bang is cosmologist's start point. They obviously refer to it. But why do you keep referring to it as a disaster? We're nearly 100 posts in and you haven't explained that yet.

If it wasn't a catastrophe, then where is this Primordial Atom? what happened to it?

Is it hiding somewhere? does someone have it?

Or was it destroyed by a sudden expansion?

I've also used the analogy of a beautiful diamond being suddenly blasted to rubble; and the Mona Lisa being cut up to produce an intellectually-challenging 300-piece puzzle.

I can't make this challenge thread any plainer.

We're just yakking this thread to death, and all that's doing is confusing everyone.

Including me.

 

[public hermit]

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.

Could you say more? Are you saying that by creation, God brings disorder into order, and that by the Big Bang, sans God, it is assumed to be order from beginning to end? Is that the fine distinction that entails the challenge?

 

[Bradskii]

If it wasn't a catastrophe, then where is this Primordial Atom? what happened to it?

Nothing happened to it. It didn't exist. It was an analogy used when the big bang was first proposed to imply something really small.

 

[Shemjaza]

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?

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?

 

[Yttrium]

Question: Whether the BB produced life or not, shouldn't it be considered a natural disaster?

Yes ... you start out with an egg.

And unless you break that egg, you can't have a tasty egg breakfast.

But you have to admit you're breaking the egg first.

Is a snowflake a natural disaster to a water droplet?