My Creation Science Challenge

[Kenny'sID]

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?

Had nothing to do with the OP because it wasn't intended to. Look at the following and you will see where you got off topic just like the rest of us....

My guess is you don't understand the concept of the events of the onset of the big bang. First of all, not from nothing and definitely not thin air. In the early part of the BB there were no atoms. Do you have any concept of the distance between an atoms nucleus and its electrons. As small as they are it is enormous, thus the realization that a lot of mass can be contained in an extremely small area. At least that is the way I explain it, I am not an astrophysicist, but I do have a considerable physical science background.

....yet you do like many, and once challenged, you play the "Oh, goodness no, that's off topic!" card. Hilarious.

What happened? did you start to make your case and realize you had to depend on those assumptions in order to do so... then decide to make up one of those excuses I fully expected?

It was a fair challenge, but you know better than to accept it.

Everyone is waiting for me? Lol, you're a riot. Why am I suddenly the chosen one to answer now? Do you actually think that putting that on me is going to help you to save face because you couldn't answer a simple and fair challenge? So transparent. I didn't claim I had anything for your topic here but at least gave something. You and others *are* making claims about the Big Bang, so what's your excuse? Oh that's right, my challenge was OT....gotcha'.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To pretend to forget the fact we are talking about the expansion being the explanation for the beginning,

Perhaps you should first learn what big bang theory actually states, before arguing about it.

Big Bang theory is NOT a theory about origins.
Rather, much like evolution theory, it describes the "stages" the universe went through once it already existed. It does NOT explain where the universe originally comes from.
It "starts" at Planck Time. Not at T = 0 or "before" that.

and to try twist my answer into sounding ridiculous by leaving off half of the subject, once again, makes your desperation tho win a losing battle even more apparent.

It would be more honorable for you to just drop out of the conversation if you are going to stoop to those levels. Much more of that and I'll have to stop taking you seriously.

You stated that it is an assumption that the universe is expanding.
This is incorrect. The universe is demonstrably expanding.

There was nothing in the rest of your post that nuanced that statement or added anything relevant to the statement.

It is what you said. You said the expansion is an assumption. But it's not. It's a fact. An observable, demonstrable, verifiable fact.

If it wasn't what you meant, then you should clarify your statement.
If you are going to deny that expansion is a fact, then you're just going to be wrong about that.

 

[RickG]

Well, here we are on page 14 with no one even attempting to present what the OP asks. Please dispense with the off topic diversions and lets address the topic.

The topic is about whether the 'creation science' literature presents any original research and data. I can throw all kinds of links and example up demonstrating this but that doesn't give the opportunity for participants of this thread to provide their information. Where is the 'creation science' original research and data to back it?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

We don't need to know how it started in order to know that it happened. We have the evidence that the universe expanded from a singularity. It isn't an assumption.

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.

When has that ever worked? When has science struggled to find an answer, and someone else found a verified supernatural cause that explained it?

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.

Big words. Care to back it up?

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 Christians are worshipping the wrong deity, then they are in the same basket as atheists.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well, here we are on page 14 with no one even attempting to present what the OP asks. Please dispense with the off topic diversions and lets address the topic.

The topic is about whether the 'creation science' literature presents any original research and data. I can throw all kinds of links and example up demonstrating this but that doesn't give the opportunity for participants of this thread to provide their information. Where is the 'creation science' original research and data to back it?

Rick, going OT was ok, or seemed to be because you joined right in with the off topic comments, so...tell us? why has OT suddenly become an issue?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Perhaps you should first learn what big bang theory actually states, before arguing about it.

Big Bang theory is NOT a theory about origins.
Rather, much like evolution theory, it describes the "stages" the universe went through once it already existed. It does NOT explain where the universe originally comes from.
It "starts" at Planck Time. Not at T = 0 or "before" that.



You stated that it is an assumption that the universe is expanding.
This is incorrect. The universe is demonstrably expanding.

There was nothing in the rest of your post that nuanced that statement or added anything relevant to the statement.

It is what you said. You said the expansion is an assumption. But it's not. It's a fact. An observable, demonstrable, verifiable fact.

If it wasn't what you meant, then you should clarify your statement.
If you are going to deny that expansion is a fact, then you're just going to be wrong about that.

Yet all that wordiness will not change the fact it was said that the universe was said to have been expanding all along and I disagreed anyone can know that. Once again, if you can't keep up with the conversation, stay out of it, and don't waste the readers time by either not keeping up or pretending you aren't when it's convenient.

I don't ignore but since you've now made the point you cannot be taken seriously, I'll not waste mine/others time by replying to you, at least until you stop your childish nonsense.

 

[Kenny'sID]

We don't need to know how it started in order to know that it happened. We have the evidence that the universe expanded from a singularity. It isn't an assumption.



When has that ever worked? When has science struggled to find an answer, and someone else found a verified supernatural cause that explained it?



Big words. Care to back it up?




If Christians are worshipping the wrong deity, then they are in the same basket as atheists.

Loudmouth, take my challenge, so we can clear the air.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yet all that wordiness will not change the fact it was said that the universe was said to have been expanding all along and I disagreed anyone can know that. Once again, if you can't keep up with the conversation, stay out of it, and don't waste the readers time by either not keeping up or pretending you aren't when it's convenient.

What you take for wordiness is a sincere attempt to explain to you specifically why Loudmouth holds the views he does.

I am sure the following has been explained to you before. If it seems unfamiliar read it several times and ask questions if you don't understand it. When we say we know something in science the implication is always there that we know this provisionally. We always accept that any theory we currently hold to be so could be overturned by new evidence, new interpretation of evidence, or improved refinement of the evidence. But also when we say we know something we generally mean that the evidence and the reasoned argument in support of the claim are so well established, have been tested and retested, questioned and answered, so often, so thoroughly, so convincingly, with no alternative that has even smidgeon of supporting justification, that to reject it as being pretty assuredly the explanation, would be close to insanity.

Now, please tell me you understand that. If not, why not?

 

[lesliedellow]

Yet all that wordiness will not change the fact it was said that the universe was said to have been expanding all along and I disagreed anyone can know that.

Disagree with it as much as you like, that your idea is a non starter is just schoolboy level physics.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet all that wordiness will not change the fact it was said that the universe was said to have been expanding all along and I disagreed anyone can know that.

Your disagreement doesn't change the fact that they can determine that the universe has been expanding all along.

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth, take my challenge, so we can clear the air.

What challenge?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yet all that wordiness will not change the fact it was said that the universe was said to have been expanding all along and I disagreed anyone can know that. Once again, if you can't keep up with the conversation, stay out of it, and don't waste the readers time by either not keeping up or pretending you aren't when it's convenient.

Do you think the universe used to be static and then, for some strange reason, started expanding? Seems like that is what you are saying...
If that is what you are saying:

1. do you consider that sensible?
2. why do you think that?
3. by what mechanism did this expansion "start" and why and when, in your opinion?
4. how do you explain all the data that fits very nicely into the predicitve models of big bang theory? like cosmic background radiation and stuff?

If that is not what you are saying... care to explain then what you are saying?

I don't ignore but since you've now made the point you cannot be taken seriously, I'll not waste mine/others time by replying to you, at least until you stop your childish nonsense.

Run Forest, Run!

 

[Kenny'sID]

Disagree with it as much as you like, that your idea is a non starter is just schoolboy level physics.

Well, that certainly puts a fine point on your defense.

Your disagreement doesn't change the fact that they can determine that the universe has been expanding all along.

What challenge?

The challenge to explain what you just claimed...should be pretty simple.

Do you think the universe used to be static and then, for some strange reason, started expanding? Seems like that is what you are saying...
If that is what you are saying:

1. do you consider that sensible?
2. why do you think that?
3. by what mechanism did this expansion "start" and why and when, in your opinion?
4. how do you explain all the data that fits very nicely into the predicitve models of big bang theory? like cosmic background radiation and stuff?

1. I'd consider a full explanation of your claims sensible for starters.
2. You thought it and claimed it, not me, now explain it in detail.
3. You tell me. Once again, and listen carefully this time... It's your claim.
4. I don't have to explain the data...you do. Prove my disagreement wrong...is that so hard?

I gave you the opportunity to do a well thought out explanation and I just get the same ol' song and dance I got with the your evolution Fairy Tale? Then after goading the living daylights out of you, and finally getting you to put something on the table, the first few lines of that are based on assumption. Can you do better than that here....please?

What sparked the expansion, and so on? If I told you God did it, wouldn't you ask me to show you the proof?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Run Forest, Run!

If you hate being called out on acting like a child, then stop doing it...that simple.

 

[DogmaHunter]

1. I'd consider a full explanation of your claims sensible for starters.

But you are not interested in the explanation... that is quite clear by your continued irrational ranting against big bang theory, without even knowing what that model is all about. Also, they aren't "my" claims. Big bang theory is a scientific explanation for the continued expansion of the universe.

Do you expect me to give you a cosmology/physics course on this forum?
I mean, you are so far detached from all this, that you even went the "it's just a theory" route....

We can't even begin to discuss the actual big bang model and the evidence in support of it, if you even lack such mega basic understanding of scientific concepts and jargon.

2. You thought it and claimed it, not me, now explain it in detail.

No. It is factually correct that the universe is expanding. We can literally observe that happening. When that was brought to your attention, you then said "but you can't assume that it was also expanding in the past". That's the statement I was responding to with these 4 points. My 4 points serve to have you clarify what exactly you meant and/or implied by it.

It seems you are unwilling to explain your own statements.

3. You tell me. Once again, and listen carefully this time... It's your claim.

Again, I'm responding to YOUR statement that we can't assume that the current factual, demonstrable, observable expansion of the universe also was happening in the past.

I'm asking you for your reasons of saying that. Why can't we assume that? Is it more likely that this expansion was also happening a couple thousand years ago, or is it more likely that the universe used to be static? Why?

4. I don't have to explain the data...you do. Prove my disagreement wrong...is that so hard?

But you ARE making claims about the data. I'm asking you why we can't assume that the universe was also expanding thousands of years ago, just like it factually, observably and demonstrably does today.

I gave you the opportunity to do a well thought out explanation and I just get the same ol' song and dance I got with the your evolution Fairy Tale?

Calling solid scientific theories "fairy tales", is not going to win the argument - nore does it do your side any favors.

If anything, that hole you are digging for yourself is just getting deeper and deeper.

Then after goading the living daylights out of you, and finally getting you to put something on the table, the first few lines of that are based on assumption. Can you do better than that here....please?

What lines would that be? What assumption?

What sparked the expansion, and so on? If I told you God did it, wouldn't you ask me to show you the proof?

I'm asking your for your reasons for saying that we can't assume that the universe was also expanding thousands of years ago, just like we observe the universe expanding today.

See, that's the thing with the big bang model.....

We observed the universe expanding. We then "turned back time" and "rewinded" that expansion. We worked out the physics of it and this resulted in big bang cosmology. This model made testable predictions, one of wich is CBR. When tested, lo and behold, there it is... exactly like the model predicted. Seems perfectly legit.

For some reason, you oppose this model. I'ld like to know why.

 

[RickG]

Well, still nothing addressed concerning the OP, which I gather validates my challenge that 'creation science' literature contains no original data or research, because when asked to do so, everything but that is thrown into the discussion.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well, still nothing addressed concerning the OP, which I gather validates my challenge that 'creation science' literature contains no original data or research, because when asked to do so, everything but that is thrown into the discussion.

Not exactly unexpected, is it?

 

[RickG]

Not exactly unexpected, is it?

I can easily show some examples, but I want thread participants to present examples and discuss whether they qualify as original data and research.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

ON!

This is just a reminder to stay on the topic of the OP! Failure to do so may result in thread closure!

Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic
Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

OFF!

 

[RickG]

Well, let's try another angle. Most posts which reject mainstream science are based on creation scientific literature claims. If any of those claims are valid, I would like to see the original research and data research supporting those claims. Anyone?