The Flood

[Sphere]

Wow..after reading all these posts im amazed in what people believe regardless of the evidence that is clearly in front of their face. The reality is, theres no point in arguing, because you're talking to a wall. No matter what proof you throw at the creationists its not good enough.

I am waiting for the day..just waiting until we find ANY sort of life on another planet or moon, and flip the whole religious world on its head.

 

[DrLao]

I doubt it would. Afterall, we have evidence that other planets and moons in our solar system are billions of years old and we have actual pictures of stars as they existed billions of years ago. What else could you possibly want if you wanted to demonstrate an old Earth? Still, there are folks who think the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

 

[Jet Black]

jet black:well you can say we don't know how the big bang started in schools

Exactly, I could be safe to say that you could not prove it all.

oh the big bang itself definitely happened. your really does not really make grammatical sense given the nature of my initial point.
[/QUOTE]jet black: Your opinion is your opinion. the universe does not "need" a creator, at least not an intelligent one. if you can demonstrate why it needs a creator, then feel free.

Just for the simple reason that nothing was ever made without a creator. Is that good enough?

[/QUOTE]an awful lot of things in this universe have been made through natural process. stars. atoms, planets, black holes, crystals, amino acids. why should we think the universe itself is any different?
[/QUOTE]
jet black:so? natural processes do alot of things that people cannot comprehend. you have not justified at all why a "creator" even needs to be intelligent

Like Jesusistheway said, you are going way overboard with natural processes.
[/QUOTE]why? why is there a necessity for some mystical sentient element who loves all the sapient life on one irrelevant little limp of rock in the middle of nowhere?
[/QUOTE]
jet black: what is my theory?

Do I have to explain to you your own theory? Thank you and God Bless.
[/QUOTE]
well you seem to know what it is. I am testing you.

 

[Jet Black]

Jet Black if I'm not mistaken, you are saying that the universe could have been created but not by an intelligent creator. Is this correct.

We as humans have never witnessed natural processes doing anything remotely similar to what you are giving them credit for.

you mean we haven't witnessed universes being born? of course not, that process does not happen in our space. remember that the Big Bang created spacetime as well as all the stuff in it.

I am indeed saying that the universe may have been started by an entirely unintelligent process. there is no reason that intelligence is required. There is no logical argument that forces the necessity of an intelligent benevolant creator who cares about a few billion scraps of sentient life on one of the myriad of planets orbiting one of a myriad of stars in a near infinity of galaxies. There is no logical necessity for our "lives" to have an externally imposed meaning of any sort.

 

[Josh1]

jet black:the Big Bang created spacetime as well as all the stuff in it.

If the big bang really "was'. Then why are certain planets and their moons spinning backwards? That just don't happen if something spins and explodes out there.

 

[MartinM]

If the big bang really "was'. Then why are certain planets and their moons spinning backwards?

Why shouldn't they be?

That just don't happen if something spins and explodes out there

One - yes it does.

Two - the big bang has nothing to do with something 'spinning and exploding out there'.

 

[Josh1]

Halruaa:Wow..after reading all these posts im amazed in what people believe regardless of the evidence that is clearly in front of their face. The reality is, theres no point in arguing, because you're talking to a wall. No matter what proof you throw at the creationists its not good enough.

What Proof? Clearly statements like this our from personal incredulity. Please refrain.

Halruaa:I am waiting for the day..just waiting until we find ANY sort of life on another planet or moon, and flip the whole religious world on its head

And you study science a lot. Another point I would like to make is we are looking at all this stuff from two totally different angles here. This statement by Halruaa says it all. Most atheist are studying science(in a very biased way I might add) to prove that there is no God or just to say that we're wrong. Common sense tells us that there is no way a little dot could blow up and "poof" theres the world. God Bless.

 

[Josh1]

Drlao:I doubt it would. Afterall, we have evidence that other planets and moons in our solar system are billions of years old and we have actual pictures of stars as they existed billions of years ago.

And what evidence would that be.

 

[MartinM]

Common sense tells us that there is no way a little dot could blow up and "poof" theres the world

Common sense: that which makes me infallible while you poor *******s have to make do with logic, science, empirical evidence...

 

[Josh1]

MartinM:the big bang has nothing to do with something 'spinning and exploding out there'

I found this on some site. Heres the link: http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html

the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity, this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist. According to the prevailing cosmological models that explain our universe, an ineffable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature on any measurement scale, that was infinitely dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself. Cosmology theorists combined with the observations of their astronomy colleagues have been able to reconstruct the primordial chronology of events known as the big bang.

This is your theory?

 

[troodon]

What Proof? Clearly statements like this our from personal incredulity. Please refrain.

Flood falsification #1
Flood falsification #2
Flood falsification #3

¿Quieres más?

 

[MartinM]

This is your theory?

Note the quote you give says nothing about anything spinning. As for 'explosion', just read the rest of the site's description and tell me if it bears any resemblance whatsoever to any explosion you ever heard of.

 

[Josh1]

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm

Heres a nice link about the big bang too.

 

[MartinM]

Heres a nice link about the big bang too.[/b]

Quite impressive the way they completely ignore...oh, the last two or three decades of progress.

 

[Jet Black]

before I follow that link, is it the one where they said that th CMB was too flat? I find it highly amusing the way they later attempt to use WMAP results to back up their (incorrect) claims, but never retract the (incorerct) COBE based ones.

 

[MartinM]

before I follow that link, is it the one where they said that th CMB was too flat?

Indeed, it is. COBE found the CMB to be 'perfectly smooth', apparently. News to me. I was under the impression that it did show small anisotropies. So is the scientfic community in general. Funny, that.

I find it highly amusing the way they later attempt to use WMAP results to back up their (incorrect) claims, but never retract the (incorerct) COBE based ones

Creationists contradicting themselves? Well, cover me in eggs and flour and bake me in the oven for forty minutes.

 

[Jet Black]

that is one thing that really worries me about thsoe organisations. Why do they never seem to retract old falsified arguments.

 

[Jet Black]

Indeed, it is. COBE found the CMB to be 'perfectly smooth', apparently. News to me. I was under the impression that it did show small anisotropies. So is the scientfic community in general. Funny, that.

yeap. all the scientists say" hey, this COBE thing is pretty cool but the resolution cant show us fine detail

creationists say: hey, there is no fine detail, the CMB is flat.

Creationists contradicting themselves? Well, cover me in eggs and flour and bake me in the oven for forty minutes.

sounds like "not at all suprised pie"

 

[Wasp]

Wow, how many pages ago did this thread turn from a debate to an insult contest?

Both are theories, the basis of one is observations accumulated by man, and the basis of the other is faith in God and in His Word that he gave to us!

I personally am a YEC and I'm confident in my beliefs, however I'm not going to waste the next month of my life arguing with people who haven't had it revealed to them. (No offense Josh, I agree with you and admire your courage for standing up against a barrage of insults -- not an argument of the world's formation)

I find it amusing that 10 years from now evolution scientists will consider most of what they believe today regarding this issue to be false. And YEC will rework their theories b/c they humbly know that they don't have all the answers, the only reliable source of knowledge comes from God's unchanging Word.

So as a closing comment, I don't accuse nonchristians for rejecting God's truth on the issue, but in regards to old earth/evolutionist christians: How do you not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible that says the world was created in 6 days and that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old (according to the lineage from Adam to Jesus recorded in scripture)? If the Bible cannot be trusted as being foolproof, then surely Christ did not rise from the dead!! There is no possible scientific explanation for someone being dead for three days and then coming back to life. If you deny the resurrection of Christ, then are you a christian?

 

[Wasp]

sounds like "not at all suprised pie"

Wow, that's clever

Forgive me, I couldn't help myself.