• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
AV1611VET said:
Nah.

It's just to find something to moan & groan about, IMO.

I guess it's a way of relieving stress or something.
Click to expand...
By passing it onto us? You evil genius! *pictures Alfred E. Neuman twirling a mustache while stroking a cat and laughing evilly*
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,254
52,666
Guam
✟5,157,109.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
PsychoSarah said:
By passing it onto us? You evil genius! *pictures Alfred E. Neuman twirling a mustache while stroking a cat and laughing evilly*
Click to expand...
Did you read Post #2 in this thread?

I did.

And that made me feel good that I could give someone something to think about.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
AV1611VET said:
Did you read Post #2 in this thread?

I did.

And that made me feel good that I could give someone something to think about.
Click to expand...
-_- I did, but it doesn't alleviate my moderate aggravation at your unwillingness to contribute with your actual views on the subject of this thread.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,254
52,666
Guam
✟5,157,109.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
PsychoSarah said:
-_- I did, but it doesn't alleviate my moderate aggravation at your unwillingness to contribute with your actual views on the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think I've made plenty of contributions in other threads.

I don't think it's a mystery where I stand on evolution here.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
AV1611VET said:
Oh, I think I've made plenty of contributions in other threads.

I don't think it's a mystery where I stand on evolution here.
Click to expand...
The saddest thing is that you think the big bang is relevant to evolution. Even if god itself came to me in person and told me that it created the universe, and that the big bang was some sort of illusionary after-effect of all that energy being released, it would not change my opinion on evolution in the slightest.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,254
52,666
Guam
✟5,157,109.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
PsychoSarah said:
The saddest thing is that you think the big bang is relevant to evolution.
Click to expand...
Haven't we been down that road already?

The Big Bang is relevant to evolution -- cosmic evolution.

And if you're talking about just biological evolution, biological evolution is the Big Bang's great-great-great-great grandson.*

* Cosmic evolution:
  1. Big Bang
  2. Particulate
  3. Galactic
  4. Stellar
  5. Planetary
  6. Chemical
  7. Biological
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
That's not how that works. It is more like this:
1. big bang and cosmic evolution starts

1. chemical evolution is a thing

1 biological evolution is a thing.


they aren't connected, even if one had to occur before the other did, this is only because the products of one are involved in the others, not that the processes are interconnected. It is irrelevant how the chemicals of life originated for biological evolution.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,254
52,666
Guam
✟5,157,109.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Nevertheless, biological evolution is the Big Bang's great-great-great-great grandson.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Hoghead1 said:
What exactly is your problem with the Big Bang, PsychoSarah? Certainly it makes far more sense than creatio-ex-nihilo.
Click to expand...
What? You must not have read my posts carefully, I generally support the Big Bang theory.
 
Upvote 0
H

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,911
741
78
✟8,968.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
OK, read you posts again. Now I think I see your problem. You believe evolution would have occurred even if no big bang? Right? If so, I reserve the right to disagree. First off, it is a fact that the entire universe evolved and is still evolving. In addition, we are essentially made out of star stuff. That's great, since it makes for a unity between ourselves and the universe. Furthermore, I do not hold that there are two conflicting worlds: the world of the alive and the world of passive, inert, dead matter. I view mind and master as one. I believe that all things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of souls or psyches. That means whatsoever happens in the universe is the same process that goes on in biological evolution. I picture the entire universe as analogous to an organism, not a machine.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,254
52,666
Guam
✟5,157,109.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
PsychoSarah said:
My point is that our entire understanding of the big bang could be wrong, without biological evolution being wrong.
Click to expand...
Well they got Thalidomide wrong.

They got Pluto wrong.

They got the Titanic wrong.

They got the Hindenburg wrong.

They got the Deepwater Horizon wrong.

They got Gus Grissom's command capsule wrong.

They got Three Mile Island wrong.

They got Chernobyl wrong.

They got the oil fields of Kuwait wrong.

They got Phlogiston wrong.

They got the depth of the moon dust wrong.

They're off by 4 years as to when AD started.

They got "flying" squirrels wrong.

They got Nebraska Man wrong.

They got embryos wrong.

They got geocentrism wrong.

They might as well add cosmic evolution to Pandora's Clipboard as well.
 
Upvote 0
H

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,911
741
78
✟8,968.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Sorry about that, PsychoSarah. I got you mixed up with AV16ll. And that brings me to my next point. The list of the ten things they got wrong does not directly apply to the question of evolution. I mean, I can sit down and write out a longer list of what they got right. Anyhow, we are not perfect and so are apt to make mistakes. We were able to put men on the Moon, even though we have had real tragedies in the space program. I believe reality is in constant evolution, and so we are always moving into new horizons, doing novel things. Since we are always facing new tasks, we are bound to goof due to our lack of familiarity with the material as hand. Sometimes we goof because we weren't able to benefit from our progress. The Titanic probably sunk because it was built out of iron, rather then steel, which was abundantly available at the time So I don't see how this list is at all relevant to how valid evolution is. You certainly don't dump all of astronomy because there is a controversy over Pluto, do you? In fact, the reason science suspects it many not be a planet is a result fo the evolution of better scientific instruments.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
AV1611VET said:
Well they got Thalidomide wrong.
Click to expand...
You know you aren't allowed to bring that up. However, I will fully acknowledge that the people in medical research cannot legally test drugs on pregnant women to see if they are safe for them. So yes, this problem persisteth, but not at the fault of science.

AV1611VET said:
They got Pluto wrong.
Click to expand...
Wrong? No, personally, I just think they wanted to be "crap stirrers". For some reason, what qualifies as planet was changed, nothing in regards to Pluto was.

AV1611VET said:
They got the Titanic wrong.
Click to expand...
XD XD XD that was the engineers that made those claims. No scientist would claim that any vessel was literally unsinkable.

AV1611VET said:
They got the Hindenburg wrong.
Click to expand...
How so? Not a scientist's fault it crashed, and it was known that helium is flammable.

AV1611VET said:
They got the Deepwater Horizon wrong.
Click to expand...
The what?

AV1611VET said:
They got Gus Grissom's command capsule wrong.
Click to expand...
I am guessing it failed, structurally, but that isn't a science fail in and of itself.

AV1611VET said:
They got Three Mile Island wrong.
Click to expand...
How?

AV1611VET said:
They got Chernobyl wrong.
Click to expand...
Mechanical failures are not scientific failures.

AV1611VET said:
They got the oil fields of Kuwait wrong.
Click to expand...
What about them?

AV1611VET said:
They got Phlogiston wrong.
Click to expand...
What?

AV1611VET said:
They got the depth of the moon dust wrong.
Click to expand...
No, even creationists abandoned that one long ago, AV.

AV1611VET said:
They're off by 4 years as to when AD started.
Click to expand...
That is wholly unrelated to science. That's a calendar issue, and subject to how we measure time.

AV1611VET said:
They got "flying" squirrels wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't recall anyone actually thinking that they fly, common name is not scientific name.

AV1611VET said:
They got Nebraska Man wrong.
Click to expand...
That was actually a journalist that pushed that story, defying the wishes of the person that discovered it. And soon after, SCIENTISTS were the ones to figure out the tooth belonged to a pig, not a hominid.

AV1611VET said:
They got embryos wrong.
Click to expand...
How? If you are referring to those drawings no one uses anymore, they were remarkably accurate, all things considered.

AV1611VET said:
They got geocentrism wrong.
Click to expand...
-_- scientists also corrected it, but that error is in the bible too, you know.

AV1611VET said:
They might as well add cosmic evolution to Pandora's Clipboard as well.
Click to expand...
My favorite thing about all of these, is that it isn't as if the bible got them right. In order for the bible to be superior to science in regards to these issues, it not only must address them, but it must be more accurate than the scientific process is, which it is not.
 
Upvote 0
H

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,911
741
78
✟8,968.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Good point about the embryos and poor old Heckel. Talk about they didn't got it right. More than one circulated online information calming was a big phony, was fired, etc. Turns out that none of that was true. Actually, a Canadian scientist somehow managed to start that, for which he offered an online apology. Don't believe me? Go check it out for yourself. Now let's talk a bit about creation scientist Chuck Missler. He has absolutely no scientific background, no education in theology, is not ordained by any major church, and, and this is really important, has been twice sued and twice was found guilty of plagiarizing. How about good old "Dr." Baugh? He seems to change the subject he obtained his doctorate in a and the university that granted it about every tie he opens his mouth. How about creation-scientists Bray Settlefield. He's the guy who argues the that c (speed of light) isn't absolute. So if scientists had gotten on the ball and realized it was an infinite speed ant the beginning f the universe and then slowed down, there eyes would be wide open to the fact the universes began just a short time age, and hurrah for that, because that means the biblical account of creation is true. Proof? All he could muster was an argument that if you studied estimates of c given throughout history, the tendency has been to show it is going slower and slower. Only problem is, carefully studying the estimates show that c has been getter faster in its estimates. Another curious point is that Setterfield somehow swiped Stanford University letter heads to place on some of his documents in order to make it seen Stanford backed him. How do we know? He got pinched. So bottom line: If you are going to reject an approach simply because there have been mistakes and fakery associated with it, you would most certainly have to dump all of creation science as well and in addition Scripture, as it carries about 100 contradictions, including the whole Genesis account.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married


"Maverick" is a kind word here...I think crackpot would be more accurate.
 
Upvote 0
B

BrriKerr

Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
237
42
36
UK
✟603.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
PEOPLE did all of that just as people wrote all the religious books, people are fallible and very often get things wrong,
what else is new?

Evolution is a fact and all religions are myths, everyone knows that even if they won't admit it.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Has JWST discovered a primordial black hole and how many posts will it take before this thread is derailed?
Replies
3
Views
403
Physical & Life Sciences
sjastro
B
A perspective on Baptism and the plan of salvation that I have not heard before
Replies
14
Views
656
Denomination Specific Theology
eleos1954
Growing in the Faith at a big state school in the Bible Belt
Replies
0
Views
155
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
Michie
Here’s how the first proteins might have assembled, sparking life
Replies
118
Views
3K
Physical & Life Sciences
AV1611VET
St. Hildegard of Bingen’s gifts served the whole Church, Pope Benedict said
Replies
2
Views
189
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
BassLine
Menu
Log in
Register