Creation is a Scientific Fact

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   


I've been working on this video for a while now. This is my first draft that I just uploaded to You Tube. It's my voice talking and I used open source footage from the Prelinger Internet Archive, the Hubble deep field photograph, and music by Richard Strauss and one of my favorite guitarists Joe Satriani.

It is focused on the fact that the Big Bang has proven the creation event and dispelled the eternal universe ideas like the steady state theory that many materialists clung to until recently. As well as the fine tuning of the universe and the cosmological argument for the existence of a supernatural Creator. It is based on the ideas presented in my thread Science Meet Your Maker

Thanks!! I hope you enjoy the show.




posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Here is another view.

[edit on 4-7-2008 by sardion2000]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Excellent work! That is definitely my favorite video you have made. I can tell you put a lot of work into it.

Oh, and nice voice.
You sounded great.

You really did your homework on this one in the science area and I learned a lot of new things.
I have watched it once and am watching it again now.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Entertaining, informative and excellently edited. Well done Whammy Kubrick.


[edit on 7/4/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts...

If what you have here is hypothesis or theory, in order for it to be "scientific" you have to accept that it could be rejected at any point if better hypothesis or theory is found regardless of how you feel about it...

A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Again, if you think that that is what you have here, make a scientific journal, I'm curious how far you will get with peer review thing



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I find it absolutely hilarious that you claim 'scientific fact' about creationism at all.

Just because you WANT it to be true does not make it so. We're not living in medieval times any more, feel free to advance your thinking.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


learn to read, he said that the creation of the universe is a fact. Not creationism.

L2R

[edit on 7/5/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


I see you up to your old tricks changing what I say and arguing against your own inventions. I actually said "Creation" because it was a historical event not an "ism".



Just because you WANT it to be true does not make it so. We're not living in medieval times any more, feel free to advance your thinking.


That's the theme of the video. Advance your primitive thinking! Just because atheists believed in the steady state theory of an infinite universe did not make it so. The primitive belief of the Steady State held until the 1980s has been replaced by the evidence of the Big Bang creation. The creation event is established by einsteins relativity, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, hubbles red shift and the background radiation found by the COBE satelire in space. You need to advance your thinking.

Just because you WANT to deny God doesn't make it so bigbert.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


So, let me get this straight...

You make a video about the Big Bang (which I don't doubt at all, despite what your atheist rules tell you), AND 'the cosmological argument for the existence of a supernatural Creator', and I have 'primitive thinking'?

Let's see here:

The end of the video says 'It's a very small probability', then it's immediately followed by 'That's a nice way to say it's impossible', followed again by the assumption 'Everything that begins to exist has a cause', then makes the correlation that says 'Our universe began to exist', then follows with the summation and assumption that 'Therefore our universe has a cause', then it goes on to say that the 'cause' created nature, so therefore, it must be 'supernatural'.

Okaaaaay, am I the only one that sees something wrong with this? So this video basically says that because our universe exists despite odds to which are truly unknown due to the probability of creation through sheer numbers alone, that God must have created it. C'mon Whammy, come up with something solid here.

Granted, I did make an error when I said 'creationism' as that is not what YOU said, however, it IS what you are implying in your video. Universe creationism. The Big Bang theory is not the only theory, nor the only widely accepted theory that describes how the universe could have been created at one point in time.

And let me get this part straight too. You are saying (because you don't have the explanation yourself, therefore don't know) that something supernatural just made the universe for/with a cause, and I'M the primitive thinker here? Hmmm, 'I don't know, so let's just say God did it' is not the 'advanced thinking' you might think it is.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Pleeeeeaaaase...

You're right. Without your sad attempt at an insult, I would never have known that Whammy was talking about universe creationism instead of creationism vs. evolution. Thank you kind sir for showing that to me in such a kind and non-insulting manner.

Pfffft.


[edit on 7/5/2008 by bigbert81]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


So, let me get this straight...

You make a video about the Big Bang (which I don't doubt at all, despite what your atheist rules tell you), AND 'the cosmological argument for the existence of a supernatural Creator', and I have 'primitive thinking'?

Let's see here:

The end of the video says 'It's a very small probability', then it's immediately followed by 'That's a nice way to say it's impossible', followed again by the assumption 'Everything that begins to exist has a cause', then makes the correlation that says 'Our universe began to exist', then follows with the summation and assumption that 'Therefore our universe has a cause', then it goes on to say that the 'cause' created nature, so therefore, it must be 'supernatural'.



I wonder did you even listen to Dr Lennox describe the odds bert? That small probability is what is called statistically absurd bert. It is very primitive to believe it happened by accident.



Okaaaaay, am I the only one that sees something wrong with this? So this video basically says that because our universe exists despite odds to which are truly unknown due to the probability of creation through sheer numbers alone, that God must have created it. C'mon Whammy, come up with something solid here.


Solid? My argument is a lot more solid than random chance. Again you are creating your own words to argue against bert. It says because the universe began to exist it has a cause. The law of causation is what science is founded on. Whatever caused creation created the laws of physics and nature itself - so it is by definition "supernatural" - thus it is a quite a reasonable inference to what is commonly called God. The odds are to support life. A randomly occurring universe should be lifeless by the odds. But we have precision and fine tuning for life.

Much more solid than the random chance canard championed by materialists.



Granted, I did make an error when I said 'creationism' as that is not what YOU said, however, it IS what you are implying in your video. Universe creationism. The Big Bang theory is not the only theory, nor the only widely accepted theory that describes how the universe could have been created at one point in time.


Big Bang Creation is the consensus and has the evidence to back it up. The other so called theories I've seen have no evidence. They amount to desperate attempts by materialists to escape the philosophical implications of the creation event.

At least Antony Flew was honest enough to follow the evidence even though it embarrassed him.



And let me get this part straight too. You are saying (because you don't have the explanation yourself, therefore don't know) that something supernatural just made the universe for/with a cause, and I'M the primitive thinker here? Hmmm, 'I don't know, so let's just say God did it' is not the 'advanced thinking' you might think it is.


No I personally do know. I have an awesome explanation bert. I even have a personal relationship with the creator himself. It's poor little lost atheists who need to be guided to the truth. I have pity on you for that. I really do.

And sorry yes it is quite primitive to believe the universe is a random accident. Explosions don't create order by themselves.

....but savage might be a more apt term for your displayed demeanor.




[edit on 7/5/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 




I wonder did you even listen to Dr Lennox describe the odds bert? That small probability is what is called statistically absurd bert. It is very primitive to believe it happened by accident.


And I wonder, did you even bother to read my last post? Yes, I did hear Dr. Lennox describe the 'red coin' thing, and him admitting to a 'chance', especially when it's not known how many 'chances' are given in any period of time (I have a 1 in 10 chance of picking the right number, but I get 100 tries every day), does by no means make it 'impossible', as you would like your viewers to believe.



Solid? My argument is a lot more solid than random chance.


Really? 'God must've made it' is 'solid' to you? Well, now I can see what I'm dealing with.



Again you are creating your own words to argue against bert.


I don't think I've ever dealt with anyone as delusional as you are. Firstly, you claim that you 'trounced' me on my 'What the World Needs...' thread, and now you accuse me of using a strawman technique? Get real, Whammy. I am sticking with the issues here, so to try and use poorly suited accusations as a means of winning your argument is low, very low, even for you.



It says because the universe began to exist it has a cause.


No, Whammy. Just because it exists does not mean it has a cause. You're making stuff up again.



Whatever caused creation created the laws of physics and nature itself - so it is by definition "supernatural"


Hmmm...



su·per·nat·u·ral Audio Help /ˌsupərˈnætʃərəl, -ˈnætʃrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
–noun
5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
6. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
7. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.


Okay, I'll buy that one, but once again, this is where you lose me:



thus it is a quite a reasonable inference to what is commonly called God.


Here now, I would assume that we would need some sort of definition of what 'God' is. Knowing you are a Christian, I have to assume that when you say 'God', you are referring to the Christian God. I hope you, of course, are NOT making the crucial mistake of saying that 'A (being the definition of 'supernatural')=X ('supernatural') and B (definition of 'God')=Y (God)', therefore X must equal Y, because that's what I'm seeing going on here. Because of this, I can't quite agree with your 'reasonable inference' label.



Big Bang Creation is the consensus and has the evidence to back it up. The other so called theories I've seen have no evidence. They amount to desperate attempts by materialists to escape the philosophical implications of the creation event.


Firstly, I do not necessarily doubt the Big Bang theory at all, I'm simply saying that it's not the only accepted version.

This, is a rather interesting read:

www.bbc.co.uk...

It talks of a MULTIverse, not a UNIverse. It has more explanations in it than 'Well something had to create it, so therefore God exists'. This link is a much more scientifically accepted model to the uni/multiverse's origin and creation.

This link alone should help get those wheels turning. THIS is quickly becoming the 'consensus'. Sorry if it blows your theory about God and the creator of the Big Bang sky high...



No I personally do know.


Uggggh. *Shakes head*.

You 'know', or you want to believe? How noble you are when someone challenges your belief in God, and therefore your faith. I'm sure you'll get extra points for that one, so feel good about it, since you have apparently shut your mind off to other possibilities. Of course, EVERYONE 'knows' their beliefs are correct, right?



It's poor little lost atheists who need to be guided to the truth. I have pity on you for that. I really do.


Yes, poor little me, who challenges my beliefs over and over again in an attempt to gain more knowledge. Pity me, please...oh wait, you apparently already do. It must feel good to just shut out all evidence and science for a belief system for which you feel comfortable, doesn't it? BTW, I've never admitted to being an atheist.

*shakes head again*



And sorry yes it is quite primitive to believe the universe is a random accident. Explosions don't create order by themselves.


Read the link above. That's all I need to say to address this quote of yours.



....but savage might be a more apt term for your displayed demeanor.


Ahhh yes, and here come the insults. Boy, it's a good thing that you felt your post wasn't quite complete without the usual insult thrown in at the last moment. I was getting worried there.

I'm looking to science and logic, and you're looking for magic. Which do you think is more 'savage'?



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
And I wonder, did you even bother to read my last post? Yes, I did hear Dr. Lennox describe the 'red coin' thing, and him admitting to a 'chance', especially when it's not known how many 'chances' are given in any period of time (I have a 1 in 10 chance of picking the right number, but I get 100 tries every day), does by no means make it 'impossible', as you would like your viewers to believe.


Aye, t'is amazing. These probability arguments from creationists suck. To make such an argument would require us to fully know the bounds of the event and outcomes, we know nothing about such things.

In fact, simulations from the likes of Stenger show how we can change some fundamental constants and still result in universes that produce stars capable of nucleosynthesis.

Just another god of the gaps argument. The universe is so fine-tuned that for all we know it took around 10 billion years for the first life to form on one single planet, which has seen over 95% of its life wiped out much by massive catastrophies, which took another 3-4 billion years for people to worship this supposed creator in their diverse and idiosyncratic ways, in one small area of the universe which is predominately empty space completely hazardous to life, near a star that will eventually go boom, in a universe heading towards heat death.

Yeah, the universe is fine-tuned for life. You see it must be fine-tuned, because life exists, therefore teh god must exist, and I'm so very special!!! The logic is untouchable, lol. Indeed, the universe is fine-tuned for whammy to make his vacuous arguments because, look, he just did! What were the chances of that, eh? Who'd have thunk it...

I watched the video last night, was very funny actually. Full of naff creationist canards. "An explosion that created order!!eleventyone1!", rofl. I just know any response to the OP is not worth my time.

Honestly, Bert, you're wasting your time here, dude. You're in a reason-free zone.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I respect that you personally believe in creationism. However, personal belief does not equate to scientific fact. If anything, creationism is merely a philosophical point of view. Nothing more. Nothing less.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 



And I wonder, did you even bother to read my last post? Yes, I did hear Dr. Lennox describe the 'red coin' thing, and him admitting to a 'chance', especially when it's not known how many 'chances' are given in any period of time (I have a 1 in 10 chance of picking the right number, but I get 100 tries every day), does by no means make it 'impossible', as you would like your viewers to believe.


Its was 1 in 10 ^40 it is called statistically absurd or statistically impossible.

How many times? Canard city... Creation only happens once.

Are you actually arguing 1 in 10^40 is something likely to occur?


That is only one of many factors that are to similar tolerances. When you put them all together it is over whelming. This video was an an overview. The whole of the anthropic principle evidence is converting honest atheists like Dr Flew.



Really? 'God must've made it' is 'solid' to you? Well, now I can see what I'm dealing with.


Yes... You are dealing with a believer in God.

I claimed the evidence for the creation event was solid.



No, Whammy. Just because it exists does not mean it has a cause. You're making stuff up again.


It's called a logical proof. It is rock solid as well. I would love to see you shoot a hole in it.

And honestly! I am trying to be more civil but JPhish nailed you perfectly L2R bert. That has always been my issue with you - it makes it very hard fo rme to be nice - when you over simplify everything and just refute straw men. And I am trying. I keep editing out my satires. But it needs to be said.

I never said "it exists therefore it has a cause".

Science is founded on the law of causation which is premise one.
Read the first premise over 3 times until the difference sinks in:

1."Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
2. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
3. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"

Do you deny that? Well you can throw out science then. Science is a search for causes.

The second premise is "the universe began to exist". This the one atheists used to deny creation with until the evidence squashed their primitive eternal universe beliefs. So do you deny that? Then you are stuck in a 19th century view of physics. Most people would call that primitive.

From their you need to take a logic lesson on Modus ponens because
but if 1 and 2 are true the universe has a cause.

bigbert you are a smart enough guy it is just that as long as you deny God it will always be that way. So the solution to your problem is simple enough. Stop denying the reality of God and your reason and logic problems will be solved.


perhaps you should read Dr Antony Flews book:





Here now, I would assume that we would need some sort of definition of what 'God' is. Knowing you are a Christian, I have to assume that when you say 'God', you are referring to the Christian God. I hope you, of course, are NOT making the crucial mistake of saying that 'A (being the definition of 'supernatural')=X ('supernatural') and B (definition of 'God')=Y (God)', therefore X must equal Y, because that's what I'm seeing going on here. Because of this, I can't quite agree with your 'reasonable inference' label.


Fair enough. I am not claiming this proves the Christian God specifically.
But a Supernatural (which you conceded) cause of the universe meets the broad definition of God pretty well. I still make the claim it is a very reasonable inference. My extrapolation to Chritianity is based on other factors - I concede that.

My main goal here was to establish the case for a creator in broad terms.



t talks of a MULTIverse, not a UNIverse. It has more explanations in it than 'Well something had to create it, so therefore God exists'. This link is a much more scientifically accepted model to the uni/multiverse's origin and creation.

This link alone should help get those wheels turning. THIS is quickly becoming the 'consensus'. Sorry if it blows your theory about God and the creator of the Big Bang sky high...


Ohhhhh noessss the universe is so finely tuned that it can't be an accident so "Just add universes"


I have studied it. It is only the consensus amoung desperate materialists who want to explain away the anthropic principal that Dr Lennox was talking about. The impossible oddas that convinced Antony Flew.

So "just add universes" is a lot crazier than "Goditit". It offers no explanation for where they came from. Back to the primitive denying of the second law of thermo. Back to denying Einstein. Its called New Age dreaming. There is zero evidence for it which is even admitted by its proponents. Its just and idea for thise trying to escape the philosophical implication of the Creation event.




You 'know', or you want to believe? How noble you are when someone challenges your belief in God, and therefore your faith. I'm sure you'll get extra points for that one, so feel good about it, since you have apparently shut your mind off to other possibilities. Of course, EVERYONE 'knows' their beliefs are correct, right?


I know it as well as I can know anything else. Yes my personal testimony is that if you ask the Lord God in a humble manner he will reveal himself to you in a way you will never be able to deny. I suggest you try it sometime. It does require sincerity. But a couple billion people agree with me. However, I don't speak for everyone.



Yes, poor little me, who challenges my beliefs over and over again in an attempt to gain more knowledge. Pity me, please...oh wait, you apparently already do. It must feel good to just shut out all evidence and science for a belief system for which you feel comfortable, doesn't it? BTW, I've never admitted to being an atheist.


No you seem to be the closed minded one. Any thing but God....

Claiming secular humanism and that we should do away with religion is considred atheism to most folks. I believe you did make that claim. You also repeatedly ridicule belief in God. But I understand. I would never want to confess a canard belief like atheism either.



Ahhh yes, and here come the insults. Boy, it's a good thing that you felt your post wasn't quite complete without the usual insult thrown in at the last moment. I was getting worried there.
I'm looking to science and logic, and you're looking for magic. Which do you think is more 'savage'?


I said "might be a more apt term for your displayed demeanor. " referring to your hostility to God. It is a reasonable description of your attitude not an insult.

In Review

You invoked the "how many times" creation happened canard to explain Oxford Mathematician Dr John Lennox facts. Which is completely illogical.

You denied the rock solid cosmological proof. So you must deny premise one or two to deny the consequent.

Premise one is the logical law of causation. Science is founded on it. So you have to deny logic and science to deny premise one.

Premise two was "the universe had a beginning". The Big Bang is sciences best answer. So to deny premise two you deny science.

Then you invoked M- theory (multple universe) to try to rationalize the anthropic principle.



According to Witten and others, the M in M-theory could stand for master, mathematical, mother, mystery, membrane, magic, or matrix. Witten reluctantly admits the M in M-theory can also stand for murky due to the fact that the level of understanding of the theory is so primitive.
en.wikipedia.org...


So the M actually stands for "magic" bigbert .

What did you say?



"Im looking to science and logic, and you're looking for magic."


You denied logic. You denied science. You invoked magic.

Thanks for playing.


[edit on 7/5/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


This is great mr Whammy

thanks for spending, what is obviously a great deal of time on this.

david



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

No I personally do know. I have an awesome explanation bert. I even have a personal relationship with the creator himself. It's poor little lost atheists who need to be guided to the truth. I have pity on you for that. I really do.



[edit on 7/5/2008 by Bigwhammy]


it was a nice video and i was personally rooting for you whammy until you made this statement. i guess i'm what you call an 'atheist' in that i do not beleive in any religions and as for beleiving in god i agree that 'it' might be out there but in a way/shape/form that is different from what anyone has ever thought of.

As an 'atheist'(don't like to use this word because it's a label used for everyone who has no religion or no beleif in god and there's more out there than that) i do not need to be guided to the truth nor am i lost....but really i was rooting for you until you said you 'personally do know' and you 'personally have a relationship with the creator himself'. if it wasn't for that i would have said nice theory and all, good work, because i am not an atheist, but rather a seeker of the TRUTH.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by knowledgefound
 


I admit I am human. It just gets tedious facing the same old canards from the God deniers. I do have pity on those who do not know the reality of God. It would be cruel not to. You are what I would call an agnostic not an atheist. There is a difference. Don't be an atheist.

But I truly did have a spiritual experience that is beyond anything I can type out as a logical argument. So yes I do claim to know God. This is a claim made by many and it is supported with lots of testimony. I believe anyone can this relationship, if you approach with humility.


[edit on 7/5/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
The improbability and statistics are not the only points your video makes although they are damn good one regardless of what anyone thinks of me for saying so. People who guffaw at such things appear to be unaware of the intricate mathematical organization and the the rational intelligibility of the universe. To me that is screaming out the existence of a creator.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Hi I have read the discussion up to here. Unfortunately this is very much a God of the gaps argument and basically boils down to- 'well noone can understand it and therefore it must be designed by a divine creator.' The amount of times that this type of reasoning has been proven false by scientific advances means that I cannot take this type of argument seriously. Other people have put forward the peramaters for something to be 'scientific fact' and although your video do have some good points, in no way does anything put forward constitute scientific fact.

Despite the fact that an intelligent creator is not a scientific fact, it is not necessarily wrong either. You cannot prove a negative. I think that the word 'supernatural' is a redundant word because everything in nature has to be natural including 'God.'

I could go on and on but in summary you have provided food for thought but definately not proof of God.

Also the improbability argument is silly to me for several reasons, the main one being that life doesn't necessarily have to be life as we know it Jim.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join