Creation is a Scientific Fact

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Bigwhammy, nice video. While I no longer adhere to the belief that the only way our universe came to exist is by the work of God, I enjoyed your work. At the very least it was a good take on your point of view.

A few things came to mind as I watched it, and I will readily admit that some of it is quite abstract and unconventional. However I feel that any theory that man comes up with at this point in time is not likely to be proven true. There is far too much that we do not know about, and the result is that we are forced to base conclusions on theories about things like the Big Bang on what amounts to unprovable, though educated, guesses. Mind you, those guesses may lean heavily on scientific data, but there are far too many holes in our knowledge of space, time, and the universe, to go ahead and claim that any theory is THE right one.

On to my thoughts...

What if what we call the universe is not everything? I mean, if you look at pictures from our universe you see tons of galaxies. What if our universe, as we call it, is like a galaxy in a much bigger place, with tons of other universes? With our current technology it is challenging to observe what we believe to be the oldest objects in the universe, and those claims are frequently updated with new observations of even older objects. But what is beyond those? What if there is something we cannot see because it's so far beyond the edge of our "universe"? Perhaps this isn't an issue, because I'm sure the creation supporter will still insist that all of those "universes" had to be made somehow.


Your video does not address the oscillating universe theory. I'd like to learn your thoughts on that.

There is something that bothers me about the claim that huge odds were overcome for our universe to wind up the way it is. To me it seems that the creation perspective assumes that the only way things turned out the way they have is because something supernatural intervened. But what if the way physics, chemistry, biology, etc. operate, convene in such a way that those odds are totally inaccurate? Is there anything that dictates that if we could create 1 billion universes in test tubes and observe the product, that there couldn't be 250 million like ours?

Lastly, I have a question for you Bigwhammy. I noticed that in your video you did not really breach the subject of religion. However, when people see God being associated with any sort of creation, they jump to the conclusion that the God being mentioned is the God of Christianity. Is that an accurate assumption?

Thanks for sharing your work. Keep it up! Though not everyone is going to agree with what you put into it, I hope that doesn't discourage you from exercising your creativity and skills in the future.




posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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]


good point. and as for god i do beleive there is a good probability that he/she/it exists but in a way we cant or don't understand just yet. it's just that when people say they 'know', it's hard for people to beleive it and i understand that all too well. because when you say i have spoken to god or i saw him, people are going to say 'did you record the conversation' or 'when you saw him did you snap a picture' and i'm not one of those.

i embrace most theories or truths until they are proven false or obviously false from the beginning. and as for a 'logical argument', you won't get that in life i'm sorry to say. only because other people will also argue 'logically' but only with things that further prove there own beleif or prove that the person bringing forth an idea is stupid/dumb/religious/ a nutjob. only when we add up everything(mythology/science/religion/experiences/witness accounts) then the answer will be found. not by stcking to one way to search for answers, but by using everything we can use.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
ive always said myself..

at one point not even matter energy existed...or matter

even if it was a bigbang....something had make the bigbang happen...

if nothing existed..nothing can't make something happen.

and i can not think of anything that can turn nothingness into everything we know.
besides a god or creator.


[edit on 5-7-2008 by beforetime]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by beforetime
 


Indeed, but who or what created the creator??

[edit on 5-7-2008 by Sannhet]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Hi Big Whammy,
Very interesting ...... lots of thought went into this presentation. You had a good flow of ideas until the ending when you make the grand announcement that a god made the universe. Please explain in any future productions which god. Am I to assume that it is the god you worship? That is a rather big headed view of things don't you think? I would also like to comment on your use of plenty of photographs of Albert Einstein, the famous atheist. He along with the majority of the worlds scientists would have to disagree with your film, as religion and the belief in fairy tales such as your god, has been the strongest force in history holding back the flow of knowledge to the people of this earth. If I could offer one bit of advice to you......that in the future, think things through before wasting so much time and effort in creating such "uninformed claptrap" (as Einstein was know to have said).
Cheers,
Richard



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Sannhet
 


I think we can probably save that question for another day or thread, but for a quick response from my personal beliefs: God, as is written, is supposed to exist OUTSIDE of time, so therefore any given amount of time here in our universe is irrelevant to God since it doesn't have any effect on him.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
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.'


Actually, we are saying the exact opposite and this is yet another materialist canard and strawman. Things are so finely tuned and organized and it is fascinating that we can make sense of it. It's not a garbled mess of disorder that we cannot understand or make any sense out of. I will paste what I just said in my previous post:

"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 rational intelligibility of the universe. To me that is screaming out the existence of a creator."

That is the point.

[edit on 7/5/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sannhet
reply to post by beforetime
 


Indeed, but who or what created the creator??



That's a canard as well. The creator created the fourth dimension as well as the other 3. The fourth is time. He created time so he is not bound by it, i.e. eternal.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


It seems to me that here's a much easier rebuttal for the "fine tuning" of the universe argument Mel. The counter argument is that life tuned itself to exist within the universe. Since you claim that life happened by chance. This is a very logical "out" for you.

For example. If the universe was completely nitrogen based. The lifeforms that would form in it (by chance) would utilize nitrogen. The carbon based lifeforms of our universe would not be able to survive in this place. This new universe could still be considered "tuned for life". But a different kind of life.

It's like saying that the north pole is "tuned" for polar bears to live. When in actuality, the polar bears may have once been grizzly bears which adapted to the north poles environment.

The only possible problems that still remain, are why would there be a "grizzly bear"/"possibility of life" to begin with; and what are the odds that the "polar bear"/"life" would be realized?

[edit on 7/5/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
This should be fun to watch. Be careful, you're in much more hostile ground on YouTube than you are here, and people WILL call you on any misconceptions, misinterpretations, and misinformation. Hopefully you won't go the route of VenomFangX and decide to stifle discourse and censor and filter your comments.

If you're really good (lol) you might end up as the guest of honor in one of Thunderf00t's WDPLAC series.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
It seems to me that here's a much easier rebuttal for the "fine tuning" of the universe argument Mel. The counter argument is that life tuned itself to exist within the universe. Since you claim that life happened by chance. This is a very logical "out" for you.


Indeed, J. There are actually many reasons why the fine-tuned argument is vacuous. But why should I bother taking the time? Most of the arguments against such gap-filling are readily available, and I pinpointed one physicist who has tackled this issue - Stenger. If anyone cares, they can hunt them down.

Douglas Adams stated a simple outline of the silliness of such anthropic thinking...


imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.


How can one argue with rational intelligibility of the universe and mathematical intricacy as evidence, lol. So to falsify, the universe would need to be rationally unintelligible and mathematically simple? Why is one an argument for god and the other not? There is no logical reason why one is positive evidence and the other negative. Could a god not make a rationally unintelligible universe which is mathematically simple? Are we putting restrictions on omnipotent, omniscient, omni etc etc things now?

However, I'm not sure I ever said life happened by chance. Just most likely non-directed by the think 'n poof of a creator. Not the same thing.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

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.


First. Hard work. Good for you. In your creation you made terrific use of CREATIONS of other people. You made a real story about it. So kujos to you. You made a point. Out of respect for your trouble I will respond.

By oppositioning theoretical points of view from different people you do not create facts. You just weigh one point to another. They have no scientific consequence, because science deals with data (and NOT only material data as is suggested, but things you can measure (quantify) and weight against each other, for the same reason a lot of "medical facts" are not scientific facts, any physician will support this. In a lot of cases were people heal, it is not known why, but it is known that it happens, sometimes through placebo effect, which is seen as the selfhealing power of the body.) We cannot weigh this universe agaist something else that is not a creation, because it includes all.

So if the proclaimer of theory A appears to be wrong, it does not mean that the proclaimer of theory Z is automatically right.
One atheist can say this and another that and they are not hanging by the thread of one theory, although some texts may suggest that. The same goes for believers of a creation of the universe.

One of the often used reasons and also mentioned in your video to defend a "creation" is that the universe is SO COMPLEX or SO PERFECTly organized (except for the killing all around by the creatures roaming down below) that is MUST be created, it CANNOT be coincidence.

There are TWO (2) things "proofed" in above sentence.
1. Anyone who says it is annoyingly arrogant. Because anyone who says that something is complex, only provides you with the parameters and level of simplicity of his own mind. "Complex" or "perfection" are OUR definitions, words out of OUR mouth. They do not describe anything outside ourself, besides that THAT WHAT IS outside is more then what we see as simple.
SO what are we saying when we find the universe so complex that it must be created? We are saying that we are a brilliant being because we understand so much, but something out there is more brilliant that us, because if we can't analyse it in simple terms, there must be a GOD! He/she did it. ONLY HE can stand above us. So WE must be pretty big. We understand EVEN that. Arrogance. Besides the obvious fact that people get some thrill out of the CREATIONstories. If it is a creation, there is a REASON for my existence. He loves me. Coincidence is also a reason, just another one which gives less food to our ego. Even if it is spiritual orientated, it is still a ego.

While the cold and hard conclusion should be maybe that we are just a bit stupid. Nature is more complex than us. We do not understand time and space to the core. So work on it, while knowing that logically you never ever will know all there IS. Logically, because we will never know stuff that is energetically not profided for, which we cannot match, we as humans don't "agree" with.

2. The other point the sentence shows is that we think in opposing points. We have bipolar minds. Yes/no, good/bad, perfect/imperfect, coincidence/fate (creation for most).
In the bipolar mind there is not much room for doubt, conclusions we want, yes or no. It is one or the other. Our mind has a tendency to unify all its data. We want to put evreything in ONE closet. This is such a good feeling, it is called Synthesis. She is a beauty and makes us feel terrific, it is like our head grows if we had a Synthesis fix. In most cases these meltings or inlining of our mental data are generalizations. I did a lot of those in my days and most of them proof wrong, just give them time. Still we need the Synthesis, it is a sort of enlightenment. We seem to go outside ourselves in the event. I cannot be bad. It is not. Just don't pay to much atttention to it or bet your live on the outcome.

I am not a atheist, because they make the same mistake the believers do, they jump to conclusions no one can make. So they are both believers.
Nothing wrong with that, but please do not jump back into the room after you spoke with mother theory or GOD and say that is is a scientific fact.

I will make this point a little stronger. When you are trying to PROOF your believe in creation as scientific fact to others, you are not much of a believer IMO. A true believer does not have anything to proof. He just believes, that is the beauty of it.

In the same manner it is my persuasion to persistently NOTknow, although I am trying every day to learn, and I learn, but these 19th century discussions between "atheist " and "religious" standpoints are truly bygones. In this age we KNOW that we don't know, ask any scienstist. He will say to you, we know some things some times, and then time passes.

Really, you can stand on both feet, eyes fixed on the horizon and work for a better world, whilest not knowing if it is creation or coincidence. A just takes a little spirit. It is a thrill to be here.





[edit on 5-7-2008 by Pjotr]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Things do not happen by 'chance'. There is cause and consequence on an infinitely intricate scale, all the way back to the bang, which certainly happened. Also, calling evolution chance is misunderstanding natural selection and biology in general.

Some mathematicians last year claimed to have mathematical proof (take that as you will) that our universe sprung into existence from two other universes colliding. Now, regardless of that, I only posted that to display the possibility of the creation of the universe, a less strange explanation that for it to have come from nothing at all completely.

Points to you for the effort made to make the video, absolutely. That shows determination, and kudos to you for that. Keep up the efforts. Those are what make us go far in this life.

Consider the following. Rather than calling our very unlikely existence here on Earth a divine act, would not any lifeform managing to develop to sentient beings and understanding how unlikely it is to have come so far, more easily develop a belief in a creator, compared to being a member of a race in a universe where life was abundant, the stars were very close and most knew of and communicated with 'alien' neighbours so to speak?

Granted, it is incredibly statistically unlikely for us to be here, but given the absolutely incomprehensible amount of stars and galaxies that we can see so far, there is statistical likehood of there being life on billions of planets. Compared to the sheer amount of planets in the universe, this number is still small, but some of them have to make it, and in my opinion there the post-rationalization happens and declares a divine hand must have interferred, if you understand my meaning. We are the lucky ones, no doubt about that, but I must say that I do lean heavily towards there not being a benign or malign consciousness involved.

That being said, I'll be happy to reconsider my opinion at any time. I have an open mind, and refuse to entrench myself. Also, I think if everyone posted outside their own trenches, with a more pragmatic stance, we'd get farther so much more quickly, but yes, granted, no matter who you are, everyone tires of hearing entrenched fanaticality, which often results in the furthering of ones own entrenchment.

When posting, one should consider if the post one is about to make, serves a purpose for discussion, or only for the furthering of self. We all have made mistakes like that, each and every one of us.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I must say, Bigwhammy, that video was done very well. As a fellow believer in God, creationism and yes, science, your video did a very good job of presenting not only facts, but also revelations to other people that suggest something supernatural did take place. The video itself was very well put together. Hats off to you for having enough balls to share this on ATS. Thanks for sharing.
Oh, and good choice of music.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.


I've already answered you on this before.

But it is not the end of the puddle, isn't it.
It is changed from a puddle to water vapor and is taken into the atmosphere. There it will meet all of the little puddles that have gone on before and the circle of of life will continue.

I believe I said this would be an analogy of reincarnation more than anything else, including materialistic atheism.
Puddle ---> Vapor ---> Rain ---> Puddle. Oopsie.

Death isn't the end of our story and it isn't the end of the little puddle's.

Atheists probably need to quit using that tired analogy and let the Buddhists have it instead.

[edit on 7/5/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
I've already answered you on this before.

But it is not the end of the puddle, isn't it.
It is changed from a puddle to water vapor and is taken into the atmosphere. There it will meet all of the little puddles that have gone on before and the circle of of life will continue.


A bit like how organisms turn back into the component parts on death and provide sustenance and materials for new organisms? Or like how we are made of recycled stars? All of which is evidence-based, of course.

The universe is quite stunning. To think you really are made of stardust.

Or do you mean in a way like your personality/soul will supposedly survive death? Which is nothing more than faith-based wishful thinking.


[edit on 5-7-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Or do you mean in a way like your personality/soul will supposedly survive death? Which is nothing more than faith-based wishful thinking.


No, I mean what I said: That analogy sucks when it comes to making the point atheists want it to.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
No, I mean what I said: That analogy sucks when it comes to making the point atheists want it to.


I suppose it does when it fails to be understood and is misused by creationists.

It fits rather well with what J said actually, in that we evolved to fit the universe, and it is silly to think that is the only life possible. But it goes a step further and is congruent with the notion that the universe is not very friendly for life as a whole, considering as we spend our time waffling about how bad creationist arguments are, the sun is using up its finite fuel, the universe is likely heading towards heat-death, and every few million years massive catastrophies wipe out most species on this little blue planet during one small fraction of the life of the universe in one arm of a single galaxy. To be so egocentric and anthropic to think the universe revolves around our little lives.

Of course, it was fine-tuned for us to waste our time on the intertubz. That is self-evident and rationally intelligible.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I suppose it does when it fails to be understood and is misused by creationists.


Oh dear me. Another canard: Those pesky unintelligent and dishonest little creationists. This thread is turning into a Where's Waldo game. Let's dress the canards up into a red and white striped shirt, give them a funny hat with a ball on the top, and try to find as many as we can.


No, Mel. I understood and did not misuse it. I simply saw further than the creator of that analogy did. They see it from a materialistic perspective which blinded them from seeing any further concerning the fate of the puddle. It's a poor analogy. Plain and simple.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
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're lying and you know it. How do I know this? Well, in this here post in a different thread I completely obliterated your "no evidence for multiple universes" nonsense.


originally posted by Sunsetspawn

IN AUGUST, radio astronomers announced that they had found an enormous hole in the universe... One team of physicists has a breathtaking explanation: "It is the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own," says Laura Mersini-Houghton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Standard cosmology cannot explain such a giant cosmic hole”


people.tribe.net...

But it's more than just the hole...

If the cosmic cold spot was all that Laura Mersini-Houghton and her colleagues had chalked up in the way of a prediction, it might be possible to dismiss it as a fluke. However, they claim they can explain two other anomalies in the WMAP measurements of the cosmic microwave background too.
The standard model of cosmology cannot explain why the hot and cold spots of the quadrupole and octupole are much closer in temperature than they are in other multipoles. But Mersini-Houghton says that the squeezing of our universe by neighbouring ones in her team's model leads to repulsive gravity and suppresses the quantum fluctuations that seeded matter. "This is turn depresses the temperature variations at the quadrupole scale, exactly as WMAP has seen," she says.

Also, the team has two other predictions that, if proven, would make an essentially rock solid case for us mere humans having actually observed the effects of a nearby universe.

They predict that there should be not one such giant void but two: one in the northern hemisphere corresponding to the WMAP cold spot and one in the southern hemisphere. "We are hoping that a southern void will turn up in the data soon," she says.

The other prediction is that the The Large Hadron Collider WILL NOT have the energy required to produce supersymmetric particles

They hope to test what happened when the universe cooled below a certain temperature and underwent a phase transition, which broke supersymmetry. According to string models, the energy released during the phase transition drove inflation, and went on to create supersymmetric particles. Since the energy had to be sufficient to ensure the growth of our piece of vacuum, Mersini-Houghton and her colleagues can make an estimate of the energy scale of supersymmetry breaking. "We find it is about 100,000 times greater than generally believed," she says. "Therefore we predict that the LHC will not detect supersymmetry."



You NEVER addressed it, because you can't. So you press on and continue to lie about there being no evidence for multiple universes, all the while firing off ad hominem, passive aggressive garbage that you accentuate like a thirteen year old girl would in an argument concerning her favorite American Idol. Smilies do not give your argument any more truthiness no matter how many of them you post. Stop it. On ATS we try to deny ignorance, and you seem to promote it at every turn.


Here's the link to the article I mention in the above referenced post just in case readers are too lazy to click a post link to get to an article link...

ALSO...

Here are the peer reviewed, published papers on the subject, just for extra bonus...


As wasn shown in [19, 20] connectivity through the nonlocal entanglement of our domain with everything else on the multiverse left its imprints on the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and large scale structure (LSS), in various observables. Among them, it is worth mentioning: the prediction of a giant void [19] whose existence was later confirmed experimentally[21]; a suppressed 8 but an enhanced power with distinct signatures at higher multipoles in the power spectrum which is in agreement with the latest WMAP data release[26]; and, a higher SUSY breaking scale which will be tested this year by LHC.

arxiv.org...

This is source 19
arxiv.org...

This is source 21
arxiv.org...

Here's a link to Cornell's library database in case you'd like to read all of the sources, sources of sources, and so on, and so on.
arxiv.org...





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join