It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Big Bang Proves Creationism

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Aceofclubs
 





people just have a hard time letting go


Of course you are right about this. I think people, especially have a hard time letting go, when there is no reason to.


So you find it perfectly reasonable to believe the earth, the entire universe in fact, was created about 6000 years ago (give or take). You see no fallacys with that...this makes perfect sense to you and your well educated on the subject...

nothing...you would change nothing about the old religions claims at all, nor twist the words to mean something different...




posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Whether by god, gods, or a giant unicorn, creation must be a part of all theories of origin. Were all we know to not have a starting point, had it always existed in some form, would negate the existence of time. Can anyone argue that time does not exist?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalunom


  1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
  2. The universe exists.
  3. The universe must have a cause.



1) False.
2) True.
3) False.


Originally posted by kalunom
Often the argument against Creationism is based in Evolutionary theories. I would like to go back a wee bit further into the origin of our species; The Big Bang.


Big Bang is just another absurd creationist myth, it's essentially the genesis myth from the bible without mentioning god. It's ridiculous and pointless. There is no reason to suspect the universe ever had an origin, or that it is anything other than infinite in size and ageless.


Originally posted by kalunom
Also, the universe we know is expanding.


False.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


why would you believe a book that tells story of noahs ark, virgin births and all manner of impossibility as total fact
if it happened back then why dose it no longer happen(the magic)

i say take the useful info let go of the story



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Later, that cop-out became unnecessary as a result of the work of Delauney, and more importantly, Poincaré , who developed perturbation theory.


Yet "perturbation theory" is another cop-out, they might as well call it masturbation theory. Further, the "three body problem" will never be solved because it relies on the faulty premise that "gravity" is a real force that governs the motion of bodies in space, which is not what Newton ever proposed. Newton wisely proposed no cause for "gravitation", he proposed to explain the rules of attraction and motion, not the cause, that's a very different and metaphysical animal. We now know that all attraction and motion in the universe is governed by electromagnetic forces, not "gravity".



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dl2one
reply to post by kalunom
 


Is the big bang proven? Or just a theory.


It's neither. A theory is a hypothesis for which there is some evidence. There is absolutely no evidence of any creation event in the universe.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalunom
Whether by god, gods, or a giant unicorn, creation must be a part of all theories of origin. Were all we know to not have a starting point, had it always existed in some form, would negate the existence of time. Can anyone argue that time does not exist?


So, how much time in school should be set aside for teaching the unicorn hypothesis? What about the great sneeze religion, or Cronos, etc...
There are a zillion theories...here is the issue overall, how much time should be spent by educators and scientists investigating and teaching every single theory out there....or should it simply be ignored and only things with hard evidence be taught and researched?

If you were going to create a spaceship, and you had major investors to appease, how much time would you spend on making meditative travel work verses work just on propulsion? Remember, you have investors wanting to know where their money is going...you got a choice, spend it on trying to make a anti-gravity reactor for sub-light speed, or hire on 500 monks to try and pray things into speed because their religion suggests its possible.

Ya..see, the answer is coming from logic...you reject the claims you ultimately know are nonsense, yet you don't reject the principles of it because your ego is attempting to appear tolerant and spiritual...
Yet at the core, you know where you stand...most humans do...they just pretend to have a deeper faith than the next guy, because that is where we can pretend to be better than others (I am more spiritual than you, I have a greater truth than you, that makes me smart and your just some scientific monkey..)

Religion is nothing but egocentric persuits...and since there is no objective bar of "enlightenment", then you can pretend to be on top and a master at it...its a false accomplishment that many now get through video games verses religion



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherBear
Using your logic:

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. God exists.
3. God must have a cause.


Truth to the definition of omnipresent means must also "be present" (exist) INSIDE of absolute non-existence. The effort to "go there" is the kinetic construct that is the ONE infinitesimal singularity (infinite spherical division). Since that failed, angular kinetics upon that singularity at an infinite rate and infinite variations of angle produced:

1. The infinite expanse. Where the ONE singularity IS, as an expression of the "flight path".
2. The infinite nothingness. Where the ONE singularity IS NOT, as an expression of the "flight path".

Made Its own infinite domain of non-existence to enter. That's where the Universe and all the finites come in to serve as symbiotic communion proxies to partake of nothingness.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by dl2one
reply to post by kalunom
 


Is the big bang proven? Or just a theory.


Is gravity proven, or just a theory?

What is the difference between scientific theory and laymens theory?


The so-called force of "gravity" is not proven, nor is it a theory. A theory is a hypothesis for which there is some evidence. The idea that a force we call "gravity" exists has never been verified by any experiment. Attraction exists, to be sure, but it is apparent that all attraction and motion in the universe is governed by electromagnetic forces, which are real forces we can generate, amplify, manipulate and block at will. We can do none of those things with "gravity", suggesting it is fictional, a huge misunderstanding propagated as a religion over centuries.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





and your well educated on the subject...


Wow now who's exaggerating ? Let the record show what I now state. I've never been well edumacated on anything. Nothing. I know, you're shocked. I absolutly deny this accusation.

Through the eyes of a skeptic ?
I concede the creation story in Genesis, holds endless opportunities for mockery
and straight out childish insults. God may have chosen these mechanics or methods, just to present you with that opportunity.

Through the eyes of a believer ?
He is God !



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


The red shift is exposing things not directly in front of us, but things on the other side of the universe moving away from a point, things to the side


The so-called "cosmological red shift" is bunk. It is an intrinsic property of celestial objects, not an indication of speed or of distance. Observations, such as the ones CaptChaos suggested, lead us to believe "red shift" is only an indication of age and/or electrical stress on the body in question.


Originally posted by SaturnFX
Things directly in front or back of us are generally going about the same speed away, so then it measures only the movements in the local area


Gibberish.


Originally posted by SaturnFX
No, it doesn't show us to be the center...


Actually, if "red shift" is an indication of speed/distance, then not only must the Earth be in the center of the universe, but all of the stars in the "virgo cluster" are stretched out into two long fingers pointed directly at Earth. Clearly this is as absurd as calling them the "fingers of god". This "red shift" is no indication of speed or of distance.


Originally posted by SaturnFX
I recommend you take some basic astronomy classes


I recommend you forget everything you seem to think you know about astronomy. You appear to have learned, not astronomy, but astronogy. Astronomy is a science, you seem taken in by a bunch of storytelling and skygazing utterly bereft of any experimental verification, which is fundamental to science.


Originally posted by SaturnFX
I suspect you don't believe in anything, because your not fully aware of what it is to begin with...hard to believe in something your not educated on..it is up to you however to educate yourself or not..but I recommend if you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then don't hold any strong opinions on it overall, else you may look foolish (like me not believing in japan because I never bothered looking at a map)


You've offered nothing but some cartoons to prop up your belief system. I'm unconvinced, and I'm about as learned as is possible when it comes to "pop astronomy" or "astronogy" as I call it. I have no faith in astronogers to uncover any secrets of the universe, they are continually and perpetually mystified by what they observe in space. Every new observation spawns a new exception or hypothetical particle or force hitherto unimagined. That's not how physics works or any discipline of science.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalunom
Can anyone argue that time does not exist?


Time is an abstract coordinate system, it is utterly virtual, not something real, so yes, time does not exist (except in people's imaginations).



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by kalunom
 


Short answer: NO IT DOESN'T!

Long answer

First of all, your entire post contains ZERO evidence that would prove your claim. I will show you why...




1) Everything that exists must have a cause.
2) The universe exists.
3) The universe must have a cause.



This is a hasty generalization and not proof of anything. It's a deductive fallacy...

You're essentially saying the same as this:

Premise 1: If Portland is the capital of Maine, then it is in Maine.
Premise 2: Portland is in Maine.
Conclusion: Portland is the capital of Maine.

Even worse, you never even prove all premises.

How do you know everything has a cause? You might BELIEVE that, but unless you present proof, you can't make that claim.

For example, prove to me the cause of the universe! With OBJECTIVE evidence. If you can't, your first premise is useless.

You also claim the universe exists. Now, you could get all philosophical about it, but if we go with the "I think therefore I exist" saying...sure, the universe exists because we can perceive and think about it.

Now, your conclusion that therefore the "universe has a cause" doesn't make sense given the only thing you can really say is that the universe exists.

Anyway...




It is quite simple. The big bang created all that we now know and see. One could argue that this was not a creation as all that came from the big bang exploded from a singularity and hence was not created from nothing. Were that the case, however, how did the singularity come to be?


Scientists are trying to find out just that...but for now we simply don't know. If your answer is "god", then you're using the god of the gaps to fill a knowledge with "magic".






Also, the universe we know is expanding. Where is it expanding to?


Again, we don't know (yet).




I know the word creationism sticks in the craw of the anti-religious crowd. But, tell me, how can we hope of an explanation of the origin of our universe without considering Creationism? Science, while useful, can only take us so far.


Yes, there's tons we don't know...but that doesn't mean you can just make stuff up. The "god did it" claim has a HORRIBLE track record so far. In ancient times, people claimed the sun was "god" (they were wrong), or that god causes plagues (wrong again, we now know what causes plagues), or that comets are a sign of god (wrong again, we know about comets now), or that human sacrifice is a good idea (really?), or that people can survive inside whales (not a chance), or that there was a global flood (also wrong), or that 2 of each kind would fit in a wooden boat (riiiiight), and a ton of other stuff that is DEMONSTRABLY wrong.

You're just taking it a step further by doing exactly the same thing when it comes to the question of how everything started...a question we simply cannot answer yet. Working on it, just like they worked out how to fight plagues, but it might take us forever to figure it out. What's so hard in admitting you don't know? Why the need to make stuff up or believe in demonstrably wrong stuff others made up? Is reality that scary?
edit on 5-8-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aceofclubs
reply to post by randyvs
 


why would you believe a book that tells story of noahs ark, virgin births and all manner of impossibility as total fact
if it happened back then why dose it no longer happen(the magic)

i say take the useful info let go of the story


We enter this world green and uncivilised. We take on this existence with no instruction maniel. No one to model our lives after. With out anyone, who knows anything in the slightest, about what has been, is, or is going to go on. Or do we ? Upon realising this at a young age, and after having the guts, to make the best choice I could find, on my own, after looking extensively. It seems so typical of mankind, that while no one was there to help me make a choice. That BTW I am so happy with myself for making to this day. People telling me how stupid I am, or telling me how I made the wrong joice. Are by no means, in any short supply.

So what have you done with that, " Useful info " ? Get any use out of that?










edit on 5-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 
fair enough. yes i used much from the bibles morals but if i can't find a reason for something and following that part does not work for me i just disgaurd it

like the sins are all there for good reason and the comandments all make sense but i just can't accept magic as a reallity



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I love your guys debate --- I am thinking that I have found an answer that will be very enlightening to everyone:

Here is a little booklet that is the best explanation of God that I have ever heard. Even though this was written in `1960 in a very down-home style, it is so clearly written by someone very brilliant and interesting.

The analogies he uses are excellent ---

You can find it here on this website: www.williamsamuel.com...
It is a free pdf you can download-- at the top of that page.

Read it, you will be very glad you did. And after reading it, I am very sure you won't be able to deny that God exists.

Enjoy the brake through and brake out into the New Day!

Love, SweetM
edit on 5-8-2011 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Also need to add--- God is not caused by anything, It just Is, it is the very Isness of Being, Existence/Life -- since God is not caused by any cause, It is the First Cause, Source without source and That is why God is, God, It has no source, It is All That Is (That is incomprehensible to logic, that is why the Heart is important)--- God would not All and Omnipotent if God was 'some thing' or 'matter' or something that could be 'caused'--- All matter exists within the Mind of Godhead which is this Living Presence right here and now--- 'things' are the holographic images of God's Infinite Divine Light of Intelligence --- There really is only God and God's Awareness, which is this awareness right here reading or writing the words--- God is the essence of all things--- all the images (world experience, history, ufo's everything is included with God's Awareness--- 'things' thoughts and matter exit like images on a TV set (God is the Whole TV, images on the TV do not affect the TV Itself, but 'we ' can enjoy the movie--- Since we are the Awareness of God, not the image--- Really God is All That is, God is All in all--- God's Awareness includes the Whole Infinite Universe Entire including time-space totally forever---

Ok, that is my little spiel on it--

Love, SweetM
edit on 5-8-2011 by Sweetmystery because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Aceofclubs
 


Seems as tho we're down to perspectives. You ask me, " How can I believe in a book of the impossible?".

But I don't see how you make it thru life, not believing in the impossible. If there is no one existence that owns existence ? If there is no one who put all these intricate mechanisms together? Dosn't that make this whole damn place impossible ? Creationism isn't anything close to impossible, when the alternative is, the universe just farted it self together? WTF is that? Oh well we can explain all that ! Well, does explaining the mechanics of the design negate the designer ? Ever ? Nope just this one most important time of all. Right?

But ok fair enough.

Sweetmystery

Hey thank you for the link. Sounds like something completely new. I will be all over it after dinner. Very excited by your description.

edit on 5-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Well the big bang theory is well, just that, a theory. And according to the bible, god creates the universe in basically one week, where he created man at the end. This cannot be on the sure fact that dinosaurs existed on our planet 65 million years ago and back. Why are they not mentioned??? I am not discrediting the bible, I am just saying, that with every other culture and epoch of the world, we all perceive our beginning differently. The greeks had their gods to explain things, and the romans their own. The egyptians, aztecs, mayans, inca, ancient chinese, african tribes, north american tribes, they all have different creation stories. We may never be able to understand the universe, and for all we know, we might not supposed to understand. Its just too big to grasp



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
The complete ignorance of people on this board is astounding. 6,000 years, That was an assessment made by ancient man. Yes big bang does prove creationsim and it also proves there was another "world/dimension" that was the "base" from where the big bang was created. that base, Heaven.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join