Atheist sees image of Big Bang in piece of toast

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Don't institutes usually research? Perhaps there's an institute for research on the big bang? I'm sure if there isn't a whole institute on it, there's a lot of scientists who research it anyway...

That is correct, instiutions generally do research. The Institute for Creation Research does not do research, nor has facilities for research, which is why they have not been granted status as an accredited educational institution for bestowing graduate degrees, which they so proudly promote on their web site. This institution is getting run over in the Chronicle of Higher Ed because they do not teach scientific methodology, but do promote several advanced degrees in earth sciences.

My grim is firm, Lanny. In any science, you have a theory, and you try to comfirm or contradict it, and then work from those conclusions. There is more to creation theory than just "and then we're here." There are other ways creation could have happened and only the close minded would fail to see that. The Big Bang is only one of the other theories, and scientists work hard to either confirm or deny plausibility, cause that's just what it is... And if they find something new, they input that data and keep going. You can redefine science so why can't you redefine religion?

The main problem (and there are many) with your position is that this "institute" does not redefine religion, it tries to redefine science, something it is not qualified to do. I know, that's just splitting hairs.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

There are other ways creation could have happened and only the close minded would fail to see that.

Okay, but we know that it didn't happen the way it goes down in the bible, which seems to be what "creationists" believe.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

That is correct, instiutions generally do research. The Institute for Creation Research does not do research, nor has facilities for research, which is why they have not been granted status as an accredited educational institution for bestowing graduate degrees, which they so proudly promote on their web site. This institution is getting run over in the Chronicle of Higher Ed because they do not teach scientific methodology, but do promote several advanced degrees in earth sciences.



The main problem (and there are many) with your position is that this "institute" does not redefine religion, it tries to redefine science, something it is not qualified to do. I know, that's just splitting hairs.

Well, I'm unaware of what the people there actually research then and I really could care less what they try to pass off, but there are researchers out there that are trying to scientifically research creation. So your problem then is only with what the whackos are doing? Do you think then that actual scientific research into different aspects of 'creation' is valid and legitimate?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Okay, but we know that it didn't happen the way it goes down in the bible, which seems to be what "creationists" believe.

Oh, so your problem is really just with the one type of creationist then. Do you think it's possible to believe in a form of creation other than what is written in the Bible but then still with God as the Creator?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Okay, but we know that it didn't happen the way it goes down in the bible, which seems to be what "creationists" believe.

Yes, there is a problem with someone taking the Bible 'literally'..'word for word.'

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, there is a problem with someone taking the Bible 'literally'..'word for word.'

Which is exactly why some (more rational people) actually believe in some form of creation, but not a literal interpretation of what was written in the Bible. It's a story. Duh.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Which is exactly why some (more rational people) actually believe in some form of creation, but not a literal interpretation of what was written in the Bible. It's a story. Duh.

Hey I agree.

Don't pile on me.

[burn_this_city]

I disagree, if God created everything than who created God? I dont see how this all knowing all seeing being just appeared and started creating stuff.. Creationists refuse to believe the universe just appeared, but they have no problem believe that God did..

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Well, I'm unaware of what the people there actually research then and I really could care less what they try to pass off, but there are researchers out there that are trying to scientifically research creation. So your problem then is only with what the whackos are doing? Do you think then that actual scientific research into different aspects of 'creation' is valid and legitimate?

Well, color me jaded, but I do care what research that actually takes place at "institutions" especially those that attempt to pass themselves off as "intitutions" that provide education in scientific methodology. You should care too. Because its faux institutions like this that fog important issues that impact everything from education to politics to actual hard science that does impact out lives (see climate change). I support any type of scientific reseach, as long a it is actual science, especially that which defines the begining of the universe. BTW, what makes you think the begining of our universe was the "moment of creation"? Isn't it possible that something existsed before the creation of "our" universe?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Well, color me jaded, but I do care what research that actually takes place at "institutions" especially those that attempt to pass themselves off as "intitutions" that provide education in scientific methodology. You should care too. Because its faux institutions like this that fog important issues that impact everything from education to politics to actual hard science that does impact out lives (see climate change).

Then stop giving them press. The louder you yell against these things, the longer they stay in view. Most people know how ridiculous it is, (I don't care to pay attention to their ######ed beliefs at all,) so all you're doing is drawing more attention to it by talking about it.

I support any type of scientific reseach, as long a it is actual science, especially that which defines the begining of the universe. BTW, what makes you think the begining of our universe was the "moment of creation"? Isn't it possible that something existsed before the creation of "our" universe?

Sure, it's possible. But I'm also open to that possibility. As far as my personal beliefs go, I don't think a person could pinpoint the beginning of creation, let a lone call the beginning of the universe the "moment of creation" when rather, I think God's been creating this whole time... You on the other hand, are not very open to the possibility that there was actually any hand in creation.

[REDVAN]

SCIENCE

RELIGION

Just thought I would throw those links out there before you guys get too far into your strawman arguments regarding science and religion.

[burn_this_city]

*sigh* Time to get this thread back on track..

[photon]

The only thing in this universe or any parallel universe better than a Calvin and Hobbes snowman cartoon strop is MANY Calvin and Hobbes snowman cartoon strips!!

And I think the exact moment I stopped being a boy and grew up was the moment when I realized that no matter how good one's snowcraft is, you can never create a real snowman depiction of any of those scenes that will do them justice. The realization creates a sadness that never quite goes away.

[burn_this_city]

Ive tried so many times.. The best I could do was all the little ones and pretend I'm a T-rex.. I wish I was young..

[Locke]

Thank God the humour has returned.....

[burn_this_city]

[burn_this_city]

[Dion]

[evman150]

Man, the last time I checked this thread it was all C&H cartoons! The intervening 100 posts are a veritable maelstrom of ignorance.

I scanned the thread...lots of crap by you know who, some good defence being played by Cheese and photon.

I'll add my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

BIG bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities - things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed

The CMB is not entirely isotropic. This is spoken as if it were fact, when the real fact is that if it were not for CMB anisotropies, we would not be here. On a sufficiently large scale the CMB is isotropic. On small scales it is not.

If you actually want to learn a little about the SCIENCE behind the big bang and the CMB specifically, have a little read through this link.

http://orca.phys.uvic.ca/%7Ejwillis/...5_lecture3.pdf

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Ahh... what passes for Science now days! Once upon a time something had to be observable to be considered fact. Today you can come up with a theory and if you can observe a few circumstances that could add weight to the hypothesis then your theory is anointed as truth. The observable fact that the universe appears to be moving away from a common origin could be seen as circumstantial evidence for the existence of a Creator but, instead scientist use it as proof for the big bang. If it isn't evidence for one it shouldn't be used as evidence for the other.

The "big bang theory" to quote you is just that: a theory. The reason why it doesn't try to answer where the material came from necessary for the hypothesis is it doesn't have an answer. Imagine that! It's like someone come up with a theory how a chocolate cake was formed without any help from a creator and without any idea where the ingredients came from.

Apparently you don't know the difference between a scientific theory and an OED theory.

Thought experiment time.

You go on vacation, leaving your house to your neighbours to keep an eye on. You come back and it's nothing but a pile of charred debris. What happened?

Fundies say God transformed it magically into that pile of charred debris. Scientists say it burned down.

Whose explanation is more plausible?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So if I started a post making fun of homosexuals knowing my view of their practice you would recomend that those offended should just ignore me. Come on! Me thinks there is a double standard here!

Non-sequitur.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

photon your above posts lacks information. You accuse me of being ignorant of the big bang theory and misrepresenting it and thats that. You make no attempt to impart knowledge yourself.

Here is a link to an article on the big bang theory. The fellow is a scientist but, he is also a creationist so I guess that gives you permission to disregard him.

http://www.icr.org/article/343/

Alright, let's go through this thing....

as protons and electrons combined to form hydrogen of atomic weight one, and neutrons were subsequently captured to form helium of atomic weight four.

False.

No oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, sulfur, copper, iron, nickel, uranium, or other elements existed.

False.

The universe consisted essentially of hydrogen gas.

False.

Then somehow, we are told, the molecules of gas that were racing out at an enormous speed in a radial direction began to collapse in on themselves in local areas by gravitational attraction.

Somehow? See the link on the CMB I provided above.

No satisfactory theory exists to explain any of these events

Has this guy never heard of CMB anisotropies?

Thus, based upon the so-called Cosmological Principle, it was postulated that the distribution of galaxies in the universe would be essentially uniform. No matter in which direction one looked, if one looked far enough, one would see the same number of galaxies. There would be no large scale clusters of galaxies or great voids in space. Recent research, however, has revealed massive superclusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. We exist in a very "clumpy" universe.

The universe is isotropic on sufficiently large scales. And recent research? Astronomers have known of galaxy superclusters and voids for decades. Real cutting edge...

These structures are much too big for the Big Bang theory to produce. At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed to be moving, it would require 80 billion years to create such a huge complex, but the age of the universe is supposed to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years.

I would really like to see the maths behind this assertion. I have a tough time believing it. And the age of the universe is not "somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years" (disputing size of range, not number). That's like saying the earth is somewhere between 1 and 10 billion years old. It's a small point, but it is asserting ignorance where there is in fact quite specific knowledge (13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr).

Okay at this point I see where he's going. He's disputing non-baryonic matter and the cosmological constant. Tough to argue with that I guess. It's just him disputing the burned down house again.

Alas, preliminary data from COBE announced in January, show absolutely no evidence of inhomogeneity in the background radiation.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html

Huh?

Eventually, all such theories will fail, for "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).

But of course.

Originally Posted by FireFly

The Big Bang is only one of the other theories, and scientists work hard to either confirm or deny plausibility, cause that's just what it is... And if they find something new, they input that data and keep going. You can redefine science so why can't you redefine religion?

Thought experiment time again.

A bank was robbed. Witnesses see four entities leave the bank. One is a dog, one is a three year old girl, another is an old lady in a wheelchair and the fourth is a twenty something male wearing a ski mask and holding a bag full of money.

Who robbed the bank? I have my theory...

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by evman150

Thought experiment time again.

A bank was robbed. Witnesses see four entities leave the bank. One is a dog, one is a three year old girl, another is an old lady in a wheelchair and the fourth is a twenty something male wearing a ski mask and holding a bag full of money.

Who robbed the bank? I have my theory...

Well, I find it kind of suspicious that a three year old girl would be coming out of the bank by herself. She must be with the old lady in the wheelchair and this brings us to the dog. Was this the dog?
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgur...icial%26sa%3DG

The old lady and the little girl were obviously sick with a very expensive disease and needed the money for their treatment and the dog was only helping them out. The dog's gone and he'll never talk. It's a conspiracy, I tell ya.