Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
TheVeryFirstDinosaur

Young Earth Creationism

167 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Stellar

Because it raises more questions than it answers. Where did "particle A" come from? Why and how did it activate the Big Bang? What evidence do we have for "particle A"? The most obvious reply I can see for these questions is "From the same place your creator comes from." But that answer means there is no reason not to credit a creator other than personal preference.

Well, where did "god" come from? Why and how did god activate the big bang? What evidence do we have for "god"?

My whole point with all of this was to address the issue that some people felt that the argument "What caused the big bang?" was some holy-grail of an argument for god. It is not, because just like you attribute properties to god, I can attribute them to a non-god. Neither one of us are any more correct than the other.

The Britanica Concise Encyclopedia defines it in this way: "Whole cosmic system of matter and energy of which Earth is a part. Its main constituents are the galaxies, within which are stars and stellar groupings and nebulae (see nebula). Earth's Sun is one star among the billions of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. All atoms, subatomic particles, and everything they compose are also part of the universe. The universe is governed by four fundamental forces: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and gravitation. Numerous theories have been proposed for the origin and structure of the universe. See also big bang; cosmology; expanding universe; steady-state theory."

I don't think the way I have been defining it is incorrect, this definition implies the same thing: the universe includes all "places" where the laws of nature apply.

It nowhere states that the universe is all the places" where the laws of nature applies though... It says that its the sum of physical matter and energy, and it is governed by four fundamental forces... That is much different than what you were defining it as. This definition doesnt state in any way that what is outside of the universe is not governed by any laws of nature. It leaves the possibility open to it being governed by either the four fundamental forces, or different forces, or none at all.

definition #4 fits how I have been using the term during this discussion.

Alright, so reason is logical, rational, analytic thought. Good. Now, how do you "analyze" something and apply logic to it if it has no pattern... Science is any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction, or reliably-predictable outcome. If the outside of the universe is logical, science would be able to correctly make certain predictions (based on logic). If the outside of the universe is analytical, science could analyze it and make predictions.

If you can not apply science to the outside of the universe, then it is because the outside of the universe is illogical, irrational and can not be analyzed... which would mean you can not apply reason to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Beckys_Mom

Well, where did "god" come from?

*Activates ithe typical instant christian responses * - God was always there !!

Why and how did god activate the big bang?

He had trapped wind and couldn't hold it in any longer lol

What evidence do we have for "god"?

Look around you - god is everywhere

*switches automatic typical reponses off*

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Well, where did "god" come from? Why and how did god activate the big bang? What evidence do we have for "god"?

My whole point with all of this was to address the issue that some people felt that the argument "What caused the big bang?" was some holy-grail of an argument for god. It is not, because just like you attribute properties to god, I can attribute them to a non-god. Neither one of us are any more correct than the other.

I agree which is why I have not attempted to say it is the only option, just that since we have no way to ascertain what it was, a creator god can't be summarily dismissed.

It nowhere states that the universe is all the places" where the laws of nature applies though... It says that its the sum of physical matter and energy, and it is governed by four fundamental forces... That is much different than what you were defining it as. This definition doesnt state in any way that what is outside of the universe is not governed by any laws of nature. It leaves the possibility open to it being governed by either the four fundamental forces, or different forces, or none at all.

Fair enough. To me it just makes sense that if the laws of nature apply then it is still part of the universe.
Alright, so reason is logical, rational, analytic thought. Good. Now, how do you "analyze" something and apply logic to it if it has no pattern... Science is any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction, or reliably-predictable outcome. If the outside of the universe is logical, science would be able to correctly make certain predictions (based on logic). If the outside of the universe is analytical, science could analyze it and make predictions.

If you can not apply science to the outside of the universe, then it is because the outside of the universe is illogical, irrational and can not be analyzed... which would mean you can not apply reason to it.

Agreed, which is why I attempted to work from exclusion. I only defined the outside of the universe as a "place" where the laws of nature would not apply. To me it seems reasonable, since as far as I know there isn't a physical wall of any sort that separates "inside" from "outside." Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

I agree which is why I have not attempted to say it is the only option, just that since we have no way to ascertain what it was, a creator god can't be summarily dismissed.

Indeed, it can't. But the argument "What caused the big bang?/What created the big bang?" can not be used as an argument for god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Power Lust

I'm sorry, but I honestly can not see how some people believe the earth to only be around 6000 years old.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html REALLY?

Radiometric dating overpowers fake facts and "scripture" any day, sorry.

I need some opinions on this crock of ignorance..

I like religion and one thing various texts around the world have taught me such as the Vedic texts is to read a little deeper into what they're actually saying.

For the Universe to be 6000 years old and for scientists to also be correct means that backward causality is real. In essence God creates a Universe and at the same time creates a past to go with it.

Problem solved with that theory as not only does it not contradict any side, one explanation for the Dual slit experiemnt in quantum mechanics is parallel histories.

Edited by Power Lust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

I like religion and one thing various texts around the world have taught me such as the Vedic texts is to read a little deeper into what they're actually saying.

For the Universe to be 6000 years old and for scientists to also be correct means that backward causality is real. In essence God creates a Universe and at the same time creates a past to go with it.

Wouldn't that make god a deceiver?

Problem solved with that theory as not only does it not contradict any side, one explanation for the Dual slit experiemnt in quantum mechanics is parallel histories.

I think you've confused "parallel histories" with MWI......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Power Lust

Wouldn't that make god a deceiver?

Or a good tester of free will

I think you've confused "parallel histories" with MWI......

Not in the least bit. Parallel histories is one of the theories that fits into the MWI category and is accepted in sciene. Over hte last few years they have even been trying to devise an experiment which prooves conclusively that the past isnt fixed until measurement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

I like religion and one thing various texts around the world have taught me such as the Vedic texts is to read a little deeper into what they're actually saying.

So basically just take from the texts what you think they all really mean?? kind of like a - make it up as you go along religion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Power Lust

So basically just take from the texts what you think they all really mean?? kind of like a - make it up as you go along religion....

No many of us our hopeful that science and religion are the same thing only we dont realise it yet.

All I was showing is that creationism isnt neccessarily at odds with the big bang. Both can be correct together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S2F

For the Universe to be 6000 years old and for scientists to also be correct means that backward causality is real. In essence God creates a Universe and at the same time creates a past to go with it.

I have heard this a few times before. The question is why would God do such a thing? It doesn't make any sense. Is he trying to hide something from us, or just lying for the hell of it?

I know I'll probably get the standard 'you cannot know God's motivations, his decisions are simply beyond our mortal understanding' answer. Which is not an answer at all. You religious lot can retreat to the safe place where answers need not be given if you want to, I stopped caring about justifying the bible a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

Or a good tester of free will

Don't say that too loud. I'm sure if my 5 year hears it, his excuse for the next time he fabricates the history of an event will be "Gee Dad, I was just testing your free will, god does it, why can't I?"

Not in the least bit. Parallel histories is one of the theories that fits into the MWI category and is accepted in sciene. Over hte last few years they have even been trying to devise an experiment which prooves conclusively that the past isnt fixed until measurement.

No, this again is the problem going back to education and 'education'. MWI, CI etc are interpretations of QM. They are not 'accepted in science'. The problem we have with QM, is we have a great mathematical way to describe our world. Nothing in the history of science has a better supported model than QM, save maybe evolution. The problem we have with QM, that we don't have with evolution, is a paradigm or framework for what it really says about our world. Hence all the various interpretations and depending upon whom you talk to, relate any number of details that don't lend themselves to falsifiability and at this junction cannot be 'scientifically accepted'.

Again, this is something you'd pick if you studied QM in a formal academic setting. The problem with 'layman' reading is it really has no way to communicate the subtitles of science like this to the layman. You are, for better or worse, at the mercy of the author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

I have heard this a few times before. The question is why would God do such a thing? It doesn't make any sense. Is he trying to hide something from us, or just lying for the hell of it?

I know I'll probably get the standard 'you cannot know God's motivations, his decisions are simply beyond our mortal understanding' answer. Which is not an answer at all. You religious lot can retreat to the safe place where answers need not be given if you want to, I stopped caring about justifying the bible a long time ago.

+1.

And thus we have where science (something empirical in nature) and religion (something which accepts truth through revelation) part ways. In religion, we hold assumptions true based upon faith, in science we discard assumptions which we cannot be verified against real-world data.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Beckys_Mom

No many of us our hopeful that science and religion are the same thing only we dont realise it yet.

All I was showing is that creationism isnt neccessarily at odds with the big bang. Both can be correct together.

How do you mean both correct together?? like - God was responsible for the big bang?? ................IF that is what you mean...well it's a fair opinion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

Not in the least bit. Parallel histories is one of the theories that fits into the MWI category and is accepted in sciene. Over hte last few years they have even been trying to devise an experiment which prooves conclusively that the past isnt fixed until measurement.

Another thing going back to the education and 'education' and I know this has been rehashed on these forms a lot, but it seems a fundamental misunderstanding of science most laymen have. Science isn't math, it is empirical, as such we cannot prove the truthfulness of testable statement. We can prove that a state is false, that is that it does not apply to a data set--But, we cannot say a statement about that data set is 'true' beyond doubt.

Vary, vary rarely do we design experiments in science to 'prove' an assertion-Rather to 'prove' a negative assertion is not true. While that may not seem like such a difference to you, it is an important and subtle point into doing and understanding science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Problem solved with that theory as not only does it not contradict any side, one explanation for the Dual slit experiemnt in quantum mechanics is parallel histories.

Just how does it explain the dual slit experiment, exactly?

I like religion and one thing various texts around the world have taught me such as the Vedic texts is to read a little deeper into what they're actually saying.

For the Universe to be 6000 years old and for scientists to also be correct means that backward causality is real. In essence God creates a Universe and at the same time creates a past to go with it.

Problem solved with that theory as not only does it not contradict any side, one explanation for the Dual slit experiemnt in quantum mechanics is parallel histories.

Well, what's stopping you from believing that the universe was just created 5 minutes ago with all this history, if I may ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Power Lust

I have heard this a few times before. The question is why would God do such a thing? It doesn't make any sense. Is he trying to hide something from us, or just lying for the hell of it?

I know I'll probably get the standard 'you cannot know God's motivations, his decisions are simply beyond our mortal understanding' answer. Which is not an answer at all. You religious lot can retreat to the safe place where answers need not be given if you want to, I stopped caring about justifying the bible a long time ago.

My interuptation of the Bible is that Adam and Eve decided they wanted to become Gods so they started gaining knowledge of how things worked. Unfortunatly for them knowledge brings forth an understanding of evil which corrupted them.

Knowing Good and Evil is part of becoming a God and the beginning of our journey which we call life. The purpose of our journey is to quite literally ascend all the way up which might take 1000 years or even a million until we become Godlike.

This gain can be attained spiritually or technologically. Currently we are in a technical period of history where we are trying to better ourselves and improve our lives with machines. The purpose is the same never the less to become godlike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Euphorbia

My interuptation of the Bible is that Adam and Eve decided they wanted to become Gods so they started gaining knowledge of how things worked. Unfortunatly for them knowledge brings forth an understanding of evil which corrupted them.

Knowing Good and Evil is part of becoming a God and the beginning of our journey which we call life. The purpose of our journey is to quite literally ascend all the way up which might take 1000 years or even a million until we become Godlike.

This gain can be attained spiritually or technologically. Currently we are in a technical period of history where we are trying to better ourselves and improve our lives with machines. The purpose is the same never the less to become godlike.

But the evil was created by god. And if not, by whom?

So god originally wanted us to only have the knowledge of an average animal? Not have the knowledge that we currently have?

How did they even know what it was like to be a god? Did god tell them. And in what language?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.