The Creation

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Buffalo Roam, Dec 19, 2009.

  1. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Now as someone is question my critical thinking about this?

    Now why doesn't the Genesis story of Creation, support the Scientific hypothesis of Creation? and the Scientific hypothesis of Creation not support the Genesis Creation.

    Big Bang, to, Homosapian, they seem to follow the same path along the process.

    LET THERE BE LIGHT!


    THE BIG BANG!

    Both involved unfathomable amounts of energy and force.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,942
    Does The Little Match Girl support the scientific evidence for death by hypothermia?
    Genesis is a myth, based on nothing.
    Why should it be taken as evidence?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Because it is supported by the science, they both tell the same progression.

    I find it funny that I find support of the Creation Story in your Science, and you do not see the support of the Science Hypothesis of Creation in the Biblical Creation Story.

    Again, the progression, from the;

    LET THERE BE LIGHT! THE BIG BANG!

    To the appearance of Man

    Then God said, "Let us make man".

    Science places Man as the last step in the scientific creation "Homo Sapiens/Homo Erectus".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,942
    No it isn't.

    No they don't.
    One is science, the other is a story that can be taken (by some) to have some sort of congruity with the science.

    That would be because the bible has zero credibility as a scientific source.
    I find it saddening that you'd even draw some sort of comparison.

    nope.
    Man is the latest step, not the last. We're still evolving.
     
  8. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Dywyddyr, yes, I am getting a good chuckle from your last post.

    Faith supports Science, Science supports Faith.

    7000+ years ago, they knew of the Big Bang,

    Let There Be Light!

    Or is the Big Bang wrong?
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,942
    Nope: that's only an interpretation. Of a story. It has no basis in fact.

    Utter nonsense.

    7,000 years? Riiight.
    They knew absolutely nothing of the Big Bang.

    I'd rather have intelligence...
     
  10. spidergoat Turd Reich Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,814
    There are numerous reasons why Genesis does not reflect reality. For one thing, it says flowers came before animals, but in reality, animals came long before flowering plants.
     
  11. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,910
    I've been presented with questions like this before, as have many of my colleagues. As a physics grad student I work in a pretty diverse environment, we have lots of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, and atheists, it's nowhere near as uniform as some might think. The answer I normally give, as well as my colleagues, is that "Let there be light" doesn't really say very much. As scientists we ask, "How much light? At what temperatures, what energy densities? What happens as that light spreads out and cools? How long did it take? How long ago? How fast are the galaxies flying apart as a result?"

    The Big Bang (which itself is represented by multitudes of different models) is an extremely detailed mathematical account of the conditions under which the universe as we know it began. Not only do these models spin experimental measurements into a very long, very precise story about the early universe, but having such a story gives you the ability to make predictions about properties the universe ought to possess today. Cosmic microwave background radiation is probably the most famous triumph of the Big Bang theory, as Big Bang models were used to predict both the existence of this radiation as well as its temperature, well before it was ever first detected or measured. "Let there be light" doesn't give you any of that predictive power, it can mean any number of things.

    There's also the issue of dates and ages and things. If you have a very loose interpretation of Biblical details, it doesn't need to contradict any facts known to scientists. On the other hand, if you want to be strict about details and ages and things, going with notions such as a 5000-10000 year-old Earth, this is where religion and science can start to conflict. Besides, the Big Bang theory isn't set in stone- we can say with high certainty what the universe looked like 13 billion years ago (i.e. extremely hot, extremely dense) but we can't say for sure whether time truly began at this moment, or whether there's more to the story.
     
  12. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    So the Big Bang is wrong?

    Intellengence;

    Now where did the material come from, to create the big bang?

    You are displaying a lot of faith in science, as they cannot answer that question.



    But all of it takes faith to believe.


    The Univers is expanding, and that expansion is from a single point, the Big Bang so where was that point and what was there to fuel the big bang?


    Have you ever read:

    Lisa Dyson, Matthew Kleban, Leonard Susskind

    Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant​
     
  13. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Citation please.
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,942
    You're very good at (deliberately?) misconstruing replies aren't you?

    Oh and you're erecting strawmen...

    Fortunately science requires neither faith nor belief...

    I see you're selective on your science reading too.
    http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf

    Just downloaded it.
    Have YOU read it?
    Or just skimmed it and skipped the maths?
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    anything that ends with the word 'theory' can be wrong.
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,942
    And you apparently have no clue as to what the word "theory" means in science.
    Granted anything can be wrong, but in science a theory is extremely strong and well supported, it's not a theory in the sense of the TV detective saying "My theory is that it was Professor Plum with the candlestick."
     
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    yeah...i know. how predictable, in science, of course, it means something else. (????)

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Theory
     
  18. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    next i will ask you what 'science' means. that should be interesting.
     
  19. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,910
    That's one of the neat things about General Relativity. Most people have never come across the concept, but there's a specific meaning in saying the universe comes from a single point. Imagine you've got an infinitely large sheet of paper with some gridlines drawn on it, and you distribute some mass and energy at various places throughout the sheet. So now you've got an infinite universe on a grid. What GR says is that as the universe expands, it's not really that the objects on this grid are moving apart (on average). Rather, spacetime itself is stretching and the very definition of distance between points on the grid is what's changing. An immediate mathematical consequence is that if you rewind time about 13 billion years, the measure of distance between any two points on the grid approaches zero, so everything in the infinite universe was supposedly infinitely close together. In the Big Bang model the universe doesn't have any one center, as every point in the universe can be considered the center, and the universe is expanding around each of these points.
     
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,942
    On the contrary: in everyday life it means something else.
    It's a scientific term that's been co-opted and misused by the general public.
    Look at your own link - the PRIMARY definition:
     
  21. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    And you are very good at avoiding answering the questions.

    Science take faith,

    The first point of faith, is in a man/scientist

    The second point of faith is that the man, has uncorrupted data.

    The third point of faith is that He did the correct construction of His models and hasn't interjected His personnel bias in any of it.

    yes, science takes a lot of Faith.
     
  22. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Main Entry: the·o·ry
    Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
    Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
    Date: 1592

    1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
    2 : abstract thought : speculation
    3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
    4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
    5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
    6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
    synonyms see hypothesis
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,942
    I have answered the questions.

    Only if you don't follow the work done yourself: the thing about science is that it lays out its methods so that they can be reproduced - the results don't require faith in the man himself.

    That's why everything is checked multiple times...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    See previous two replies.

    Only if you're the type that sits back and remains lazy, saying "tell, me tell me"...
    See? No faith required.
     

Share This Page