Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[Rhett Woods 3]

First off, I noticed that you are a proponent of the Big Bang. Consider these words by Babu Ranganathan

Babu Ranganathan writes:

Big Bang scientists extrapolate a hypothetical scenario from a few facts. Yes, some galaxies are expanding, moving further away, but this is not the case with the entire universe. There are galaxies in the universe running perpendicular to the rest of the galaxies. That’s contrary to Big Bang. If Big Bang really occurred, there should be a uniform distribution of gasses.

This uniform distribution of the gasses would have made sure that the gasses would not have coalesced, due to gravitational attraction, into planets and stars. The hypothesis of dark matter providing enough gravitational force has been recently discredited.

“The (galactic) structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM (Cold Dark Matter) did exist, it could not account for their formation” (Dr. Duane T. Gish, “The Big Bang Theory Collapses”). Furthermore, an explosion cannot explain the precise orbits and courses of thousands of billions of stars in thousands of billions of galaxies.

Some evolutionary astronomers believe that trillions of stars crashed into each other leaving surviving stars to find precise orderly orbits in space. Not only is this irrational, but if there was such a mass collision of stars then there would be a super mass residue of gas clouds in space to support this hypothesis. The present level of residue of gas clouds in space doesn’t support the magnitude of star deaths required for such a hypothesis. And, as already stated, the origin of stars cannot be explained by the Big Bang because of the reasons mentioned above. It is one thing to say that stars may decay and die into random gas clouds, but it is totally different to say that gas clouds form into stars.

Most people don’t realize how much disagreement there is among evolutionary scientists concerning their own theories. The media doesn’t report those details, at least not to any substantial extent."

Also,

"Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction 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, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences.

Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.

(Just in case you question credibility, here's the way too long list of sources. John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA), James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA), Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany), Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil), Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University(Russia), Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA), Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK), Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA), Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA), Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA), Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India), Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA), Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA), Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA), Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA), Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada), Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy), Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA), Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France), Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France), Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil), Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA), R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA), Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France), Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France), Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA), Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA), David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK), Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA), Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA), Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland), Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)

I don't have any further time, as I have homework to do. I will continue later.

[Lego XBOX 915]

All I see from a quick scan through your essay is self defeating arguments towards Vekrus and an overall lack of proof to support creationism. Are we trying to prove that the big bang theory is right or wrong? I am not, I am here to prove that evolution exists. The fact that it still exists today means that by your own reasoning, it existed in the past. The theory behind the creation of the universe was developed by scientists. However, what creationists have is not a theory, but a story, a bed time story to tell their pupils as they have nothing better or more productive to say. To claim evolution to not exist is a plain, excuse me for saying this, a plain stupidity. Refer to my evolution for dummies, succeed in trumping it, you will prove evolution doesn't exist. However, something as simple as what I have posted is going to be difficult to trump. Have fun~

Also, refrain from using questions as arguments supporting your party, it doesn't really work... Arguments which support creationism would have to be evidence or proof of some sort, which is obviously something you don't have. Now go on, I'm anxious to see what you can say about my evolution.

[Samoblivion 532]

13. The Bible's Witness

The Bible is true. The history of the Bible is true. The words of the Bible concerning our origins were given to men to write down, by God, who was the only living being present. We were not there! God said He created the universe. God said He created all living things. We know that life is much more than chemicals. God put His life into Adam and that life has been transferred from generation to generation all the way down to us!

With this I am concluding my arguments and going to let the debate continue on.

How do you know that the Bible is true? How do you know that its history is accurate? The Bible itself was first put into written form 200 years after the death of Jesus, and before that it was passed down through oral tradition. You honestly expect it to be 100% accurate after spending 200 years stewing in the collective conscious of Judea and the late Roman Empire? There are bound to be mistakes. And even if it was written down during the time of Jesus, how are we to know he was telling the truth? For all we know he could have been a simple Jewish scholar trying to make sense of the world through his own philosophies and his followers created this cult of Christianity around him after his death, portraying him as the son of God when he might never have even said that he was. Hell, he might have said that he was the son of God, but he may have also have had a mental illness!

And on the line of God being the only being that existed at the time of creation, how do you even know he existed at all? The Bible? I think we've already established what a credible account of events that is.

Here are some facts. We have no idea if the bible is true because we weren't there when it was initially dictated by Jesus or written down 200 years later. We have no idea if it is the word of some God because Jesus may have been delusional, lying or he may not have said those things at all. Your own words damn your argument: "We were not there!". Neither was Jesus or the disciple who wrote what we now know as the Bible 200 years after the fact.

Lego is right. Aside from the plethora of other flaws in your logic, this is the kicker.

Like my godmother used to say (who did believe in God herself):

"The Bible is a wonderful work of early Jewish fiction."

- Signed, your resident agnostic antitheist.

[danic 352]

I've noticed a continuous problem on the Creationist's side; Complete blind following. You absolutely refuse to believe anything of Evolution and shoot down all the evidence. Which I suppose is understandable, I'm assuming you've been a strong Christian all your life and to hear that all you believe in might not be true can make you rather mad.

But to truly debate successfully, you need to look at both sides of the cookie. Not just a single side. Because if you continue like you are, and blatantly refusing everything and repeating yourself even after that argument has been defeated, this will just be a one sided argument where one side puts up a good argument, while the other just covers his ears and says "Nonononono".

[Bawd 222]

If I were to write a very long book, and pass it to my son, who continues writing, and passes it to his son, who continues writing, and so forth, until my family and whoever the book is passed onto have been working at it for thousands of years, and I claim, through this book, that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars, and I am careful to add that it is so small that it cannot be picked up by any instrument of man, you cannot disprove me. Does this mean I am correct?

Russell's Teapot is the best example I find to argue against the existence of a deity, or 'god'. If, and I am going to take Christianity as my example here, the Judeo-Christian Abrahamic God does exist, why would he allow his 'Church' to contradict themselves and be so terribly, terribly wrong over their millennia of existence? In their beginning, they preached that the Earth was flat, and the Sun, stars and planets orbited it. When it came out that these things did not happen, the Church quickly moved to cover them up. Whenever it was the general consensus that these things, however, were true, the Church changed their teachings and continued preaching of the same 'god'. So, what, is the Abrahamic God the god of inconsistencies? Of contradictions?

Also, I see the word 'theory' being tossed around a lot. A theory is a suggestion, backed up by evidence. God is not a theory, and never can be any more than a hypothesis. However, evolution and the Big Bang are theories, because they have actual evidence.

[Nefarious Aus Shitpost 891]

How do you know that the Bible is true? How do you know that its history is accurate? The Bible itself was first put into written form 200 years after the death of Jesus, and before that it was passed down through oral tradition. You honestly expect it to be 100% accurate after spending 200 years stewing in the collective conscious of Judea and the late Roman Empire? There are bound to be mistakes. And even if it was written down during the time of Jesus, how are we to know he was telling the truth? For all we know he could have been a simple Jewish scholar trying to make sense of the world through his own philosophies and his followers created this cult of Christianity around him after his death, portraying him as the son of God when he might never have even said that he was. Hell, he might have said that he was the son of God, but he may have also have had a mental illness!

The Gospel of Matthew originated at the end of the first century AD.

The Gospel of Mark was completed circa 70 AD.

The Gospel of Luke originates in the time between 60 and 100 AD.

The Gospel of John was completed circa 90 AD.

If Jesus would have been crucified in the time between 30 and 35 AD.

100 - 30 = 70

70 =/= 200

Learn2Math please.

Also, for the record, I'm in the middle ground here and I'm quite well versed in both sides of the argument, but seriously, if you're going to argue, do it right and KNOW what you're talking about.

[Watyll 1104]

If I were to write a very long book, and pass it to my son, who continues writing, and passes it to his son, who continues writing, and so forth, until my family and whoever the book is passed onto have been working at it for thousands of years, and I claim, through this book, that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars, and I am careful to add that it is so small that it cannot be picked up by any instrument of man, you cannot disprove me. Does this mean I am correct?

Russell's Teapot is the best example I find to argue against the existence of a deity, or 'god'. If, and I am going to take Christianity as my example here, the Judeo-Christian Abrahamic God does exist, why would he allow his 'Church' to contradict themselves and be so terribly, terribly wrong over their millennia of existence? In their beginning, they preached that the Earth was flat, and the Sun, stars and planets orbited it. When it came out that these things did not happen, the Church quickly moved to cover them up. Whenever it was the general consensus that these things, however, were true, the Church changed their teachings and continued preaching of the same 'god'. So, what, is the Abrahamic God the god of inconsistencies? Of contradictions?

Also, I see the word 'theory' being tossed around a lot. A theory is a suggestion, backed up by evidence. God is not a theory, and never can be any more than a hypothesis. However, evolution and the Big Bang are theories, because they have actual evidence.

Could you not insult the religion and focus on the topic of creation vs evolution?

[Bawd 222]

Could you not insult the religion and focus on the topic of creation vs evolution?

I don't see this as insulting the religion. I have no problem with all the generalizations regarding Atheists and evolutionists throughout this. I used Christianity as an example. The same can be said for most religions.

[Nefarious Aus Shitpost 891]

Could you not insult the religion and focus on the topic of creation vs evolution?

That is one of the biggest issues with 'Creation vs. Evolution' debates. Certain members of one side seem to be unable to stick to the topic and have to resort to attacking the other sides belief rather then handling the discussion in a more mature manner.

If you believe someone is wrong in their beliefs, let them be 'wrong' from your point of view.

Also Reman, please enlighten me on these so called contradictions, I really would like to hear this and have a bit of a laugh.

[Bawd 222]

That is one of the biggest issues with 'Creation vs. Evolution' debates. Certain members of one side seem to be unable to stick to the topic and have to resort to attacking the other sides belief rather then handling the discussion in a more mature manner.

If you believe someone is wrong in their beliefs, let them be 'wrong' from your point of view.

Also Reman, please enlighten me on these so called contradictions, I really would like to hear this and have a bit of a laugh.

I noted a few. Look at the Christian Church the whole way through the Renaissance for more. I don't want to "insult" Christianity again.

[Beneh 227]

The truth is your never going to get an answer on this thread because not one point that is made here can prove or disprove the existence of God [ AKA : Creation ] or evolution.

Scientists nor Atheists can prove or disprove evolution/the big bang because of the one question that simply cannot be answered regarding the big bang which is ;

' How can you get something , from nothing ? '

And that leads me on nicely to the part about Religion. People that believe in a God , I believe do so because there is not an explanation to that question so far and thus , they turn to Religion in order to make sense of life and to understand why we're here and all that jazz and fill in the void in knowledge that is present.

Whilst I , personally , dont believe in God or any Religion and I dont believe turning to Religion to fill the void in knowledge is the way forward , I dont get bothered at all by those who do because it's quite easy to see where they come from and the points they make and they could even be right or scientists might be right , nobody officially knows and to be honest , I dont think anybody ever will.

But then again , I'm not a Scientist nor do I know particularly much about Religion. I'm just going from my opinion on it all and the basic things about it all I've learned during my life.

[Samson Option 9652]

If I were to write a very long book, and pass it to my son, who continues writing, and passes it to his son, who continues writing, and so forth, until my family and whoever the book is passed onto have been working at it for thousands of years, and I claim, through this book, that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars, and I am careful to add that it is so small that it cannot be picked up by any instrument of man, you cannot disprove me. Does this mean I am correct?

Russell's Teapot is the best example I find to argue against the existence of a deity, or 'god'. If, and I am going to take Christianity as my example here, the Judeo-Christian Abrahamic God does exist, why would he allow his 'Church' to contradict themselves and be so terribly, terribly wrong over their millennia of existence? In their beginning, they preached that the Earth was flat, and the Sun, stars and planets orbited it. When it came out that these things did not happen, the Church quickly moved to cover them up. Whenever it was the general consensus that these things, however, were true, the Church changed their teachings and continued preaching of the same 'god'. So, what, is the Abrahamic God the god of inconsistencies? Of contradictions?

Also, I see the word 'theory' being tossed around a lot. A theory is a suggestion, backed up by evidence. God is not a theory, and never can be any more than a hypothesis. However, evolution and the Big Bang are theories, because they have actual evidence.

I will offer an argument for the sake of stimulating discussion.

Why did God not interfere? Because of deism mayhaps? He gave a message, if man sadly misinterpreted it, then it is for them to resolve rather than divine interference which would perhaps in the action prove his existance without a challenge to those who witness a divine interference? Just an oddball idea :D

Rather than thinking yourselves high and mighty [you know who you are ;)] 'bashing Christianity', give the guys who are opposing atleast a round of applause for presenting counter-arguments? That may calm the flame war here that seems to be thought to be.

[Bawd 222]

The truth is your never going to get an answer on this thread because not one point that is made here can prove or disprove the existence of God [ AKA : Creation ] or evolution.

Scientists nor Atheists can prove or disprove evolution/the big bang because of the one question that simply cannot be answered regarding the big bang which is ;

Occam's Razor dictates that the theory which makes less assumptions should be the one which is generally accepted, until the one that makes more assumptions can prove itself. Creationism is a mixture of an assumption and a hypothesis, with no theory in there.

[Nefarious Aus Shitpost 891]

Please cite more specific situations then just saying the Renaissance. That doesn't help very much and I'm tired as hell and a bit groggy from drinking.

Also remember that evolution is not an axiom or law. It is well tested and has evidence, but can NEVER be proven.

[Samson Option 9652]

Occam's Razor dictates that the theory which makes less assumptions should be the one which is generally accepted, until the one that makes more assumptions can prove itself. Creationism is a mixture of an assumption and a hypothesis, with no theory in there.

Is it that 'Evolution' just use fewer words? As far as I can simplify, Creationism believes 'God created the World', Evolutionists believe 'the Big Bang had rendered the materials necessary for the world to evolve to this point in time'? Just curious :D