Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

That's half of it.The other half is making your own arguments, or phrasing them in your own words, so that you can defend them and participate in the debate. Otherwise, what are you hear for? We've seen all the creationist websites, we've heard all the arguments, and we've seen all the creationist "proofs" that you could Google for. You're not going to be showing us anything we haven't seen before, and if you have this idea that the only reason we're still evolutionists is because we haven't seen some website you know of, you might as well know that it's not like that - we've seen way more creationist stuff than you ever have.But we've never talked to you before. Maybe you've got a way of arguing that will convince us. But if all you do is post other people's websites, you're not going to get anywhere, because we've already seen them.

That's a couple of absolute statements and how do you know you have seen more creationist sites than me you just said you don't know me.whos we?

Oh, brother! You evolutionist are neglecting new evidence and so are creationist. Nobody braught nothing up about it. Man!Anyway, I am just gona use arguments that brain shoots out every 3 minutes. I don't care if it is well thought or not.

The new evidence i am talking about is for creation. EVOLUTION IS CRAP!!!!!!!This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 08-28-2004 01:30 PMThis message has been edited by Guidosoft, 08-28-2004 01:30 PM

I agree.

Suave, we have seen what you have posted and the kinds of statments you have made. Crash might be wrong about you and will modify his views as more information comes in. However, we have also seen a lot of individuals like you too. From that we make snap judegments that you are like so many others. So far you haven't demonstrated that you have a tiny clue about the subjects at hand.If a bet was in the offing I'd bet that crash is right."We" in the above case is crash and a number of other regulars here. Crash shouldn't, of course, generalize that much. If you take the "we" as being a collective thing then the sum of the expertise on creationism here far exceeds what anyone person could have even if they were deeply familiar with the material. That wouldn't be a fair way to take it.If you don't like these stereotypes being applied to you then you can show who they are false.Or you can pull a very common trick and decided that your honour is deeply wounded and deem us unworthy of further discussion and leave in a huff. That happens a lot. It especially tends to happen when someone is asked to defend their position and assertions.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-28-2004 01:44 PM

Very good, that always makes it more interesting. We look forward to it.If it is concerned with evolution please post to the appropriate threads. It is about time this one got back on topic. If it is not well thought out you may have a lot of trouble defending it. Continuing to fail to back up assertions can get you suspended while you do think it out well.

Guido, several of your posts lately have been disruptive. Please tone down the attitude, stay on topic and re-read the Forum GuidelinesFailure to take this advise to heart can earn you a suspension.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

ok

OK what would you (anyone) say is the best evidence showing that the big bang didn't happen?

The idea of it itself. The very idea that matter can spontaniously appear from nothing whithout a prior source such as energy is messed up. Even if there idea is that there was energy there is nothing other then that to cause something to happen. A basic law is that for an effect to occur there must be a cause. Even in Quantam Machanics.Correct me if I am wrong.

finally someone is making sense.

It's just a guess, based on the fact that so far you haven't quoted from what creationists wind up considering the primary sources in their movement; organizations like Answers in Genesis, Duane Gish's Institute for Creation Research, and authors like Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, etc.The fact that you don't seem to have heard of these guys implies that you've only just got into the debate and haven't done a great deal of research yet. I could be wrong, of course. But I'm still willing to bet that I know well more about creationism, creationist organizations, and creationist arguments than you do. Us "regulars", I guess. I've been posting here for about two years or so.

Well, I'm sorry you find it "messed up", but it does happen. It's the source of a well-known effect in quantum mechanics called the "Casimir effect." You're wrong. Especially in quantum mechanics there are a number of things that happen uncaused, such as atomic decay.You see, you can't predict when a given atom will decay. Given a bunch of atoms and a certain length of time, you can predict how many of them will have decayed, but not which ones. There's no known cause that makes specific atoms decay, but it happens.Ergo, an uncaused effect. Not every effect requires a cause.

But there's one of your problems. Quantum mechanics doesn't make "sense" as in common sense. It has this interesting attribute that it works. If it didn't your computer wouldn't.The phrase "quantum weirdness" crops up now and then. And it is weird outside any of our everyday experiences.You may not like it, Einstein didn't. However, that seems to be the way it is. It works, deal with that.