|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang Found | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Not sure why you conclude "creationists" etc. I believe in creation and this finding supports the fact that the universe had a beginning, and thus there was some sort of creation. Sometimes when people type "creationist", they just mean the small subset of creationists who lie about science because they cannot bring themselves to accept evolution.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
They should not use such a broad brush. In the context of the Evolution vs. Creation debate, most people get the distinction.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Small subset? So the main players on the creationist side; the loudest, most vocal and most wealthy, are NOT "creationists who lie about science because they cannot bring themselves to accept evolution"? Discovery Institute and CMI are just creationists that accept a creator, but also accept science? No, there's just more people who aren't like them. They're the minority.
Most of the creationists that come here are only creationists that believe in a creator, but accept science? I think so. I mean, I'm one of them. I can think of others. And there's not that many cranks. I could be entirely wrong here, I dunno. What percentage of the people who believe in God do you think are science-deniers?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
When we talk about creationists in this arena, you aren't one of them. That's what I was telling shadow71.
Context is pretty important. You should take your own advice.
quote: That second creationist, that I've now bolded, was referring to people who believe in a creator but aren't science-deniers. The first one that I scare-quoted are the ones who are science-deniers. As I said:
quote: When we just refer to creationists generally, we're not really talking about the people who believe in a creator but do not deny science. That's what I was explaining to shadow71. And now you're trying to argue my same point back to me.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
My point was that in the context of the Evolution vs. Creation debate, the term "creationist" means the science-deniers rather than just a person who believes in a creator. Also, that the science-deniers are a small subset of the people who believe in a creator.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You guys are making this much more complicated than it really is. A "creationist" is simply someone who believes in creation. Not in the context of the Evolution vs. Creation debate. Here, a creationist is someone who denies evolution.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The next step would be for you to tell us how something was created out of nothing. There is no point in time, in the Big Bang Theory, where the Universe does not exist. That is, the Universe exists at every point in time. So there never is a "nothing" for the Universe to be created out of. And being created "out of" nothing means that there had to be a point in time where the Universe did not exist, which is incompatible with the Big Bang Theory. So the Big Band Theory is not the idea that the Universe was created out of nothing.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Is there a theory of what existed pre Big Bang and how it came into existence? Not within the Big Bang Theory.
I'm serious, I would like to read some papers on that issue. You can check out colliding branes:
Here's some wiki links: Brane cosmology - WikipediaEkpyrotic universe - Wikipedia
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'll jump on:
quote: Every single thing that we have evidence for that can be categorized with the pronoun "who" requires gravity to exist already for them to exist. So anything that could exist before gravity, cannot fall under the pronoun "who".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
This is a very good analogy to show the error of reductionism. The fact that the laws of nature give a good description of reality does not and cannot remove God from the picture any more than they remove Whittle from the picture. Natural law describes the mechanism which is at work, but nothing more. In a philosophical sense, natural law is descriptive, not causative. It describes mechanism, not agency. Sure, just because we have a correct explanation for how lightning happens, doesn't mean that Thor isn't really responsible. But from a scientific perspective, nobody cares. We can explain lightning without the need for Thor, so we just ignore him and go about our day. We may be missing something, like Thor, but it doesn't matter because our explanations work.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
when time did not exist If time doesn't exist, then you cannot have a "when".
were there laws of nature In order for something "to be", there has to be time for it to be in. Have you read the North Pole analogy for the Big Bang?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Then gravity did not exist prior to the Big Bang? "Existing prior" to the Big Bang implies that there was some time before T=0, but there's no such thing as negative time in the Big Bang Theory. The question just doesn't make sense. Its like asking what is north of the North Pole. You can't, all directions are pointing south at that place. Sorry, its just counter-intuitive. ABE: To directly answer your question: No, the Big Bang Theory does not have gravity existing before the Big Bang. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So if the Big bang theory is correct, Hawking's theory is false? I don't know, I'm not familiar with the Hawking's theory that you're talking about. I saw that one quote, but that's just him talking, that's not really the theory, itself.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
these philosophical/theological issues matter a great deal. I disagree. I'll go a step further: they're practically worthless. That is, in practicality, they don't provide any value. Philosophical/theological issues are the same they've been for centuries. There's never any advancement, because its not rigorous enough to put the results into practice. You never know if its working or not, so nothing ever gets solved. So, yeah, maybe we should just agree to disagree on that one rather than discuss philosophy in a big bang thread.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How else is one to determine, after years of naval gazing, that one's own particular naval is the one perfect specimen in all the universe? Doesn't it have something to do with rubbing blue paint in there?
Philosophers keep reminding us that scientists receive, after years of study, a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Perhaps its time we changed that, eh? Philosophers have ridden on our coat tails long enough! Don't get me started. There's a whole new generation of neo-atheist "philosophers" out there on the web that like to talk about how all scientists are doing is really philosophy and that philosophers, like their elitist selves, are the ones who have paved the way for all our advancements. It really grinds my gears.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024