Big Bang Critics

First off, I am going to assume that you are not a troll, and answer as if you are posting your honest opinions. In other words, faith unnencumbered by any real evidence. I suggest you read the forum guidlines before you get much further with posting your unsubstantiated assertions, specifically as regards the science forums (of which this thread is one).When you post on the scientific forums you are expected to be able to provide evidence for your claims, so I could ask you to verify not just that "there is only one truth" but that it is what you claim, noting in passing that words in a book are not evidence and that real evidence is observable by anyone.Other than that, you are welcome to your opinions whatever they are and however arrogant and petty they are, and welcome to the fray.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

bytchbeater Good to hear.Perhaps you would care to exercise the grey matter and postulate the mechanism by which willpower or voice can create a universe? What does it mean to have willpower? Indeed,what is willpower sir? I will bet you have not thought this through very well.

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

Good to hear.Perhaps you would care to exercise the grey matter and postulate the mechanism by which willpower or voice can create a universe? What does it mean to have willpower? Indeed,what is willpower sir? I will bet you have not thought this through very well.I have sir. I don't have an explanation for will power. I think it breaks the rules of what we know. I believe the 90 or so percent of our brain we don't understand is the key to the will power. We are not the smartest in the universe; God is. I'm no scientist but I could have been. I'm just a deep thinker, an independent philosopher if you will. A reasoner.

In other words, faith unnencumbered by any real evidence. I suggest you read the forum guidlines before you get much further with posting your unsubstantiated assertions, specifically as regards the science forums (of which this thread is one).When you post on the scientific forums you are expected to be able to provide evidence for your claims, so I could ask you to verify not just that "there is only one truth" but that it is what you claim, noting in passing that words in a book are not evidence and that real evidence is observable by anyone.Other than that, you are welcome to your opinions whatever they are and however arrogant and petty they are, and welcome to the fray.I don't know how long I'll be here if I can't do that because in order to discuss evo vs cre, one would state facts for evo and have to only discuss beliefs with cre. there is no facts about creation without faith. By this I mean mankind cannot understand God (the whole idea of faith). Therefore if you can't explain God (due to ignorance of mankind); then how can you prove he created us when you can't "prove" he exist. There is proof all around us but that's "nature." That's why "i beleive" is in front of everything i say. It's proven; but you won't understand it. I also don't understand it. I just thought the whole point was to respectfully discuss facts of evo vs beliefs of cre. Creation is a belief. That's the name of the website. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I CAME HERE.(not screaming just emphasis). Is there another subsection to discuss this?

Please start using a more approprate login ID. You may create an alias to that one.If you continue with the current one you will be banned.The forums are divided into Science Forums and Faith forums. If you list all forums you will see the breakdown. You may discuss your beliefs in the faith side but the science side has more stringent requirements.Generally, most don't care what you choose to believe. A lot of the disagreement arises when those without any scientific basis attempt to influence what is taught in the science classrooms. If you don't wish to intrude there then you are welcome to your personal opinions.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-25-2005 05:04 PM

When RAZD said that this was a science forum he was only referring to this particular section of EVC. Many other and probably most sections are for both science and faith. Your posts would probably fit in better in those sections of EvC.I don't know if you have read Gerald Schroeder or not. You would enjoy "The Hidden Face of God". In that book he deals with faith and science and his conclusions are similar to yours.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Try this part of the board, it has several other types of forums available for posting opinions:
http://EvC Forum: Forum ListMaybe what you want is in the Social Issues and Creation/Evolution section.
EvC Forum: Social Issues and Creation/EvolutionFor reference, these are the science forums (where this thread is located):
http://EvC Forum: Forum List Facts are independent of faith. If you need faith to accept certain things, they are not facts but beliefs.As a side note, at the top of the window that has the "Text of the message you're replying to" there are buttons to chose between two modes of viewing the message: {Normal} O {Peek Mode:} OIf you chose {Peek Mode} you can see how (easily) quote boxes are done. And as such should not be any part of any science class right?Stay, Learn, Share, Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I don't know if you have read Gerald Schroeder or not. You would enjoy "The Hidden Face of God". In that book he deals with faith and science and his conclusions are similar to yoursThat's scary because that is exactly what I meant and I thought I was the only one who saw it like this. Scientist please check this out.http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.htmlhe may be able to speak more on ya'll level; but that's what I mean.

I'm glad to see your name change. Now if you could help us out with your quoting, that would be really nice.Here is what I do. I use
[qs]text to be quoted[/qs]That shows up as By the way, you can click on the "peek" button to see how I did this. Several of the scientists who regularly post here are christians, and believe in a creator. They also believe that the theory of evolution is an account of how the creator worked to create the diversity we see in biological systems.

b.b. Really! And what 90% do you not use sir? You have fallen for the old nugget of wisdom that is not backed by evidence in the least. A phrase repeated often enough gets to be accepted as true even in the face of evidence to the contrary.You say you are a deep thinker sir,pray tell which 90% do you believe you could damage without any affect upon your normal functioning?

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

All off topic -- however tempting the errors of fact posted here are --- do not answer!

what "scientific proof" do you have then sir that you do use all of your brain. I amaze myself everyday. Do you? If not then maybe your brain is maxed out; mine is not. Is your only proof the fact that you can't shoot yourself in the brain and still function right? Also, what scientific proof is there against creation? I believe evolution is possible but does not rule out creation but actually goes with it. Science would actually be a belief also being that it is based on the beleif in laws man made. "Darwin stated" "Newton stated" Can they be wrong. It was once scientific law that the Earth was flat until chris got high, got lost and found the other side. Until then, no one could prove the earth was round. You have you're faith; I have mine.REBEL WITH A CAUSE!!This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 09-26-2005 02:17 AM

In a small space you sure can pack them in.However it is all off topic so please let's not have any comments on these folks. Thanks.b b- one thing that would be useful here is if you confined your posts to a small number of topics and kept them relevant to the topic at hand.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 09-26-2005 02:17 AM

AdminNosySorry big guy I am too easilty drawn to this. I will start a new topic specific to this B.B. fellows arguements.

I am curious why people reffer to the big bang as describing the early universe. We hardly have a clue as to the nature of the universe and it's workings. We have but scratched the surface. What we will ever have the ability to see or detect is an infiniately small fraction of what we know exists. Much of what we see may either no longer exist or will eventually move out of our frame of reffernce never to be seen again. We will forever be greatly limited in our information. This defecit will increase with time. Consider that our time to understand will be limitted to our lifespan as a species on this planet
Why is it assumed that things began at a singularity? If anything occured before would we even be able to know? We assume a beginning.
Energy does not end it just changes form. Apply that basic idea to the universe.

Because the Big Bang is a colloquial name for the description of the early universe. Simple! Absolutely, but we also know much more than many would have us believe. Still - we must strive forwards to learn more! It isn't. The maths that describes everything else in the universe predicts that it began as a singularity. Some people think that this is a mathematical artifact, some think it is real. Some theories do away with the singularity, others embrace it. What we are very sure of is events shortly after the singularity (or whatever it was), and that was a rapidly expanding highly energetically dense universe (ie the biggest 'bang' there could be). It's an interesting point, but it doesn't have to be so.