I want someone to tear apart this website... (2 Viewers)

[supercalamari]

pman, come to the darkside, we have cookies!

Chocolate chip cookies... *drools*

 

[marmsie]

To begin, I haven't had time to read in detail what everybody has written yet so I apologise if what I say has been said before.

Firstly,

Genesis asserts that there was 'light' ("night and day") before the Sun even came into existence. This is naturally impossible.

I know this won't change your overall argument, but from what I can tell of you Scorch, you seem to be the kind of person who likes to corrected when factually wrong. So I would like to point out that the accepted timeline of the universe has light (photons) existing well before the first generation of stars were formed. Photons were first formed about 10secs after the big bang where as the first stars were not seen until about 150 million years after the big bang.

Indeed, photons were formed a good couple of minutes before the universe cooled enough for even the first Hydrogen atoms to form.



Secondly, for all of the devout atheists out there, could one of you please provide me with a scientific theory of the creation of the universe. Don't be afraid of dumbing it down, I am in my 7th year of studying physics at uni and can handle it (or at least be able to understand the general idea of it).

It seems that religion, is the only side which is attempting to offer an explanation of the creation of the universe. Granted it unfortunately is being told in a form of Jewish poetry (or so I have been told by people who study it in the original languages) and is very light on specifics, but at least they are trying.

Now I have probably confused many of you by this point, and you are already moving your hand on the keyboard to type "The Big Bang", but before you do I want you to stop and think about what the big bang is actually explaining. It is not a theory to describe the creation of the universe, but rather it is more of an astronomical equivalent to the theory of evolution. It describes how the universe started as an infinitesimally small point of extremely energetic "stuff" and finished as we see and love it today. It does not explain where this "stuff" came from nor how it was created.

And yes I do realise that religion has this same problem in the age old question of "If God created everything, then who created God?", so unless somebody has an actual theory that they can point me towards, that explains how, without violating its own laws, something can be scientifically created from nothing. Then both sides of this argument must start their assumptions from a point of faith. Be it that an all powerful, perfect being existed and then created the universe, or that in the beginning the universe was an infinitesimally small point of extremely energetic "stuff" which underwent an expansion from which was created time, space and even the fundamental forces of physics.



Thirdly, and more as an aside then anything else.
I find it funny how now days the atheist camp has claimed the big bang as their proof. When it was first published, most atheists were against the idea as it showed that the universe was indeed created. Indeed the first to propose the idea of the big bang (he didn't call it that, rather an opponent of the theory coined the phrase and it stuck) was Georges Lemaître who was a Jesuit (catholic) priest as well as a professor in physics and astronomy.

Anyway, I would love to read and argue more, but at the moment I am procrastinating from doing any uni work and my supervisor will not be impressed if I don't get anything done today.

 

[Lolsmith]

Thirdly, and more as an aside then anything else.
I find it funny how now days the atheist camp has claimed the big bang as their proof. When it was first published, most atheists were against the idea as it showed that the universe was indeed created.

All atheists ever to live are the same and follow the same doctrine.

Doesn't that also demonstrate the open mindedness and willingness to accept separate evidence rather than blind faith?

 

[pman]

All atheists ever to live are the same and follow the same doctrine.

Doesn't that also demonstrate the open mindedness and willingness to accept separate evidence rather than blind faith?

its quite true, the steady state model of the universe (now seemingly impssible) was a much better platform for atheits to argue from...marmsie, if your in your 7th yr of studying physics, look up the paper and read it for yourself

 

[SnowFox]

Thirdly, and more as an aside then anything else.
I find it funny how now days the atheist camp has claimed the big bang as their proof. When it was first published, most atheists were against the idea as it showed that the universe was indeed created. Indeed the first to propose the idea of the big bang (he didn't call it that, rather an opponent of the theory coined the phrase and it stuck) was Georges Lemaître who was a Jesuit (catholic) priest as well as a professor in physics and astronomy.

.

Must be one of those christians that are open to different ideas.

there is alot of evidence that has already been detailed on this site, the odds of proteins forming, the odds that all the physical constants would fall in the range where planets form, all of these at insanely low so something must have influenced them

The odds of finding a planet exactly like ours in terms of chemical/physical make up would most likely be the same odds shown on that site.

 

[shuttle_bus5]

*waits for scorch's response to marmsie's argument*

 

[Lolsmith]

*waits for scorch's response to marmsie's argument*

Get the popcorn ready.

 

[Scorch]

I know this won't change your overall argument, but from what I can tell of you Scorch, you seem to be the kind of person who likes to corrected when factually wrong. So I would like to point out that the accepted timeline of the universe has light (photons) existing well before the first generation of stars were formed. Photons were first formed about 10secs after the big bang where as the first stars were not seen until about 150 million years after the big bang.

Indeed, photons were formed a good couple of minutes before the universe cooled enough for even the first Hydrogen atoms to form.

Well fair enough. Thank you for the correction. Rest assured, however, that it is not the only problem with the Biblical conception of the origins of the universe and is not particularly integral to my argument as presented in the post you quoted it from.

Secondly, for all of the devout atheists out there, could one of you please provide me with a scientific theory of the creation of the universe. Don't be afraid of dumbing it down, I am in my 7th year of studying physics at uni and can handle it (or at least be able to understand the general idea of it).

It seems that religion, is the only side which is attempting to offer an explanation of the creation of the universe. Granted it unfortunately is being told in a form of Jewish poetry (or so I have been told by people who study it in the original languages) and is very light on specifics, but at least they are trying.

Now I have probably confused many of you by this point, and you are already moving your hand on the keyboard to type "The Big Bang", but before you do I want you to stop and think about what the big bang is actually explaining. It is not a theory to describe the creation of the universe, but rather it is more of an astronomical equivalent to the theory of evolution. It describes how the universe started as an infinitesimally small point of extremely energetic "stuff" and finished as we see and love it today. It does not explain where this "stuff" came from nor how it was created.

And yes I do realise that religion has this same problem in the age old question of "If God created everything, then who created God?", so unless somebody has an actual theory that they can point me towards, that explains how, without violating its own laws, something can be scientifically created from nothing. Then both sides of this argument must start their assumptions from a point of faith. Be it that an all powerful, perfect being existed and then created the universe, or that in the beginning the universe was an infinitesimally small point of extremely energetic "stuff" which underwent an expansion from which was created time, space and even the fundamental forces of physics.

Just because 2 + 2 does not equal 5 does not mean it equals 13.

That's the simplest thing here. You cannot equate a religious and scientific view, here. Religion starts from a 5,000 year old conception of the world by superstitious Palestinian peasants and attempts to interpret evidence to suit this. Their conception is highly flawed, both logically and scientifically.

Now my understanding of the big bang is not what yours would be, since you are a physicist, however I do understand that the relationship between the big bang and the origins of the universe is very similar to that of, as you say, that between evolution and the origins of life, but there are differences.

Science has not put forward an all-encompassing theory about what 'caused' the universe, as it were, because it does not yet have the capacity to analyse the evidence well enough to do so, and that is a far more noble and scientific thing. Rather than invention, fables and superstition, we confront what we do not know and analyse it to our best ability, and if we are not in a position to make claims of knowledge we do not make them; it is the scientific process at its finest. Not only that, but supposition into the idea has been done from a scientific basis, dealing with what we know thus far and dealing with what we can potentially explore, further subject to processes of peer review.

However we must differentiate between vague creation theory and specific religious accounts of the origins of the universe. Our scientific knowledge does not invalidate the former (though it is certainly the more logical option to disregard ideas for which there is no shred of evidence, and by no means a leap of faith any more than a non-belief in any other man-made fable is a leap of faith) but surely and demonstrably invalidates the latter. That is a very important distinction and I was dealing with the latter; the problems with which specific religious accounts of the universe are riddled.

But as I said, just because 2 + 2 does not equal 5, it does not equal 13. Simply because science has the integrity and rationality to realize its current limitations and makes claims within them and deals scientifically with what it cannot explain absolutely does not lend any credence to an archaic fable written by superstitious peasants from Palestine.

I find it funny how now days the atheist camp has claimed the big bang as their proof. When it was first published, most atheists were against the idea as it showed that the universe was indeed created. Indeed the first to propose the idea of the big bang (he didn't call it that, rather an opponent of the theory coined the phrase and it stuck) was Georges Lemaître who was a Jesuit (catholic) priest as well as a professor in physics and astronomy.

... and as the idea further developed relative to our scientific knowledge such misconceptions died off.

Anyway, I would love to read and argue more, but at the moment I am procrastinating from doing any uni work and my supervisor will not be impressed if I don't get anything done today.

I understand the feeling.

Let me also just say how refreshing it is to talk to someone who approaches the issue from a slightly more logical basis, even if you do make philosophical assumptions without the prerequisite logical substance.

 

[supercalamari]

Secondly, for all of the devout atheists out there, could one of you please provide me with a scientific theory of the creation of the universe. Don't be afraid of dumbing it down, I am in my 7th year of studying physics at uni and can handle it (or at least be able to understand the general idea of it).

Wrong term, devout implies a devotion or reverence to a preconstructed set of ideas or religious doctrine. Atheism as a whole doesn't really have that.

But I know what you mean