namelesstavern.net

hah

spot on, vonkaar. good show~

What even funnier is people professing to be intelligent, laughing about God and coming up with random theory that starts...a really long time ago... Right, so like what was here 13.8 Billion years ago?

Eziekial wrote:What even funnier is people professing to be intelligent, laughing about God and coming up with random theory that starts...a really long time ago... Right, so like what was here 13.8 Billion years ago?

ok, so by your logic then, where did god come from?

Big Bang! or KAPOW!!! No matter which side you pick, creation had the same great special effects that the old Batman series had...

Hatak wrote:Big Bang! or KAPOW!!! No matter which side you pick, creation had the same great special effects that the old Batman series had...

Eziekial wrote:What even funnier is people professing to be intelligent, laughing about God and coming up with random theory that starts...a really long time ago... Right, so like what was here 13.8 Billion years ago?

The beauty of it is... we don't know. We'll likely never know. Theories come and go and these ideas keep the cosmologists employed. However, the science - the new discoveries - are constantly improving.

The difference is, creationists truly believe that God suddenly decided to zap everything into existence a few thousand years ago. All of the scientific evidence speaks to the contrary, but they keep on. Nah nah, not listening... dinosaurs must have died in the flood and carbon-dating is flawed.

That corrupt, man-made, thousand-times-edited book of creation© lists one archaic theory - and people buy into it. How is believing in the biblical creation story any better than other mythological stories? The vikings believed that within the great void Ginnungagap, fire and ice twisted about to create Ymir - the frost giant and first living thing. Other gods came about and eventually Odin found some driftwood and fashioned it into man. Pretty deep shit, ya? I'm going to stick with this story... my own belief on the history of the universe.

Don't forget the Great Green Arkelseizure theory....

-Arlos

odin was a bad ass motherfucker

I am not claiming to know if one set of ideas is better than the other. I was speaking to the persistant droning on and on about how silly / stupid / backward etc. people of "science" call people of faith. Shouldn't the scientists be spending their time and energy doing something more constructive like playing with beakers or pipettes? Why is the hamster in the wheel care about the hamster sitting in the wood chips if they are both in the cage anyway?

Actually, that hamster in the cage analogy is deeper than I first realized. We are all locked in the cage which represents our limited understanding of this world and our role in it. The hamster in the wheel are those that are constantly running around trying to figure "it" out and get out of the cage ... be "Free" if you will spiritually... (metaphysically for the eggheads) and the hamster sitting in the wood chips has put their time and energy in strengthening their beliefs and faith. The goal for both is the same thing.. to be free and know truth. Have peace in the ultimate knowledge of being. They are going about it in separate ways but at the end of the day, both will die in the cage. Only then will they know who is "right" and by then it is too late. Some day the hamsters in the wheel may find the "key" and open that cage door but I'm afraid that will only lead to a bigger cage with yet another door and still locked inside.


PS. This is what happens before my first cup of coffee in the morning

when hamsters get tired of running in wheels they go get a Kia Soul

that's what television teaches me

brinstar wrote:when hamsters get tired of running in wheels they go get a Kia Soul

that's what television teaches me

holy crap, I had the same thought

I personally have no issue at all with people who believe in creationism as long as those people do understand that its 100% based on faith. As soon as they try to start backing up their theory with what they think is science is when I have an issue. Almost every person who I have argued this with that starts trying to bring science into the conversation always falls back on the "goddidit" argument for every hole in their theory. Creationism is simply a story of creation and an explanation of us being here just as almost every religion has. Science is not focused on the why but the how. Why really isn't important because we are here, the how is whats really important. GAH if I hear another person I talk to about this subject point to the probability of earth and life forming as so slim that there must be a god to explain it, I am going to smack them for having no clue what they are talking about.

I won't argue the point re: creationism because I don't agree with them however statically speaking, even over the duration of a billion years, we've gotten pretty lucky to become what we've become and science has yet to prove what put it in motion, and most likely will never be able to prove it as someone else here already mentioned.

The big bang has several challenges regarding the concept and IMO is generally accepted because science has few other options and mathematically they can't explain why things are the way the are in the universe.

But to the big bangers, so something shrank so small that it exploded into everything, hmm that sounds almost faith based. Many of the greatest minds of humanity had faith re: religion, the two can coexist in harmony so long as you don't stray too far from the middle. I'm saying that to show that both sides have flaws, but yeah creationists are far from middle ground re: what they say and again IMO are wrong.

Your mom is a big-banger.

Your mom is a bigger banger LOL

Actually, Clakar, no, the Big Bang is quite thoroughly accepted at this point. Things like finding the cosmic background radiation pretty well nailed that one rather thoroughly. There's literally mountains of evidence for it beyond that as well, including the amounts of various isotopes of hydrogen and helium we observe being present, the inflationary nature of the universe, the differences between galaxies we see from a long way away and thus close to the big bang event and newer galaxies, in the large scale structures of the universe like galactic groups and supergroups that line up with the slight variations in cosmic background radiation, the confirmation of the Hubble constant from the WMAP satellite... There's certainly disagreement about the exact mechanics of everything, but disagreement about the fact that the Big Bang DID occur? None whatsoever.

-Arlos

"Mountains" of "evidence" for something that happned 13 billion years ago? Ok... We can't even convict OJ when he's covered in the victim's blood fleeing the scene. I'd be careful of the use of the word "evidence". Mountains of *theories* I could believe.

You're always going to have the 2-year-old's argument of "well what happened before that?" Creationists say God is infinite. I have no idea what scientists say was around before the big bang. But you have to realize that telling Creationists that a cherry bomb going off in space caused everything we see today is going to get you a chuckle any day of the week, just like God being responsible probably does for you.

uh oh

I don't disagree with the big bang theory entirely, it has major flaws though, the point is, everything came from nothing according to the big bang, so this "thing" got so small and it was so dense, it exploded and created everything.

That is a pretty big pill to swallow, IMO equally as big as religion and some creationism is to swallow.

All the testing and so called evidence, etc are based off theories and assumptions. Assumptions the tests are flawless and the objective being confirmed isn't being questioned but attempted to be proven. This would akin to "selling" the global warming idea to folks who believe in global warming.

Now all that said, I am being "combative" if you will to stress a few points, one primary point is while many folks, including myself, can merge religion and evolution to "play nice", there are those "scientists" who say creationists are crazy, and in what Vonk posted, yeah, sorry, they are LOL, but still, you're somewhat demanding these creationists, or at least suggesting, they put faith in science with really not tangible flawless "proof", I find that a bit hypocritical for science based believers whom challenge religion. (did that make sense LOL)

EDIT
Ninjad by Reynaldo, but I think he and I are trying to say the same thing /shrug

Last I checked into it, Science has nothing at all to say about "what was before" the Big Bang. So, if you want to say Goddidit, and that was the mechanism by which He created the universe, by all means, there's nothing scientific that can in any way dispute that. Science simply knows that the Big Bang occurred. All of those things I mentioned are observational data that, as we've gotten better and better readings of that data, confirmed the basic theory. Sure, we don't understand the mechanics and physics involved yet, but you can say that about a lot of astrophysics. We know the Big Bang happened, because we can see the aftereffects, just as we look at the Crab Nebula and know that a Supernova occurred there because we can see the aftereffects. All the argument these days is in the exact mechanics, not on if it happened at all.

Clakar, you keep claiming there are "major flaws" with the Big Bang as a theory. Care to enumerate what those are? Do keep your list to things that are actually part of the theory, not stuff like "Well, what was before that?", because that's something we have no way of even remotely knowing.

Again, as I've said before, science and religion are two entirely separate animals that seek to answer very different questions, and the only problems in interaction between them is when they try and intrude on each other's turf. Religion asks and tries to answer the question of "Why". Science tries to ask and answer the questions of "How" and "What happened". There is no barrier to a scientist being devoutly religious, yet still believing in what the empirical data and things like the theory of evolution tell us. As I said at first, science doesn't know nor CAN it know or say whether or not God (or the FSM, or whatever) caused the big bang to occur, and thus created the universe. It merely knows that it did happen, and seeks to understand the mechanics of what happened. It can say nothing to why.

For evolution, say, all science knows is that mutations to DNA do occur, and it knows some physical processes that can create mutations. If a religious person wants to claim that God caused that cosmic ray to hit that one element of that critter's DNA just so to flip it to a different base, thus altering the genetic code, resulting in a change that created a new species, well, Science can't question that. It just knows that the mutation did happen, but can't possibly know if there was some omniscient being directing the physical processes that made it occur. We see no evidence of it, but why would an omnipowerful being need to leave evidence of itself?

The only real problems is when people try and deny physical reality because of religious belief. Not that this is new, you understand. St. Augustine, the pre-eminent theologian and philosopher of early Christianity, as early as 405 AD was telling Christians that if the evidence of science or their senses contradicted the exact wording of the bible to believe what reason and science were telling them. That is why people laugh at those "Young Earth" Creationists: because every single speck of evidence that exists shows that their belief is impossible. Not only do we have recorded history going back nearly that far, but we have things like evidence of the Clovis culture in the US from 10,000 BC or so, the cave paintings in Lascaux from 20k BC, etc. that categorically disprove the very notion of a planet that started in 4004 BC, and the only evidence these people have for their belief is "Goddidit cause it says it in the bible". The bible is not science. Read it for its history, it's literary content, it's lessons on morality and on the nature of God, or anything like that, certainly, absolutely. But it is NOT a science textbook any more than an astrophysics textbook is a work of philosophy.

-Arlos

PS. Here's a couple quotes from St. Augustine:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

I'm still laughing about what the author said God was doing during the scientific events.

I have issues with people making science and religion mutually exclusive. I find that to be pretty much the epitome of ignorance.

Science isn't an antonym to religion. Science and religion, in its many forms, can coexist in my opinion. Maybe not organized, established religion, but religious beliefs from within them surely.

Just because science "proves" the big bang occurred, doesn't mean it won't be completely wrong at a later date. I'm sure as someone who has studied physics you'd agree that widely accepted beliefs even in science are hardly infallible.

That's pretty much the basis of a scientific mind, to accept all possibilities within reason.