Big Bang vs Creationism

[Trell]

There is one main fault with the entire concept of this thread. The burden of proof is not on us to disprove a "theory" the burden of proof is on the person purporting the theory. SO it breaks down like this:

Big Bang Proof - Scientific evidence (carbon dating, background radiation, etc etc)

Creationism Proof - Book dictated by God and written up by random people over centuries, then translated and retranslated countless times.


So really The Big Bang has infinitely more proof then Creationism.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: ayabe
This is a total cop-out and IMHO a weak answer with zero courage whatsoever.

Your post reminds me of the ST:TNG episode where Worf goes to his spiritual homeplanet (I forget the details) looking to get a vision from Kaless his "God." His God appeared, but it was a clone of his God. The religious fanantics cloned the DNA from old blood on a sword Kaless had when he was alive. Once Worf finds out about it, he gets all pissy, doesn't believe in his God anymore. Then he has an epiphany. Why are we focusing on the God so much,? And not the message God is giving to the people. The people of Worf's planet gave this clone emporer status (like a queen) with no ruling power, just a figurehead to remind the people of the importance of the message from their God, even if it wasn't the God himself.

A cop out? Not necessarily. I think messages get passed through stories, and alot of the time we ignore the message because we don't believe the story is true or a fairly tale. But in stories like "the boy who cried wolf", we listen to the message. Is bible stories really any different?

My catholic priest says there is nothing in the bible that says evolution did not happen. All it says is God created the universe. The big bang was created by something. Scientifically matter and energy can't be created from nothing, our own science disproves the big bang. To say God didn't have anything to do with it is just as ignorant as saying he does. BUt as my Worf story says, what difference does it make? We are still here, and we were created from something, be it atoms from the big bang or God (or both)... Lets focus on today, and tomorrow, let the past be the past, and learn from our past experiences to guide us into the future.

 

[palehorse]

Face it folks, the Bible was originally written by a collection of scholars who were tasked with finding a way to promote literacy; and, more important, a way to control the otherwise chaotic tribes. They set about transcribing different versions of the various myths, fables, traditions, and legends that had all been previously passed down through the ages by word-of-mouth

Their solution was a collection of stories that came to be called The Bible.

It worked... too well, in fact!

Islam, with their great work of fiction called The Quran, merely repeated the same process.

etc etc yada yada...

Now, let's get back to talking about reality, science, and sensical theories, such as The Big Bang Theory... The moment anyone mentions creationism, or Biblical stories, we may as well start talking about Tom Clancy or Harry Potter as well!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Carbon dating is judging this planet to be 4 billion years old.

uh, no, it's not. carbon dating is effective to about 50,000 years. which is still much longer than 6000 years. (half life of carbon 14 is about 5700 years)

That assumes that over time, carbon decays at exactly the same rate as it does in the month study. Scientists ASSUME the decay rate is linear.

uh, no, they don't. the decay rate is logarithmic. and yes, that is known and predictable function.

Then they apply that to other objects found on the planet and calculate the age based on their decay % found in that sample.

not quite. they've used geological records to figure out what the portion of carbon 14 in the atmosphere was over the ages.

How did the cells know to do that?

they don't. it just happens that way.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: brandonb
I also don't see how such certain things can evolve. What is a loving caring nature, charity for example? How did that benefit the world or the animal kingdom? How did that concept be created, were all animals created with a loving caring nature, or did that evolve over time into later lifeforms? What purpose did it serve?

How did eyeballs form? How did 1 cell become into being to detect a certain ray of light (radio wave between a certain hz range)? How did it multiply, create a ball of cells, then be smart enough to form nerves back to a brain to create a mental picture. It just doesnt make sense. How did the cells know to do that? What scientific explaination can be used for that?

I can recommend some reading materials for you to answer all of the questions I've quoted above, but past some summarized explanations found below I'm not going to continue this discourse other than to say that it does make sense - it just doesn't make sense to you.

Charity makes eminent sense as a survival characteristic. One of the building blocks of survival strategy for any species is the pooling of talent (ideas, physical labour, fertility) to give the group a better chance at living to see tomorrow as opposed to trying to make it as individuals. Giving to the poor, weak or infertile who nevertheless help the group in other ways is entirely sensible and is a characteristic easily observed in the wild.

Nothing went from a single photosensitive cell to an eyeball overnight. There are tens of thousands of steps in between, not counting the missteps taken and were selected out by the evolutionary process. But again, if you care to do the research it makes complete sense. The most basic giver of life on this planet is the Sun. Being able to seek out the direction in which the Sun provides the most energy (and thus heat and plentiful vegetation) is a necessity for many life forms. As the number of predators in the area grows, those photosensitive cells select towards something that can sense motion, distinguish colours (to see hiding predators, differences in vegetation) and so on.

If you wish to learn this topic backwards and forwards and have all of your questions answered, you can do so today by indulging yourself in the purchase of one single book: Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Wow...Do people really believe the universe is only 6000 years old?

Wow.

Yes. Yes they do.

And I for one am not ashamed of making fun of it.

There are plenty of reasons to not believe any of that crap. It's the idiot-child of a fact-less dogma that is backed up only by a book written, and re-written a thousand times over from over a thousand years ago. Keep in mind that christianity is just a rehash of other more basic and pagan religions for many MORE thousands of years prior. All written and made up by people, to keep less fortunate people in line and subservient.

Then, you have dating methods that are plenty accurate that prove objects can be VERY old. And those are only objects found on the earth. Then you have methods to figure out the approximate age of interstellar objects, far, far away from us. Even older yet. Then you have the background radiation that has been mathematically shown to match beautifully the theory of the big-bang.

I'll be fair, for a moment. Not fair to Creationism, it doesn't deserve it, but fair to those who have doubts about the big-bang period. So do I. There are an infinite possible ways the universe could have been created. It could be a constant, infinite abstract. It could be a constant expanding and contracting bubble. It could have periods of slight expansion and inflation, and we're only living in an expansion period. However, evidence and data shows that on it's current course, the universe should have had a beginning, at least as much of a beginning as we can imagine in our pathetic little brains.

Here's the deal, Creationists (I mean that in the most condescending way possible). The "big-bang" is a theory. It does not pretend to be "Truth" (with a capital 'T') like your ideas do. It can, and will change when better data and information comes along, and when it does, myself and the rest of the scientific community will rejoice with excitement as it should and does when breakthroughs are developed. The facts and truth are what is important, not "faith" and "Truth". We do not pretend to know everything, we only know that we are capable of figuring the truth out bit by awe-inspiring bit.

I don't know what else I can say on this subject without writing a book...

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I actually find big bang a bit stupid. Creationism generally coincides with religions that don't base everything on reason or evidence, so the suspension of reason and adherence to faith is part of the thing. Big bang claims to be scientific but really isn't because it never answers what happened BEFORE the big bang. Where did this mass come from? Science understands nothing at all besides cause and effect. What caused the big bang? What triggered it? Where did the mass come from? Simply, the human mind has no concept in the context of science to comprehend something that simply came out of nothing, which is why in this way it makes more sense to believe that something simply "always has been", and from that creationism is perfectly reasonable. The big bang is really just science's answer to God and creationism without realizing that it's doing the same thing--putting faith ahead of reason. Except religiou makes no apologies for such a thing and science pretends to eschew that.

Whoa there buddy. The Big Bang doesn't address what happened before the creation of the universe because that is unscientific. There's no way to know where the matter that composes our universe comes from - that's the realm of faith and a place science refuses to tread. Instead, the Big Bang does a pretty good (though not perfect) job of explaining key observations about our universe.

1. Astronomers have observed that galaxies are all red-shifted (ala the Doppler effect for sound). This basically means that all galaxies are moving apart at a uniform speed.
2. The Big Bang has accurately predicted the relative number of elements within the universe.
3. The universe has a uniform level of background radiation -as predicted by the Big Bang theory.

Are there parts of our observable universe that are currently unexplained by the Big Bang? yes.
Does that mean we should scrap the whole theory, throws our hands up in despair and just conclude that god must have done it? No.

It means that science is going to move forward and, hopefully, modify / change / reject the theory to make our scientific explanation of the world more complete.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Wow...Do people really believe the universe is only 6000 years old?

Wow.

Yes. Yes they do.

And I for one am not ashamed of making fun of it.

There are plenty of reasons to not believe any of that crap. It's the idiot-child of a fact-less dogma that is backed up only by a book written, and re-written a thousand times over from over a thousand years ago. Keep in mind that christianity is just a rehash of other more basic and pagan religions for many MORE thousands of years prior. All written and made up by people, to keep less fortunate people in line and subservient.

Then, you have dating methods that are plenty accurate that prove objects can be VERY old. And those are only objects found on the earth. Then you have methods to figure out the approximate age of interstellar objects, far, far away from us. Even older yet. Then you have the background radiation that has been mathematically shown to match beautifully the theory of the big-bang.

I'll be fair, for a moment. Not fair to Creationism, it doesn't deserve it, but fair to those who have doubts about the big-bang period. So do I. There are an infinite possible ways the universe could have been created. It could be a constant, infinite abstract. It could be a constant expanding and contracting bubble. It could have periods of slight expansion and inflation, and we're only living in an expansion period. However, evidence and data shows that on it's current course, the universe should have had a beginning, at least as much of a beginning as we can imagine in our pathetic little brains.

Here's the deal, Creationists (I mean that in the most condescending way possible). The "big-bang" is a theory. It does not pretend to be "Truth" (with a capital 'T') like your ideas do. It can, and will change when better data and information comes along, and when it does, myself and the rest of the scientific community will rejoice with excitement as it should and does when breakthroughs are developed. The facts and truth are what is important, not "faith" and "Truth". We do not pretend to know everything, we only know that we are capable of figuring the truth out bit by awe-inspiring bit.

I don't know what else I can say on this subject without writing a book...

To be fair, I don't think the bible says anything about the earth being 6000 years old. Much as our constitutional fathers were cognizant of the wording of the document they created, so too were the people that put the bible together. The 'young earth' theory is an idiotic offshoot bastardizing the bible, which has "days" before there was even a "sun" (Inherit the Wind FTW). There's plenty of worthy lessons in the bible, it wouldn't have lasted this long if it was purely a thing of evil, so no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You can toss the young earth and literal translations of biblical stories without tossing the whole of the book.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Wow...Do people really believe the universe is only 6000 years old?

Wow.

Yes. Yes they do.

And I for one am not ashamed of making fun of it.

There are plenty of reasons to not believe any of that crap. It's the idiot-child of a fact-less dogma that is backed up only by a book written, and re-written a thousand times over from over a thousand years ago. Keep in mind that christianity is just a rehash of other more basic and pagan religions for many MORE thousands of years prior. All written and made up by people, to keep less fortunate people in line and subservient.

Then, you have dating methods that are plenty accurate that prove objects can be VERY old. And those are only objects found on the earth. Then you have methods to figure out the approximate age of interstellar objects, far, far away from us. Even older yet. Then you have the background radiation that has been mathematically shown to match beautifully the theory of the big-bang.

I'll be fair, for a moment. Not fair to Creationism, it doesn't deserve it, but fair to those who have doubts about the big-bang period. So do I. There are an infinite possible ways the universe could have been created. It could be a constant, infinite abstract. It could be a constant expanding and contracting bubble. It could have periods of slight expansion and inflation, and we're only living in an expansion period. However, evidence and data shows that on it's current course, the universe should have had a beginning, at least as much of a beginning as we can imagine in our pathetic little brains.

Here's the deal, Creationists (I mean that in the most condescending way possible). The "big-bang" is a theory. It does not pretend to be "Truth" (with a capital 'T') like your ideas do. It can, and will change when better data and information comes along, and when it does, myself and the rest of the scientific community will rejoice with excitement as it should and does when breakthroughs are developed. The facts and truth are what is important, not "faith" and "Truth". We do not pretend to know everything, we only know that we are capable of figuring the truth out bit by awe-inspiring bit.

I don't know what else I can say on this subject without writing a book...

Why are you not ashamed to make fun of the young earth belief? Can you identify and feel the source of this need. No, of course you can't, because if you could you would discover your own doubt and self-hate. Then too, you would discover not only your own need to believe but your own fear of doubt. You would see that far from being a scientist, you are a person of faith.

But you can't see any of this because you don't know what you feel. You can't see where you are blind.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: brandonb

Originally posted by: ayabe
This is a total cop-out and IMHO a weak answer with zero courage whatsoever.

Your post reminds me of the ST:TNG episode where Worf goes to his spiritual homeplanet (I forget the details) looking to get a vision from Kaless his "God." His God appeared, but it was a clone of his God. The religious fanantics cloned the DNA from old blood on a sword Kaless had when he was alive. Once Worf finds out about it, he gets all pissy, doesn't believe in his God anymore. Then he has an epiphany. Why are we focusing on the God so much,? And not the message God is giving to the people. The people of Worf's planet gave this clone emporer status (like a queen) with no ruling power, just a figurehead to remind the people of the importance of the message from their God, even if it wasn't the God himself.

A cop out? Not necessarily. I think messages get passed through stories, and alot of the time we ignore the message because we don't believe the story is true or a fairly tale. But in stories like "the boy who cried wolf", we listen to the message. Is bible stories really any different?

My catholic priest says there is nothing in the bible that says evolution did not happen. All it says is God created the universe. The big bang was created by something. Scientifically matter and energy can't be created from nothing, our own science disproves the big bang. To say God didn't have anything to do with it is just as ignorant as saying he does. BUt as my Worf story says, what difference does it make? We are still here, and we were created from something, be it atoms from the big bang or God (or both)... Lets focus on today, and tomorrow, let the past be the past, and learn from our past experiences to guide us into the future.

Lol you say you don't remember the details of that Star Trek episode, but I think you remembered a hell of a lot.

I was a raised a Catholic and attended Catholic school for the first 6 years. We were taught that Jesus literally rose from the grave, appeared to a few people who verified it was him by his wounds, then around 30 days later ascended to heaven, people supposedly witnessed this and were injected with the holy spirit. This is a core belief, it's taken very literally.

Sure the message is what's important, but even people who don't take a lot of what's in the Bible literally do believe that Jesus physically rose from the grave. Without this, a lot of the Christian faith as a whole is meaningless. This is more important than burning bushes or Noah's Ark. There are events described surrounding the resurrection that are very cut and dry, such as Jesus' body being missing from the tomb, the fact that the enormous stone covering the tomb was moved, these are verifiable, they either happened or they didn't.

Also, you stated that "Scientifically matter and energy can't be created from nothing, our own science disproves the big bang."

Actually one of the tenants of relativity is that anything that is possible according to the laws of the universe has happened, is happening, or will happen, even if we haven't discovered it yet. The universe is simply too vast for this not to be the case. There are Black Holes which I'm sure most of us have heard of, but there are also White Holes which we haven't found yet. These are black holes in reverse and are actually matter generators, once we discover one of these I think a lot of the gaps in the big bang will be filled.

Sure it takes a little faith in science to acknowledge this possibility, but we're still operating withing the bounds of verifiable science. Scientifically, time travel is possible, it just takes an enormous amount of energy that we could never hope to generate. There are plenty of pseudo religious concepts in science, like the fact that light is both a particle and a wave.

 

[Deudalus]

My simple points:

1: Evolution is not equipped to deal with the creation of life, only the changes in species. I don't think religion and evolution are at odds at all and if you can't see evolution happening on a daily basis then you need to open your eyes.

2: The Big Bang Theory sounds nice and is probably true, science does indeed seem to point us toward it happening (the ever expanding universe for example) and it makes a lot of sense.

3: The accuracy of The Big Bang Theory does not in any way suggest that intelligent design didn't take place. Even the "singularity" which is what is suggested existed just before The Big Bang doesn't discredit intelligent design.


The way I see it is this and its a very simple multiple choice question just like the one this thread started with.

You pretty much have to believe one or the other of these:

1: A supreme being that is capable of working outside of physics and the laws of nature (AKA a deity or god) created everything either directly or indirectly through its works. This only makes sense to me because energy cannot be created only transferred.

2: Everything that we see and know exists was always there at one point or another. The fact that life was created was a total accident. That also means everyone and everything was always in existence. Thus there is no time, there is no space, there was no beginning, and there will be no end.


Now I don't agree very much at all with the people who are very religious and claim to have all the answers. However, I think anyone who answers #2 probably has bigger issues because it is the biggest cop out of all.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
2: Everything that we see and know exists was always there at one point or another. The fact that life was created was a total accident. That also means everyone and everything was always in existence. Thus there is no time, there is no space, there was no beginning, and there will be no end.

Now I don't agree very much at all with the people who are very religious and claim to have all the answers. However, I think anyone who answers #2 probably has bigger issues because it is the biggest cop out of all.

Where did you come up with that #2?

two words: energy transfer.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
You pretty much have to believe one or the other of these:

1: A supreme being that is capable of working outside of physics and the laws of nature (AKA a deity or god) created everything either directly or indirectly through its works. This only makes sense to me because energy cannot be created only transferred.

2: Everything that we see and know exists was always there at one point or another. The fact that life was created was a total accident. That also means everyone and everything was always in existence. Thus there is no time, there is no space, there was no beginning, and there will be no end.


Now I don't agree very much at all with the people who are very religious and claim to have all the answers. However, I think anyone who answers #2 probably has bigger issues because it is the biggest cop out of all.

why do i have to pick either of those?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Wow...Do people really believe the universe is only 6000 years old?

Wow.

Yes. Yes they do.

And I for one am not ashamed of making fun of it.

There are plenty of reasons to not believe any of that crap. It's the idiot-child of a fact-less dogma that is backed up only by a book written, and re-written a thousand times over from over a thousand years ago. Keep in mind that christianity is just a rehash of other more basic and pagan religions for many MORE thousands of years prior. All written and made up by people, to keep less fortunate people in line and subservient.

Then, you have dating methods that are plenty accurate that prove objects can be VERY old. And those are only objects found on the earth. Then you have methods to figure out the approximate age of interstellar objects, far, far away from us. Even older yet. Then you have the background radiation that has been mathematically shown to match beautifully the theory of the big-bang.

I'll be fair, for a moment. Not fair to Creationism, it doesn't deserve it, but fair to those who have doubts about the big-bang period. So do I. There are an infinite possible ways the universe could have been created. It could be a constant, infinite abstract. It could be a constant expanding and contracting bubble. It could have periods of slight expansion and inflation, and we're only living in an expansion period. However, evidence and data shows that on it's current course, the universe should have had a beginning, at least as much of a beginning as we can imagine in our pathetic little brains.

Here's the deal, Creationists (I mean that in the most condescending way possible). The "big-bang" is a theory. It does not pretend to be "Truth" (with a capital 'T') like your ideas do. It can, and will change when better data and information comes along, and when it does, myself and the rest of the scientific community will rejoice with excitement as it should and does when breakthroughs are developed. The facts and truth are what is important, not "faith" and "Truth". We do not pretend to know everything, we only know that we are capable of figuring the truth out bit by awe-inspiring bit.

I don't know what else I can say on this subject without writing a book...

Why are you not ashamed to make fun of the young earth belief? Can you identify and feel the source of this need. No, of course you can't, because if you could you would discover your own doubt and self-hate. Then too, you would discover not only your own need to believe but your own fear of doubt. You would see that far from being a scientist, you are a person of faith.

But you can't see any of this because you don't know what you feel. You can't see where you are blind.

Uh, what?

My lack of shame for finding the thought of "Truth" ridiculous at best is not something that stems from a deeper self-doubt and self-hate. It stems from the fact that I know that they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I don't have faith, or belief. I only take evidence and theory, and change those theories based on new evidence. I don't need to understand everything, I only have a desire to know how things work, and the more information I can find the better! I am not scared because I don't know how the universe began, nor am I frightened because of my lack of knowledge about "the end" so to speak. I'm also certainly not scared of being wrong, because I find solstice in the fact that I spend my brain-power on trying to figure out how everything actually works, rather than believing man-made fair-tales.

I don't know where you're getting this fear of doubt and self-hate idea about me, I'm quite content with changing my mind based on data, and not knowing everything or having a belief in a happy-land for me to go to when I die. It's unnecessary and irrelevant to me.

I just enjoy life, and theories, and thought. I don't need any more than that. I don't need, nor do I have the capacity for faith.

It is not really that I think they're ridiculous or less than me (that is most cirtainly not true), but more because some of them feel they need to attack and even kill people based on those asinine beliefs. You wanna have faith in a higher-power? Fine, I don't care. But leave me out of it, I don't need to be wasting my time with it, and neither does the rest of the world when they can be spending their time on lucrative studies into the actual nature and mechanics behind the universe.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: beyoku
what kind of people think that the earth is only 6000 years old? Which religious people in particular?
I truly don't know.

Anyone?? Anyone?? Bueller?? Anyone know what specific denomination? Islams thoughts on the age of the earth / universe?

Random thought. If the universe is billions of years old does that have to mean the age of the earth corresponds with the age of the universe? Has anyone stated the argument that the earth is only X #of years old based on the big bang that combined material billions of years old.?? Does this make sense? In other words would we date a sand castle based on the creation of the castle vs the million year old sand that was used to create it. This may be an easy questions but its out of my area. I generally like to learn about human history/ migrations etc.

What does basic science say about the age of the universe in relation to the age of the earth. Also with the big bang in space where did "space" come from and how old is that?
This would help me out a ton.

 

[Taejin]

Disproving or proving the Big Bang Theory relies on indepth knowledge of physics that most of us here probably don't have.

Disproving creationism isn't possible, since creationism is made up bullshit with absolutely no evidence for it. It's kind of like how science can't prove or disprove religion because religion needs 'faith', and science doesn't rely on faith for its precepts and theories.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: beyoku

What does basic science say about the age of the universe in relation to the age of the earth. Also with the big bang in space where did "space" come from and how old is that?
This would help me out a ton.

the earth is about 4.5 billion or so years old. the universe appears to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 billion years old.

no one knows where 'space' came from. in my understanding, all points, all matter, and all energy have always existed. or maybe i just have a poor understanding of inflation. that's very possible.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Taejin
Disproving or proving the Big Bang Theory relies on indepth knowledge of physics that most of us here probably don't have.

Disproving creationism isn't possible, since creationism is made up bullshit with absolutely no evidence for it. It's kind of like how science can't prove or disprove religion because religion needs 'faith', and science doesn't rely on faith for its precepts and theories.

Kind of like.... You cannot kill that which is already dead?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sandorski
#1) Not sure how to disprove it
#2 is easy, there's plenty of Older than 6000 years objects.

They could have been made to appear over 6000 years old when their initial states were defined.

Originally posted by: hscorpio
No, but I think Occam's razor favors number 1.

I knew this would be the first thing brought up, which is why I specifically said "disprove either hypothesis." Occam's Razor tells us nothing of either hypothesis.

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
You can not disprove Creationsim because it is faith based dogma or doctrine. Either you believe it or you do not.

And my question to you is: how can you disprove the Big Bang? If you cannot, wouldn't that place it in the "faith-based dogma or doctrine" category as well, rather than in the realm of science?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sandorski
#1) Not sure how to disprove it
#2 is easy, there's plenty of Older than 6000 years objects.

They could have been made to appear over 6000 years old when their initial states were defined.

Originally posted by: hscorpio
No, but I think Occam's razor favors number 1.

I knew this would be the first thing brought up, which is why I specifically said "disprove either hypothesis." Occam's Razor tells us nothing of either hypothesis.

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
You can not disprove Creationsim because it is faith based dogma or doctrine. Either you believe it or you do not.

And my question to you is: how can you disprove the Big Bang? If you cannot, wouldn't that place it in the "faith-based dogma or doctrine" category as well, rather than in the realm of science?

First, you're seriously suggesting that god made things appear to be older than 6,000 years? And then you dare sling around Occam's Razor? Come on.

Second,

A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.

There are "unverifiable theories" that exist. Think String Theory.

There are, however, also phenomena that the Big Bang cannot explain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...2C_issues_and_problems

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Even if a scientific proof could be found, there are too many people of blind faith who would
refuse to accept it.

But on one hand we have a pretty fairy tale on the creationist side of the table that cannot square with modern science.

On the other side we have a projected backward age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years and can date some existing rocks as far back as about 2.7 billion years. Of course the big if
there is in assuming the rate of decay of radioactive substances remains constant. then we have a huge body of geological strata almost perfectly supporting an immense age theory.
With creationists stubbornly cherry picking a few anomalies and saying your theory is not perfect so therefore ours is.

And we can also look at the larger universe and project an age of some 15 billion years since the big bang. And before that, both theories are mute. Because we have no idea what created the big bang and no idea what created God.

But if you ask me to have faith in God, I somehow cannot believe in a God that wants man to wallow in ignorance. And maybe the mission in life God created us for is to expose hucksters of religion for the frauds that they are. And a ever humorous God created the earth some 6114 years ago with a compelling case for an older creation date. As God ever sits back laughing at us as we struggle to unravel the jig saw puzzle God herself gave us.

So, in short, your answer is no: you cannot suggest any way to disprove either hypothesis. Instead, you simply disparage one because of your own faith in the other. This was the entire point of the exercise.

Originally posted by: maluckey
If you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, then you might as well say that it's ten minutes old, complete with war, strife and pain to test your faith. You can use the All powerful entity argument to shout down the nay-sayers!

It is philisophically (and Mathematically) inconsistent to think that the Earth was created 6000 years ago. Whether the Big Bang Theory will withstand scrutiny? We'll see.

I asked for a scientific way to prove or disprove either. Indeed, both of these hypotheses are mathematically equivalent, as can easily be shown by solving the Friedmann equations with the initial conditions suggested by #2.

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Creationism, and the so-called "science" supporting it is mere ontology.

The conclusion is reached prior to supporting "evidence" being found to bolster it...

Not to mention that it basically represents God as a fraudster, the reality we perceive as a deliberate illusion...

So no, you can't disprove either one. You, like lemon law, choose to put your faith in one and disparage the other based on preference.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

2. The universe was formed 6,000 years ago. Every bit of matter was positioned just so such that it matched the position and velocity of the Big Bang model (i.e. its initial condition exactly matches that predicted by Big Bang theory). Life was formed and microevolution occurred.

Can anyone suggest a scientific method to disprove either hypothesis?

One quick and reasonable disproof of your second hypothesis would be the overwhelming BUAHahahahahahaha!!!! factor. :thumbsdown: :laugh: :thumbsdown:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Wow...Do people really believe the universe is only 6000 years old?

Wow.

Yes. Yes they do.

And I for one am not ashamed of making fun of it.

There are plenty of reasons to not believe any of that crap. It's the idiot-child of a fact-less dogma that is backed up only by a book written, and re-written a thousand times over from over a thousand years ago. Keep in mind that christianity is just a rehash of other more basic and pagan religions for many MORE thousands of years prior. All written and made up by people, to keep less fortunate people in line and subservient.

Then, you have dating methods that are plenty accurate that prove objects can be VERY old. And those are only objects found on the earth. Then you have methods to figure out the approximate age of interstellar objects, far, far away from us. Even older yet. Then you have the background radiation that has been mathematically shown to match beautifully the theory of the big-bang.

I'll be fair, for a moment. Not fair to Creationism, it doesn't deserve it, but fair to those who have doubts about the big-bang period. So do I. There are an infinite possible ways the universe could have been created. It could be a constant, infinite abstract. It could be a constant expanding and contracting bubble. It could have periods of slight expansion and inflation, and we're only living in an expansion period. However, evidence and data shows that on it's current course, the universe should have had a beginning, at least as much of a beginning as we can imagine in our pathetic little brains.

Here's the deal, Creationists (I mean that in the most condescending way possible). The "big-bang" is a theory. It does not pretend to be "Truth" (with a capital 'T') like your ideas do. It can, and will change when better data and information comes along, and when it does, myself and the rest of the scientific community will rejoice with excitement as it should and does when breakthroughs are developed. The facts and truth are what is important, not "faith" and "Truth". We do not pretend to know everything, we only know that we are capable of figuring the truth out bit by awe-inspiring bit.

I don't know what else I can say on this subject without writing a book...

Why are you not ashamed to make fun of the young earth belief? Can you identify and feel the source of this need. No, of course you can't, because if you could you would discover your own doubt and self-hate. Then too, you would discover not only your own need to believe but your own fear of doubt. You would see that far from being a scientist, you are a person of faith.

But you can't see any of this because you don't know what you feel. You can't see where you are blind.

Uh, what?

My lack of shame for finding the thought of "Truth" ridiculous at best is not something that stems from a deeper self-doubt and self-hate. It stems from the fact that I know that they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I don't have faith, or belief. I only take evidence and theory, and change those theories based on new evidence. I don't need to understand everything, I only have a desire to know how things work, and the more information I can find the better! I am not scared because I don't know how the universe began, nor am I frightened because of my lack of knowledge about "the end" so to speak. I'm also certainly not scared of being wrong, because I find solstice in the fact that I spend my brain-power on trying to figure out how everything actually works, rather than believing man-made fair-tales.

I don't know where you're getting this fear of doubt and self-hate idea about me, I'm quite content with changing my mind based on data, and not knowing everything or having a belief in a happy-land for me to go to when I die. It's unnecessary and irrelevant to me.

I just enjoy life, and theories, and thought. I don't need any more than that. I don't need, nor do I have the capacity for faith.

It is not really that I think they're ridiculous or less than me (that is most cirtainly not true), but more because some of them feel they need to attack and even kill people based on those asinine beliefs. You wanna have faith in a higher-power? Fine, I don't care. But leave me out of it, I don't need to be wasting my time with it, and neither does the rest of the world when they can be spending their time on lucrative studies into the actual nature and mechanics behind the universe.

"And I for one am not ashamed of making fun of it." "some of them feel they need to attack and even kill people based on those asinine beliefs"

Mind telling me how making fun of them is going to protect you? You have, in my opinion, some funny beliefs. But, of course, I told you you don't know what you feel and so you intellectualize instead, and make yourself sound funny, at least to those who know what you feel.

And I believe religion can be quite lucrative, no?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sandorski
#1) Not sure how to disprove it
#2 is easy, there's plenty of Older than 6000 years objects.

They could have been made to appear over 6000 years old when their initial states were defined.

Religious Hypothesis: the moon is made of cheese
Scientific Experiment: travel to moon, examine the substance of its surface
Scientific Test Result: the moon is made of rock
Religious Response: god changed the cheese to rock when man arrived

What's the point of having any discussion if you inject such arguments?

 

[thraashman]

This is all answered by God's final message to his creation ..... "we apologize for the inconvenience"