Big Bang vs Creationism

[shira]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: shira
It's not a simplification whatsover, from a scientific standpoint, as it accomplishes nothing. It's meaningless. It doesn't answer the objective of science: to PREDICT.

Think of this another way: If you add God, then you can claim that ANY outcome is consistent with the "theory," since God can make any set of circumstances arise. So if there's no background radiation, you can still claim that God created Big Bang-like data, but absent background radiation. There's no accountability in this, and your explanation is thus meaningless from a scientific standpoint.

From a "belief" point of view, anyone can believe anything they want. But don't confuse that with pure science.

Both of the hypotheses I posited in the OP predict the exact same thing. That is what you are failing to grasp, and that is the point of this thread: science tells us absolutely nothing about theories that make identical predictions. This is the realm of philosophy.

You are using "hypothesis" in a non-scientific sense. For something to be a "hypothesis," each element must be essential to the phenomenon addressed. Adding God is not essential, as it addresses nothing in the phenomenon addressed

Thus, the Big Bang theory is a hypothesis, whereas God => Big Bang-data is not a hypothesis.

So your statement "both hypotheses" is erroneous. You are comparing hypothesis with non-hypothesis.

Sorry, try again.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I'd disagree. What you're arguing, ultimately, is how should we order the world we see. While most of the people on this board, as well as in our society, choose to do so through science, I thought you were trying to show that isn't really the only choice. If one moves beyond logic and reason as being the only correct lens through which to view the world, then lots of other ideas suddenly retain validity.

I've never said anything remotely related to what you've stated here. You're simply fabricating ideas that I have never uttered in this thread because they're easy for you to argue against, which I believe is commonly known as a straw man fallacy. The real point here is that science cannot answer every question and, therefore, it is absurd to ridicule someone who disagrees with you on one of these questions because you believe that one explanation is more plausible than the other. I see the ideas of the Big Bang and Creationism as completely consistent with one another, even complementary, though I do not necessarily choose to believe one, the other, or both. Nor do I ridicule those who choose one over the other. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those who ridicule those who choose one over the other, as this is akin to me calling you an idiot because your favorite color is blue while obviously the best color is red.

Seriously man, I wasn't even arguing against you in my last two posts. I still stand by the fact that what you're driving at goes beyond what your original question stated, but if you're going to disparage me for no reason, even after I basically agreed with you. There is no straw man fallacy here except that you evidently didn't read anything I said closely.

Good job.

 

[jonks]

Ok. If you're asking how can I conduct an experiment to determine if the universe began billions of years ago or 1 millionth of a second ago, outside of time travel to see if anything existed 10 minutes ago, I got nothing. However, OP sitch #2 is not an example of young earth belief though, which is what I was arguing was ridiculous to believe, as it goes against all observable evidence. Per your example, it doesn't make a difference whether 1 or 2 occured as the outcome is the same. Choosing to believe the positions held by young earthers (dinos lived with man, adam and eve lived in the garden, etc) over either your No. 1 or 2 is the mockable offense. Do I have your permission to mock people who think the Flintstones is a documentary?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Not appealing for "whatever reason"! Appealing because it's a theory supported by evidence over a theory supported by ZERO evidence. Is it your contention there is zero evidence for BBT? Because if there is any at all, that's more than the amount for young earth. Choosing to arbitrarily believe in something for no reason over a rational explanation supported by at least some evidence is one of the definitions of dementia.

I already demonstrated that the same evidence that supports BBT supports their theory. They simply define the initial time differently than you do. Since time is relative, this is a philosophical choice akin to choosing the Earth as the center of the universe when performing cosmological calculations: it's simply choosing a convenient reference frame. The answers will not depend on the frame chosen, as long as the conditions are consistent.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: shira
You are using "hypothesis" in a non-scientific sense. For something to be a "hypothesis," each element must be essential to the phenomenon addressed. Adding God is not essential, as it addresses nothing in the phenomenon addressed

Thus, the Big Bang theory is a hypothesis, whereas God => Big Bang-data is not a hypothesis.

So your statement "both hypotheses" is erroneous. You are comparing hypothesis with non-hypothesis.

Sorry, try again.

The point that you are still missing is that adding a non-scientific idea to a hypothesis does not change the scientific nature of the hypothesis. Perhaps this one will be more to your liking. We are trying to predict the real value of x and two theories have been proposed (A and B).

A=ax
B=ax+bi

Adding the imaginary component does nothing to improve the theory for the problem as stated, and there is no way to discern between these two theories, assuming that they make no other predictions. Thus, both are equally correct in a scientific sense and the choice between them comes down to philosophy, applying something like Occam's Razor to prune model B by setting b=0, which recovers B=A and the theories are reconciled.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Ok. If you're asking how can I conduct an experiment to determine if the universe began billions of years ago or 1 millionth of a second ago, outside of time travel to see if anything existed 10 minutes ago, I got nothing. However, OP sitch #2 is not an example of young earth belief though, which is what I was arguing was ridiculous to believe, as it goes against all observable evidence. Per your example, it doesn't make a difference whether 1 or 2 occured as the outcome is the same. Choosing to believe the positions held by young earthers (dinos lived with man, adam and eve lived in the garden, etc) over either your No. 1 or 2 is the mockable offense. Do I have your permission to mock people who think the Flintstones is a documentary?

You are free to mock whomever you choose to mock. I simply object to those claiming to sit on the high horse of science when they mock a person's philosophy. Should I mock you for saying the glass is half empty when I see it as half full?

I would also argue that #2 may be used to describe a Young Earth scenario, though maybe not the ones that you are referencing.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Ok. If you're asking how can I conduct an experiment to determine if the universe began billions of years ago or 1 millionth of a second ago, outside of time travel to see if anything existed 10 minutes ago, I got nothing. However, OP sitch #2 is not an example of young earth belief though, which is what I was arguing was ridiculous to believe, as it goes against all observable evidence. Per your example, it doesn't make a difference whether 1 or 2 occured as the outcome is the same. Choosing to believe the positions held by young earthers (dinos lived with man, adam and eve lived in the garden, etc) over either your No. 1 or 2 is the mockable offense. Do I have your permission to mock people who think the Flintstones is a documentary?

You are free to mock whomever you choose to mock. I simply object to those claiming to sit on the high horse of science when they mock a person's philosophy. Should I mock you for saying the glass is half empty when I see it as half full?

I would also argue that #2 may be used to describe a Young Earth scenario, though maybe not the ones that you are referencing.

My problem is when this is taught as fact, and mocking keeps me from crying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum
The museum exhibits reject evolution and assert that the earth and all of its life forms were created in 6 days just 6000 years ago and that man and dinosaurs once coexisted. These views disagree with well in excess of 99% of the scientists in relevant fields.

When "well in excess of 99% of the scientists in relevant fields" disagree with you, and you hold your position on faith contrary to evidence...well you said it best: Choosing something that is directly contradicted by raw data is just plain stupid and is, therefore, worthy of ridicule.

 

[piasabird]

Some things we are looking at may not even be where they are because of distance and the speed of light. For instance some things are so far away that the light we are looking at may be 6,000 years old. This is an interesting concept.

My question would be where is the center of the universe and when did it begin?

I just find it a little hard to beleive that man has evolved. Maybe the genetics have been slightly altered over time. i.e. height, weight, eye color.

Why do you think the World could be only 6,000 years old? Maybe it took God 10 billion years just to make the earth? Does not reference the exact time it takes to create the Earth in the Bible. Try reading it. Dont accept simple translations, read it for yourself and check it out.

I figure as much stupid trash is out on the Internet, that the Bible is a lot more interesting.

I would also suggest reading the Book of Mormon. Find out for yourself what is it in it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: piasabird

I just find it a little hard to beleive that man has evolved. Maybe the genetics have been slightly altered over time. i.e. height, weight, eye color.

that is evolution.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: shira
You are using "hypothesis" in a non-scientific sense. For something to be a "hypothesis," each element must be essential to the phenomenon addressed. Adding God is not essential, as it addresses nothing in the phenomenon addressed

Thus, the Big Bang theory is a hypothesis, whereas God => Big Bang-data is not a hypothesis.

So your statement "both hypotheses" is erroneous. You are comparing hypothesis with non-hypothesis.

Sorry, try again.

The point that you are still missing is that adding a non-scientific idea to a hypothesis does not change the scientific nature of the hypothesis. Perhaps this one will be more to your liking. We are trying to predict the real value of x and two theories have been proposed (A and B).

A=ax
B=ax+bi

Adding the imaginary component does nothing to improve the theory for the problem as stated, and there is no way to discern between these two theories, assuming that they make no other predictions. Thus, both are equally correct in a scientific sense and the choice between them comes down to philosophy, applying something like Occam's Razor to prune model B by setting b=0, which recovers B=A and the theories are reconciled.

But, again, you implicitly stating that God + theory = theory. That is the flaw in your argument. If right-hand side of your equation is a theory, the left-hand side is most certainly NOT the same theory (and not a theory at all), since there are "terms on the left that can't be filled in. You have undefined "quantities" that cannot be resolved. You have no way of setting up a "value" for "God."

Furthermore, as I wrote earlier, the addition of God answers nothing in the observed data, and it is thus illegitimiate to add the "God term," meaning that what you have proposed is not a valid theory.

Similarly, in your two equations, if A = ax expressed a valid theory, than B = ax + bi does NOT express the same theory. Only if the bi term addresses observed or expected data would the second expression be a valid theory (and in that case, A = ax would be invalid).

You cannot get around this. You are literally comparing a theory with a non-theory. Absurd. Yet you circularly respond "both are equivalent theories." I reject that claim, and merely repeating yourself won't convince me of anything.

 

[theeedude]

Another question is if God really created the universe 6000 years ago and made it look like the Big Bang theory predicts, then doesn't that imply that God wants us to believe in the Big Bang theory?
So if you are questioning the Big Bang theory, aren't you then questioning God's intent?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Some things we are looking at may not even be where they are because of distance and the speed of light. For instance some things are so far away that the light we are looking at may be 6,000 years old. This is an interesting concept.

My question would be where is the center of the universe and when did it begin?

I just find it a little hard to beleive that man has evolved. Maybe the genetics have been slightly altered over time. i.e. height, weight, eye color.

Why do you think the World could be only 6,000 years old? Maybe it took God 10 billion years just to make the earth? Does not reference the exact time it takes to create the Earth in the Bible. Try reading it. Dont accept simple translations, read it for yourself and check it out.

I figure as much stupid trash is out on the Internet, that the Bible is a lot more interesting.

I would also suggest reading the Book of Mormon. Find out for yourself what is it in it.

Light has no age. As far as light (or any other form of energy traveling at the speed of light) is concerned, time does not exist at all.

The universe has no center. It is an explosion of space, not within space.

Believe that we did evolve, because we did. And why not? Are God's lesser creatures somehow unworthy?

They're using Ussher Chronology, which IIRC the Mormon church still goes by strictly.

True. But with both, you have to be careful not to take them literally. As Jesus would have told you, allegory is the best method of teaching.

I have read it, and even studied it under the direction of LD church teachers, and found it to be complete garbage. At least the Bible has quite a bit of verifiable history in it (at least from about ~600 BC forward, although it is always laced with considerable myth regardless of time period), and can be dated to be of genuine ancient origin (and therefore has historical value merely as an insight into ancient philosophy and myth). Not so the Book of Mormon, which is a fabrication of relatively modern times.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Another question is if God really created the universe 6000 years ago and made it look like the Big Bang theory predicts, then doesn't that imply that God wants us to believe in the Big Bang theory?
So if you are questioning the Big Bang theory, aren't you then questioning God's intent?

OMG but wouldn't that then mean that God wants us to question His intent?

/head asplodes

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Second, all of the evidence supports both theories equally well.

THAT is where you're wrong - or being intentionally irrational. I'm guessing both.

/thread

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Cyclo,

What, if anything, do you consider to be "scientific" and not "philosophical"?

Hopefully my PhD dissertation will contain something scientific. In it, I attempt to discern between two theories that describe observable physical parameters and how they change in response to certain observable stimuli. The realm of science is the observable: force, mass, energy, velocity, temperature. The realm of philosophy is the unobservable, such as deciding between two scientific theories that describe scientific data equally well. For example, if I have two theories A and B, and both theories state that f (where f is some observable phenomenon) is caused by x (some other observable parameter), and neither A nor B makes any other claims, then whether A or B is more correct can only be decided philosophically. Mathematically,

A predicts that f(x)=1-x will have a value of zero for x=0, which is the only physically realistic x.

B predicts that f(x)=0 for all x, whether or not the values of x are physically observable.

From a scientific viewpoint, the two theories are equivalent. Only philosophy allows us to discern between the two.

Wow. Never mind! That post explains everything... but I didn't realize that they give out PhD's in Stand-up Philosophy!

Your thesis still need A LOT of work... good luck!

/thread

 

[jackschmittusa]

CycloWizard

I did fall into the trap of assuming that the 6k was a reference to the Biblical calculation.

Yes, there are infinite possible explanations of how the universe came into being. But this is also a problem. Since, in a single universe, there can only be one accurate explanation of how it came to be, not all possibilities are of equal value.

Your later explanation for the OP, including:

The real point here is that science cannot answer every question and, therefore, it is absurd to ridicule someone who disagrees with you on one of these questions because you believe that one explanation is more plausible than the other.

, deserves addressing.

It is not possible to teach/learn an infinite number of possibilities, nor is it likely that picking any random one to research will yield anything of value. It is therefore necessary to look at the probability that any of these possibilities are accurate. That probability is gaged by scientific method. This is not done by examining every probability, but by requiring evidence to support a theory, which is then examined. If there is no evidence presented to support a theory, it falls into the realm of speculation.

I do look askance at those insist that the 6k age of the universe is absolutely true, but put forth no valid evidence. While I agree that they may have every right to believe that, I would certainly question their judgment, and I definitely draw the line when they insist that others be instructed in their belief.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
We have already agreed that the difference is not scientific

No, "we" - that is, most of us - and you, have not agreed upon anything.

You came into this thread with the preconceived and arrogant notion that your "deep" and "profound" observation of decision-making is a truism.

I contend that it is not. Consider this my way of demonstrating a "philosophical decision" - that is, I choose to believe that the entire premise of this thread is shite!

Choosing something that is directly contradicted by raw data is just plain stupid and is, therefore, worthy of ridicule.

read that over to yourself until it sinks in that it is exactly how most of us feel about Creationism!

However, ridiculing someone because you think something that happened billions of years ago is different from how they perceive it, then invoking science as the basis of your ridicule, is equally worthy of ridicule, which is why I previously called you an idiot. Invoking my previous mathematical formulation, this is akin to your saying that everyone who accepts theory B is legally retarded because A is the theory that you find more appealing for whatever reason.

Wrong, A is the theory that is supported by the most "raw data."

You've successfully destroyed your own theory. Congrats!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

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

This is the correct answer to the OP.
Both "theories" are actually incredibly similar (no surprise, the Big Bang theory was originally developed by the Catholic church).
A couple things to point out: neither Ex Nihilo nor Young Earth Creationism are actually supported by the Bible. The former has been subject to debate since the earliest Christians, the latter (with its 6,000 year figure) is actually a relatively modern (and decidely Protestant) belief based upon Ussher's chronology of the 17th century which was popularized by being printed in American publications of the King James Bible.

Another note just as a correction: radiocarbon dating cannot go back further than 60,000 years. Radiometric dating is used to date the age of the earth.

Regarding dating, it is important IMO to keep in mind that time is not absolute, but relative, and passes at different speeds relative to one's speed and position. I'm not even going to get into quantum theories regarding time, which speculate that time doesn't pass, we pass.

Regarding the make-up of the universe: the universe is space. It is a common fallacy for people to think of the Big Bang as an explosion within space, like a bomb. The Big Bang is actually an explosion OF space. What that is though, we don't really yet understand. Energy is that which moves matter. Matter is condensed energy. Matter-energy has always existed and always will. Information cannot be created or destroyed. What has not always existed and what will not always exist is space.

Minor nitpick: There is no conservation law for information. A radium atom generates gigabytes of information per second.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 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.

You didn't read the OP very carefully, or you would realize that carbon dating and background radiation are equally explained by hypothesis #2. Either that, or you've simply put your faith in one and decided to disparage the other like a lot of others here.

Hypothesis #2 doesn't "explain" it at all. It just declares that it is, for no discernible reason. Hypothesis #1 says that the independent dating methods agree because reality is what it appears to be. Your "explanation" requires that we doubt our very own senses. In that way, it isn't an "explanation" at all. It is solipsistic nonsense.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

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.

Big Bang says that a long time ago everything was in a relatively small volume that had a very high energy state. This high energy state something exploded or expanded and everything we see around us comes from that event. There is evidence to support this. And scientists are working to reproduce this event.

Lets not forget that science is the search for the best solution to explain observed phenomena.

What existed before the expansion is another question. I would like to hear solutions to this question and insist that these solutions describe observed phenomena and predict associated questions and answers.

...maybe it happened when another intelligent society reproduced their own big bang event?

Maybe, proving Intelligent Design, although one would have to question the Intelligence or even the Design.

Maybe the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus rubbed their tummy and started the Big Bang.

Sounds nice but show me some evidence.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
My problem is when this is taught as fact, and mocking keeps me from crying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum
The museum exhibits reject evolution and assert that the earth and all of its life forms were created in 6 days just 6000 years ago and that man and dinosaurs once coexisted. These views disagree with well in excess of 99% of the scientists in relevant fields.

When "well in excess of 99% of the scientists in relevant fields" disagree with you, and you hold your position on faith contrary to evidence...well you said it best: Choosing something that is directly contradicted by raw data is just plain stupid and is, therefore, worthy of ridicule.

I'm not going to disagree with you there. I'm just saying that one could formulate Creationism in a manner that is in agreement with science, not that anyone has actually done so.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

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.

Transferred from where to what?

There is only 2 possible scenarios here:

A: All of the energy that exists today always existed in one form or another.

B: Something created that energy and set it into motion that created everything else.


In my personal opinion, I think answering the former is a cop out.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: shira
But, again, you implicitly stating that God + theory = theory. That is the flaw in your argument. If right-hand side of your equation is a theory, the left-hand side is most certainly NOT the same theory (and not a theory at all), since there are "terms on the left that can't be filled in. You have undefined "quantities" that cannot be resolved. You have no way of setting up a "value" for "God."

I thought you were an engineer and so this would appeal to you, but apparently you don't grasp the concept of a model. If I change around the model slightly, using something like the diffusion equation, which governs conservation of energy/mass/momentum,
du/dt=D*d^2u/dx^2,
then D is a parameter characterizing something about how viscous a material is, how a material diffuses, how a material conducts heat, or several other possibilites. The model tells us nothing about the value of this parameter, so it is determined experimentally, often using a different model (e.g. Einstein's equation for the viscosity of a dilute suspension of particles). If I modify the conservation equation to include some source term (like a reaction rate or heat source), then it has the form du/dt=D*d^2u/dx^2+k*u. Both of these models can equally describe a nonreactive system, though the latter is more general and applies to a broader class of systems. Abstracting this idea beyond the realm of such simple differential equations, the parameter 'k' can become very complex, even containing imaginary components (i.e. it is not necessarily a real-valued parameter). So, why does adding this k*u term make the second model invalid?

Furthermore, as I wrote earlier, the addition of God answers nothing in the observed data, and it is thus illegitimiate to add the "God term," meaning that what you have proposed is not a valid theory.

Similarly, in your two equations, if A = ax expressed a valid theory, than B = ax + bi does NOT express the same theory. Only if the bi term addresses observed or expected data would the second expression be a valid theory (and in that case, A = ax would be invalid).

You cannot get around this. You are literally comparing a theory with a non-theory. Absurd. Yet you circularly respond "both are equivalent theories." I reject that claim, and merely repeating yourself won't convince me of anything.

Well, I'm not going to argue with you on the validity of a mathematical model. Unless you can concede the simple-minded idea that infinitely many models may be proposed that describe any data set, then there really isn't anything else I can say to you except you're totally and utterly wrong. *shrug*

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Another question is if God really created the universe 6000 years ago and made it look like the Big Bang theory predicts, then doesn't that imply that God wants us to believe in the Big Bang theory?
So if you are questioning the Big Bang theory, aren't you then questioning God's intent?

Maybe God doesn't care what theory you subscribe to.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
THAT is where you're wrong - or being intentionally irrational. I'm guessing both.

/thread

I'll try to make this as simple as possible. Tell me if the following is true:

1+1+1+1+1=5
0+2+1+1+1=5

If it is true, then my previous statement must also be true. The cumulative sum of this sequence could represent the state of the universe, where each term is an arbitrary time step. The final state of the sequence is the same in either case, even though the first term is different. So please, tell me how I can prove something mathematically while behaving "irrationally."

Wow. Never mind! That post explains everything... but I didn't realize that they give out PhD's in Stand-up Philosophy!

Your thesis still need A LOT of work... good luck!

/thread

Stay in school. :roll: