PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Poll time!!
       Where do you stand..

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No arguments on this one, I just want to know where everyone stands.  What theory do you believe in, conventional geology (4.5 billion year old earth) or Creationism (6000 year old earth).

I believe in the old earth, but am welcome to other points of view.

I know it is obvious where the regulars stand on the topic, but I am hoping to get people who just read here to start posting... so just post what you believe in, no reasons please... (if you want to argue start another topic).

always


-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 10:19 AM on May 14, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

4.5 billion
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:49 AM on May 14, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Young Earth creationist   6000 year old earth/universe

(relatively speaking, of course, to earth time)


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 11:58 AM on May 14, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mainstream science (4.5 BYO earth, etc)


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 1:20 PM on May 14, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Every year more and more scientists are starting to accept the truth:

Infinite Age
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 3:02 PM on May 14, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

a recycling universe, or eternal?  By infinite age do you mean the earth or universe?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 3:11 PM on May 14, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It was more of a parody but i didnt do it well enough. I accept whatever mainstream science is saying so 4.5 billion years it is.


(Edited by Void 5/14/2004 at 4:19 PM).
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 4:16 PM on May 14, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Come on, I see many views but few replys, this is a safe post, there will be no attacks here, I am interested in how many creationists vs. evolutionists view these forums.  For those of you who just read please post here, it is fun!


-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 4:22 PM on May 14, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

4,550,000,000 years for the Earth, give or take.

I don't like the use of the word believe here- I accept the above based upon reason and logic, it does not require me to "believe" in it.


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:24 PM on May 14, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Void: Ah, sorry bout that

OR: I agree completely.  One addition to reason and logic though- verifiable evidence obtained through numerous methods


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:19 PM on May 14, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't have a problem with "believe in"... I believe in many things that I cannot personally verify.  I believe that the North American continent is drifting about 4 cm/year - I haven't deduced this myself, but I trust the separate groups of scientists that have measured it.  Same with the speed of light, Kepler's laws, the laws of thermodynamics...  It would take so long to personally verify every logical deduction and observation.  I don't believe that you personally deduced that the earth is 4.5 billion years old through your own observations.  I think that you believe that the data collected by other people has not been falsified, from their conclusions you have made logical deductions (unless you are one of the scientists who personally has worked in this problem, then sorry for the false assumptions).  

However, I suppose it is getting a little too technical...


-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 10:25 AM on May 17, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thats a fair enough point godyag, I guess I should explain where I'm coming from more clearly.

I can go and read the accounts of how those dates were arrived at, and the methodology used. If I were so inclined (and talented )  I could pursue a career path that would lead me to be able to perfrom such tests as well. I suppose there is a degree of belief envolved, but only in the same way I have to believe that a new medical treatment is better than an old one it replaces.

To contrast, if my wife were to say to me her friend had been having a stressful time at work for a couple of months and she had been praying to God to help her get through it, and things were now better for it, I would say that requires me to believe in God to accept where her friend has attributed her help to. I have no way of testing if it was actually God who helped her through it or if it was her strength of character (so to speak) alone.

Sorry if that is vague, but it was the best description off the top of my head as to how I would use the word believe, depending on the context.


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:46 AM on May 17, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good points, I was probably being too picky..




-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 12:20 PM on May 17, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

godyag: would you consider reposting this topic over at the "new" forums?

Update Evolution vs Creationism forums

If you don't want too, would you mind if I did?


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 05:42 AM on June 10, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sure, I didn't know there were new forums... I will have to check it out. : )

Feel free to post this topic there.


-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 10:07 AM on June 10, 2004 | IP
Mike_King

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

4.5 by and I am a Christian..No conflict there..


-------
Best Regards

Mike King

www.carnivorousplants.uk.com
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 6:02 PM on June 28, 2004 | IP
NokX

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Mike_King at 2:02 PM on June 28, 2004 :
4.5 by and I am a Christian..No conflict there..


i smell sarcasm...  :P

i do find it odd that we've (homo sapiens) supposedly been around (according to evolutionists) for around 120,000 years.  yet...the earliest form of written communication between humans has only been found within the last 5,000-6,000 years.  that's a long time to go without leaving a note for your cave-wife to pick up a deer on the way home from picking the kids up at the local pond.

and the population theory has always been an interesting point of view...  just in the 1950's there were 2,555,360,972 people.  now in 2004 there are 6,377,641,642.  pretty drastic jump in just the last 50 years.  over double.  and people aren't even having that many kids anymore.

Source
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 10:22 PM on July 7, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i do find it odd that we've (homo sapiens) supposedly been around (according to evolutionists) for around 120,000 years.  yet...the earliest form of written communication between humans has only been found within the last 5,000-6,000 years.


you think that's odd?  You should see the computer my grandparents had when they were kids.  

and the population theory has always been an interesting point of view...  just in the 1950's there were 2,555,360,972 people.  now in 2004 there are 6,377,641,642.  pretty drastic jump in just the last 50 years.  over double.  and people aren't even having that many kids anymore.


See what happens when you don't look at other posts?
This is from the talk.origins newsgroup.  One of the members (lodger) is a former JW (as of about a month ago), who has just discovered evolutionary theory and realized the OEC JW's were wrong.  One of the elders of the JW's told him that instead of trying to find errors in the bible, find something that is correct.  Here's his post:

I really with to know exactly how you resolve
the question of how the earth managed to get repopulated quickly
enough to allow the rise of Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Chinese culture
in the years immediately following the Flood.

Now, the way it's been explained to me is that all human civilization
arose post-Flood.  Using ages and dates in the Bible it's possible to
determine the exact year (starting from the creation of Adam at 4026
BCE):

From Adam's creation to the birth of Seth   130 years
Then to the birth of Enosh                  105 years
To the birth of Kenan                        90 years
To the birth of Mahalalel                    70 years
To the birth of Jared                        65 years
To the birth of Enoch                       162 years
To the birth of Methuselah                   65 years
To the birth of Lamech                      187 years
To the birth of Noah                        182 years
To the Flood                                600 years

Thanks to Bible geneology and chronology, the flood can be pinned to
2370 BCE, roughly 4,400 years ago as you said.

Anyhow, the progenitors of the modern human race were Ham, Shem and
Japheth, Noah's three sons and their wives.  They were fruitful and
multiplied after the flood down to around the time of Peleg when the
Tower of Babel was built.  The building of the tower lead to the
dispersion of various ethnic and language groups to all corners of the
Earth and the rest, as they say, is history.

It's impossible to work out from the Bible the exact time of the Tower
of Babel, but it's estimated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of
180 years after the flood based on when Peleg lived.  

Now, the earliest known Egyptian pyramid (the Step Pyramid) has been
dated to about 300 years prior to this date, the slightly later Red
Pyramid, Bent Pyramid and (of course) the Giza Pyramids and the Sphinx
are all generally dated as occuring before the Biblical flood date as
well.  Of course, these datings must be off by somewhere in the
neighborhood of 500 years or so in order for their construction to
have occured post-Tower of Babel.  So, presuming thats the case the
next question is how many people needed to be alive in Egypt at the
time of the pyramids construction in order to facilitate said
construction?  It's really impossible to tell for certain, but the
generally accepted estimate is around 1-2 million people living in
Egypt at the time and a pyramid building workforce around 20,000
people.  

It's not only Egypt that needs to be accounted for, of course.  The
entire fertile crescent region, Sumeria, Accadia, Babylon itself, that
entire region was likewise populated shortly after the flood and a lot
of cities were built indicating minimally hundreds of thousands,
likely millions more people.  

In China, by around 2100 BCE (admittedly nearly 300 years after the
flood) the earliest recorded records of a Xia dynasty are known to
exist.  So, presumably the China-bound descendants of the flood
survivors, when scattered at Babel, took a while to migrate over there
and then developed their culture.  There were, apparently, tens or
possibly hundreds of thousands of people in China at this time as
well.

So, in an effort to determine if I could stick the to realities of
human biology and postulate a repopulation scenario, I wrote a
computer program today (I'm a programmer).  I made many unreasonable
assumptions by modern standards but I assumed that God would be using
miraculous abilities to accelerate and support the repopulation
effort.  My program takes various parameters but it starts with the
initial condition that 6 breeding pairs of humans (the Bible doesn't
indicate that Noah and his wife had more children than the three)
began to procreate at the fastest rate they could.  The reproduction
was divinely supported to be as effective as possible.  Here are the
groundrules, as optimistic as I could imagine them being:

- The maximum human lifespan is over 120 years old
- All women who are between the ages of 13 and 55 have sex once every
single week that they do not have their period or are currently
pregnant, on average 90% of all potentially pregnant women are
pregnant at any given time
- Their odds of successful fertilization per attempt are 1 in 3
- As soon as a girl turns 13, she begins producing children, no
exceptions and she stays active producing children until the age of 55
- There is no infant mortality
- There are no deaths during childbirth
- Death rates in general are dramatically lower than in modern times

My goal in this simulation was to see what would happen if
childbearing rates were accelerated enough to account for the
populations necessary for the Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Chinese
cultures.

Ive run this program a bunch of times and I know that it is relatively
flawed, but wherever possible I have tried to err towards miraculous
reproduction rates, not to simulate known population growth rates.
After 180 years from the Flood, at approximately the time period of
the Tower of Babel, the population of the Earth the app comes up with
numbers in the following ballpark (these are from a specific run,
random factors lead to slightly different numbers with each run
through):

- Population of the Earth: 61,162

Hey, not bad, I thought when I ran it the first time.  A decent seed
population for Babel, and only about 500 years after the claimed
Egyptian dates...  Then, I decided to break it down and I found
something fascinating...  They're almost all children under the age of
12:

- Girls under 12: 25,989
- Boys under 12: 21,446
- Adults (over age 12 qualifies as an adult here): 13,727

Also, at the time I stopped my simulation at 180 years, there were
6,694 women over the age of 13 of whom 5,291 were currently pregnant.
The rest were adult men.

So, there are some major problems at this point.  First, we're running
out of time because the dates of the Pyramids are getting farther in
the past and that gap can only get so big and maintain any
believability.  Second, a world made up of only about 7,000 "adult"
males, 5,300 pregnant women and 48,000 kids is not one in which the
population would spread out, build massive cities and monuments,
develop writing and all that  because they'd be spending all their
time raising children and finally, we're a few million people short.
The bodies simply aren't there.  You could keep this up for a few
hundred more years (and after I optimize the code a little I intend to
try) but I don't see how it's possible to keep up the required
population growth rates and still alleviate the problem of having too
many kids to adults, especially seeing as those adults are made up of
a lot of teenagers.  Humans only grow so fast.  Were the Egyptian,
Mesopotamian and Chinese civilations founded by hundreds of thousands
of little kids?  Did human gestation speed up to be fewer than 40
weeks?  How do you resolve this apparent impossibility.  I seriously
wish to know...





-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 11:04 PM on July 7, 2004 | IP
antievokid

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hey i just found this website and i think its great. but one thing i was wondering to all of you is, have you ever looking into older textbooks from the US. they start of saying that the world is 6000 years old and that Jesus is our savior. as the years go by the books started saying that the world is 3 billion years old. WOW WHAT A HUGE DIFFERENCE! and now the books are saying that the earth is like 12 BYO (well thats what my textbook says)

leave some remarks and tell me what you think. or you can e-mail me at paintxtreamer@yahoo.com

p.s. if the geologic time colum (layers in the earths crust) theory is true why is there fossilised trees that are in 2 and even three layers.


-------
feel free to email me at paintxtreamer@yahoo.com

Travis
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 6:59 PM on July 10, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I find it very hard to believe that you have actual science texts proclaiming that the earth is six thousand years old and was created by Jesus.  I find it even harder to believe (ie, your lying) when you say your current textbook tells you that the earth is 12 billion years old.  

As for polystrate fossils, they weren't a problem 150 years ago, and they aren't now:
polystrate fossils


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 02:36 AM on July 12, 2004 | IP
antievokid

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well TQ if you would stop listening to what people tell you and do some research for yourself you would find that in the late 1800's and the early 1900's the science books were based on creation and that the earth is only abot 6000 years old.

why do you find it hard to belive that my textbook says the earth is 12 BYO???    if you say something you should back it up with details.


-------
feel free to email me at paintxtreamer@yahoo.com

Travis
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 6:23 PM on July 17, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lemme get this straight:  an outdated (by about 100-150 years) textbook which says the earth is six thousand years old is correct because it agrees with the bible teachings of the time, despite the fact that it is wrong according to every scrap of evidence collected?

why do you find it hard to belive that my textbook says the earth is 12 BYO???    

Probably has something to do with the fact that the earth is dated at about 4.5 BYO.
You don't know this yet you are criticizing science?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:37 PM on July 17, 2004 | IP
antievokid

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

im just adding to my belife that this nation is falling away from God.


-------
feel free to email me at paintxtreamer@yahoo.com

Travis
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 11:08 PM on July 17, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well, that would definitely explain your lies about the age of the earth in your text book, not to mention the lie about the founding fathers all being christians, the lie about America being a christian nation, and it also fits very well with the fact that America is currently one of the most religous countries of the world


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 05:21 AM on July 18, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Antievokid, welcome!

The reason that your old text books state that the earth is 6000 years old is because back then (150 years ago) the model used to explain the origin on the earth was based almost exclusively upon the bible.

Since then, people have been trying to make sense of the world around them using an objective view that does not take into account the bible, or any other information, just observations and theories fitted  upon previous observations and natural "laws".

When this was done a new model for the earth was thought up, and over time it has been changing every time a new discovery has been made.

You may think that since the theory is changing, that it will inevitably change in the future and so the current model must be wrong...  that is a good point.  However, the changes that are being made to the current model are small, and so the overall picture does not change, just the details.

Imagine building a puzzle, you keep changing it by adding pieces, but it really doesn't make what you build wrong it just gives you greater insight to what the end product will be.

This is the same with the scientific model for the creation of the earth.  Over time it changes and we gain greater insights into it's formation.  Occasionally we make a mistake and mis-interpret a piece of information... but this is usually corrected when another piece of information does not fit with it, and so it is corrected.

Therefore, I suggest that if you are truly interested that you pick up a modern text book which will have the most up to date model of the earth, and learn about it.

Once you have learned about the bible's model and the scientific model, then you can make an informed decision about what you believe.

You can always post any questions here as well!

p.s. The current model states that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.


-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 7:10 PM on July 19, 2004 | IP
Atlantis

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mainstream science says the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old!  

That's not hard to believe, did any of you stop to consider this:  

There is not one place in any Bible or religious text that says how long a day is to GOD!

So actually the Earth could be 4.5 Billion years old and God still created it along with everything else!

Just because it reads that GOD created all the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days while resting on the 7th.  Does not mean you can automatically know how long a day  is to God!!!

You see this is all a part of his Divine plan,  and all of your faith is being tested now.  

Also you will never win an arguement against this!  Because I have FAITH and that's all I need.
Anyone who has Faith needs no proof!

If a scientist can believe that everything in the universe came from a bunch of nothing imploding into itself,  then why I ask,  is it so hard to believe in a Mighty and Powerful all knowing and all seeing GOD?

(faith)   n.

  1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
  2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
  3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
  4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
  5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
  6. A set of principles or beliefs.

We see, here that the Faith a scientist has in the Big Bang Theory is the same as the Faith I have in GOD!

I know one thing's 4 sure and that is the Big Bang isn't going to be there when you die, what do you have to lose by believe-ing in GOD?





-------
"There's no trick to being a comedian when you have the whole government working for you." Will Rogers (1879-1935)
If your a guest, please register and join the discussion!
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 12:52 AM on February 16, 2005 | IP
scibert

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I accept mainstream geology's estimate (approximately 4.5 billion years).
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 01:06 AM on February 16, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We see, here that the Faith a scientist has in the Big Bang Theory is the same as the Faith I have in GOD!

No, the Big Bang isn't believed in based on faith, it's accepted based on the evidence, big difference.  One has a great deal of evidence supporting it, the other has nothing more than 4000 year old myths and superstitions.

I know one thing's 4 sure and that is the Big Bang isn't going to be there when you die, what do you have to lose by believe-ing in GOD?

What do you have to lose believing in God?  what if when you die, you find out you worshipped the wrong god?  What if the supreme being is really Allah or Odin and your eternally punished for worshipping  a false god?  No, I see no evidence for any god in the world, it's better to face what I think is the truth than believe in some happy fairy tale.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:32 PM on February 16, 2005 | IP
Atlantis

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please defend this information if you can!

1.1: ASSERTION: Big Bang theory is disproved by the fact that something cannot come from nothing.

RESPONSE: (i) Standard Big Bang theory uses the equations of Einstein's general theory of relativity to trace the history of the universe back to a point in time when the universe was concentrated in a point of infinite density, called a singularity. Because it uses general relativity alone, standard Big Bang theory ignores quantum mechanical effects that become important early in the history of the universe, when the universe is very small. We will take these quantum mechanical effects into consideration in part (ii), but right now let us consider what standard Big Bang theory says about the idea of the universe "coming from nothing."

One consequence of relativistic physics is that space and time are themselves inseparable aspects of the universe. This means that the origin of the universe was the origin of space and time themselves, and that on standard Big Bang theory, there cannot have been time prior to the initial singularity; indeed, the very idea of "prior" to the singularity makes no sense. This, in turn, shows that the vision of the universe somehow "coming from" a primordial nothingness, far from being a stipulation of Big Bang theory, is inconsistent with it.

For the universe to have come from nothing, it would at least have to be the case that at some point in the past, there was nothing, and then, at some later point in time, the universe suddenly existed. However, as we have seen, standard Big Bang theory entails that the universe existed at every moment of time there has ever been. One cannot in one breath talk about the universe existing at the first moment of time, and then, in the next breath, imply that there was a time before this first moment of time in which nothing existed. As physicist Stephen Hawking writes:

   to talk about causation or creation implicitly assumes there was a time before the big bang singularity. We have known for twenty-five years that Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts that time must have had a beginning in a singularity fifteen billion years ago. (Hawking 1993:46)

(ii) What happens when one takes into account the importance of quantum mechanics in the early history of the universe? It is difficult to say at this point: a complete understanding of how the universe behaved at that point would require a synthesis of quantum mechanics and general relativity (a theory of quantum gravity), but no such synthesis has yet attained the consensus in cosmology. However, according to physicist Lee Smolin, there are only three possible consequences any theory of quantum gravity can have:

   * [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.
   * [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.
   * [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case, there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense. (Smolin 1997:82)

Possibility A gives us the same situation as that described by standard Big Bang theory: a universe which exists at every instant of time, and hence cannot have "come from" nothing.

Possibility B gives us a universe extending back infinitely in time, likewise eliminating the supposed problems raised by the universe "coming from" nothing.

Possibility C (which is the kind of scenario proposed in the quantum cosmological speculations of Hawking 1988) once again gives us a universe that cannot "come from" nothing, as the very notion of time-ordering ceases to have meaning in the early universe.

It thus appears that whenever a complete theory of the origin of the universe is developed by supplementing standard Big Bang theory with quantum gravity, that theory will still bypass the complaint that something cannot come from nothing.

(iii) A philosophical aside: even were we to assume (abandoning general relavity in the process) that there was in fact some time prior to the origin of the universe when there was nothing except time, it is still unclear where the problem is supposed to be. If there is absolutely nothing at all, why should one suppose there is a restriction on what can happen? There is certainly no logical contradiction in imagining there being nothing at one point in time and then something at a later point in time. It is not as though we are talking about "nothing" somehow metamorphosing into an existent something, or about the universe somehow causing itself. Although the proposition that something cannot come from nothing, like the proposition that the earth is flat, has traditionally been a very popular proposition, it reflects only popular prejudice and lacks rigorous logical support.

(iv) A scientific aside: Vilenkin (1982; see also Guth 1997:271-276) has proposed that quantum mechanics alone could allow for the transition of a universe with no geometry (no points) to a universe with a geometry. For the moment, I do not know what to make of this proposal, because I do not understand how one is supposed to parse the idea of a "transition" without time; however, I mention it as something for others to be aware of.

1.2: ASSERTION: Big Bang theory violates the first law of thermodynamics.

RESPONSE: The creationist contention is that because the first law of thermodynamics says that the energy of a closed system is constant, and Big Bang theory says the universe came from nothing, Big Bang theory violates the first law of thermodynamics.

(i) For a theory to violate the first law of thermodynamics, the theory must stipulate two points in time (call them T and T*) such that the total energy of the universe at T and the total energy of the universe at T* do not match one another. The creationist argument implicitly assumes that Big Bang theory stipulates a time t < 0, prior to the initial singularity of the universe, at which there was no energy at all (because the universe did not exist). However, if the origin of the universe is the origin of time (see 1.1), then the idea of such a time t < 0 actually contradicts standard Big Bang theory. Therefore, there can be no violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics in the origin of the universe.

(ii) Note that the universe may actually have an overall energy of zero. The gravitational energy of the universe is a negative quantity, which some cosmologists may very well turn out to balance all of the positive energy in the universe, leaving a net balance of zero energy. If the universe does in fact have a net energy of zero, even something as extravagant as its spontaneous appearance in another empty spacetime would be consistent with the first law of thermodynamics.

1.3: ASSERTION: Big Bang theory violates the second law of thermodynamics.

RESPONSE: The creationist contention is that because the second law of thermodynamics states that all systems tend to become more disordered over time, but the Big Bang posits a state of high order at the beginning of the universe, Big Bang theory violates the second law of thermodynamics.

(i) The second law of thermodynamics does not, in fact, state that all systems tend to become more disordered over time, but only that all closed systems (systems into which new sources of energy cannot enter) tend to become more disordered over time. Some creationists insist that all systems, open and closed, tend to become more disordered over time; however, this is not what the second law of thermodynamics says, so such creationists are simply stipulating new laws without evidence instead of appealing to established scientific law.

(ii) A violation of the second law of thermodynamics requires that there be two times T and T* in the history of the universe, with T prior to T*, and for which the universe is more disordered at T than it is at T*. But if the origin of the universe is the origin of time itself (see 1.1), there cannot have been a time prior to the origin of the universe when it was more disordered. Hence, for cosmological models in which the universe had a beginning, the initial state of the universe can be ordered to any degree without violating the second law of thermodynamics.

(iii) If the universe came into existence from a preexisting spacetime, then it is an open question whether there could be any violation of the second law of thermodynamics in the origin of the universe. Since there was a wider spacetime from which the universe originated, the universe may have purchased order at the expense of the wider spacetime; that is to say, our entire universe might not be (or always have been) a closed system.

Source of my information

The Big Bang Theory is no more scientific than the dating of the Egyptian Pyramids at Giza.

Currently,  because there have been found buildings and living quarters near the Pyramid's, science has taken the writings from those buildings and dated them to around 2600 B.C.  and because their next to the pyramids concluded that that's how old the pyramids are.  

*They wrote on everything back then, right?
*Why are their no writings in the Great Pyramid's?

This assumption is the same as saying that those saints that are in various cathedrals throughout Europe which we know didn't build the cathedrals.  Well it's like saying their buried there so they must have built them!

The Big Bang is a Theory!

All Theories are the same until they are proven!

and to be fair:

My God is a Theory too!

So both are valid Theories, and since niether one of us can prove the other wrong.  I say we end this.  By agreeing to disagree!


-------
"There's no trick to being a comedian when you have the whole government working for you." Will Rogers (1879-1935)
If your a guest, please register and join the discussion!
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 7:55 PM on February 17, 2005 | IP
DrAtH

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Although it's highly unlikely that the Big Bang theory can ever be proven, I can't accept your God as a theory without a couple pieces of solid evidence (no offense to you personally).  Although I fail to see the connection between the Big Bang and Evolution, I'm intrigued by your physics.

Basically all of the laws you've mentioned that the Big Bang violates hinge on one thing, which is that time has a beginning.  There is a theory, that time is circular, or to be even more complicated, spherical.  I myself don't really know the specifics, but what if time had no beginning.

Being human, and having no means of transportation through time, none of us can really say for sure whether time had a "beginning" or, more specifically, whether the universe had a beginning.  So the information you've presented is not enough to negate the Big Bang Theory.


-------
ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!!

So what, I'm a sociopath.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 12:07 AM on February 19, 2005 | IP
DrAtH

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd have to say I'm with the 4.5 billioners on this one.


-------
ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!!

So what, I'm a sociopath.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 12:09 AM on February 19, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.