Well first of all, science supports the theory of evolution. According to science, it is theoratically possible. Second of all, this is a debating site; be prepared to debate, not civilise. Thirdly, I'm merely curious to whether or not you have evidence supporting the hypothesis of creationism?

 

I don't see how Creationism and the "Big Bang" (I dissaprove of the term Big Bang) are relatively similar apart from the fact they both try to explain how our origin began. I wish to debate with you, but I'm not sure what side you are on. Do you believe in Creationism or the Big Bang? Remember, to believe in both is a contradiction . . .

 

Sure creationism explains "the poofing," but it is not a valid explanation for the beginning of the universe. If god created the universe then he had to exist, and if god existed then he must have come from somewhere. At that point the only options for the creationist are god had a beginning, in which case you still have to explain god's beginning, or he had no beginning, in which case you are no longer arguing for a beginning of the universe, but for one that always existed. That is why scientists take the view "it just poofed into existance," because ,although it seems implausible, it is all that can be proved at this point in time.

But I'm sure you have heard this argument elsewhere, it's just so obvious that everyone uses it.

 

You don't understand the poorly named "big bang", there was an existence before that event, however it is not known what, wether it was a previous universe/existence that collasped and then exploded/expanded again as part of an eternal cycle like willm occur with the present cosmos or if there was nothing-a void that assembled into a pinpoint than exploded/expanded. Then there is the why and how of either explanation

Creationism is disimilar because unlike what you say, everything did not just kind of appear all of a sudden, creationism has it appearing step by step, time frame by time frame and the materials appearing in stages. Everything in the universe was there from second number one, it has grown and evolved into what we are a part of but all the ingredients appeared immediately and at once in scientific terms but not in creationism you are asking for answers we are not capable of giving, but that is no reason to come up with a mythical fairy tale story like creationism to explain it away

 

To say that science shows that the origins of life could not possibly have been "thrown together at random millions of years ago" is not only flat-out wrong, it shows that you have a deep misunderstanding of what science has to say about abiogenesis and evolution.

This has been done to death elsewhere. I ask that you please peruse www.talkorigins.org before you attempt to debate the matter. It is not possible to have a debate when one side knows very little about the subject.

 

Creationism and the big bang are not remotely similar. Please see my youtube video on the big bang, www.youtube.com/dkt80.

"Creationism's metaphysical answer" is not an answer at all. It explains nothing, and makes no testable predictions. Scientists wouldn't even qualify it as a hypothesis, let alone an "answer". The big bang, on the other hand, makes testable predictions (look up the COBE satellite, for example), which have been verified. There is therefore a very solid evidential basis for the big bang, whereas the basis of creationism is "I have faith that that's how it happened".

Back to you.

 

andrewtoy: have a look on youtube for Roger Penrose's lecture on the big bang. You may learn a few things about the second law of thermodynamics.

 

If you can't see the contradictions between the two then I won't even bother stating them; it would seem pointless. Let's say that the idea of a creator is more rational than the Big Bang, where is your proof that there is a creator? The Big Bang presents the cosmic background radiation as proof, I see no proof for creationism. You say the Big Bang theory gives proof to creationism, but I disagree. It may make it seem more rational in some senses, but it certainly provides no proof. In the end it isn't about what makes more sense, it's really about what has the most proof.

 

You have taken things too far by insinuating that God is a gay, British man! XD

I'm pretty sure poof or poofer means a gay man in British slang. lol.

 

I agree about "vlogs". My intention was to do an understanding of science series, but I haven't got around to this, and in the meantime I've felt obliged to respond at length to some other videos. But that's not particularly relevant.

The "no time before the big bang" position is not philosophical. It is a matter of mathematics. The big bang is in essence a mathematical theory which is well-supported by the evidence. One of its consequences is that time, as we understand it, loses its meaning prior to the big bang.

The analogy is inaccurate, but if it makes you feel comfortable imagine that time is infinte, but compressed to such a degree during the big bang that it has a measurable beginning, *measured at the rate that we currently experience it*.

So the question, "what happened before the big bang?" is meaningless on more than one level. (a) we have no way of knowing, (b) the mathematics says that time itself didn't exist before the big bang, and (c) it's not clear that the question actually makes sense in the first place.

There is no "poof" in the big bang.

Roger Penrose's lecture on this is enlightening; it's on youtube, search for "roger penrose big bang".

If anybody came up with a viable creation hypothesis, i.e. an argument that is falsifiable, supported by all the evidence we have and predictive so that future observations can look for something we wouldn't otherwise expect, then scientists might take it seriously. That is the standard of rigor for scientific hypotheses; imagine then how powerful a theory is to a scientist. Scientific theories are as close as we get to the truth.

Speculation about "before the big bang" will only ever be that - speculation - until it has some consequences that can be tested. Real scientists avoid speculating. Look at all the flak Carl Sagan got from the scientific community for speculating in his Cosmos series.

 

Ah, thevenerablerob... good to see you again!

1. How is the big bang theory "half cooked"?
2. What does it have to do with abiogenesis?
3. Why is abiogenesis improbable?
4. Why is the creation "hypothesis" superior?
5. How can dogs be so different if they're all dogs?
6. What animals did we not bypass on the way becoming human?
7. Which ones were "missed"?
8. What are these "holes" in evolution?
9. Have you really not improved your education since last we chatted?

 

It always amazes me how people like yourself aren't ashamed of your ignorance and credulity. You should be embarrassed to ask those kinds of questions, not because questioning things is stupid, but because you ask stupid questions and act as if your other questions that aren't totally stupid couldn't be answered quite easily by scientists or even educated lay people.

You believe that the bible was written by God, which is just beyond insane, yet can't fathom how you could see the kind of diversity of species on the planet through evolution. The kinds of "proofs" you accept for the divinity of the bible are not "proofs" at all but ramblings from ancient people who had no understanding of the way the world worked. On the other hand when science has tested and verified hypothesis thousands of times over, REAL PROOF, you, because of your ignorance and belief in Santa Claus, cannot accept this proof.

You wear and display your ignorance like it's a badge of honor. It's a shame you aren't embarrassed because that might be one way in which you could actually learn something about the real world.

 

I find that many creationists overlook the fact that there is an infinite number of possibilites to the creation of the universe, and not just two. They feel that there is EITHER the scientific explanation, or else there is God.

In fact the strongest basis for my own atheism is that there are many differing religions on Earth, and the only thing that the vast majority share is a divine creator. So the argument should always be about whether the universe was created by a conscious being or a natural event. Unfortunately I always see too many references to God in debates such as this.

The Bible was originally penned by human beings and was once considered a blasphemous text. People mocked Christianity in the same way we today mock Scientology. Personally I see no difference between the two in this respect, only that one has enjoyed the benefit of thousands of years and an increasingly powerful hub (the Catholic Church) to spread its message.

So even if I were to be convinced away from my strong atheistic beliefs and accept the universe was created by a divine being, and not a natural event, I would still be very far away indeed from accepting Christianity as the true faith.

For that reason, let us avoid specifically referencing "God" in this debate as it is an entirely separate issue from the one which we are discussing.

 

And thank you, sir, I too enjoy debating points that actually merit discussion :-)

Before I begin, let me put my position in context. Suppose that something did exist that was "outside" the universe. Then either that entity interacts with the universe - in which case its presence could in theory be detected by some means - or else it does not, in which case it can have no impact on our lives within this universe. I'm happy with either position. Since we have been unable to detect any external interference in the universe, I tend to align myself with the "it doesn't interact" position.

This is compatible with the view that God set the universe in motion, and then sat back to watch. It is also compatible - although far less likely to be so for reasons I will come to - with the idea that when we die, we arrive in front of the creator for judgement. I'm happy with that too. If God is good, then I believe he will accept my lifelong position of sticking to what I know and what can be deduced about the universe, and being skeptical about the rest. If he doesn't accept this, then in my view he is not a being worth worshiping in the first place.

Judgement I consider unlikely, because it seems clear that what we are is solely a function of the matter that makes us up. The evidence for this comes from brain trauma victims - my cousin Grant is one of those unfortunates, and to a lesser extent so is my uncle Giles, who had a brain tumor. A slight alteration in the matter of our brains can lead to a drastic change in our personalities. It is difficult to reconcile this data with the idea of an eternal soul that somehow preserves our essence.

"What lit the wick that was the creation of the universe?"

It's not necessarily the case that anything lit the wick. As I explained in my video on time and the big bang, from a theoretical outside observer's point of view, which I referred to as a "superclock" (such a thing of course being impossible), the universe is in fact infinite in extent. It only has a measurable age because of the expansion of time from a singularity at the origin.

So yes, I guess you're right to say that this has philosophical consequences that can be discussed, but one must first be sure that one's position is consistent with what the mathematics say, because the big bang theory is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. What are the philosophical consequences? As I see it, they are that discussion of things that are before or outside the big bang is meaningless, because it is in principle untestable.

I do not wish to suggest that I would not dearly like to know the answers to such questions; I would, just as I would dearly love to escape the confines of Einstein's relativity and travel to the edge of the universe. What I am suggesting is that such knowledge is apparently impossible, not to say meaningless in the sense that the question "what is the colour of a circle?" is meaningless. That should not and will not stop me and other scientist from doing our best to poke holes in our current understanding. Not only is that part of the scientific process, but we also have good motivation to do so, because much of what science currently has to say about the universe is, quite honestly, downright depressing. But the facts, hard though they are, must be accepted.

Does that make my point of view clear?

 

You didn't exactly prove or give evidence to anything in our latest and finished debate. Why are you still clingy to these same creationist fallacies that don't seem to compel anyone rational?

 

PS - technical addendum to what I said before.

There is a school of thought that says that our universe is the result of the explosion of a black hole in another universe. We would not initially be causally connected with the other universe, but over time the light-cones would intersect. This has the striking implication that the rate of expansion might increase after a time, as the universes become causally connected and matter outside our universe starts to pull our space-time apart. And indeed there is some evidence that the rate of expansion is increasing.

However, this idea presents several other sticky problems. For one thing, we don't know whether it is possible for a black hole to explode, although the big bang itself seems to suggest that this can happen (it was a singularity just like any other black hole, after all). It may be that after a time we will observe daughter-universes expanding within our own universe. The jury is out on this one. But it's an extremely interesting idea, although also terrifying in the sense that if it is correct, then we are even more insignificant than we previously thought. It is difficult to imagine, given the size of the universe, that we are any more than a fleeting concern to a supposed creator.

 

Oh boy. Another one. Look up the Larus gull, or JFGI: observed instances of speciation. And don't be idiotic and insist that there should be a crocoduck. Look at the Wikipedia article on Hominidae. Our species diverged from the chimps (Pan genus) around 5 million years ago. More recently the ancestral line forked into H. sapiens and H. neandertalensis. Our line survived; theirs did not. Do some reading, and then come back. www.talkorigins.org is a good place to start.

As for the origin of the universe: If this alleged creator doesn't have to have a beginning/creator, then why should the universe? The universe is far simpler than the creator would have to be. Besides which, we know from the big bang theory that the early universe would necessarily have been causally isolated from anything that was allegedly "outside" it. It is also, from a certain point of view, infinite in time. Time as we experience it was a product of the big bang just as space was.

 

How can you be so out of touch with your own existence?

If you took time to crawl out from beneath your aged rock and observe what is around you - you would notice patterns and similarities all across the spectrum of the world and the species therein. I'll give you some examples to start you off... (respiratory, nervous, digestive, ocular ETC systems, two eyes, instincts, motherhood) To suggest that the world and the animals upon it are not intricately and integrally linked is simply absurd - do you understand what worms are actually doing to the soil? Do you think that migration of birds choreographed by The Lord? Did you know the actions of termites are imperative to the most basic level of our ECOSYSTEM? (If you know what that means, what the impications of such systems are etc).

Why do all animals on earth have certain things in common if this is not the result of a process of change and diversification? Are there no keen religious gardeners, I often ask myself.

I must admit, I am shocked by the immaturity and general lack of knowledge prevailant in the argument for creationism. You have riled me up darling.

 

Gee whizz. I didn't think it was possible to fit so much misinformation into such a small space, but now I know.

1. It's called taxonomy. Clade divisions are based on a multitude of evidence, from fossils to molecular biology, geography and anatomy. And we know how old they are by, again, a multitude of methods: carbon dating, vulcanism, chemical analysis, geological analysis, and so on.

2. If God is "outside time" (whatever that means), then does this not imply that he is causally isolated from our universe? In which case, is it not true to say that he is and will always be irrelevant to our existence?

3. "...the universe has not reached equilibrium yet..." Wow. Big word, what do you think it means? This is just a plain nonsense, what sort of equilibrium is it that you think the universe hasn't reached?

4. The big bang was not a ball of dirt. That's just beyond ridiculous. Perhaps try reading Wikipedia first next time?
Last I heard, it was the Bible told us we came from dirt...

5. Ditto, and how do you expect the "ball of dirt" to spin faster and faster? Where does the energy come from?

6. You're waving your hand vaguely at what is called conservation of angular momentum. The universe has no angular momentum, there being no frame of reference against which to define a moment. As for why Venus rotates "the wrong way" - how about looking it up? Turns out Venus is actually upside-down, most likely due to an earlier impact with a large interplanetary body.

7. No they don't. The theory in no way implies this.

8. Perhaps try coming up with your own, original arguments rather than copying drivel that was swept away a century ago?

 

1a) There are thousands of intermediate forms. There's a bloody list on www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intermediate.html.

1b) You obviously have no understanding of evolution. Humans and chimps have a common ancestor. One did not evolve from the other. Even a basic study of the biology will demonstrate how utterly wrong your idea of evolution is.

1c) See Ken Miller talking about the bacterial flagellum on Youtube. This was one of the most important reasons why ID was adjudged unscientific in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Miller demolished the "irreducible complexity" argument. And you get to watch him doing it.

1d) Same old "carbon dating doesn't work" trope. Get with the century. It works extremely well within certain parameters. Outside of those parameters, you get garbage. That's why we cross-check with other methods. The ages of the fossils are known to a scientific certainty.

2. I'm a mathematician, and I CAN prove that anything that was "outside" the big bang cannot be causally connected with it. In English, that means either God is inside the universe and therefore subject to its timescale, or else he cannot interact with it. Proof trumps opinion.

3. What you're trying to suggest is that the universe should become isotropic over a long time-scale. There are at least three problems with your argument: (a) gravity doesn't permit this to happen; (b) on an interior timescale, the universe is not infinitely old, it's 13.7bn years old - the infinite age is what you get if you're on the outside looking in; (c) there's no known physics that indicates that the universe should converge to isotropy. Science fail.

4. I suggest you change schools. The big bang was not a "gathering of matter" - to the best of our knowledge, it STARTED in a singular state. The best approximation to this is a black hole. It then EXPANDED outwards, cooling and condensing as it did so. In case you're interested, the early matter of the universe was mostly hydrogen, apparently with a bit of helium mixed in. Pretty far from dirt.

5. Since the universe has no angular momentum, that's not a question I have to answer. It did not "spin faster and faster", because it did not spin. The energy problem only arises in your peculiar interpretation.

6. Have you actually done any reading at all on this subject? Because if you had, you would know that Venus completely rebuilds its surface every few hundred thousand years or so. Hence it's one of the least-cratered planets in the solar system. An asteriod of sufficient mass to change its axis of rotation wouldn't have to be planet-killingly large. Particularly since it would have to strike the planet at an angle. As for why it's round - it's round for the same reason all the other planets are round. That's the lowest-energy configuration of the matter. The relatively slow rate of rotation also supports the impact theory, because angular momentum would have bled off as the gyroscopic effect reasserted its axis of rotation.

7. The arguments you "came up with" are well-known tropes of the creationist movement, all of which have been dismissed decades ago. So I hardly have to work to provide the rebuttals.

 

And your faith blinds you.

1. Ken Miller - what he demonstrated is that each piece of the flagellum by itself is adaptive. What makes you think the bacterium would die if it didn't have it? It would simply be less efficient at reproducing. The same applies to the eye - 5% of an eye is a hell of a lot better than no eye at all. There wouldn't be a flagellum until all the parts started to cooperate, true, but there is still advantage in having the separate parts by themselves. That's what Miller was saying.

2. Don't try to lecture me on carbon dating. I know how radioactive decay works. Radioactive carbon is not formed naturally on the earth's surface. It requires high-energy radiation which is only available in the upper atmosphere. Therefore once it is embedded in rock, the amount of carbon 14 is fixed, and since it decays at a known rate, we can measure the difference between the number of radioactive isotopes and the number of non-radioactive isotopes to find out what the original composition was and how long it's been decaying. Carbon dating works. See http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/classes/bio302/Pages/CarbonDatingBack.htm. Besides which, we always cross-check with other dating methods.

3. Nobody knows how the singularity that was the initial universe got there. Don't pretend that you do, and I won't pretend that I do. We know it was there, and that's all. Postulating a god does not provide any additional information, and is not a testable hypothesis. It's not an explanation at all, and in fact it raises more questions than it answers.

4. Nobody is in charge of the universe. And that 2% estimate of yours is way off, several orders of magnitude larger than most scientists would put it. If there was a 2% probability of life arising, then the galaxy would be a crowded place, because there are billions of planets available to nurture life.

5. "We can't know because nobody was there". Don't be silly. If that were true, then I could turn it around and say you can't know the universe was created because nobody was there. We know Venus rebuilds its surface because there is evidence to support that hypothesis. Apart from the lack of craters, there is evidence of periodic extreme vulcanism which would remelt the surface, wiping out any impact craters. Venus is geologically active, despite not having a plate tectonic system that we can discern. This is an interesting subject, and there's a lot of literature out there. Read it.

6. That's a cheek. You haven't given a single hypothesis that is testable. I, on the other hand, have studied this material. So when I ask "how do they know?" it's a question I can answer. How do you know God exists? What's your evidence? If you haven't studied a subject and you aren't able to answer the "how do they know?" question, then you have two options: study or shut up.

 

For those of you who have seen this topic many times on this website, I offer my deepest apologies. I just signed up on this website so I can try my hand out in debates. I am not a very argumentative person, but I would like to learn to defend my position on things where I stand. So maybe this topic will attract the attention of other newcomers and we can challenge each other on this topic. Please note, I am not here to fight or make enemies, but to engage in civil conversation.

Contrary to what is taught in the schools, the advancement of science shows that the origins of life could not have possibly been thrown together at random millions of years ago, ultimately bringing forth life from a soup that evolved through the years. The more evidence uncovered shows that there indeed was a beginning. The question then is, was the universe created by its own accord, or is there an intelligent being that created the universe and the life found within it?

I look forward to hearing from some of you to see what kind of information may be brought to the table.

 

There are two ways to look at this deabte.

1. Metaphysical. In which case it's the question of whether or not God (or some other being) purposfully controls the events of creation.

2. Scientifically. In which case it's a question of whether or not the universe suddenly just appeared or....acutally Creationism and the Big Bang are relatively similar. Everything is just kind of there all of a sudden.

I tend to think that everything just poofed into existance for a reason and (ironically) creationism is the only side that explains the poofing.Creationism's Metaphysical answer seems to fit better with the agreed upon scientific answer. IMO.

 

Apathetic – I agree with Rationalist. It’s hard to see what side you’re on. First off, let’s not make the mistake of separating the metaphysical hypothesis from the scientific hypothesis. After all, if it were to be discovered that oh, let’s say a slice of cheese caused the universe to be in existence, then that would be considered science. Even if the earth did just “poof” into existence, there is still a science to it, just like there is a science to a simple blink of an eye.

It seems, Rationalist, that the big bang theory came about due to part that science can trace events back in time only to a certain point. At that point, there is a barrier that cannot be pushed. Far from supporting the naturalism, big bang theory says that there is a limit to how far back the earth’s origins go, proving that time, space, and matter were created at a finite point in time. So, it is not contrary to believe in both the big bang and creationism. It is simply the same idea being sold under two different labels.

Scarleta – Wonderful observation. Supposing we take up the idea that there is a finite beginning to our universe, then that means something from outside our universe had to do with it coming into existence. So let’s use your example that God is the source from outside our universe and that he spoke it into existence. The idea that God must have a beginning seems logical. But let’s say we discover that God did have a beginning, and that we found God’s creator. Then what question would we have to ask? Who created God’s creator! And back and back and back and back we go. Even our great grandchildren wouldn’t live to see the results. But suppose time, space and matter were created by one being. Think about it… time: created. Time assembled and put together like a clock itself. What’s outside of time? Nothing. And certainly not time. In order to create something, you must be outside its element. Therefore, God would not be constricted to the laws of time. This makes Him eternal. And what about space? The place in which we move around, drive, fly, spin, and jump? What if that whole concept was created as well? If God created space (including outer space), he would not be limited to certain locations or pinpointed on a GPS because He could hold space in his hand as if I were to hold a seashell. This would make God omnipresent. And matter? Nothing’s the matter to a God who could assemble atoms together and construct the intricacies of DNA molecules. So as for the poofing not being a valid explanation for the beginning of the universe, or at least not to consider it, makes no sense to me. I think it’s every bit as valid as any other theory. The only question is, which theory makes the most sense and holds up the most weight in the end? As for the big bang, like I told Rationalist, it certainly gives proof to creationism, but the theory tries to avoid the idea of a creator.

Jonjax71 – To my memory, the exploding/expanding idea was first introduced (or at least made popular) by a man named Carl Sagan in his science program called Cosmos. He suggested that the explosion that caused our universe was only one in a series – that the universe is expanding today but will one day reverse itself and will begin a process of contracting until it is once again a tiny point, then it will explode again, starting the entire process over, like an accordion opening and closing. But this runs up against one of the basic laws of physics: Even an oscillating universe would use up the available energy in each cycle, and it would eventually run down. The second law of thermodynamics, the law of decay, shoots down any notion of an eternal universe.

 

I never got the whole "Video Blog" thing. It always seems to me like its a venue to be arrogant with shades of egotism (but thats just me).

I do find it interesting that you are so readily willing to accept "The Big Bang produced both SPACE and TIME. There was NOTHING outside the big bang and there was NOTHING before it either."

This is interesting because accepting that quote from your "Vlog" (or whatever they call it nowadays) brings about the exact same philosophical consequences as creationism does. Its the same old tired rebuttal, "If God created the Universe, then what created God?". Well if you dont believe in God how is it that you can say there was NOTHING before the big bang? What created all of the things in your balloon? I personally accept the idea that there are things that have always been and always will be, things without a beginning and an end. I'm just confused because It seems to me that you are not against the notion of things "poofing" into existence, but you are against it when anyone suggests there may have been a "poofer" (one who does the poofing) which is totally contradictory to your quote.

 

To the contrary! The Big Bang has only half cooked theories and complicated explanations which really make no sense. For example, the formation of man is suggested to be a process called 'abiogenesis', which is a largely improbably formation of living cell matter from inanimate matter. It makes more logical sense for us all to be created. Remember, the human being is complex - even more complex than a chimpanzee. The world and animals are made entirely differently - how could each one be different if we were all created by the same ameoba? Why weren't some animals bypassed to get directly to us? How'd they all form with nary a one being missed? There's so many holes in Evolution that I don't see how 'proof' could be provided.

 

Well i mean have you seen God's hair? No straight man would have spent THAT MUCH TIME making his hair look as good as that. Toss in a British accent if you'd like, and you got yourself a homo God ; )

 

"There is no "poof" in the big bang."

Fully ware of this. The "poof" was just a metaphor. I could have also said something like "What lit the wick that was the creation of the universe?"

"The "no time before the big bang" position is not philosophical. It is a matter of mathematics"

Not true. There are plenty of courses at even the most basic Universities and Community colleges that discuss the real life consequences of various mathematical theories and proofs to prove my point.

"So the question, "what happened before the big bang?" is meaningless on more than one level. (a) we have no way of knowing, (b) the mathematics says that time itself didn't exist before the big bang, and (c) it's not clear that the question actually makes sense in the first place."

(a) Surely out of curiosity alone, something as important and mind blowing as the beginning of existence would be one of the most meaningful things ever right? It is also very strange to hear "We have no way of knowing" from so many athiests. To me it just seems like an excuse, an attempted shortcut. "What made the Universe and how was it done? Well we'll most likely never know so dont even worry your pretty little head about it". For someone who places so much value in science (as well you should) it seems very contradictory to think that way. Humanity should be (and is) constantly learning about anything and everything within our universe, saying "we have no way of knowing" is cutting our species way short.

(b) and (c) I was actually going to write a rebuttal to this but i realized that i agree with you. Time and Space are limitations within our universe so (and this is where the Theism comes in) couldn't it be said that something, "God" will call it, that created the universe and all of its "things" and put them into a system that is constantly expanding and contracting would BY DEFINITION have to exist outside of that system and not be bound my the laws of space and time? I know thats a loaded question and brings about a plethora of other questions to go along with it, but i'll ask it nonetheless.
-----------------------------------------
I'd just like to thank you DKTurner for FINALLY giving me the chance to have an intelligent and respectable discussion about God. You're using arguments that i rarely see and you're doing it in a way that puts neither of us on the defensive. THESE are the kinds of discussions that i would love to see. If half of the God debates were like these i would participate in so many more of them. Sadly most of them use the same old, tired, and weak arguments (from both sides) that make them instantly unbearable. Thank you sir.

 

I believe in young earth creationism. Anything that exists in time had to have had a beginning. Anything that begins to exist has a cause. If there is a car accident that begins, everybody knows that the accident had a cause. Since we know that everything has a beginning and everything that begins has a cause, there could be only two things that could have caused it to happen. They are either personal things or impersonal things. Impersonal things are something like earthquakes, tornadoes, or anything that causes destruction. Since we have life, we know that the cause wasn't impersonal, so it to have been a personal cause. Someone had to have created this Universe.

This doesn't prove Christianity (even though I am a Christian) but it does show there had to have been a creator who created the Universe.

 

Please give me some examples of science supporting macro evolution. There are evidence of micro evolution. We always see species change within their kind. People breed dogs and ended up getting other dogs like chiwawas, but it's still the same specie(a dog). Macro evolution however is the change from one kind of animal to another. An example is a dag changing into a non dog, like a bird or cat. So when you say science proves evolution, which evolution are you talking about, and if it is macro evolution you are talking about, then show me some of the scientific examples that you say prove it.

 

First off, none of them give me any proof that these bones/species are our ancestors, and how can they tell how old these bones are? They're just bones they find in the dirt.

Also, I said that everything that exists in time has to have a beginning. God is outside of time. And the fact that the Universe has not reached equilibrium yet proves that the Universe had a beginning. And your Big Bang theory, where did the dirt come from? Also, the big bang was a ball of dirt spinning faster and faster and finally exploded. The pieces of course flew off and became the galaxies, stars, etc. If the ball was spinning counter-clockwise, then shouldn't the pieces flown off also be spinning counter-clockwise? If that is so, then why is Venus, Neptune's moon, and other planets and moons out there spin clockwise? Which is backwards from all the other planets. All the planets, moons, stars, and galaxies have to be spinning the same direction if the Big Bang was true.

 

You tell me to look up these fossils, molecular biology, etc, and say these prove evolution, but these aren't proof for evolution at all. I will now give you evidence that evolution can't be true.

1. I'll start off by talking about fossils. First of all, if evolution is true, then we shouldn't have any trouble finding these missing link fossils. In over millions of year there should be millions of missing link fossils, but there isn't. Darwin himself even stated that. Once in a great while though, scientists will say they found a missing link. The assumptions they make of course when they find these rare fossils are that the bones did not get distorted, and the animal or human wasn't originally born distorted. But even after all this time, there are still no fossils records that prove evolution. David Raup is a scientist who has a huge fossil collection admits that there are no fossil records for evolution. Dr. Colin Paterson is another scientist that wrote an evolution book called "Darwin's Enigma". He didn't give any fossil record proof in his book and later on stated that there are no fossil record for evolution. There are other evolution scientists that admit there are no fossil records for evolution: Dr. D. Berlinski, Dr. Stephen J. Gould, etc. Remember that these scientists I just mentioned are looking for missing links, and have a huge collection of fossils. Over millions of fossils.
Biology itself isn't proof for evolution. According to the evolution scientists the chimpanzee is our closest relative. The genetic difference between a human and a chimpanzee is only 1.6%. So it is 98.4% the same as a human. Although 1.6% difference may seam small, it is really a huge difference. The gap in 1.6% is 48,000,000 nucleotides. According to science a change of 3 nucleotides is fatal to any kind of animal or human. So a chimpanzee couldn't have evolved in a time of millions of years, otherwise it would have died. Saying that we are ancestors to any kind of monkey or ape because we are so similar to them is just as ridiculous as this; clouds are 100% water, watermelons are 97% water, and jellyfish are 98% water. Since they are so similar, they are each others ancestors and are related to each other. This is plain and simply ridiculous.
Another scientific example that proves evolution can't be true is the bacterium flagellum. Evolution says that we all evolved from bacteria. Without bacteria we could not live. The bacterium flagellum motor is the motor on a bacteria that enables it to be able to move around and get from place to place. Irreducible Complexity is a term used to explain a machine so complex that if you take one thing away from it, the entire machine doesn't work. An example is a mouse trap or a car motor. If you take one thing away from mouse trap like the hammer, or piston from a car motor, the entire thing doesn't work. You need all the things at one time in order for them to work. This is the same with the bacterium flagellum motor. If you take one thing away from it then the entire thing doesn't work. You need all the parts at one time in order for it to work. This shows it couldn't have evolved in over millions of years, otherwise the motor would not work and the bacteria would die. In this case, all life would not exist.
Carbon dating along with radiometric dating do not work. Scientists dated two parts of one mammoth, and both of them turned out to be different ages. One part of the mammoth turned out to be over 15,000 years old while another part of the same mammoth turned out to be over 21,000 years old. This of course isn't true. Living mollusk shells have been carbon dated to be 2300 years old. Another freshly killed seal was carbon dated to be 1300 years old. Even a living snail was carbon dated to be 27,000 years old. All of these of course can't be true.

2. What I meant by "God is outside of time" is that God is not bound by time. He himself invented time, but is intricately involved with his creation. It is impossible for me to prove this to you unless you have an open mind or your already a Christian.

3. Now, I'll first give you an example first and then explain it to you. If I left a hot cup of coffee in a room, it will eventually become the temp. of the room. This is called equilibrium. The stars, the moon, the planets, etc. are all still different temperatures. Some are hotter than others. If the universe didn't have a beginning, then everything would be the same temp. as the room it's in(universe). Yes, the star and planets have fuel to keep them hot, but the fuel will run out eventually. This is just to prove that the universe did have a beginning.

4. First off, my school doesn't even allow me to use wikipedia as a site to search for any of my projects because some of the information in wikipedia is false. Anyone can write some kind of information in it. But there are text books out there that say the big bang was a gathering of all the matter in the universe into a ball and exploded. The universe from there began to expand. Some text books are "Prentice Hall General Science" and "Prentice Hall Earth Science".

5. I forgot to ask you this question in my last post. Thanks for reminding me. So where did the energy come from?

6. As for Venus, do you know what it will take to reverse the spin of a planet? Whatever hit it must have been large enough to completely destroy it. It should have at least left some kind of marking or dent, but Venus is a perfectly round planet.

7. The arguments I come up with are legit arguments that question the evolution theory. al to an animal

 

Your arrogance blinds you to the truth. I'm not going to make a huge essay like my last post, so I'll just say all I have to say in a shorter simpler essay.

First, I looked up Ken Miller on youtube and his argument of these things being able to function separately from each other is a good theory. I wouldn't doubt it at all if they can function without each other. But, you still need all the parts of the motor at one time, in their proper alignment for the motor itself to work. Ken Miller himself stated in the video that though the parts of the flagellum are functional on their own, it's still not a flagellum unless they are all together in their proper places. Otherwise the bacteria again will just sit there and die.

Now I am assuming you understand how carbon dating works, so I won't bother explaining it, but right now I can show you that carbon dating proves the earth is less than 30,000 years old. We know that carbon14 comes in the atmosphere at the same time carbon14 is leaking out of the atmosphere. The thing that scientists tried to figure out was how long will it take for the earth to reach equilibrium. In other words, how long will it take for a new born earth to receive the same amount of carbon14 as it is losing carbon14? After a while they calculated that a new born earth will reach equilibrium in about 30,000 years. If evolution is true and the earth is over billions of years old, then we should have reached equilibrium billions of years ago. But, radioactive carbon is still forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying, which means the earth is less than 30,000 years old.

On your 3rd point, remember I was just trying to point out the Universe had a beginning. It does not prove the the age of the Universe at all.

And even if the early matter of the universe was just hydrogen, then where did all the hydrogen come from? If I told you I believe God created everything, you would ask me "where did God come from"? But yet you don't know where the hydrogen came from. So I believe in the beginning God and you believe in the beginning Matter/hydrogen. Having a creator in control of the Universe sounds a lot more comforting. We are on a ball spinning around through space at very high speeds. In just our galaxy alone there is only about a 2% chance for life to even exist. The percentage for life to begin in the Universe is so small they cannot calculate it. If the earth goes off track just a little bit, we will all be die. It is a good thing knowing someone is in charge of this universe.

You said that Venus rebuilds its surface every few hundred thousand years. How do you know that? Has anyone had a telescope a few hundred thousand years ago to be able to examine it themselves? You cannot prove something without being able to examine it yourself.

I'm giving you statistics and science that are able to be examined and proven. You aren't giving me any good science. There is no way you can examine something that supposedly happened over hundreds of thousands of years ago, or even millions of years ago. Next time you read something that they claim happened millions of years ago, ask yourself the question "how do they know, and how did they figure that out"?