Let's talk about the big bang and uniformitarianism

[Zany]

Okay you nerds, I'm not using evolution as an unfortunate blanket term. Don't go crying home to mommy because I mention the big bang in the same post as evolution. Here let's talk about the (apparentyl) seldomly discussed theories of the big bang and uniformitarianism.

First, the big bang:

What caused the big bang? I mean that two ways, one, what force made it happen and what "thing" was it that all the stars and galaxies came from? And after this big bang, how did the stars form into galaxies? Did it fragment off into chunks of energy going from filaments to superclusters to clusters to groups then to galaxies and then to stars? Or did it blow up into trillions of protostars that then spun off planets or whatever and THEN form into galaxies? Don't just say "Oh yeah, where did God come from?", answer the darn question. But I will jump the gun and answer that: God created the very concepts of creation and logic and EVERYthing. You cannot reason how God exists because we never understand a realm of existence we never operated within. Miracles are instant and perfect, that's why they're miracles. Not "miracles" like the Earth revolving around the sun just right, that can be explained but not how it is so perfect. Miracles cannot be explained. If you don't like it, if you consider it an "excuse", well tough, you can't say creationism doesn't add up in an atheist mindset. You claim to be able to explain everything "logical", then do it.

In the big bang, I assume you suppose fundamental forces like protons and electrons came about and then they formed atoms, then molecules, yeah etc., etc. However, what about abstract forces like gravity and light? Sure, there might be or is something physical about some of these forces, but they do not have the chance to evolve by random chance or natural selection. Without many of these funademental forces nothing can exist. So, how did light come about? Did it come out of the big bang, because it would be have to be designed for it's purposes and, to repeat myself, cannot evolve by natural selection and it has no DNA to be mutated. What about gravity? This "ball" that is the big bang would have to somehow hold forces crutial to existence. So, what exactly did it contain? And what made it explode? What existed before it? Did it also explode-out an empty template like space for all the matter within it?

Okay, now on to uniformitarianism:

How do you explain polystrate fossils? Trees have been found crossing several layers, one picture I saw including about 7 I think, sedimentary layers. And they looked like they were about a foot tall each. So, how does that happen? Also, there is very little if any at all erosion between sedimentary layers. There should be considerable erosion, but there isn't. And also, why are there billions of marine fossils in every mountain range? When I've asked it before, I've just been said "learned more about plate tectonics, kid". That's not an answer, I understand plate tectonics. Mountain ranges supposedly come about by collision of plates, such as India with Asia causing the Himalayas or Arabia with the rest of Eurasia creating the Caucasus and Zagros. That still doesn't explain it at all well.

And this geological columb, and it is a known fact, was not drawn up by research. It was drawn up long ago based upon what these scientist THOUGHT they might find or HOPED to find. It has been proven wrong, as the wrong creatures have been found in the wrong layers. And the formation of fossils and petrification (sorry, is that a real word?) has been again greatly misjudged by uniformitarians. There have been modern hats and pliars found petrified in Australia, and also an icthyosaur (sp?) giving birth found fossilized, right in the middle of labor.

As for sedimentary rock and the formation of rivers, Mount St. Helen's proved uniformitarianism wrong again. Mudslides dug out a ditch, and once the mudslides were over water found its way there and ran through it, overnight. During the same disaster about a man's height in sedimentary rocks (I couldnt see clearly in the black and white picture, but looked like about 5 layers) was formed within 5 hours. Rebuttal anyone?

Enjoy.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Let's not, fruitcake.

 

[Zany]

WOW! Such a great reply. You sure showed me! I sure lost this debate! Good point, I must be a fruitcake for pointing out how right Creationism is.

The only evidence you have against Creationism is that you're still a scum puddle.

 

[Zany]

Is everyone afraid? I thought some bored debate stars would come on by, but I guess everyone's afraid. But just because I have a day off doesn't mean everyone else does. I'll still be waiting for whoever.

 

[Perfection]

Okay you nerds, I'm not using evolution as an unfortunate blanket term. Don't go crying home to mommy because I mention the big bang in the same post as evolution. Here let's talk about the (apparentyl) seldomly discussed theories of the big bang and uniformitarianism.

First, the big bang:

What caused the big bang?

Well assuming you aren't talking about some newer models like the ekpyrotic scenario where there are causal explinations, the Big Bang has no cause. It was simply the point of beginning. All notions of time and cause before it make no sense bcause there was no time. Yo can't have time before time.

I mean that two ways, one, what force made it happen and what "thing" was it that all the stars and galaxies came from? And after this big bang, how did the stars form into galaxies? Did it fragment off into chunks of energy going from filaments to superclusters to clusters to groups then to galaxies and then to stars? Or did it blow up into trillions of protostars that then spun off planets or whatever and THEN form into galaxies?

The early universe was composed of a sort of stew of particles. As the universe expanded the stew cooled and gravitational attraction caused parts of it to lump into stars galaxies and larger clusters. Planets actually came quite a bit later after supernovae produced enough heavy elements for thier formation

Don't just say "Oh yeah, where did God come from?", answer the darn question. But I will jump the gun and answer that: God created the very concepts of creation and logic and EVERYthing. You cannot reason how God exists because we never understand a realm of existence we never operated within. Miracles are instant and perfect, that's why they're miracles. Not "miracles" like the Earth revolving around the sun just right, that can be explained but not how it is so perfect. Miracles cannot be explained. If you don't like it, if you consider it an "excuse", well tough, you can't say creationism doesn't add up in an atheist mindset. You claim to be able to explain everything "logical", then do it.

Why would one believe an idea that claims that you cannot use reason to investigate it? How can you claim it is correct if you cannot analyze it?

In the big bang, I assume you suppose fundamental forces like protons and electrons came about and then they formed atoms, then molecules, yeah etc., etc. However, what about abstract forces like gravity and light? Sure, there might be or is something physical about some of these forces, but they do not have the chance to evolve by random chance or natural selection. Without many of these funademental forces nothing can exist. So, how did light come about? Did it come out of the big bang, because it would be have to be designed for it's purposes and, to repeat myself, cannot evolve by natural selection and it has no DNA to be mutated. What about gravity? This "ball" that is the big bang would have to somehow hold forces crutial to existence. So, what exactly did it contain? And what made it explode? What existed before it? Did it also explode-out an empty template like space for all the matter within it?

The laws of the universe are intrinsic to the universe, they existed along with it the whole time.

Okay, now on to uniformitarianism:

How do you explain polystrate fossils? Trees have been found crossing several layers, one picture I saw including about 7 I think, sedimentary layers. And they looked like they were about a foot tall each. So, how does that happen?Also, there is very little if any at all erosion between sedimentary layers. There should be considerable erosion, but there isn't.

It's pretty simple, a local flood deposits a large amount of sand in an area.

And also, why are there billions of marine fossils in every mountain range? When I've asked it before, I've just been said "learned more about plate tectonics, kid". That's not an answer, I understand plate tectonics. Mountain ranges supposedly come about by collision of plates, such as India with Asia causing the Himalayas or Arabia with the rest of Eurasia creating the Caucasus and Zagros. That still doesn't explain it at all well.

I don't see why it doesn't.

And this geological columb, and it is a known fact, was not drawn up by research.

Yes it was, in fact it's still being drawn up by research

It was drawn up long ago based upon what these scientist THOUGHT they might find or HOPED to find.

Not really, the Geologic column has been drawn numerous times and modified to account new data from new research, it is neither an outdated concept nor based on wishful thinking.

It has been proven wrong, as the wrong creatures have been found in the wrong layers. And the formation of fossils and petrification (sorry, is that a real word?) has been again greatly misjudged by uniformitarians.

Not really, there's been instances where fossils are found in unexpected time frames. But it still fits within the branching phylogeny. For example, a scientist might say that species A diverged from C 130MYA, and lived until 120MYA, well later on one is found at 110MYA, it really doesn't prove the phylogeny wrong, just that the species lived longer than they thought.

There have been modern hats and pliars found petrified in Australia,

Source?

and also an icthyosaur (sp?) giving birth found fossilized, right in the middle of labor.

So?

As for sedimentary rock and the formation of rivers, Mount St. Helen's proved uniformitarianism wrong again. Mudslides dug out a ditch, and once the mudslides were over water found its way there and ran through it, overnight. During the same disaster about a man's height in sedimentary rocks (I couldnt see clearly in the black and white picture, but looked like about 5 layers) was formed within 5 hours.

That's a strawman. Modern geology doesn't say that rocks can't form quickly. In fact, rocks forming quickly is an important componant in fossilization.

 

[Perfection]

Is everyone afraid? I thought some bored debate stars would come on by, but I guess everyone's afraid. But just because I have a day off doesn't mean everyone else does. I'll still be waiting for whoever.

It's a huge post! I can't answer it in five minutes

 

[marshal zhukov]

Let's not, fruitcake.

That was evil. The guy spent hours writing that and you shoot him down as if it was Cierdan racist thread and close it calling him a fruitcake. Evil really evil.

If you don't want to get into the conversation don't post then.
I guess that this is just another post you
where are the Moderators when you need them??

 

[Perfection]

Well, Zhukov, you have to undesrtand it does get annoying to shoot down the same tired arguements over and over again.

 

[The Last Conformist]

That was evil. The guy spent hours writing that and you shoot him down as if it was Cierdan racist thread and close it calling him a fruitcake. Evil really evil.

Hours? Chances are he c'n'p'd it from somewhere. And even if not, typing out a page of drivel shouldn't take too much time.

The reason I treat him like cierdan is that he's a nutjob from the same mold, except he lacks cierdan's originality - the OP does not contain one original thought.

If you don't want to get into the conversation don't post then.
I guess that this is just another post you
where are the Moderators when you need them??

There is a report button to the left of every one of my posts.

 

[marshal zhukov]

Hours? Chances are he c'n'p'd it from somewhere. And even if not, typing out a page of drivel shouldn't take too much time.

The reason I treat him like cierdan is that he's a nutjob from the same mold, except he lacks cierdan's originality - the OP does not contain one original thought.

There is a report button to the left of every one of my posts.

Great...now, he has been thread jacked. First, cierdan has no originality, all he talks about is racism. Second even though I don't like racist threads, I don't ridicule them, I just criticize them.

I just think you should be more tolerant to some thread topics, like I am

I should report, I just wanted to make public my indignation.

 

[Masquerouge]

I think Perf pretty much summed it up.
If you don't want to believe in science and rationnality, that is your right, but don't be surprised when there is no one believing YOU.
And the vast majority of Christians has no problems with God and Science and Evolution, why should you ?

 

[col]

In the big bang, I assume you suppose fundamental forces like protons and electrons came about and then they formed atoms, then molecules, yeah etc., etc. However, what about abstract forces like gravity and light? Sure, there might be or is something physical about some of these forces, but they do not have the chance to evolve by random chance or natural selection. Without many of these funademental forces nothing can exist. So, how did light come about? Did it come out of the big bang, because it would be have to be designed for it's purposes and, to repeat myself, cannot evolve by natural selection and it has no DNA to be mutated. What about gravity? This "ball" that is the big bang would have to somehow hold forces crutial to existence.

I never thought of it like that before.

 

[Margim]

WOW! Such a great reply. You sure showed me! I sure lost this debate! Good point, I must be a fruitcake for pointing out how right Creationism is.

The only evidence you have against Creationism is that you're still a scum puddle.

Science isn't one of my strong points - theology is. Tell me where in the bible it actually says that the creation stories of Genesis are actually true?

 

[Zany]

First off, to Margim:
"Tell me where in the bible it actually says that the creation stories of Genesis are actually true?"

Okay, so, you are asking me where a book says it is true? Just trying to follow that. The Bible says over and over again either it is true as a whole or not at all true. Jesus quoted Genesis more than any other book of the Bible, and I don't just mean because it is such a big book, but as a percentage for the number of words involved, come on, you know what I mean. And the Bible clearly says the creation week is composed of literal 24-hour solar days. The Hebrew word yom which has the same meaning as the English word day, both a 24-hour cycle and the light period within those 24 hours. There are many, many other suitable words that could be used if Genesis meant an age, not literal days. I assume you meant to ask where in the Bible does it say Genesis literally means 6 days of creation, no evolution, the flood, etc. If you explain further what you are skeptical about in the Bible I would be happy to clarify, buddy.

To Masquerouge:
Most Christians do NOT believe in evolution. And you really should not use the word science in a religion vs. science context. This religion vs. science thing is actually religious science vs. atheist science, or more accurately, Biblical foundtain science vs. hollow science.

To The Last Conformist:
I didn't copy and paste it from anywhere, but it also didn't take me hours. I know all this stuff of the top of my head, including some more philosophical, logical stuff like concepts of the big bang (such as light and gravity having to emerge with the big bang). It contains almost entirely original thoughts, they are probably just over your head, fruitcake. Col seemed to understand what I meant. It took me, I'd say, 15-20 minutes to write up. I worded everything me own way, I didn't even quote even a sentence from anywhere else. All me, whether that is good or bad.

To perfection:
I share your feelings in principle of having to shoot down something over and over again. However, no one has shot me down. And this is NOT the same old argument. No one really talks about the big bang or uniformitarianism that much, and even when they do it is (on both sides) hollow and apparently way over everyone's head. I wrapped my mind around the concepts of it and put into words that should be somewhat easy to understand, and am waiting for rebuttals (have received a few acceptable ones though).

I guess I'm going in reverse order up the page here, so back to perfection:
I don't expect you to write up a post in 5 minutes. Now, so the big bang is the point of beginning okay. But still what is it. Is it something physical like a ball, is it something abstract, what is it exactly? It has to be something or else you're dealing with a divine scenario. Now, so the universe after the big bang was a stew that then cooled. What evidence do you have for this? It is still not a clear and refined theory. Basically it means a chaotic mess settled in place in the right gravitional positions for protogalaxies to have stars rotating within them and then planets to eventually come along from protostars. But still, the principles of atheist science (we really need a blanket term for evolution, the big bang, uniformitarianism, and abiogenesis like we have Creationism, until then I'll just called it atheist science) of lots of time to perfect things and natural selection cannot apply to the laws of nature. In a manner of speaking, the laws of physics are the highest force in the universe, right? So these forces can never be less than perfect. They still have no time to evolve into their appropriate state and there can be no natural selection regarding them. Again, what about light? Essentially, life cannot exist without it. So did light come about the same way? I understand what you're saying about how the universe and the laws governing the universe are almost one in the same, but they are too harmonious and would have to be designed considering they have no time or natural selection or benefitial mutations to help them out.

Now onto plate tectonics and marine fossils. I suppose that is a fair answer, but so is the Flood answer. It can be seen as either way, but the Flood does have more evidence for it than uniformitarianism. As for the geological column, it was drawn up before any research in the field. You've just been told over and over again it was based off of research when in fact it was not. And on the petrification of a derby and pliars, what do you find a refutable source? You probably consider other Creationists just as wacky as me, right? I don't know it's source because I've seen pictures of them and read about them several times. Back to Mount St. Helen's, you still haven't seen any evidence for uniformitarianism, Creationism has the upper hand here.

I must say, this is a much more fun debate than the traditional evolution arguments or politics. It also seems calmer and more relaxed, like there's less angry typing going on. Or at least that's just what I think.

 

[Kayak]

@Zany, I'm just trying to get your argument straight in my head. Are you proposing that the physical laws of our universe are different now that they were at some time in the past?

 

[Elrohir]

Well assuming you aren't talking about some newer models like the ekpyrotic scenario where there are causal explinations, the Big Bang has no cause. It was simply the point of beginning. All notions of time and cause before it make no sense bcause there was no time. Yo can't have time before time.

Wait a minute - how did matter exploding create time? Time and space are inseperable, you cannot have one without the other.

So all the matter in the universe just appeared in a tiny ball and exploded, creating time? That doesn't make sense. Where did the matter come from? Why was there no time before?

 

[Masquerouge]

To Masquerouge:
Most Christians do NOT believe in evolution. And you really should not use the word science in a religion vs. science context. This religion vs. science thing is actually religious science vs. atheist science, or more accurately, Biblical foundtain science vs. hollow science.

That's BS.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom1.htm

Basically, most of the Christians who do not believe in Evolution are recruited amongst the fundamentalists evangelical, which do not even come close of being the majority of Christians.

And you're just not making any sense in speaking about biblical science. Where in the Bible does it says it is a science book ?

 

[Zany]

First off, on your sig that I just noticed. Gravity itself is not a theory, but there are two theories on how gravity works. Einstein's theory that mass bends space and the graviton theory that small particles are exchanged between objects creating gravity. Evolution is merely a theory, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, evolution has been all but disproven because there is no whatever the opposite of a reasonable doubt is for it. Gravity has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, the Bible is not a science book. It is meant to guide mankind and so includes a history of mankind and creation. However, the Bible does make itself very clear that Genesis is literal, not symbolic. Whether you believe or not, it doesn't matter. It is clear on what it means. Nine Hebrew-speaking professors were written to interpret what Genesis meant by day. All 7 that replied said it meant a literal solar day, and at least 5 of them were atheist and the other 2 probably didn't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. So it is not a science book, it is a general guidebook to all things mankind needs to know and what it will experience. It allows mankind to discover things through science, but explains much to mankind at the same time. The Flood, for instance, not just explains to mankind much about the world they live in (geography-wise) but also it is very important about the judgment of mankind.

Almost all Christians do not believe in evolution. Evangelicals are not the only ones who don't believe evolution, you are being quite ignorant in thinking that. Most Christians who say they believe it are full of atheist propaganda, and they try to compromise with them so they don't seem stupid. That is quite unfortunate, considering the situation is reversed and the atheists are out of their minds and the Creationists are grounded people.

 

[Gogf]

What caused the big bang?

Some string theorists believe it was two branes colliding.

And after this big bang, how did the stars form into galaxies? Did it fragment off into chunks of energy going from filaments to superclusters to clusters to groups then to galaxies and then to stars?

Did it fragment off into chunks? Did what fragment into chunks? Galaxies are made of stars, not filaments of energy. Oh, and most galaxies are held together by the gravity of a black hole.

Or did it blow up into trillions of protostars that then spun off planets or whatever and THEN form into galaxies?

What a ridiculous question. Why does it matter if there were stars before there were galaxies? It's not like this will poke a whole in the big bang theory, and I doubt there is any way we will know this in the near future.

In the big bang, I assume you suppose fundamental forces like protons and electrons came about and then they formed atoms, then molecules, yeah etc., etc. However, what about abstract forces like gravity and light?

You have to understand what you're talking about before you can be effective discussing it. Protons and electrons are not fundamental forces, nor are they the messenger particles of fundamental forces.

Sure, there might be or is something physical about some of these forces, but they do not have the chance to evolve by random chance or natural selection.

What a stupid thing to say. Forces are not animals. You can't apply laws that apply to animals to forces of nature.

Without many of these funademental forces nothing can exist.

Not true.

So, how did light come about? Did it come out of the big bang, because it would be have to be designed for it's purposes and, to repeat myself, cannot evolve by natural selection and it has no DNA to be mutated. What about gravity?

The laws of physics always exist.

This "ball" that is the big bang would have to somehow hold forces crutial to existence. So, what exactly did it contain? And what made it explode? What existed before it? Did it also explode-out an empty template like space for all the matter within it?

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Before the big bang, there was no space around this "ball." It was also not a "ball" as it was much, much smaller than the point of a pin. This "ball" didn't explode, but rather it expanded at an enourmously rapid rate. In fact, this expansion continues today, just at a much slower rate. The remnants of it can be seen in the cosmic background radiation.[/QUOTE]

 

[Zany]

Sorry, didn't you see there Elrohir and Kayak. First off, Elrohir, apparently they believe the big bang created time. Despite the fact time is a completely abstract force that cannot be created. To you, Kayak, I am saying God supported all of the universe as it was being created and then enacted the laws of physics. According to those who believe in the big bang (it just doesn't sound right to say big bangist), indirectly, the laws of physics have always been the highest force in the universe and logically must have been in perfect order since the beginning of the universe if there are no miracles in atheist science.