Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/28/09 01:59 PM, poxpower wrote: Well I note you've ignored the links that were posted.
Wow what a surprise!

No I have not, please be patient, I have not had the spare time that I would want to read all of the sites.

At 11/28/09 08:53 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/27/09 11:38 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: Because time is defined by finite value. You cannot measure infinity in hours for example.

You realize that's an argument against infinity right? - not just infinite time?

(And in either case is still wrong?)

Time cannot reach infinity because infinity is endless. Unless you were to say time will go on forever (which still could not reach "infinity"). I'm not sure if we are on the same page.

At 11/28/09 07:46 AM, Ravariel wrote:

.........seriously!?

That's your answer to that question!? No wonder... y'know.. fuck it, I'm done. You're just too stupid to even try to reason with.

The feeling is mutual.

At 11/27/09 11:55 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/27/09 09:42 PM, basherboy357 wrote: Why has no one mentioned the Panspermia theory here?:l

Because it's not really a theory, it's more like a joke.

At 11/27/09 11:41 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote:

It is likely that God created matter before the creation of the Earth.

Trying to explain how things about God make sense is pointless since you postulate God has unlimited powers. Creationists love to try and explain how creationism is scientific, but it always starts with "God made everything using magic powers".

You are correct, creationism is not secular science. The science that most people trust basically shuts out what they consider impossible or ridiculous (OR tires to explain the unexplainable). All around us, we see a chain of hierarchy, if you will. Metaphorically, the insect has no say in what will become of it's life when met by a predator. Humans are the "highest" species. Why is it unlikely that we, too, have a higher authority? Obviously, I cannot prove or make you believe creationism using what you call science. You want straightforward answers just as I do with evolution and the Big Bang.

When I say "God made everything", that does not involve "magical powers". The world does not understand everything there is to know. We have all sorts of phenomena that science cannot explain. We have a sense of living and a knowledge of dying. We have the confounding experience of imagination and intuition. Why, then, does any other "sense" that we know not of seem unlikely? (After all, humanity used to think magnetism and drugs was magic). God created all things through spoken word. However, I personally believe that what we read in Genesis is generalized. There is obviously an unbelievably intricate order of nature. Such order cannot come from unorganized chances. Who are we to say that we are intelligent enough to understand everything. Heck, I struggle to think of reasonable answers to the world when I actually think for myself (which usually gives me a better understanding than simply reading it in a book).

Since I cannot convince you, would give me a good reason to change my views? Since it is obvious that science is right and I am wrong, explain why science is right.

At 11/27/09 08:29 PM, poxpower wrote:

In any case, here's 5 non-wikipedia explanations of the big bang from different sites. Let's see if you read any of them.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_con cepts.html
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/The%20Big%
20Bang%20Theory.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronom y/bigbang.html ( talkorigins is the website you should read night and day for all your questions )
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmol ogy_faq.html#BBevidence
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questio n.php?number=45

I'm also pissed that this site: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
keeps popping up in google searches as it is an ID website disguised as a scientific website. As is betrayed obviously here: http://www.allaboutscience.org/dna-doubl e-helix.htm
Arguing from incredulity saying that DNA flat-out disproves evolution when in fact it's one of the strongest lines of evidence you could possibly get. If anyone ever links you to that website, remember that it's a propaganda machine, NOT a scientific website.

I will look into those sites shortly.

Also, when I said that atoms existed before creation, I was referring to the creation mentioned in the Bible. It is likely that God created matter before the creation of the Earth.

At 11/27/09 09:38 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 11/27/09 07:26 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote:

If all dimensions incorporated the same time and had no beginning, then time itself must be infinite, and that is not possible.

Why not?

Because time is defined by finite value. You cannot measure infinity in hours for example.

If you will permit me to say so, God is infinite and above all things we see in the physical realm.

If it's not possible for time to be infinite, why is it possible for God to be so?

Because God is above what we understand to be time.

At 11/27/09 04:58 PM, Elfer wrote: I'm going to copypasta something appropriate from one of my older posts, which explains why the Big Bang theory doesn't necessarily need to incorporate an infinite timeline as you're sugesting (which again, makes me suspect you haven't actually "studied" the theories, beyond perhaps skimming a very broad explanation in a high school science textbook, which is not what we mean when we say "studied")

So far, people I've asked about this have uniformly abandoned the thread without replying to it. Maybe you can shed some light on why God explains things better?

---

Consider this: The entire universe, as a whole, both spatially, temporally, and with regards to superpositions (i.e. "many worlds" or "alternate universes") all exists "at once" as a single "block" of energy, space and time. The "passage" of time that we seemingly observe is merely an artefact of our evolution, as our neurological systems evolved to proliferate our species along the direction of the temporal axis in which entropy increases.

In this sense, the temporal axis of the universe is bounded, at least in one direction, possibly in both. Think of it as a solid 4-dimensional object. Asking "What was there before the beginning of the universe?" is as absurd a question as asking "Where is a tree in a place that it isn't?" There may simply be no time outside of the universe, much as we claim that there is "nothing" outside of the spatial bounds on the universe.

So where did it come from and why is it there? There may be no reason or cause for it, it may simply just "be," as far as we are capable of understanding. This may sound like a cop-out to you, but you should consider that the idea "God created the universe and God is eternal, existing outside of time and space," does not solve this problem with the idea, it merely abstracts it by one layer. The issue of "where did this come from" is not solved, merely transferred to a supernatural being and written off as something not requiring an explanation. However, there is no reason to apply this line of argument to God without being able to apply it to the universe itself.

You know?

Ah, I see what you mean. But isn't the idea of multiple dimensions still finite? If all dimensions incorporated the same time and had no beginning, then time itself must be infinite, and that is not possible. I do understand your line of thinking, however. I think we all agree that there are paradox issues that we may never discover the answer to.

We must also consider that the alternate universe was created outside of time (verifying your argument while not contradicting mine). I hope we all understand eachother's sides of the argument. Creationism focuses on the formation of our world. If you read, the Bible explains that God "hovered over the waters of the Earth". So, the Earth MUST have existed before God made it habitable for us. I assume many of the others on your side overlooked this. That verse must imply that God had created the universe and Earth outside of time before He made them finite. At this point, I personally believe that the cosmos began to expand (because time was now installed into it. The stars could now be in one spot one moment and another the next). This is, of course, only an idea of mine.

I admit that what i may have said before was incorrect, as I was only thinking on my side of the argument. Atoms and substances may have already existed before "creation". After all, how can God observe the "waters of the Earth" if Hydrogen and Oxygen did not already exist? Now that I think about it with an open mind, it is VERY likely that what you say is true about dimensions (although we have no way of proving this).

If you will permit me to say so, God is infinite and above all things we see in the physical realm. My guess is, the Earth and universe we see are "mirror" images of other dimensions (verifying infinite and finite forces). The dimension we live in is finite, while the other is infinite. If science is true in it's dating methods, then the Earth could be even older than billions (if my guess is correct).

+++

As for some of the others who are asking me personal questions unrelated to the topic:

If you cannot respond to my question without needing some background on my studies, then our argument is void and only proves that you can only rely on what you have learned in school and cannot think for yourself. Kindly focus on the topic instead of me, personally. If you choose not to, I will simply ignore you. So far, Elfer and one other person whom I cannot remember are the only ones who have not turned this thread into an insult forum.

At 11/27/09 05:47 PM, poxpower wrote:

You think we're so stupid that we'll expect you to actually read anything we link to, despite you ignoring the last 30 or so attempts by us?

haha

What 30 attempts? All you've put up was Wikipedia, which I have no respect for reading as truth.

At 11/27/09 10:51 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 11/27/09 10:34 AM, Mechwarrior300 wrote:

At 11/27/09 04:32 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: lol at stupid kids having incredulity about big bang theory when they explain it as "nothing becoming something' and describing it as an "explosion".

Last I checked, explosions were something. I'm not that general, but I found your post humorous.

And last I checked, the Big Bang was not an explosion.

Just curious, when you say you "studied" these theories, do you mean you actually went to a real school and studied them to gain an understanding of the underlying theory, or do you mean you read a quick brief on them off the back of a box of communion wafers?

I'll give you a clue: From the things you've said about the two theories, I can tell it's not the first one.

I was not saying the bang was an "explosion". I was merely showing the irony of his statement.

There are many different forms of the theory. Most DO involve explosions. Just because one is right and the other is wrong in your eyes I am discredited. Are you expecting me to completely lay out the entire theory of the Big Bang? The general idea is all I am addressing. And when I say I studied the theories, I mean went to school and actually studied them. The fact that there are many different forms of the theory confuses most people to what is and what isn't. As far as I am concerned, all BB theories incorporate an infinite timeframe before the cause. In most atheist versions, matter was eternal before the BB. In this case, they seem to readily accept eternal figures when not dealing with a supreme being. Also, we know that matter is neither created nor destroyed. Therefore, saying that every type of atom existed before the BB is ignoring the known chemical reactions that would have happened long before the BB (assuming infinity is involved).

Now most forms of the theory claim that there was absolutely nothing. Then, out of nowhere there was something and it began to balloon into what we know of as space (Not an explosion). Most people think of an explosion because it "makes since" to them. But in reality, nearly every BB idea seems to say "it just happened on it's own for no reason". So, intricate design makes less sense than no design? Both ideas center around instantaneous creation with no science behind it. Sure, we can see the "after effects" of the BB, but that doesn't prove the "before effects". Studying the Big Bang is much like studying a tree. We see the after effect. We know what it would have looked like from the beginning. We can examine it externally, internally, generally, and specifically.We can discover everything there is to know about the tree. But, the problem is, the tree is not infinite. It had a beginning. We can never scientifically figure out where the tree came from. We know it was a seed, but then, where did the seed come from? What caused the seed? Was it just there before time and suddenly became a tree?

Now, don't try to argue with my metaphor. Try to understand what I am getting at. How can we scientifically examine infinity? We can come up with thousands of theories and never be sure.

Similarly, we cannot prove creationism. Creationism depends on faith, and it can only be proven by disproving the theories that the science community comes up with. Then again, nearly all origin theories cannot be proven. They rely completely on faith.

If neither of my Big Bang theories were correct, then fill me in on the form of it that you have heard. You must agree that there are many different branches of it. The types I know of may not be up-to-date because I do not follow the latest "discoveries".

[mass becomes dense substance and explodes.]
[nothingness spawns a dense substance and explodes.]
[eternal mass finally decides to expand.]
[mass becomes dense substance and expands rapidly.]
[nothingness becomes matter spontaneously.]
[two colossal heavenly bodies collide with one another in an epic event horizon.]
[every form of matter appears and expands.]

I've heard many different ideas. I'm not sure which one you are thinking of exactly.

At 11/27/09 04:32 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: lol at stupid kids having incredulity about big bang theory when they explain it as "nothing becoming something' and describing it as an "explosion".

Last I checked, explosions were something. I'm not that general, but I found your post humorous.

At 11/27/09 12:18 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/26/09 11:25 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote:

You realize how unbelievable the odds are against this? [1 in 10^340M].

I have something even more unbelievable for you!
What are the chances of all the atoms in my finger to be precisely arranged like they are AT THIS VERY MOMENT OUT OF INFINITE MOMENTS, TYPING THIS VERY MESSAGE OUT OF INFINITE POSSIBLE MESSAGES!!!!!!
That's like 1 in infinity time infinity.

Yet it's...happening ON ALL 10 OF MY FINGERS!!... OH NO I BROKE THE UNIVERSE!

Yeah of course, there was that 2-3 years period before you learned how to talk or understand english where your mind was pretty open.

Too bad someone took a dump in it.

WTF? Do you think before your respond or do you normally answer childishly? The odds are completely AGAINST evolution. Your belief depends entirely on chance, not choice. The decision for you to "type" isn't infinite (but you probably knew that). It's like arguing with a 4 year old.

Secondly, why should I have to address everything that I find wrong with evolution if you have yet to give any logical reason for believing it? I've given you the biggest problem I have personally with it. Then there's the whole issue about beneficial mutations and improvements via evolution. (But I will get on that subject later). So, give me a good reason to believe that mess again without using the good old "scientists believe it" BS. Can you prove it for yourself? Or do you need other people to do it for you while you stand in the background ridiculing everyone?

I believed evolution until I graduated and finally began thinking for myself. Perhaps you should do the same (unless, of course, you're still in high school).

Could someone else please address my argument instead of this clown?

At 11/26/09 10:39 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/26/09 09:56 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote:

Now, before I say this, I realize that there are different variations of theories on the Big Bang. One, which involves a period of nothingness suddenly becoming a dense substance explosion

Lucky for us nothing in the theory of the Big Bang depends on what was before the singularity or what caused it.

You've yet to ask any questions about the actual Big Bang theory.

At 11/26/09 09:58 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote:

Um, you don't know me. How would you know what I have studied?

Personally it was the posting creationist videos with alt account and then acting like those are just your "friends".
Either way, if your friends are creationists and you're alright with that, that is also a pretty strong clue that all the science you've ever studied was from Ghostbusters cartoons.

First, HUH? Who are you talking about, and what videos?

Second, there are plenty of former evolutionists and scientists that have accepted creationism after they analyzed what they formerly believed (ie: Gary Parker and Robert Gentry). When people (yes, scientists are people too) truthfully examine their beliefs in an unbiased mindset, their eyes are open more to the faults. I studied evolution and the big bang theory before I heard about creation. Even from the start, I found evolution to be ludicrous. But the constant pressure of being a part of something and sounding like a true student made me believe it.

Logically, it makes more sense for everything to have been intricately designed much like a computer rather than an accidental, random happening. You realize how unbelievable the odds are against this? [1 in 10^340M]. And that's just for the simple cell. The first time I saw that number, I was completely convinced that evolution was false. (NOTE: This does not mean I went straight to creationism. I simply dismissed evolution). I mean think about it, would you stake a million dollars in favor of that 1 digit? Only blind, dependent fools still follow that false theory that has only presumptions to back it up. Luckily, I don't throw dice at fantasy.

But if you want to believe in that X-men crap, be my guest. I'm not stopping you!

At 11/26/09 09:48 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/26/09 09:18 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote:

It has more flaws in it than any scientific theory I've studied.

Since you have never studied any scientific theory, that definitely is accurate.
Congratulations on saying your first non-stupid thing in this topic.

Um, you don't know me. How would you know what I have studied? Congratulations on saying your umpteenth ridiculous comment in this topic.

At 11/26/09 09:26 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/26/09 09:18 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: I already know what it is. The Big Bang isn't anywhere close to valid. It has more flaws in it than any scientific theory I've studied.

Ok. Start with the big ones.. or one. Yeah. Let's go through the flaws one a time. Let's start with the one you find to be the biggest.

[I'm getting kind of tired of the utter lack of specificity from your side of the argument.]

Now, before I say this, I realize that there are different variations of theories on the Big Bang. One, which involves a period of nothingness suddenly becoming a dense substance explosion, I find hard to believe simply because something cannot come from nothing except through creation. The other theory I have heard suggests that there were all forms of atoms in space before the bang - and afterwards became a dense particle and exploded. Well, where did those atoms come from?

The Big Bang theory incorporates an infinite time, then suddenly, finite time. Am I expected to believe that everything was just there and, after countless eons, decided to do something?

(I am not speaking scientifically at the moment because I just want to get my point across. Just saying that before anyone suddenly became infuriated with me for talking nonsense)

At 11/26/09 05:55 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/26/09 05:47 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: Exactly how do you validate the Big Bang theory?

By reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

I already know what it is. The Big Bang isn't anywhere close to valid. It has more flaws in it than any scientific theory I've studied.

Exactly how do you validate the Big Bang theory?

At 11/25/09 06:08 PM, poxpower wrote: ( Mech is also another account related to the other 2 )

( lol )

( you're a retard )

Wtf? Where did you come up with that? The only retard I see here is you. In case you hadn't noticed, I had posted long before any of this off topic garbage.

If they want to go to hell, shouldn't that be their choice? Seems they've made up their mind Hybrid lol. No point in arguing further.

Here's my 2 cents, then I'm gonna stop observing this thread: The entire world used to think that the Earth was the center of the universe. Scientists supported it. It was accepted by schools and taught as fact. It was contradicted constantly by theists and atheist alike, but all oppositions were brutally put down by the fact that the sun rises and sets. The geniuses of that time accepted no compromise or reasoning. Even the most renowned scholars of the time supported the geocentric theory because it could be proven...

Just a thought.

I thought the whole debate was religion vs science, not creation vs evolution. Since religion is such a general thought, you cannot associate it with science as there are many different religions with different beliefs. Many religions don't believe in divine creation. Science and religions fight on different battlefields. Facts and Faith. Most religions focus on the supernatural, thereby trumping science in all areas. Unfortunately, Christianity is the only religion that has not contradicted science in this way. The Christian Bible was written long before many of the "renowned" scientists' ancestors were born. If you have read it, the Bible actually describes the molecule, the roundness of the Earth and it's orbiting of the sun, and even the presence of microscopic lifeforms. Although it does not directly address these specifically, it explains them in their rawest form. (ie: I believe in Proverbs, Solomon explains that the Lord "oversees the circle of the earth").

So, religion itself DOES loose in the argument to science. Christianity, however, has not yet failed to contradict science except for issues regarding your decision to be saved (which should not be introduced to the debate seeing as that is a moral choice). Since evolution is only a theory, it does not qualify as a valid basis for contradicting the Christian creationism.

Sorry guys, Christians have the odds on their side. Cross-examine me if you wish. There is nothing more to say.