Creationism

If god said "let there be light" and there was a big bang, who's to say it wasnt the same event.
But at same time, theology of how it all began vs fact the earth is a round ball, dont need to be in disagreement.
These are independent.

Bigbang theory is over.

Quote from: Danang on March 31, 2019, 08:03:16 PM

And... Turtles ain't aware that THIS IS OPEN INFORMATION ERA. 
False statements can be easily detected by Google. 

Absolutely...which is why, with the weight of evidence for a spherical Earth, FE can only be considered a joke.

I'm still pretty sure this is a prank website.

Say hi to FE Youtuber celebrities. Tell them to learn more and judge less.

Suppose the creator is the first one who was created by the Creator (with capital C), then there will be the same never ending question: "Who created the Creator of this creator".

Exactly.
Creationism solves nothing. All it does is push the problem back.

Bigbang theory is over.

Yes, the show ended its last season a while ago. So what? It has a spin off with little Sheldon.

Exactly.
Creationism solves nothing. All it does is push the problem back.

So for proportionality shake, this dead end of logic (never ending questions about The Creator) should be stopped at the Prime One. And start to explore the creations more. Unlimited subjects are served for investigations and cause-effect logic is axiom.

So for proportionality shake, this dead end of logic (never ending questions about The Creator) should be stopped at the Prime One.

No, it should be stopped before it.
Invoking it leads you down an infinite path. Any justification for invoking the first one requires you to invoke them all.

So it's all or none.
Stopping at the first is completely illogical special pleading.

Again, creationism solves nothing, all your creator does is push the problem back and compound it.

So what will it be? An infinite series of creators, or none?

Although I am a pro"ish" big bang theory and uber against creationism, I am going to play devils advocate.

The big-bang needed a seed event to have made it happen. Science can not completely explain why the big bang happened or what happened "before" it, especially seeing that we will never be able to explore into/other side of that event.
As its currently understood, there was no time before the big bang, because time needs a medium to act on (overly simplistic statement)
If there is no time before the big bang, then how could there have been a before the big bang?
If there was no before the big bang, then how could a "seed" have gone from "not big bang" to "currently banging"

The same could be said for God, Time came already pre-packaged with God. There was no God before Time, because time and God are "created" at the same time.
If infinity is possible at all, then infinitely old structures are also possible. Us feable humans are just too stupid to understand infinity.

Its like, a really big number.

(P.S. full disclosure, I know there are multiple "before big bang" theories around)

Although I am a pro"ish" big bang theory and uber against creationism, I am going to play devils advocate.

There are also plenty of Creation "theories" that accept that the "big bang" might have been the initial act of creation of this universe.
I'm no Roman Catholic but this might be interesting:

GEORGES LEMAÎTRE (1894 - 1966)
Monsignor Georges Lemaître was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, physicist and astronomer. He is usually credited with the first definitive formulation of the idea of an expanding universe and what was to become known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which Lemaître himself called his “hypothesis of the primeval atom” or the “Cosmic Egg”.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In 1929, after nearly a decade of observations, Edwin Hubble published his definitive report that the redshift in light coming from distant galaxies is proportional to their distance, effectively confirming Lemaître’s prediction of an expanding universe. However, Lemaître's model of the universe received little notice until it was publicized by the prominent English astronomer Arthur Eddington, who described it as a "brilliant solution" to the outstanding problems of cosmology, and arranged for Lemaître’s theory to be translated and reprinted in the “Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society” in 1931.

Later in 1931, at a meeting of the British Association in London to discuss the relationship between the physical universe and spirituality, Lemaître first voiced his proposal that the universe had expanded from an initial point, which he called the "primeval atom" or "the Cosmic Egg, exploding at the moment of the creation", a theme he developed further in a report published in the journal “Nature” later that year.
<< and  much more >>

In other words we could say that the "big bang" theory was first proposed by a "creationist" .
And Stanford SOLAR Center: Does the Judeo-Christian Concept of Creation Conflict with The Big Bang?

By the way, don't dare make any more posts or you'll spoil the old "1234":

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on April 05, 2019, 01:33:58 AM

Although I am a pro"ish" big bang theory and uber against creationism, I am going to play devils advocate.

There are also plenty of Creation "theories" that accept that the "big bang" might have been the initial act of creation of this universe.
I'm no Roman Catholic but this might be interesting:

Quote from: The Physics of the Universe, Important Scientists

GEORGES LEMAÎTRE (1894 - 1966)
Monsignor Georges Lemaître was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, physicist and astronomer. He is usually credited with the first definitive formulation of the idea of an expanding universe and what was to become known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which Lemaître himself called his “hypothesis of the primeval atom” or the “Cosmic Egg”.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In 1929, after nearly a decade of observations, Edwin Hubble published his definitive report that the redshift in light coming from distant galaxies is proportional to their distance, effectively confirming Lemaître’s prediction of an expanding universe. However, Lemaître's model of the universe received little notice until it was publicized by the prominent English astronomer Arthur Eddington, who described it as a "brilliant solution" to the outstanding problems of cosmology, and arranged for Lemaître’s theory to be translated and reprinted in the “Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society” in 1931.

Later in 1931, at a meeting of the British Association in London to discuss the relationship between the physical universe and spirituality, Lemaître first voiced his proposal that the universe had expanded from an initial point, which he called the "primeval atom" or "the Cosmic Egg, exploding at the moment of the creation", a theme he developed further in a report published in the journal “Nature” later that year.
<< and  much more >>

In other words we could say that the "big bang" theory was first proposed by a "creationist" .
And Stanford SOLAR Center: Does the Judeo-Christian Concept of Creation Conflict with The Big Bang?

Yes, totally aware of the Irony! Although its more evidence that nothing is as simple as we would often like to believe it is.
If God is real, he is laughing his ass off at us!

By the way, don't dare make any more posts or you'll spoil the old "1234":

Dammit, I am on full procrastination mode today, there should be a warning or something. At least you saved the moment. I suppose I can create another account and start again. Only took me 4/5 years to get there.

If God is real, he is laughing his ass off at us!

Or just having some fun playing with us like his AOE characters.

Yes, totally aware of the Irony! Although its more evidence that nothing is as simple as we would often like to believe it is.
If God is real, he is laughing his ass off at us!

And possibly a hint that not all "creationists" believe that creation began on October 23, 4004 BCE nor even are totally opposed even to evolution.
Who knows? For is written that "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways".
Many flat earthers,  especially those on YouTube like Rob Skiba seem to insist on an absolutely literal reading of scripture as a book of "science".
Debating flat-earthers like Rob Skiba with facts and evidence about the Globe achieves nothing.
But Galileo wrote of how “We conclude that God is known . . .  by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word.”

Quote from: rabinoz

By the way, don't dare make any more posts or you'll spoil the old "1234":

Dammit, I am on full procrastination mode today, there should be a warning or something. At least you saved the moment. I suppose I can create another account and start again. Only took me 4/5 years to get there.

You can have a copy and life can't stand still.

Or just having some fun playing with us like his AOE characters.

The simulation Theory, my least favorite explanation for the big-bang, or is it for creationism?

And possibly a hint that not all "creationists" believe that creation began on October 23, 4004 BCE nor even are totally opposed even to evolution.
Who knows? For is written that "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways".
Many flat earthers,  especially those on YouTube like Rob Skiba seem to insist on an absolutely literal reading of scripture as a book of "science".
Debating flat-earthers like Rob Skiba with facts and evidence about the Globe achieves nothing.
But Galileo wrote of how “We conclude that God is known . . .  by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word.”

Everyone needs to understand exactly this at TFES.
Other people have different view points, it does not make them "shills" or "idiots". (granted, there are some trolls).
Ideas need to be argued, not people.

People are awesome (T's&C's apply)

EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE, NOT JUST HIGHLY UNLIKELY, BUT IMPOSSIBLE! - part 1 :


However, this is the real deal :
How many humans can the earth support? :


Don't skip the links to three other videos in the description of the video above!

First link : IF DEATH EXISTED BEFORE THE FALL, THEN WHAT WAS THE FALL
Second link : IS GOD GOOD - part 1
Third link : IS GOD GOOD - part 2

EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE, NOT JUST HIGHLY UNLIKELY, BUT IMPOSSIBLE! - part 1 :

No, evolution is near enough to proven. What you mean is "the origin of species by natural selection" is not just highly unlikely but impossible. The a whole different "kettle of fish".
But just possibly the real miracle of the creation of life is RNA and DNA -  who knows, were YOU there?

The difficult is done at once the impossible takes a little longer.

EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE, NOT JUST HIGHLY UNLIKELY, BUT IMPOSSIBLE! - part 1 :

No crappy videos thanks.
Make the argument yourself.
Evolution is not only possible, but it does occur.

First link : IF DEATH EXISTED BEFORE THE FALL, THEN WHAT WAS THE FALL

Biblically, it is God making up an excuse for why he treats mankind so crappy.
Realistically, it is the authors of the Bible making up an excuse for why their allegedly perfect god made such a crappy world with such crappy people.

Second link : IS GOD GOOD - part 1

No need, the Biblical god is a petty evil tyrant, far worse than Satan.

EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE, NOT JUST HIGHLY UNLIKELY, BUT IMPOSSIBLE! - part 1 :

Did that demonstrate that "EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE, NOT JUST HIGHLY UNLIKELY, BUT IMPOSSIBLE! - part 1"
             or just claim that the spontaneous generation of life "IS IMPOSSIBLE, NOT JUST HIGHLY UNLIKELY, BUT IMPOSSIBLE! - part 1"
They are quite different issues.

However, this is the real deal :
How many humans can the earth support? :

So, "How many humans can the earth support?" and what has that to do with any of these issues?

This might provide some balance: Darwin vs God: did the ‘Origin of Species’ cause a clash between church and science?

If Creationism is real and religion is right (and I'm going with the Bible here as christianity is the biggest religion) then how come a lot of species on this planet are endemic? They had to travel to the place of the ark to survive but somehow after the flooding was over, some species were only found on 1 place.

How were the meat eating animals fed on the ark? How were 17 million animals (2 of each species) kept and fed by a handful of people?

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14616161

Creationism does not always need to invoke a God, just something able to ensure at least one self-aware being would believe they inhabited this universe. There is no reason to think that the laws we are used to, such as those of cause and effect, would apply if there is another realm that caused this one. It could also be argued that before the creation of the universe then the physical laws that rule in it, such as those that state something cannot come from nothing, would also not exist so that there would be nothing to prevent something coming from nothing. When we talk about creation then absolutely nothing that we know need apply before then. There would have to be a first cause, but that does not mean singular creator. It might do, or it might mean another universe which needed and had no first causes.

2 of each species

That was only the unclean ones.
For the clean animals, it was actually 7 of each.
Noah needed some to sacrifice to God after the flooding was over.

those that state something cannot come from nothing, would also not exist so that there would be nothing to prevent something coming from nothing.

Which means there would be nothing to prevent the universe coming from nothing. So the first cause could simply be the universe itself.

Creationism does not always need to invoke a God, just something able to ensure at least one self-aware being would believe they inhabited this universe.

This overlaps with simulation theory. There may be a God or somebody created this earth does not need to be God.