• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Creationistic Method and Why It Is Fraudulent

Super Universe

Super Universe

Defender of God
gnostic said:
That’s called faith, and superstition.

You believe in what you have seen before, that is blind faith.

And you believe that angels are doing something that you think it is their works. That’s both superstition and blind faith.
Click to expand...

Belief in angels is called faith and superstition? Before you drive over a bridge do you get out and inspect it first? You don't, right? That's called faith.

Do you have a degree in physics? If not, then that's called faith.
 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
Super Universe said:
I'm not telling you who I am. The last thing I need is some crazed satanic worshipping dope addicted loser coming up here because he lost a debate on an internet forum and me having to put him down from a half mile away.
Click to expand...
I don’t think for a moment that god or angels exist, so I don’t think Satan (or any demon) exist as well.

I have never done any illegal drugs in my life, and apart from the very few occasions that I have tiny sip of champagne, to celebrate weddings or birthday, then drinking alcohol is a rarity for me.
 
Super Universe

Super Universe

Defender of God
gnostic said:
I don’t think for a moment that god or angels exist, so I don’t think Satan (or any demon) exist as well.

I have never done any illegal drugs in my life, and apart from the very few occasions that I have tiny sip of champagne, to celebrate weddings or birthday, then drinking alcohol is a rarity for me.
Click to expand...

You don't think God or angels or Satan or demons exist? Good, you're not supposed to. Why did you think you were?

You have never done any illegal drugs in your life? I wasn't talking about you.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Super Universe said:
I'm not telling you who I am. The last thing I need is some crazed satanic worshipping dope addicted loser coming up here because he lost a debate on an internet forum and me having to put him down from a half mile away.

Does someone need a degree in physics to understand gravity?
Click to expand...


Not technically required, but an education equivalent to at least a bachelors degree is required for the topics discussed here.
 
Mister Silver

Mister Silver

Faith's Nightmare
I can't wrap my brain around the ignorance of people who cannot understand that "theory" in science is the equivalent of "fact".

Oh, it's just the "theory of gravity?"

By all means, jump off a skyscraper and see if gravity isn't real. Also, it's not as though you can throw a ball into the air and not expect it to come back down.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Super Universe said:
So gravity is only taught at the end of four years of college?
Click to expand...

General Relativity is a graduate topic. That is the modern theory of gravity.

If you only want to do Newtonian gravity, you can get away with only differential equations, but you won't be able to do anything with the Big Bang. That takes some differential geometry.
 
Super Universe

Super Universe

Defender of God
Polymath257 said:
Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric - Wikipedia

Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

GR is GR. GR is not the big bang. It's GR. Saying that GR allows a big bang is like saying that our moon allows black holes to exist.

Lambda-CDM model provides a reasonably good account of the following properties of the cosmos:

-background radiation

-distribution of galaxies

-abundance of hydrogen and other

-the accelerating expansion of the universe

None of that is evidence of a big bang. The background radiation is cold space. Cold space does not prove a hot big bang. Space has always been cold.

The distribution of galaxies just means that galaxies are distributed. It does not prove a single big bang.

The abundance of hydrogen and other elements just means that hydrogen is abundant. Hydrogen does not mean there was a big bang. It just means that there is more hydrogen than other elements.

The accelerating expansion of the universe? This is evidence against a big bang. Scientists thought the universe would show a slowing down of the expansion because of gravity but what they see is it increasing expansion rate. That means that something else is at work. Big bangs don't increase in speed 13.8 billion years after the event.
 
Super Universe

Super Universe

Defender of God
Mister Silver said:
I can't wrap my brain around the ignorance of people who cannot understand that "theory" in science is the equivalent of "fact".

Oh, it's just the "theory of gravity?"

By all means, jump off a skyscraper and see if gravity isn't real. Also, it's not as though you can throw a ball into the air and not expect it to come back down.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Gravity prevents the big bang from happening.

Welcome to the debate!
 
Super Universe

Super Universe

Defender of God
Polymath257 said:
General Relativity is a graduate topic. That is the modern theory of gravity.

If you only want to do Newtonian gravity, you can get away with only differential equations, but you won't be able to do anything with the Big Bang. That takes some differential geometry.
Click to expand...

GR is a graduate topic? But GR is not the big bang. It's GR.

If I only want to do Newtonian gravity? Where does GR prove a big bang?
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Super Universe said:
GR is GR. GR is not the big bang. It's GR. Saying that GR allows a big bang is like saying that our moon allows black holes to exist.

Lambda-CDM model provides a reasonably good account of the following properties of the cosmos:

-background radiation

-distribution of galaxies

-abundance of hydrogen and other

-the accelerating expansion of the universe

None of that is evidence of a big bang. The background radiation is cold space. Cold space does not prove a hot big bang. Space has always been cold.

The distribution of galaxies just means that galaxies are distributed. It does not prove a single big bang.

The abundance of hydrogen and other elements just means that hydrogen is abundant. Hydrogen does not mean there was a big bang. It just means that there is more hydrogen than other elements.

The accelerating expansion of the universe? This is evidence against a big bang. Scientists thought the universe would show a slowing down of the expansion because of gravity but what they see is it increasing expansion rate. That means that something else is at work. Big bangs don't increase in speed 13.8 billion years after the event.

And they left gravity completely out of the model? I wonder why? Seems to be a really big thing to forget about.
Click to expand...

The Lambda-CDM model *is* the Big Bang model. GR *is* the theory of gravity.
 
Super Universe

Super Universe

Defender of God
Mister Silver said:
By what logic are you proposing such a ludicrous statement?
Click to expand...

Sigh... Another atheist who doesn't understand the meaning of the word logic. This is getting old. Okay, logic does not mean truth. Logic deals in valid and invalid concepts. A valid concept is one where the conclusion agrees with the premise. You could have an incorrect premise and a conclusion that agrees with the premise would make a valid concept but they would both be wrong.

Now, as for my statement. We've been discussing this for 21 pages. Maybe you should go back and read some of it. If you are just here to tell me to be quiet and not participate in the TOPIC then I will report you for trolling.
 
Mister Silver

Mister Silver

Faith's Nightmare
Super Universe said:
Sigh... Another atheist who doesn't understand the meaning of the word logic. This is getting old. Okay, logic does not mean truth. Logic deals in valid and invalid concepts. A valid concept is one where the conclusion agrees with the premise. You could have an incorrect premise and a conclusion that agrees with the premise would make a valid concept but they would both be wrong.

Now, as for my statement. We've been discussing this for 21 pages. Maybe you should go back and read some of it. If you are just here to tell me to be quiet and not participate in the TOPIC then I will report you for trolling.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I take your truth to be the veritable crap that exits a bull's bum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top