What if creationism is true?

[shawn001]

Yes, according to Gen 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth. "God", the intelligent designer (supernatural life)..created the "heavens" and the "earth". Yes, the first ten words of the bible draws this conclusion and I tend to agree.

Flip-Flopping Atmosphere Covered Early Earth

"The research, published online March 18 in the journal Nature Geoscience, found that 2.5 billion years ago, Earth's atmosphere periodically flipped from a hydrocarbon-free, and thus haze-free, state to one in which the skies were full of an organic, hydrocarbon-rich fog created by microbes."

http://www.livescience.com/19174-flip-flopping-atmosphere-early-earth.html


The history of cosmology, astronomy and geology and chemistry, the fossil record all disagree with your personal opinion for a fact, in fact billions of facts.

 

[shawn001]

wonder how Call of the Wild explains this away?


"There were periods in the past when three or four early human species lived at the same time, even in the same place. We – Homo sapiens – are now the sole surviving species in this once diverse family tree."

Human Fossils | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Smithsonian museam of natrual history and human origins program.

Still waiting call of the wild?

By the time you figure it all out we will have evolved even more.

 

[jasonwill2]

Not at all. First off, I admit that my belief is a religion. I admit that I accept it by faith. This DOESN'T mean that I dont think that there is good logical evidence that strongly supports my belief. But I still admit that I accept by faith. This is a different approach than the naturalistic view, as they pass unproven assumptions off as facts. This is not only illogical but it is also disingenuous. Second, my belief system (Christian theism) is a cumulative case, which starts off by logically concluding that the universe began to exist by a transcendent intelligent designer who has the power and will to create life and who also is the ultimate source of goodness and has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. So my belief system is a cumulative case which I can make a sound case for in all the aspects that I mentioned.



No I dont. I think the kalam cosmological argument is the best argument that a theist can use to make a cause for theism.



Um, yes it does. The second premise of the kalam cosmological argument is that the universe began to exist. To say that the universe began to exist is a religously neutral statement and can be found in any text book on cosmology. This is a statement that is backed up by empirical science and philosophy. Once you establish a finite universe, you then ask the question "what does it mean to create the universe?" Well, if the universe is all space, matter, time, and energy, then, whatever gave the universe its cause could not be material and temporal. So the first cause had to be immaterial and atemporal, with the will and power to create the universe. So coincidentally, the only thing that has the attributes necessary to create a universe would be, what we call, God. So the kalam cosmological argument, is, in my opinion, the best argument for theism.



Well, If the universe is finite, that would mean it began to exist. That is the key issue. If the universe began to exist, there absolutely has to be a cause. Everything that BEGINS to exist has to have an external cause. You can call it "unbounded" after it began to exist, but that still doesn't answer the question of origins. So the question will forever be unanswered on the naturalistic view, but on the theistic view the answer is clear, God created the universe.

Just because the Universe had a begining and is made of matter and energy does not mean it was made of something that was not matter or energy!

Have you ever considered that our Universe always was? that perhaps gravity will win out and we will return to singularity and "rebound" into another big bang? this kind of bouncing effect could make the Universe go over and over again if the conditions are right.

Or could it be that our Universe was born when two other systems collided, making ours in the wake (as some predictions of string theory predict)?

Or could it even be that the creator/first cause WAS a "god" more or less, but was made of matter? Could it even be that god is the Universe, and that by creating he died in the process? or that he is still the matter and energy, but alive?

There are so many things wrong with that line I boldened, and so many other possibilities.

 

[shawn001]

Just because the Universe had a begining and is made of matter and energy does not mean it was made of something that was not matter or energy!

Have you ever considered that our Universe always was? that perhaps gravity will win out and we will return to singularity and "rebound" into another big bang? this kind of bouncing effect could make the Universe go over and over again if the conditions are right.

Or could it be that our Universe was born when two other systems collided, making ours in the wake (as some predictions of string theory predict)?

Or could it even be that the creator/first cause WAS a "god" more or less, but was made of matter? Could it even be that god is the Universe, and that by creating he died in the process? or that he is still the matter and energy, but alive?

There are so many things wrong with that line I boldened, and so many other possibilities.

A couple of things Jason, we are now finding out most of the universe is dark matter. So were not made from what most of the universe is.


"that perhaps gravity will win out and we will return to singularity and "rebound" into another big bang?"

The big crunch has been almost completely ruled out, the universe is expanding faster then light right now its not looking good for a big crunch. They have known this since 1995.

This is what its looking like now.

Universe Today
End of Everything.

The End of Everything

 

[Iti oj]

So cold death is back in? Sadface I liked the big crunch

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

So cold death is back in? Sadface I liked the big crunch

I agree. It just seems so melodramatic. The Big Crunch sounded way cooler and more entertaining.

 

[jasonwill2]

A couple of things Jason, we are now finding out most of the universe is dark matter. So were not made from what most of the universe is.


"that perhaps gravity will win out and we will return to singularity and "rebound" into another big bang?"

The big crunch has been almost completely ruled out, the universe is expanding faster then light right now its not looking good for a big crunch. They have known this since 1995.

This is what its looking like now.

Universe Today
End of Everything.

The End of Everything

I did not look at your source, but I am well-aware of the heat death or the "big rip" scenerio, but just because Dark Energy is accelerating universal expansion does not mean it always will. Indeed, we understand nearly nothing about Dark Energy or it's mechanisms. Also, a good deal of Dark matter could be accounted for with netrunios, rocky things, ect ect. Infact, due to the huge amount of rocky planets and astroids we are starting to discover farther and farther away, all the time more and more of it, I suspect that a good deal of "Dark Matter" is just normal matter that is hard to detect.

That isn't to say that a good deal of it is made up of some kind of exotic matter, but it seems to me that there may be something else at work.

I did hear of one suggestion that gravity from higher dimensions could be leaking into ours, but I think that comes from string theory.

Though if I had to make a unique guess, I would say that the range of a supermassive blackhole is somehow not fully understood, and that perhaps such large massive objects might have not fully understood warping of space at these dark matter halos. After all, consider that more or less galaxies spin around the SMBH, which means that one could consider the accretion disk to be the same as the galactic disk (even though we are not an active galaxy). Then when I think of this way, the "Dark Matter Halo" could be a number of ways that space-time is 'indented' by gravity. Infact, maybe this halo has somethign to do with how the influence stops dead short of the extragalactic space.

but anyway, this conjecture is gerting off-topic.


What I am saying is that there are a larger range of possibilites, but even with dark matter and dark energy, it can still be considered part of "normal stuff" when compared to "divine stuff"

I was just saying that "normal stuff" could also be "divine stuff" in the most literal and direct way, as well as compltely different, and everything in between

 

[Iti oj]

I don't think we have enough info to know which way the universe will end. Also something to consider. Their are massive black holes in the center od galixies and the universe... if these keep growing...who knows

 

[jasonwill2]

I don't think we have enough info to know which way the universe will end. Also something to consider. Their are massive black holes in the center od galixies and the universe... if these keep growing...who knows

they will eventually disintegrate/explode because of hawking radiation after everything else is turned into a soup of quarks 10x10^99999999999999999999999999999 or something like that millenniums from now?

don't quote me on that number, it's so huge I can't remember it so I'm just conveying roughly the idea.

 

[shawn001]

I did not look at your source, but I am well-aware of the heat death or the "big rip" scenerio, but just because Dark Energy is accelerating universal expansion does not mean it always will. Indeed, we understand nearly nothing about Dark Energy or it's mechanisms. Also, a good deal of Dark matter could be accounted for with netrunios, rocky things, ect ect. Infact, due to the huge amount of rocky planets and astroids we are starting to discover farther and farther away, all the time more and more of it, I suspect that a good deal of "Dark Matter" is just normal matter that is hard to detect.

That isn't to say that a good deal of it is made up of some kind of exotic matter, but it seems to me that there may be something else at work.

I did hear of one suggestion that gravity from higher dimensions could be leaking into ours, but I think that comes from string theory.

Though if I had to make a unique guess, I would say that the range of a supermassive blackhole is somehow not fully understood, and that perhaps such large massive objects might have not fully understood warping of space at these dark matter halos. After all, consider that more or less galaxies spin around the SMBH, which means that one could consider the accretion disk to be the same as the galactic disk (even though we are not an active galaxy). Then when I think of this way, the "Dark Matter Halo" could be a number of ways that space-time is 'indented' by gravity. Infact, maybe this halo has somethign to do with how the influence stops dead short of the extragalactic space.

but anyway, this conjecture is gerting off-topic.


What I am saying is that there are a larger range of possibilites, but even with dark matter and dark energy, it can still be considered part of "normal stuff" when compared to "divine stuff"

I was just saying that "normal stuff" could also be "divine stuff" in the most literal and direct way, as well as compltely different, and everything in between

Take a look at the source first.

"The End of Regular Matter – 1030 years"

Dark matter is not matter, that is energy we understand.

"but just because Dark Energy is accelerating universal expansion does not mean it always will."

This was settled in 1998 and people won nobel prizes for it.

Cosmic acceleration discovery wins physics Nobel
Three astrophysicists honored for grasping universe's accelerating expansion


http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/334907/title/
Cosmic_acceleration_discovery_wins_physics_Nobel

The dark matter is working like antigravity. Cosmic acceleration shows the universe expanding faster then the speed of light. Not matter but space. Matter can't break the speed of light barrier. But space can without breaking any laws of physics.

Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?

Curious About Astronomy: Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?
Wmap

What is the Ultimate Fate of the Universe?

WMAP- Fate of the Universe


Dark Energy And The Joy Of Being Wrong

The Story Of Dark Energy, In A Nutshell : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR




This was part of why is gravity so weak in our universe.

"I did hear of one suggestion that gravity from higher dimensions could be leaking into ours, but I think that comes from string theory."

Is a scientist that showed it coming from another universe and string theory. At first the math they were working on didn't make sense until she proposed that and then the math did make sense.

Some cosmologist believe dark matter is part of another universe.


But

"This model offers intriguing possibilities of an oscillating or cyclic universe (or “Big Bounce”), where the Big Crunch is succeeded by the Big Bang of a new universe, and so on, potentially ad infinitum. However, in the light of recent findings in the 1990s (such as the evidence for an accelerating universe described previously), this is no longer considered the most likely outcome."

Another problem with the big crunch is that Wmap is showing the universe is flat, so even without dark matter and energy.

"If, on the other hand, the geometry of space is “open” (negatively curved like the surface of a saddle), or even “flat”, the possiblities are very different. Even without dark energy, a negatively curved universe would continue expanding forever, with gravity barely slowing the rate of expansion"

The Big Crunch, the Big Freeze and the Big Rip - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe


Wmap back in 2003 gave a good value for the

How Fast is the Universe Expanding?

The current rate of expansion is usually expressed as the Hubble Constant (in units of kilometers per second per Megaparsec, or just per second).

WMAP- Expansion of the Universe

Hubble space telescope among others was working on it before then

Hubble Completes Eight-Year Effort to Measure Expanding Universe

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble Completes Eight-Year Effort to Measure Expanding Universe (05/25/1999) - Release Text

 

[camanintx]

No I dont. I think the kalam cosmological argument is the best argument that a theist can use to make a cause for theism.

I agree, it is the best argument a theist can use which is why I'm a theist. But that's a subject for another thread.

And I said I dont believe in evolution because it has not been observed or scientifically proven. And what is used as proof could be evidence of something else.

Evolution up to the species level has been observed. When you expect a dog to become something else, you're looking for evolution at the family level which is two levels higher. Since nature has been at this for millions of years while we've only been observing it for a couple hundred, expecting this level of observation is unrealistic.

You argue that all organisms were created in their present form which is not supported by the fossil record. There is no evidence that rabbits, or any other animal we know of today, existed in the pre-Cambrian which suggests they evolved from something different than they are today.

 

[Big_TJ]

Microevolution: The changing of one species to another species, but within the same kind of animal. A dog can reproduce another species of the "dog" kind.

Macroevolution: The changing of one animal to another kind of animal.

When you take away all of the scientific terminology, that is what it boils down to.

Thanks CotW. Now I am beginning to understand your posts. Could you kindly tell us where you got these "understandings" from? Also, if we were to point you to exactly what evolution is, would you be prepared to see if your positions are still tenable?

 

[jasonwill2]

Take a look at the source first.

"The End of Regular Matter – 1030 years"

Dark matter is not matter, that is energy we understand.

"but just because Dark Energy is accelerating universal expansion does not mean it always will."

This was settled in 1998 and people won nobel prizes for it.

Cosmic acceleration discovery wins physics Nobel
Three astrophysicists honored for grasping universe's accelerating expansion


http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/334907/title/
Cosmic_acceleration_discovery_wins_physics_Nobel

The dark matter is working like antigravity. Cosmic acceleration shows the universe expanding faster then the speed of light. Not matter but space. Matter can't break the speed of light barrier. But space can without breaking any laws of physics.

Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?

Curious About Astronomy: Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?
Wmap

What is the Ultimate Fate of the Universe?

WMAP- Fate of the Universe


Dark Energy And The Joy Of Being Wrong

The Story Of Dark Energy, In A Nutshell : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR




This was part of why is gravity so weak in our universe.

"I did hear of one suggestion that gravity from higher dimensions could be leaking into ours, but I think that comes from string theory."

Is a scientist that showed it coming from another universe and string theory. At first the math they were working on didn't make sense until she proposed that and then the math did make sense.

Some cosmologist believe dark matter is part of another universe.


But

"This model offers intriguing possibilities of an oscillating or cyclic universe (or “Big Bounce&#8221, where the Big Crunch is succeeded by the Big Bang of a new universe, and so on, potentially ad infinitum. However, in the light of recent findings in the 1990s (such as the evidence for an accelerating universe described previously), this is no longer considered the most likely outcome."

Another problem with the big crunch is that Wmap is showing the universe is flat, so even without dark matter and energy.

"If, on the other hand, the geometry of space is “open” (negatively curved like the surface of a saddle), or even “flat”, the possiblities are very different. Even without dark energy, a negatively curved universe would continue expanding forever, with gravity barely slowing the rate of expansion"

The Big Crunch, the Big Freeze and the Big Rip - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe


Wmap back in 2003 gave a good value for the

How Fast is the Universe Expanding?

The current rate of expansion is usually expressed as the Hubble Constant (in units of kilometers per second per Megaparsec, or just per second).

WMAP- Expansion of the Universe

Hubble space telescope among others was working on it before then

Hubble Completes Eight-Year Effort to Measure Expanding Universe

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble Completes Eight-Year Effort to Measure Expanding Universe (05/25/1999) - Release Text

Dude, you just said that Dark MATTER is working like anti-gravity. Your thinking of Dark ENERGY.

Also; I have not looked at the data you linked to yet due to a lack of time and constraints on online time, but all I personally know is that Dark Energy is the hypothetical agent for the accelerating expansion. I have several books on physics an astronomy, and none of them say that the matter of dark energy or dark matter was settled. Also both are two different things.

I followed the story of dark matter, and it wasn't until about 7-5 years ago that we started finding direct evidence to support the hypothesis of Dark Matter. Dark Energy is another case al-together i have not looked into.

I have the old stories saved, but unfortantely just a copy and paste of the articles with dates, but the actual links.

we didn't "solve" dark matter in the 90's

edit: I glanced at a couple of your sources, and EVERYONE knows it is expanding faster and faster, but no one knows WHY, this is where Dark Energy comes in. Dark Energy is a hypothetical agent that causes this accellerating expansion. We all know of the cause but we are not sure of the effect and so call it Dark Energy.

Unless you are claiming to know WHAT dark energy is, then there is still a LOT of research to be done.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Thanks CotW. Now I am beginning to understand your posts. Could you kindly tell us where you got these "understandings" from? Also, if we were to point you to exactly what evolution is, would you be prepared to see if your positions are still tenable?

With all do respect Big T, it seem as if you are doing the same thing everyone else is doing. You attack my understanding of the subject. I understand the subject quite well. Evolution is the concept of all animals having a common ancestor, is it not? That is evolution. For example, all dogs have the common ancestor of a dog. If that is true, all dogs today comes from its common ancestor, which is the grey wolf. So where did the grey wolf come from?? If the grey wolf was the first dog, that would mean that whatever produced the grey wolf wasn't a dog (or so it is theorized). But that is exactly where you leave science and go to religion. Dogs produce dogs. There is no evidence that the first dog came from a nondog. This is voo doo science, yet you people believe it and accept it as truth.

So in a nut shell, that is what evolution is. Without getting into the technical babble that people like to hide behind, that is what evolution is. Large scale change over time. All dogs share a common ancestor with the grey wolf, but if you trace the grey wolf back to its origins, you will find that it had the alleged origins of a nondog. This is religion, not science. There is nothing observational about, and nothing empirical about it. It is what you believe, and if that is the case, fine. You can believe what you want, but dont go passing it off as facts and put it in the text books as facts and lying to kids.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Dude, you just said that Dark MATTER is working like anti-gravity. Your thinking of Dark ENERGY.

Also; I have not looked at the data you linked to yet due to a lack of time and constraints on online time, but all I personally know is that Dark Energy is the hypothetical agent for the accelerating expansion. I have several books on physics an astronomy, and none of them say that the matter of dark energy or dark matter was settled. Also both are two different things.

I followed the story of dark matter, and it wasn't until about 7-5 years ago that we started finding direct evidence to support the hypothesis of Dark Matter. Dark Energy is another case al-together i have not looked into.

I have the old stories saved, but unfortantely just a copy and paste of the articles with dates, but the actual links.

we didn't "solve" dark matter in the 90's

edit: I glanced at a couple of your sources, and EVERYONE knows it is expanding faster and faster, but no one knows WHY, this is where Dark Energy comes in. Dark Energy is a hypothetical agent that causes this accellerating expansion. We all know of the cause but we are not sure of the effect and so call it Dark Energy.

Unless you are claiming to know WHAT dark energy is, then there is still a LOT of research to be done.

Ahh, dont pay shawn no mind. He is a copy and pasting guru. He is a cool cat, he just doesn't know how to form an argument on his own.

 

[shawn001]

Dude, you just said that Dark MATTER is working like anti-gravity. Your thinking of Dark ENERGY.

Also; I have not looked at the data you linked to yet due to a lack of time and constraints on online time, but all I personally know is that Dark Energy is the hypothetical agent for the accelerating expansion. I have several books on physics an astronomy, and none of them say that the matter of dark energy or dark matter was settled. Also both are two different things.

I followed the story of dark matter, and it wasn't until about 7-5 years ago that we started finding direct evidence to support the hypothesis of Dark Matter. Dark Energy is another case al-together i have not looked into.

I have the old stories saved, but unfortantely just a copy and paste of the articles with dates, but the actual links.

we didn't "solve" dark matter in the 90's

edit: I glanced at a couple of your sources, and EVERYONE knows it is expanding faster and faster, but no one knows WHY, this is where Dark Energy comes in. Dark Energy is a hypothetical agent that causes this accellerating expansion. We all know of the cause but we are not sure of the effect and so call it Dark Energy.

Unless you are claiming to know WHAT dark energy is, then there is still a LOT of research to be done.

Jason, I posted and lost the post.

But yes, I meant dark energy working like antigravity, by actually pushing instead of pulling.

Dark matter seems to be holding the galaxies together.

"we didn't "solve" dark matter in the 90's"

I know, nor did I say that we did, I said we showed "Cosmic acceleration."

I also agree that we need to learn more about dark matter and dark energy, as we really don't know that much about it yet.


However, back to the big crunch which was what this was all about. It was "Cosmic acceleration" research that ruled out the big crunch.

The Hubble site

So out of the three scenarios for the fate of the universe — re-collapse to a Big Crunch, expand ever more slowly to a Big Chill, or expand ever faster to a Big Rip — we have managed to narrow the possibilities down somewhat.

Evidence has ruled out the Big Crunch. The Big Chill is probably the least that will happen. Whether or not the universe goes all the way to a Big Rip depends on what dark energy really is, and whether it will stay constant forever or fade away as suddenly as it appears to have arisen. And that we do not yet know.

HubbleSite - Dark Energy - Fate of the Universe

 

[shawn001]

Ahh, dont pay shawn no mind. He is a copy and pasting guru. He is a cool cat, he just doesn't know how to form an argument on his own.

Call of the wild, you have already lost the arguement for biological or cosmic evolution already and just don't know it or accept it yet.

You lost it right here when we took a picture of the oldest light in the universe before any stars or galaxies existed at all. Or even the heavy elements your made out of , carbon for one.

EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE EVOLVED FROM THIS!!!

WMAP 1 Year Mission Results Press Release

http://sos.noaa.gov/images/Solar_System/wmap.jpg

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_ig/060915/CMB_Timeline300.jpg

 

[jasonwill2]

Jason, I posted and lost the post.

But yes, I meant dark energy working like antigravity, by actually pushing instead of pulling.

Dark matter seems to be holding the galaxies together.

"we didn't "solve" dark matter in the 90's"

I know, nor did I say that we did, I said we showed "Cosmic acceleration."

I also agree that we need to learn more about dark matter and dark energy, as we really don't know that much about it yet.


However, back to the big crunch which was what this was all about. It was "Cosmic acceleration" research that ruled out the big crunch.

The Hubble site

So out of the three scenarios for the fate of the universe — re-collapse to a Big Crunch, expand ever more slowly to a Big Chill, or expand ever faster to a Big Rip — we have managed to narrow the possibilities down somewhat.

Evidence has ruled out the Big Crunch. The Big Chill is probably the least that will happen. Whether or not the universe goes all the way to a Big Rip depends on what dark energy really is, and whether it will stay constant forever or fade away as suddenly as it appears to have arisen. And that we do not yet know.

HubbleSite - Dark Energy - Fate of the Universe

well at this point a big crunch is prob. out, but my original point is that call of the wild's assumption that only a non material entity could make a material reality.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Evolution up to the species level has been observed. When you expect a dog to become something else, you're looking for evolution at the family level which is two levels higher. Since nature has been at this for millions of years while we've only been observing it for a couple hundred, expecting this level of observation is unrealistic.

Millions of years? It seems as if naturalists worship the god of time. We never see this kind of change happening now, but we are expected to believe that long ago in the deep, deep past, when no one was around to see it, it happened. If you dont see the faith in that then I cant help you lol. I want you to tell me under what circumstance today will a dog begin to produce a nondog. All we see are dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, etc. Now yes, dogs produce different species and different breeds of their own kind, yes. This is what we see. Anything else is pure speculation and exercising faith.

You argue that all organisms were created in their present form which is not supported by the fossil record. There is no evidence that rabbits, or any other animal we know of today, existed in the pre-Cambrian which suggests they evolved from something different than they are today.

Even the wiki article on the pre-Cambrian period states that the fossil record of that era is poor. Hard to theorize anything on a poor record. But the fossil record is not evidence of evolution anyway. It is just more of evolutionists adding their preconceived notion on the evidence.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Call of the wild, you have already lost the arguement for biological or cosmic evolution already and just don't know it or accept it yet.

You lost it right here when we took a picture of the oldest light in the universe before any stars or galaxies existed at all. Or even the heavy elements your made out of , carbon for one.

EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE EVOLVED FROM THIS!!!

WMAP 1 Year Mission Results Press Release

http://sos.noaa.gov/images/Solar_System/wmap.jpg

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_ig/060915/CMB_Timeline300.jpg

Gotta love shawn lol