The big bang or intelligent design

[Ganondorf]

Alright I'm going to let some one elsse start this discussion but for the present we will leave religion out, and discuss the scientific and logical proof on both sides of the fence.

 

[The Big Al]

God said "LET IT BE!"
BANG!
It was.

My one of my favorite T-shirt lines.

In all seriousness. Both have their logical flaws. The Big Bang is a violation of the conservation of energy and matter (there was no energy or matter and then there suddenly was). Intellegent design is bases on the litteral reading of Gensis which was worded for someone with the education of the modern first grader so it's missing a lot material that's been filled in by people.

I personally believe God created the universe but when, why, and how are his secrets. He doesn't have to tell us everything. That's why we invented science.

 

[Ganondorf]

Thanks for the comment Big Al.

 

[XD375]

Genesis is not meant to be taken literally anyway...

 

[Ganondorf]

Genesis is not meant to be taken literally anyway...

So are you saying that Genesis is false then?

 

[The Dude]

Genesis is a crock of steaming crap.

 

[Ganondorf]

Genesis is a crock of steaming crap.

Well what do you have to back that up? Just wondering if there is any reason behind you saying that.

 

[maddiejoan]

Well what do you have to back that up? Just wondering if there is any reason behind you saying that.

actually -- from my point of view --it's YOU that must offer proof that Genisis is accurate.

Have at it.

 

[ルカリオ]

In all seriousness. Both have their logical flaws. The Big Bang is a violation of the conservation of energy and matter (there was no energy or matter and then there suddenly was). Intellegent design is bases on the litteral reading of Gensis which was worded for someone with the education of the modern first grader so it's missing a lot material that's been filled in by people.

Big Bang theory is not really a violation of the conservation of energy; it started with a singularity of high energy (infinite as it occupied zero volume) and from it, the energy was dispersed to form matter. However, cosmologists are not universally (pardon the pun) agreed upon Big Bang theory.

ID is a more of a political, rather than a scientific, move, to re-word Biblical creationism so that it can be taught as science whilst getting around various separation-of-religion-and-state clauses.

The major logical flaw in both that they both lead to the argument of infinite regression. In the Big Bang theory, where did the singularity come from? The collapse of a previous universe in a Big Crunch? And, it was a previous process, etc?

However, ID takes it one step further. In the case of ID, where did the Designer come from? The Designer must have been designed by a more complex Designer, which must have been designed by one more complex, ad infinitum. Like Jessie and James, trying to capture the most powerful Pokémon requires one more powerful than that, etc. (This is a Pokémon site, after all ) Unlike the Big Bang flaw which requires a series of identical events occurring infinitely into the past, the ID one involves increasing complexity further into the past, so the "first" ID designer was the most complex possible Designer. Which, must have been designed by a more complex Designer.

God said "LET IT BE!"
BANG!
It was.

I am an atheist, but this is an excellent way for a religious person to view Big Bang theory, and can explain (again to a religious person) the source of the singularity.

(Oh dear, 5 posts came in whilst I was typing this one.)

 

[Ganondorf]

actually -- from my point of view --it's YOU that must offer proof that Genisis is accurate.

Have at it.

I'm here to find out if your veiw is true or not it's impossible for me to convice you that what I say is true because by saying that Genisis is totally unuseful then you've already ruled out the possibility that it is true so unless you are willing to consider it as a possiblility there is not possible way for me to show you it's true.

 

[maddiejoan]

I'm here to find out if your veiw is true or not it's impossible for me to convice you that what I say is true because by saying that Genisis is totally unuseful then you've already ruled out the possibility that it is true so unless you are willing to consider it as a possiblility there is not possible way for me to show you it's true.

You've made a proposal to me that Genisis is accurate.

I'm only asking you to back up your statement.

 

[Ganondorf]

Big Bang theory is not really a violation of the conservation of energy; it started with a singularity of high energy (infinite as it occupied zero volume) and from it, the energy was dispersed to form matter. However, cosmologists are not universally (pardon the pun) agreed upon Big Bang theory.

ID is a more of a political, rather than a scientific, move, to re-word Biblical creationism so that it can be taught as science whilst getting around various separation-of-religion-and-state clauses.

The major logical flaw in both that they both lead to the argument of infinite regression. In the Big Bang theory, where did the singularity come from? The collapse of a previous universe in a Big Crunch? And, it was a previous process, etc?

However, ID takes it one step further. In the case of ID, where did the Designer come from? The Designer must have been designed by a more complex Designer, which must have been designed by one more complex, ad infinitum. Like Jessie and James, trying to capture the most powerful Pokémon requires one more powerful than that, etc. (This is a Pokémon site, after all ) Unlike the Big Bang flaw which requires a series of identical events occurring infinitely into the past, the ID one involves increasing complexity further into the past, so the "first" ID designer was the most complex possible Designer. Which, must have been designed by a more complex Designer.


I am an atheist, but this is an excellent way for a religious person to view Big Bang theory, and can explain (again to a religious person) the source of the singularity.

(Oh dear, 5 posts came in whilst I was typing this one.)

Ah, some one I can talk to.

Well I think that the whole purpose behind the desinger is that he is infinite and self sutaining being of a spiritual argument rather than a physical argument.

Suppose if there were a supreme designer that was infinite, immortal, never had a begining or end. That would fill the blank in creation a little nicer then particalls randomly appearing wouldn't it?

 

[Ganondorf]

You've made a proposal to me that Genisis is accurate.

I'm only asking you to back up your statement.

When did I make that proposal? Quote me if I did but I never made any such claim but I can show you the argument based on how you believe the world came into existance if you want, just tell me what you believe.

 

[maddiejoan]

Ah, some one I can talk to.

Well I think that the whole purpose behind the desinger is that he is infinite and self sutaining being of a spiritual argument rather than a physical argument.

Suppose if there were a supreme designer that was infinite, immortal, never had a begining or end. That would fill the blank in creation a little nicer then particalls randomly appearing wouldn't it?

why?

You can't conceive that this is all random and we as sentient beings are merely trying to find order in what is likely complete chaos?

Where is your evidence that an intelligence guides any of existence?

 

[evkl]

Genesis can't be proven or disproven, this is a silly argument.

 

[Ganondorf]

why?

You can't conceive that this is all random and we as sentient beings are merely trying to find order in what is likely complete chaos?

Where is your evidence that an intelligence guides any of existence?

Well how do you believe the world was made or came to be? If you can answer that then I can relate to you my proof.

 

[Ganondorf]

Genesis can't be proven or disproven, this is a silly argument.

Are you saying that truth doesn't exist dear freind? Because something had to have happened right? Then we have to figure out what happened, and when we figure it out it becomes truth no matter what the evidence points to correct?

Even if we don't have complete evidence if we have substantially more evidence then other theorys would we have enough to evaluate truth?

 

[maddiejoan]

Well how do you believe the world was made or came to be? If you can answer that then I can relate to you my proof.

Existence has always been and is in a constant state of change that is observable and so provable.

There is no proof, however, that it is guided by an "intelligence".

 

[Ganondorf]

Existence has always been and is in a constant state of change that is observable and so provable.

There is no proof, however, that it is guided by an "intelligence".

Well if the world has always and is always in a constant state of change that is observable and so provable I can see your observations being made but you are going against the second law of science... can't remember what to call it right now but it states that all things deteriorate over time and eventually decay. Can you agree with that?

 

[maddiejoan]

Well if the world has always and is always in a constant state of change that is observable and so provable I can see your observations being made but you are going against the second law of science... can't remember what to call it right now but it states that all things deteriorate over time and eventually decay. Can you agree with that?

I said existence --not "The World" and the word you are looking for is Entropy.

I don't see where my statement goes against that.

Decay is also change, and it doesn't indicate an intelligent force.

What leads you to assert there is an intelligence guiding existence?