scombrid

I just read the thread over there. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Is there such thing as a thinking <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> fundie with original arguements against evolution? They either quote ICR <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> or Hovind and one of them reverts straight to scripture and just bashes all scientists using his scripture on man's wisdom being fooling in the eyes of God. I wish I had time to go argue.

beachbum

Shadow Wraith

Thanks for the help. Yes I am scratch over there. The thread will give you a freaking head ache in no time. Be careful what you say. I wrote the phrase 'pain in the butt' and it got censored to 'pain in the ****'. Come on over and try to have fun.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: beachbum ]</p>

MOJO-JOJO

Any suggestions for good user names we can use?

Here are my [clean] suggestions;

lobotomy
tooth fairy
mindless collective
zeus, apollo or mithra
holy cow! [batman]
hannibal
blinded by the light
(edited to include this) TROLL-ing

Any other good ones?

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]</p>

beachbum

Jamie
This looks like an interesting site. I will get back here and read some more later. Thanks

Free To Think
Chick.... Uh, sorry I really didn't mean that. Every time I open a thread and see one more goddidit response I want to strangle someone. Now I am being closed minded because I won't read AIG bull shit. Thanks for your moral support.

Peregrine
I just don't know how to get these people to think for themselves. Too many years in the fundy culture I guess.

excreationist
Thanks. I posted this link just now and I can't wait to hear the response.

Morpho
You rock dude and or dudette. I missed your post earlier but now that I have read it closer I will certainly go back and investigate. Thanks for permission to copy your stuff.

Felix
Way to wimp out. While a appreciate your support when you were there I will try to carry on in a tradition that will make you proud. Come back when your brain is rested. Keep on praying for me I am sure it will help me in my battle over the 'wicked fundies'

MOJO-JOJO
Remember "When life hands you a BORG, make HAMBORGOR' GROAIN

scombrid
There is actually not much argument. Everyone over there is so closed minded I keep throwing things like logic but it bounces off like it is hitting a brick wall.

beachbum

scarmig

I apologize for skipping you. Your post was short and I missed it. Wonder why they won't let you sign in? Did you tell them to get fu**ed right off? That would do it.

liquid

I've applied to join too, though as I am in exams soon I don't think I will have a huge input, but it'll be fun for releasing tension!

liquid

Well, I've been given a log-on and password, but apparently I need to be approved first - what does that mean?!

This is what I was going to post though. Comments welcome. It is 1.20am here so forgive sloppy mistakes...



Hello everyone. I'm a newcomer to this board - another devilspawn come to test your faith, I'm suspect you will conclude .

I don't expect to be posting too often, so you must forgive me if I don't immediately reply to everything you post. My main objective is to get you to think independently a little, and to point out factual errors and correct them (although that could take an eternity!).

I'm going to reply to this post that caught my eye...

"After maintaining for centuries that the physical universe is eternal and therefore needs no creation, science today has uncovered dramatic new evidence that the universe did have an ultimate origin, that it began at a finite time in the past-just as the Bible teaches."

Although in many scientists in the past did hypothesise a static, infinite, eternal universe (not unreasonably at the time), this differs quite substantially from 'maintaining' it was so. You have sought to infer a firm conclusion, whereas most scientists would have viewed it as open to contention.


"A British physicist Paul Davis, though not a professing Christian, says that “The Big Bang Theory is the one place in the universe where there is room, even for the most hard-nosed materialist, to admit God.”"

What does this have to do with anything? Science has not concluded what caused the big bang - some people just happen to like to think God. This has no relevance on the validity of the argument. You could quite easily read it the other way (the way I suspect it was meant), and take it that there is no room to admit god anywhere else!

"This theory hit the scientific world like a thunderclap. It meant that the idea of an ultimate beginning was no longer merely religious dogma. See science likes to trace events back in time, but the big bang explosion for science reaches an abrupt break, an absolute barrier. In fact, when the theory was first proposed, a large number of scientists resisted it for the reason it proved that the universe had a beginning"

You are correct in that some scientists did not think it was a good conclusion at first, but the evidence supports it. May I remind you that there is not necessarily an 'absolute barrier' between t&lt;0 and t&gt;0 - we just don't know how reality worked previous to the bang (and the few femtoseconds afterwards).


"here are some Problems that are observed in our solar system and defy the big bang explanation:
1. Suns and planets do not condense from cold clouds of gas and dust.
2. The sun has a very small angular momentum compared to the planets.
3. The system’s major angular momentum is in the planets.
4. There are eccentric and even tilted planetary orbits.
5. Uranus and Venus rotate in the opposite direction to the rest.
6. Some of the planets’ satellites are also in retrograde motion.
7. There is even distribution of angular momentum among satellites.
8. Our moon has a lower density than the Earth.
9. The heaviest elements are predominantly in the smaller planets."

Well, I see a complete failure to explain WHY these supposedly refute the big bang hypothesis. You can make any number of assertions you like, but no-one will take you seriously until you back them up.


"If the big bang occurred, all the matter in the universe was at one time a hot gas. A gas is one of the most random systems known to science."

Not necessarily. Sometimes gases are very predictable. In fact, only the other day I was doing dimensional analysis on wingtip vortices.

"There is virtually no information content in the chaotic, random movement of gas molecules."

Information is not the important factor.You are confusing entropy and information, which are related but not synymous. As much of what you say below makes no sense when using the term information, I will replace it with entropy and give you the benefit of the doubt. (And before you start to claim that I am wrong, I am an aerospace engineer. Thermodynamics constitutes about a third of my degree course).

"Because an isolated system, such as the universe,"

We don't know that the universe is an isolated system. But most people assume it is, which is fair enough.

"cannot generate nontrivial information,"

Actually, its perfectly possible. As long as the NET entropy increases, order can decrease somewhere else. You see this effect in your refrigerator every day.

"the big bang could not produce the complex, living universe we have today which contains immense amounts of information."

You actually have failed to give one reason why, so far.


"The big bang is now known to be seriously flawed; it was based on three observations: the redshift of distance starlight, the cosmic background radiation, and the amount of helium in the universe. All three have been poorly understood."

There are more observations than that (non-centrality of space-time and the like), but I'll save you the knowledge and keep it simple. All were fairly poorly understood, but I notice you don't say HOW they were poorly understood! That's actually very significant.

We thought the doppler shift indicated and expanding but slowing universe initially. Now along with supernovae observations, we suspect the universe may be accelerating.

We initially thought the background radiation was nothing bizarre, then we realised it was almost constant from all directions at a temperature of about 3K. Now we can measure the value to many decimal places and the COBE satellite has mapped all the tiny fluctuations we think were caused by quantum effects just after the bang.

As for helium, we know have a much better idea of how much there is in the universe.

All great advances - but they have no relevance on the validity of the bang.

"he big bang violates the law of onservation of energy probably the most important of all scientific laws."

There is no hierarchy of laws. Where does this 'importance' come from?! It does not violate the first law in the slightest. The first law only applies within our universe, like any other physical law. None of the physical laws we know apply at t=0. Additionally, there is no particular reason to state that there was nothing around at t=0. An interesting theory is quantum self-reference, but I won't expect you to understand that.

"Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars) and presence of boron and beryllium in “older” stars contradicts the big bang."

Again, an assertion with no attempt to explain why this is supposedly so. Be careful, we might think you didn't know what you were talking about.

"The truth is science supports creation take the second and first thermodynamics."

Science does not support creationism. The percentage of scientists worldwide that support creation is under 1%.

"The first law of thermodynamics implies that matter cannot just pop into existence or create itself. And therefore if the universe had a beginning, than something external to the universe must have caused it to come into existence-something or someone transcendent to the natural world."

I've already dealt with this.

1)No reason why it should apply - cause and effect only exists within space-time.
2)No reason to state there was nothing there for the universe to come from
3)Excludes the possibility of self-reference and bootstrap universes
4)Leads to an infinite regression of causes - i.e. what caused the first cause?
5)Why does having a cause imply a god? Let alone the specific denomination christian god you follow? It does not.

"As a result, the idea of creation is no longer merley a matter of religious faith; it is a conclusion based on the most straight forward reading of the scientific evidence."

A broad generalisation and I couldn't hope to deal with it all in one sweep, so I won't moan on about parsimony, occam's razor, metaphysical naturalism, burden of proof, teleology etc.

Coragyps

Liquid- you're way beyond the ones you're aiming at - though that may not be a bad thing. But I do suggest taking out the "devilspawn," as I fear it'll get your post booted off instantly. I'll see you over there, if I get approved , and we can play "good cop/bad cop" along with beachbum.

liquid

Yeah I guess. I just find it frustrating having to get down to their level. You'd think the last century of scientific acheivement was for nothing. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

And I stayed off the maths.....

I await Approval!

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: liquid ]</p>

wehappyfew

hmmm... do you think this might be a problem?
Is this one of those heavily censored boards like ICR?