creation of the universe

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by peilthetraveler, Jun 2, 2006.

who/how/what created the universe

  1. God created the universe(earth) about 6000 years ago like the bible says

    5 vote(s)
  2. The universe was created with the big bang like the scientists say

    10 vote(s)
  3. The universe has always existed and there was no beginning

    6 vote(s)
  4. The universe doesnt exist, we are all figments of our own imaginations

    3 vote(s)
  1. Ok...which is the true story of creation
  2. peli your questions are flawed.

    the bible says nothing about the universe being created 6k years ago.

  3. My answer is "No one knows for sure".
    I believe science can discredit any holy book that exists today. However, that doesn't disprove the existence of a creator. Even if one does exist, it wouldn't guarantee an afterlife though. Regardless, one must marvel at the fact anything exists at all, let alone conscious beings.
    So gentlemen, how wrong am I?
  4. my whole trip is that if a "god-like" being created the universe..... who created the "god-like" being?? and where is thing being?? Does the universe end???

  5. cmaxb


    Existence exists.
  6. Okay. That means that... our whole solar system... could be, like... one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being.

    This is too much!

    That means...

    -one tiny atom in my fingernail could be--
    -Could be one little...

    ............ tiny universe.

    <img src=>
  7. maxpi


    A person can be so far off on this question. Science can be argued from either viewpoint, science that seems to fit the big bang theory and science that seems to fit the idea that the earth is not at all old. It is very hard for people to accept this because of the indoctrination they get in the enforced paganism of our public school system and the Catholic schools teach that the universe is very old I believe, not real sure if they put any emphasis on that subject.

    There is no scientific test that can be done to confirm any theory about origins, period. Somebody would have to recreate the origin to do that, and have it verified by somebody else. There are some people that think humans are close to being able to create a parallel universe but that is not quite the same thing.

    The way the argument is carried out is to discredit the other sides' arguments. People that believe the universe is some kind of an accident and extremely old just call any other ideas "religion", and they get away with it because the debate with the other side present exists nowhere in the circle they live in. The other side of the debate exists in churches because nobody else has an ox gored in the argument but people that think God made everything about 6 thousand years ago as represented in the Bible. There are a couple of sources of that side of the argument by people that know science and have very high iq's, Chuck Missler and Kent Hovind, and there are some others that are way less entertaining. They come with some religion attached but if you think that the prevailing theories of a billion year old universe cannot be debunked then you might want to check it out. Basically the prevailing ideas have holes big enough in them to drive a semi truck through but few realize it. Kent Hovind goes so far as to propose the idea that without public funding the big bang idea would die. He claims that if they had to debate their ideas in the real marketplace and fund their own schools that big bang theorists would fail miserably. I kind of wonder if he is not correct in that after seeing all his presentations wherein he dubunks all sorts of "science" that is presented as undisputed fact nowadays.

    The measurements of the speed of light are particularly interesting to me. Chuck Missler talks about the earliest ways of measuring the speed of light and the error bands and what not and presents the idea that the speed of light is not constant but is slowing. It's rate of change approximates a cosecant squared and if you extend it backwards it points to a starting point about 6000 years ago!! In the 1960's "science" started using the cesium clock which is way more accurate than the previous methods, to measure time and indirectly to measure the speed of light. Then and only then did the speed of light stabilize!! The speed of light and the cesium clock are slowing down at the same rate!! It is so downright funny, all the sleight of hand that scientists have played on us and themselves, not to mention the outright fraud. A source of ongoing entertainment is to see a subject arise, some new spectacular knowledge, and then it is pointed out that it does not fit the prevailing ideas and very quickly it disappears from the news!! Nobody is going to hang up their career and lose their funding over something new like that.
  8. I did.
  9. What a load of reactionary regressive utter nonsense. You suggest there is some sort of conspiracy by scientists to perpetate some giant fraud on the rest of us. And whats more, the Catholic church is in on the conspiracy too. Well, answer me this. Where would we be without science, engineering and technology ? Most of us actually wouln't be here at all because the world could not possibly support it's current population without a technological society. The few that there were would be living in caves.

    Of course, as in every other avenue of endeavor, the occasional whacko achieves some sort of notoriety such as the current handful of creationist 'scientists'. But the great ideas and theories of science have endured. Newtonian mechanics is just as valid today as several centuries ago in dealing with problems within it's scope. Relativity did not invalidate Newton's great work. It addressed issues that Newton did not and could not know of. And if the speed of light turns out not to be constant, so what ? Special and general relativity have thrown more light on our understanding of the universe that any amount of banging on about the earth being created 6000 years ago could ever do.

    Science is pragmatic. It aheres to theories until they are disproved or more often supplanted by theories that are more general in scope. There has to be a process here and scientists will no doubt argue amongst themselves and some will obstinately adhere to old and incorrect beliefs for too long. But that is what it is all about. It's not about some flash of devine inspiration.

    As for the notion that the big bang theory would ultimatly die without state funding, it's a while since I heard anything so f**king stupid. Do you not think that somewhere a brillant young gun physicist would not like to go down in the history of science by debunking it and you think state funding is going to stop this. The big bang theory may or may not be consigned to the history of science but it will do so by the scientific method, and not some 'marketplace'.
  10. Oh, reeealy!
    Care to explain to us just where the "brilliant young sceintists" are who debunked the global cooling myth of the 1970's? I was in high school and remember the whole earth day- new era of glaciers nonsense very well. Not only did they not come forth, but they repackaged it as global warming. And just when the data begin to veer, we see it repackaged as "climate change", so as to make sure they cover it all.
    Well guess what. We heard all the "no serious scientist would possibly oppose" stuff for global cooling, too.
    Pardon me if your pseudo-scientific nonsense makes me barf!
    As if it is fact. Indeed!
    #10     Jun 3, 2006