Creationist museum opens in Kentucky

[Penguin]

Attention Creationists: If you don't believe in evolution, that's fine. But, if you want to be taken seriously, don't put dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article1848419.ece)


They say T. Rex must have been a vegetarian. I guess you need some sharp teeth to munch on them apples from the knowledge tree.


The museum has a series of rooms depicting the darkening of a world that abandons a literal interpretation of the Bible. Two teenagers, apparently indoctrinated with evolutionary teaching, are shown at home. The girl is talking to Planned Parenthood and the boy is looking at pornography on a computer.
lol! I have got to go see this museum! I need a good laugh!

If Creationists don't believe in science, that's fine. I respect their beliefs. But, when a silly place like this pops up, it's almost impossible to defend them.

[royalfan5]

Is Carl Everett curator?

[Penguin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7I73DNguRI

[tbl]

Alas, my fellow brothers and sisters that get caught up in the literal 6 day interpretation of Genesis. I don't believe in Darwinian Macroevolution, but I definitely don't believe the universe is 6,000-15,000 years old.

Hugh Ross has a lot of good information taken from a very scientific and academic point of view.
www.reasons.org

[Widescreen]

If Creationists don't believe in science, that's fine. I respect their beliefs. But, when a silly place like this pops up, it's almost impossible to defend them.
I'm a "creationist". What makes you think creationists don't believe in science? God created science. :confused: Unless you are saying that all creationists believe the same thing the museum creators believe - which isn't the case.

[Penguin]

I'm a "creationist". What makes you think creationists don't believe in science? God created science. :confused: Unless you are saying that all creationists believe the same thing the museum creators believe - which isn't the case.
I mean no disrespect! I believe in God and I also believe that evolution occured (with some divine influence.)

I'm just making fun of the extremists that believe in the absolute literal interpretation of the Bible. My belief is that God shared these stories with people in 6000 BC that couldn't possibly grasp the concept of evolution or Big Bang.

[Petro-Sooner]

I was taught the dinosaurs went exinct around 63 m.y.a. Boy was misinformed. Ol Noah was hanging out with them just a couple thousand years ago.

[crawfish]

I wish young-earth creationism would just go ahead and die. :mad:

[TopDaugIn2000]

took my 2 nieces to the OU Nat history museum yesterday, the 10 year old read about the meteor that killed the dinosaurs, than asked me "LALA, the Bible says that God created the earth, then Adam and Eve. So where do the dinosaurs come in??? ". I explained it the best I could, but needless to say, I wasn't ready for it.

[Hamhock]

I heard this guy speak at a home school convention. He made some compelling arguments.

What about his theory is easily disproved?

[jk the sooner fan]

i liked how the people against this say it shouldnt be called a museum because its not rooted in science

ok, well somebody tell the action figure museum in pauls valley that they can no longer call their building a museum

just funny to me that they are in an uproar because its called a museum....so much so they've lost sight of the definition of museum

[AggieTool]

i liked how the people against this say it shouldnt be called a museum because its not rooted in science

ok, well somebody tell the action figure museum in pauls valley that they can no longer call their building a museum

just funny to me that they are in an uproar because its called a museum....so much so they've lost sight of the definition of museum

Yeah, "religious display" would be more appropriate.
BTW, I' m a creationist too...I believe the universe was created..:eek:

Actually, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[AggieTool]

I heard this guy speak at a home school convention. He made some compelling arguments.

What about his theory is easily disproved?

Ughhhh, the part where the earth is only 6000 years old?:confused:

[Hamhock]

Ughhhh, the part where the earth is only 6000 years old?:confused:


how old is it?

[Viking Kitten]

I heard this guy speak at a home school convention. He made some compelling arguments.

What about his theory is easily disproved?

That's exactly the point. You can't prove or disprove it. That's why it's not science. Science is testable. But I personally feel people should believe whatever helps them make it through the day.

[Rhino]

Jesus Christ: Tamer of the dinobeasts and also, a freakin' giant.

http://a10.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/62/l_f0b2185ec39365886330f38e10687639.jpg


ok, well somebody tell the action figure museum in pauls valley that they can no longer call their building a museum Whoa, whoa, whoa. There's an action figure museum? In Pauls Valley?

[jk the sooner fan]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. There's an action figure museum? In Pauls Valley?

well i've never been but the billboard on I-35 would lead me to believe so

[Hamhock]

That's exactly the point. You can't prove or disprove it. That's why it's not science. Science is testable. But I personally feel people should believe whatever helps them make it through the day.


so, has someone proved how old the earth is?

i'm not an expert on this stuff, i'm not even sure what i believe. i was under the impression (probably from this guy) that there are a lot of problems with the dating methods that are relied upon to say the earth is millions of years old.

[SoonerInKCMO]

how old is it?

Billions.

[SoonerInKCMO]

i was under the impression (probably from this guy) that there are a lot of problems with the dating methods that are relied upon to say the earth is millions of years old.

That guy is wrong.

[Viking Kitten]

I imagine his chief problem with the dating methods is that they lead to a conclusion he doesn't particularly like.

[Hamhock]

That guy is wrong.


thanks for setting the record straight

[AggieTool]

how old is it?

About 4.5 billion if you believe in science and the ability god gave us to figure these things out.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

And about 6000 years old if you believe god wasn't able to develop our minds to think beyond 2000 year old text written by others.

I'm opting for the former.;)

[picasso]

About 4.5 billion if you believe in science and the ability god gave us to figure these things out.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

And about 6000 years old if you believe god wasn't able to develop our minds to think beyond 2000 year old text written by others.

I'm opting for the former.;)
he also gave us the perception to notice an ***hole when we see one.

[BU BEAR]

About 4.5 billion if you believe in science and the ability god gave us to figure these things out.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

And about 6000 years old if you believe god wasn't able to develop our minds to think beyond 2000 year old text written by others.

I'm opting for the former.;)

The Torah, of which the account of six day Creation is part, is over 3500 years old.

If the human mind was so feeble then that it could not handle the literal truth about how and when the universe was created, what makes you think that the human mind is strong enough to understand it correctly now?

If you can not correctly date a writing that has been around for only 3500 years and has copious amounts of evidence to show that it is much older than your estimated 2000 years, why should anyone be believe that your beliefs can correctly divide and discern information regarding the age of the universe which older than 3500 years?

[AggieTool]

he also gave us the perception to notice an ***hole when we see one.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.:rolleyes:

[usmc-sooner]

he also gave us the perception to notice an ***hole when we see one.

heh:D

[Petro-Sooner]

I would like a creationist that believes the earth is 6000 yrs old explain to me the whole geologic time scale. 4.6 billion all in 6000 yrs?? Do they feel God just poof, created it 6000 yrs ago? All rocks and fossils were just there? They werent formed by natural processess that are going on as we speak? The law of uniformitarianism. I'm not saying God couldnt, I just dont think God did it that way. I do feel God created it all but there is hard science behind it. JM2C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)

[picasso]

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.:rolleyes:
my pleasure, troll.

[AggieTool]

The Torah, of which the account of six day Creation is part, is over 3500 years old.

If the human mind was so feeble then that it could not handle the literal truth about how and when the universe was created, what makes you think that the human mind is strong enough to understand it correctly now?

If you can not correctly date a writing that has been around for only 3500 years and has copious amounts of evidence to show that it is much older than your estimated 2000 years, why should anyone be believe that your beliefs can correctly divide and discern information regarding the age of the universe which older than 3500 years?

In that case, there is probably text older than the Torah which also explains a version of how old the earth is (based on someone's religious belief back then).

I wasn't referencing any text in particular, although I suspect most god fearing evangelicals refer to the Bible for the bulk of their beliefs. If I'm off as to the exact date of the authoring of the scriptures...then I stand guilty of generalizing.

All that aside, I don't equate "belief" with the cerebral digestion of scientific evidence as presented by experts in a particular subject. i.e. geologists, chemists, etc. I 'm merely observing their findings as repeatable in a scientific setting.
:)

[BU BEAR]

I would like a creationist that believes the earth is 6000 yrs old explain to me the whole geologic time scale. 4.6 billion all in 6000 yrs?? Do they feel God just poof, created it 6000 yrs ago? All rocks and fossils were just there? They werent formed by natural processess that are going on as we speak? The law of uniformitarianism. I'm not saying God couldnt, I just dont think God did it that way. I do feel God created it all but there is hard science behind it. JM2C.


Bascially, it comes down to the assumptions that you make. These assumptions will direct your interpretation of the world around you. You view the geo column through "uniformitarianism". Those who believe in a literal six day, Genesis account creation will reject the assumption of uniformitarianism in favor of a view that there was a catastrophic flood event that resulted in upheaval in the geological table.

Both are worldviews that influence your interpretation.

[Petro-Sooner]

As a christian and a geologist its difficult at times. :)

[usmc-sooner]

I would like a creationist that believes the earth is 6000 yrs old explain to me the whole geologic time scale. 4.6 billion all in 6000 yrs?? Do they feel God just poof, created it 6000 yrs ago? All rocks and fossils were just there? They werent formed by natural processess that are going on as we speak? The law of uniformitarianism. I'm not saying God couldnt, I just dont think God did it that way. I do feel God created it all but there is hard science behind it. JM2C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)

maybe they were talking in dog years Petro, huh you ever think of that? :D

[Octavian]

Yay Kentucky!!


Kansas is gonna be sooo jealous...

[usmc-sooner]

In that case, there is probably text older than the Torah which also explains a version of how old the earth is (based on someone's religious belief back then).

I wasn't referencing any text in particular, although I suspect most god fearing evangelicals refer to the Bible for the bulk of their beliefs. If I'm off as to the exact date of the authoring of the scriptures...then I stand guilty of generalizing.

All that aside, I don't equate "belief" with the cerebral digestion of scientific evidence as presented by experts in a particular subject. i.e. geologists, chemists, etc. I 'm merely observing their findings as repeatable in a scientific setting.
:)

don't worry about being wrong, nobody took you seriously in the first place.

[Ike]

Bascially, it comes down to the assumptions that you make. These assumptions will direct your interpretation of the world around you. You view the geo column through "uniformitarianism". Those who believe in a literal six day, Genesis account creation will reject the assumption of uniformitarianism in favor of a view that there was a catastrophic flood event that resulted in upheaval in the geological table.

Both are worldviews that influence your interpretation.


Correct me if Im wrong in my biblical rememberance, but the great flood lasted for 40 days correct? While water can do a lot of damage real quick, 40 days worth of water cover, even allowing for some massive currents, is not near enough time to allow for massive geological upheval.

[BU BEAR]

In that case, there is probably text older than the Torah which also explains a version of how old the earth is (based on someone's religious belief back then).

That is not very good proof for your position... to say that something "probably" exists. However, that would be about par for the course for a believer in "evolution" or a similar worldview. If you can not find solid proof for your theory, proffer a theory or a fraud as proof. (See: Oort cloud and Haekel's embryos)



I wasn't referencing any text in particular, although I suspect most god fearing evangelicals refer to the Bible for the bulk of their beliefs. If I'm off as to the exact date of the authoring of the scriptures...then I stand guilty of generalizing.

I think you will have a hard time convincing people that when you refer to 2000 year old writings that shape people's worldview that you are not talking about the New Testament. I am just telling you that the Creation account is over 3500 years old.



All that aside, I don't equate "belief" with the cerebral digestion of scientific evidence as presented by experts in a particular subject. i.e. geologists, chemists, etc. I 'm merely observing their findings as repeatable in a scientific setting.
:)

I am not aware of one instance where an experiment has been run and has verified that the universe is billions of years old and is a repeatable experiment. Can you help me find this experiment?

[Octavian]

Correct me if Im wrong in my biblical rememberance, but the great flood lasted for 40 days correct? While water can do a lot of damage real quick, 40 days worth of water cover, even allowing for some massive currents, is not near enough time to allow for massive geological upheval.


someone needs a little extra shot of Faith serum...

[usmc-sooner]

Correct me if Im wrong in my biblical rememberance, but the great flood lasted for 40 days correct? While water can do a lot of damage real quick, 40 days worth of water cover, even allowing for some massive currents, is not near enough time to allow for massive geological upheval.

they might have been talking about the world as they knew it and not literally the whole world.

Then again if you have the belief that God is all powerful then he could do things that normally couldn't be done.

[usmc-sooner]

I am not aware of one instance where an experiment has been run and has verified that the universe is billions of years old and is a repeatable experiment. Can you help me find this experiment?

you got to remember he is dealing only in scientific facts :rolleyes:

[Ike]

I am not aware of one instance where an experiment has been run and has verified that the universe is billions of years old and is a repeatable experiment. Can you help me find this experiment?


You want repeatable evidence of the age of the universe? There is at least one method of verifying that the universe is much older than 6000 years. It's pretty simple really.


Observe Cephid variable stars which follow a known life cycle, and whose brightness can directly determine their distance from us. By doing so, one can determine that just our own galaxy is over 100,000 light years in diameter. This means that in order for us to observe either end of the galaxy, the light from one end or another must have been in transit for at least 50,000 years.


And thats just using our own galaxy. There are others that are much much much much further away.

[Mjcpr]

Edit: Ike just said what I had posted.

Almost a duplicate really.

[BU BEAR]

Correct me if Im wrong in my biblical rememberance, but the great flood lasted for 40 days correct? While water can do a lot of damage real quick, 40 days worth of water cover, even allowing for some massive currents, is not near enough time to allow for massive geological upheval.

The rain came down for 40 days and nights. But also the water burst forth from the earth as the Bible says that the springs of the great deep burst forth and the flood gates of heaven opened up.

The flooding was so severe that it covered the tops of the mountains plus more than another twenty feet of depth. The waters flooded the earth for 150days.

The springs of the deep and floodgates of heaven were closed and the rain had stopped, but it was until Noah had been on the boat for 9 full months that the mountain tops became visible. The Bible says that on the first day of the 10th month that the mountain tops were visible.

Noah was on the boat for about a year. Clearly, this was a catastrophic event and the Bible indicates that the floodwaters came from the earth and the sky. It is reasonable to believe that the water bursting from the depths of the earth led to or was caused by an upheaval of the earth's crust.

[usmc-sooner]

plus didn't they find the Ark on a mountain top in Russia?

[BU BEAR]

You want repeatable evidence of the age of the universe? There is at least one method of verifying that the universe is much older than 6000 years. It's pretty simple really.


Observe Cephid variable stars which follow a known life cycle, and whose brightness can directly determine their distance from us. By doing so, one can determine that just our own galaxy is over 100,000 light years in diameter. This means that in order for us to observe either end of the galaxy, the light from one end or another must have been in transit for at least 50,000 years.


And thats just using our own galaxy. There are others that are much much much much further away.

That, of course, assumes that the stars have been fixed in that same place for their entire lives and not spread out by God as the Bible indicates.

[Ike]

That, of course, assumes that the stars have been fixed in that same place for their entire lives and not spread out by God as the Bible indicates.


ummmm, no it doesnt. It tells us where the stars were more than 50,000 years ago.


If the stars were spread out by god, then we'd never see any object as being farther than 6000 light years away from us.

[jk the sooner fan]

if you believe that god created the flood for the reason he said he did, then you have to believe that it was bad enough to defy any scientific evidence to disprove it

[BU BEAR]

plus didn't they find the Ark on a mountain top in Russia?

I think it is suspected to be on Ararat on the Turkey/Persia border.

[OUstudent4life]

what do you mean by "spread out by God"?

They light coming from them right now is 50,000 years old...if they started out closer, they'd be moving away, and their light would be red-shifted.

Or something. My physics classes are 6 years old.

Ike?

Anyway, this gets remarkably close to the argument that God created the world 2.3 seconds ago, and put everything in its place, including our memories of the past, etc...you can't tell the difference between the two.

[Frozen Sooner]

That, of course, assumes that the stars have been fixed in that same place for their entire lives and not spread out by God as the Bible indicates.

That, of course, assumes that the best explanation for something you don't understand is "Magic Dude in the Sky."

You're WAY out of your depth here, man. Ike knows what he's talking about.

[Ike]

what do you mean by "spread out by God"?

They light coming from them right now is 50,000 years old...if they started out closer, they'd be moving away, and their light would be red-shifted.

Or something. My physics classes are 6 years old.

Ike?


yes, and the light is red-shifted some naturally due to the hubble effect (expansion of the universe). However, if they started out closer, which they could have, we would still not be able to observe anything farther away than the speed of light (which we know is a constant in all reference frames) multiplied by the age of the universe, simply because the light would not have reached us yet.

[BU BEAR]

ummmm, no it doesnt. It tells us where the stars were more than 50,000 years ago.


If the stars were spread out by god, then we'd never see any object as being farther than 6000 light years away from us.

Only if the stars did not begin emitting light after they were spread out. If they produced light before they were spread out, you would be seeing light that is newer than 50,000 years ago.

[Frozen Sooner]

yes, and the light is red-shifted some naturally due to the hubble effect (expansion of the universe). However, if they started out closer, which they could have, we would still not be able to observe anything farther away than the speed of light (which we know is a constant in all reference frames) multiplied by the age of the universe, simply because the light would not have reached us yet.

See, there you go making assumptions. God could make the light travel faster or push it through a wormhole or something to test your faith.

[Frozen Sooner]

Only if the stars did not begin emitting light after they were spread out. If they produced light before they were spread out, you would be seeing light that is newer than 50,000 years ago.

Already addressed. Though I guess that assumes that God didn't overrule dopplering when he randomly moved stars around to confuse scientists.

[Ike]

Only if the stars did not begin emitting light after they were spread out. If they produced light before they were spread out, you would be seeing light that is newer than 50,000 years ago.


again no. are you saying that god would make a star shine before it existed?

If the star produced light before it was spread out, (which makes no sense) we would probably observe light from wherever the star was located before it was spread out, which could be no farther than 6000 light years from here if the universe is 6000 years old.

[Ike]

See, there you go making assumptions. God could make the light travel faster or push it through a wormhole or something to test your faith.


Thats just crazy talk.

[Frozen Sooner]

again no. are you saying that god would make a star shine before it existed?

If the star produced light before it was spread out, (which makes no sense) we would probably observe light from wherever the star was located before it was spread out, which could be no farther than 6000 light years from here if the universe is 6000 years old.

You're not getting it, Ike. God created evidence to disprove the young creation to test our faith. In fact, we may be going to Hell just because we've read this thread. Don't try to understand why He would do this-he's incomprehensible to man. Just suffice it to say that if it's not in the Bible, then the Bible wins the argument.

[BU BEAR]

That, of course, assumes that the best explanation for something you don't understand is "Magic Dude in the Sky."

You're WAY out of your depth here, man. Ike knows what he's talking about.

Evolutionists and Big Bang supporters have their own "Magic Dude in the Sky". They just refuse to acknowledge that their "theories" are their own religion cloaked as "science".

[Viking Kitten]

OH SNAP!

[Frozen Sooner]

Evolutionists and Big Bang supporters have their own "Magic Dude in the Sky". They just refuse to acknowledge that their "theories" are their own religion cloaked as "science".

Yeah. Wrong.

Evolutionists have made predictions based on their theories that have been correct. Nothing has been observed as yet to overturn the theory of evolution by natural selection. Tell you what-give me some actual proof that natural selection isn't one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, and I'll disavow it right now. Meanwhile, it'd probably be a good thing if you stopped using the fruits of such a devilish deception. You know, like antibiotics. And genetically-modified crops. And pretty much any and all meat.

The horribly misnamed "Big Bang" theory is something that is subject to debate in the scientific community. However, what is NOT up for debate because it's been proved ad naseaum is the fact that the universe is MUCH older by several orders of magnitude than 6000 years.

Meanwhile, your only argument in this thread has been to attack assumptions-assumptions which have been proven correct through experimentation-and to say over and over that the Bible doesn't say it that way.

[AggieTool]

Evolutionists and Big Bang supporters have their own "Magic Dude in the Sky". They just refuse to acknowledge that their "theories" are their own religion cloaked as "science".

In that case, flight, nuclear power, space travel, and quantum mechanics are all theories too.

You know, it IS possible to believe in God, be a good Christian, and use your mind to its fullest god given potential at the same time.:)

[Ike]

Evolutionists and Big Bang supporters have their own "Magic Dude in the Sky". They just refuse to acknowledge that their "theories" are their own religion cloaked as "science".


Wow...thats the biggest bunch of bull**** I've seen in a while. and I see a lot on a daily basis.



There is ample evidence to support the theory that the big bang happened. Several predictions made by big bang theory have born themselves out in experiment (cosmic background radiation for one). Explanations for why or how the big bang happened are certainly beyond the realm of science, and there are a few of those, but there isn't a serious scientist in the world who doesn't acknowledge that. All we can tell (and we can tell) is that the big bang happened. What came before that is pure speculation. You don't need to know what came before however to know that it happened.

[Frozen Sooner]

Wow...thats the biggest bunch of bull**** I've seen in a while. and I see a lot on a daily basis.



There is ample evidence to support the theory that the big bang happened. Several predictions made by big bang theory have born themselves out in experiment (cosmic background radiation for one). Explanations for why or how the big bang happened are certainly beyond the realm of science, and there are a few of those, but there isn't a serious scientist in the world who doesn't acknowledge that. All we can tell (and we can tell) is that the big bang happened. What came before that is pure speculation. You don't need to know what came before however to know that it happened.

God created cosmic background radiation to confuse you.

[Ike]

Yeah. Wrong.

Evolutionists have made predictions based on their theories that have been correct. Nothing has been observed as yet to overturn the theory of evolution by natural selection. Tell you what-give me some actual proof that natural selection isn't one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, and I'll disavow it right now. Meanwhile, it'd probably be a good thing if you stopped using the fruits of such a devilish deception. You know, like antibiotics. And genetically-modified crops. And pretty much any and all meat.

The horribly misnamed "Big Bang" theory is something that is subject to debate in the scientific community. However, what is NOT up for debate because it's been proved ad naseaum is the fact that the universe is MUCH older by several orders of magnitude than 6000 years.

Meanwhile, your only argument in this thread has been to attack assumptions-assumptions which have been proven correct through experimentation-and to say over and over that the Bible doesn't say it that way.


Actually, it turns out that most of the debate in the scientific community about the big bang is not at all whether or not it happened, but rather about exactly how the universe evolved since it happened.

[crawfish]

YEC - "Young-Earth Creationism" - discredits or ignores the data that conflict with its beliefs and hammer hard on the facts of evolution/science that have not yet been discovered. As such, it's not a true science.

The fear that God may have not written the bible as a science or history text is so great with these literalists that they simply cannot deal with the fact that it cannot POSSIBLY be literally true. There are ways to read it - as theology, as poetry, as a denial of foreign gods - that allow us to see it as non-literal yet still the word of God.

It always comes down to faith, in the end. If faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains, then YEC's would be lucky to move a mustard seed.

[Ike]

God created cosmic background radiation to confuse you.


My God doesn't go out of his way to f@*k with people.

[soonerscuba]

I am going to teach my kids the earth revolves around Jesus. Satan planted the sun to confuse us.

[Viking Kitten]

I thought FSM f***s with people for pure sport.

[Ike]

I thought FSM f***s with people for pure sport.
He did. Until I cut off his noodly appendage.

[AggieTool]

I thought FSM f***s with people for pure sport.

:D :D

With his noodley appendage.

[Frozen Sooner]

My God doesn't go out of his way to f@*k with people.

Have you READ the Book of Job?

[Petro-Sooner]

upheaval of the earth's crust.

I dont understand what your getting at here. Please explain.

[soonerscuba]

God planted the book of Job to confuse us. He really is loving, despite the mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise.

[Ike]

Have you READ the Book of Job?
Yeah...that was what made me decide that God was in serious need of a shrink. ;)

[Penguin]

Dinosaurs on the Ark, man! That blows my freaking mind!

[Hamhock]

I imagine his chief problem with the dating methods is that they lead to a conclusion he doesn't particularly like.


you are certainly correct, however, don't underestimate the vehement bias that exists in many evolutionists desire to disprove the Bible thumpers.

[Hamhock]

Correct me if Im wrong in my biblical rememberance, but the great flood lasted for 40 days correct? While water can do a lot of damage real quick, 40 days worth of water cover, even allowing for some massive currents, is not near enough time to allow for massive geological upheval.


i've heard people cite Mt. St. Helens eruption as a case study for this type of "massive geological upheaval". they say that a study of the effects of the eruption would lead a scientist to conclude that the processes occurred over thousands of years, rather than in the short amount of time of the eruption.

[Petro-Sooner]

Dinosaurs on the Ark, man! That blows my freaking mind!

You and me both. Totally discredits everything I learned in geology. I want my money back boran. :D

[Ike]

i've heard people cite Mt. St. Helens eruption as a case study for this type of "massive geological upheaval". they say that a study of the effects of the eruption would lead a scientist to conclude that the processes occurred over thousands of years, rather than in the short amount of time of the eruption.


I'd be a bit surprised if that were the case. The presence of things like volcanic glass would/should be a dead giveaway that a major event happened.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

I want my money back boran. :D

OMG...

...when I read this I read 'boran' like 'moran'.

And then I laughed.

[bri]

Dinosaurs on the Ark, man! That blows my freaking mind!

Someone call Spielberg! I've got his script for Jurassic Park IV!!

[Petro-Sooner]

i've heard people cite Mt. St. Helens eruption as a case study for this type of "massive geological upheaval". they say that a study of the effects of the eruption would lead a scientist to conclude that the processes occurred over thousands of years, rather than in the short amount of time of the eruption.

"Massive geological upheaval" What are you getting at? Plate tectonics? More specifiically, subduction, along the plate boundaries. Its been going on millions and millions of yrs.

[Mjcpr]

Plate tectonics?

Do they still offer this at DeVry?

[Hamhock]

"Massive geological upheaval" .

i was quoting a previous post.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Do they still offer this at DeVry?

If they don't I think it's still offered over at teh Vo-Techs.

[soonerscuba]

I don't believe in evolution because bananas don't shoot in my face when I open them.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

You're doing it wrong.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Lord, I am so sorry.

[OUDoc]

I don't believe in evolution because bananas don't shoot in my face when I open them.
I'll leave this one to Pat.

[OUDoc]

You're doing it wrong.
Go on.

[KABOOKIE]

Dinosaurs? On the planet? Hey. If you could BBQ a Dinosaurs.... Would you eat it? :D

http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2005/harrycaray.jpg

[picasso]

Mike Rich everybody, bible interpreter extraordinaire!!!

[soonerscuba]

Mike Rich everybody, bible interpreter extraordinaire!!!

I don't think you have to be a theologian to realize that the Bible is pretty much unable to deal with death before the fall, to which dinosaurs are indisputable proof.

So if it is wrong from the first page by any reasonable scientific standard, why should we assume the rest to absolutely true?

[soonerscuba]

Dinosaurs? On the planet? Hey. If you could BBQ a Dinosaurs.... Would you eat it? :D

http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2005/harrycaray.jpg

You've made a wise choice my friend. That's why my friends call me whiskers.

[picasso]

I don't think you have to be a theologian to realize that the Bible is pretty much unable to deal with death before the fall, to which dinosaurs are indisputable proof.

So if it is wrong from the first page by any reasonable scientific standard, why should we assume the rest to absolutely true?
that's not my point. Mike and a few other of you folks seem to fall in line anytime a match comes up between Christians and those in the scientific community.
I'm no fundamentalist, I subscribe to both. I believe in proven science and things that defy science.

and I'll never try to stand on a box and challenge an expert in their field. not sure I can say the same for others.

[crawfish]

I don't think you have to be a theologian to realize that the Bible is pretty much unable to deal with death before the fall, to which dinosaurs are indisputable proof.

So if it is wrong from the first page by any reasonable scientific standard, why should we assume the rest to absolutely true?

Only a pure "literal" reading, literal meaning in a scientific sense. From another perspective, it's incredible how the creation account in Genesis 1 matches up do well with the Babylonian pantheon of gods, essentially denying a different group in each verse.

Days have to do with ancient numerology - six days to create the world, and six is the number of man. Adding another day of rest moves the six to seven, from man's number to God's number.

I'm just barely touching on this line of thought...however, my point is that the lack of a literal sense of Genesis hardly makes the Bible "wrong".

[Frozen Sooner]

that's not my point. Mike and a few other of you folks seem to fall in line anytime a match comes up between Christians and those in the scientific community.
I'm no fundamentalist, I subscribe to both. I believe in proven science and things that defy science.

and I'll never try to stand on a box and challenge an expert in their field. not sure I can say the same for others.

Where have I claimed to interpret the Bible in this thread other than an off-the-cuff joke about the Book of Job?

I'm making fun of a person who claims that scientific evidence is spurious, not of people of faith. I've taken great pains to NOT quote the Bible.

[crawfish]

In the interest of being fair and impartial, I offer you:

The top 10 creation myths (http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs-1.html)

[Mjcpr]

Days have to do with ancient numerology - six days to create the world, and six is the number of man. Adding another day of rest moves the six to seven, from man's number to God's number.
Baseball is like that too. 9 players, 9 innings. 3 strikes, 3 outs. 4 balls....and if you've ever played catcher (and I know you have) you know what that's like.

Let's see, what else? 60'6" to home plate, 90 feet between the bases probably has some sort of relationship.

[crawfish]

Baseball is like that too. 9 players, 9 innings. 3 strikes, 3 outs. 4 balls....and if you've ever played catcher (and I know you have) you know what that's like.

Let's see, what else? 60'6" to home plate, 90 feet between the bases probably has some sort of relationship.

I had no idea baseball was invented by the ancient Sumerians. :rolleyes:

[Mjcpr]

I had no idea baseball was invented by the ancient Sumerians. :rolleyes:

Nope, the ancient Doubledaydians.

[picasso]

Where have I claimed to interpret the Bible in this thread other than an off-the-cuff joke about the Book of Job?

I'm making fun of a person who claims that scientific evidence is spurious, not of people of faith. I've taken great pains to NOT quote the Bible.
dude, I'm just basing my formed opinion from your past posts.

No agenda here.

[bri]

Oh good, I was afraid a creationism/evolution thread on the Oval might end well.

[picasso]

So God created the world in kentuck?
How's come their football teams succ?
noooo Kentucky is only God's country if you're drinking the right windage.

[OklahomaRed]

I love doing this since Mike Rich hates it so much! :D

Like so many other astronomers and physicists, Hawking tries to explain the universe without acknowledging its Creator. But Isaac Newton (1642–1727), possibly the greatest physicist of all time, and a predecessor of Hawking in the same chair at Cambridge University, firmly believed that the solar system was created by God.

The idea that the solar system emerged from a swirl of matter began with Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Many present-day cosmologists describe the cosmos in terms of evolutionary development and most of them accept the so-called big bang theory.

According to this theory, the universe began about 10 to 20 thousand million [10–20 billion—Ed.] years ago as an inconceivably small volume of space (or a single point of vast energy) which has been expanding ever since. The most important observation supporting the concept of an expanding universe is the ‘red shift’ of light from distant stars.

This inferred expansion cannot be observed directly, but light coming from distant galaxies seems to have longer wavelengths (i.e. gets ‘redder’) as the distance increases. This is attributed to either the Doppler effect (that the wavelengths of light are ‘stretched out’ when galaxies move away from one another) or the relativistic stretching of the space between the stars as the universe expands. The big bang theory suggests that the cosmos was originally compressed into a hot and dense ‘cosmic egg,’ and as the universe aged, it expanded.

Space does not permit a full discussion of the evidence for and against the big bang. However, many discoveries made in recent years with improved instruments and improved observational methods have repeatedly shaken this theory.5 Interpretations of the available facts in terms of currently held cosmological models very quickly lead to unresolvable inconsistencies. There is an increasing number of astronomers who raise substantial arguments against the theory.

If the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven distribution of mass. This means that matter is concentrated into zones and planes around relatively empty regions. Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, embarked on a measuring program expecting to find evidence to support the big bang model. By compiling large star maps, they hoped to demonstrate that matter is uniformly distributed throughout the cosmos (when a large enough scale is considered).

The more progress they made with their cartographic overview of space, the clearer it became that distant galaxies are clustered like cosmic continents beyond nearly empty reaches of space. The big bang model was strongly shaken by this discovery.

It should be added that the visible galaxies do not contain enough mass to explain the existence and distribution of these structures. But the big bang model was not discarded. Instead, the existence of a mysterious, unknown, and unseen form of matter (‘dark matter’) was postulated. Without any direct evidence for its existence, this ‘dark matter’ is supposed to be 10 times the amount of visibly observed mass.

A critic of the big bang theory, Ernst Peter Fischer, a physicist and biologist of Constance, Germany, reflects on its popularity. He refers to the:

‘… warning given by [physicist and philosopher] Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker … namely that a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield.’6

Another critic of the big bang theory, Halton C. Arp, was attached to the world-famous Mount Wilson Observatory near Pasadena, USA, and to the Las Campanas Observatories in California. He explains the reasons for rejecting the big bang model in a notable article, ‘Der kontinuierlicher Kosmos’ (The continuous cosmos).

‘Since antiquity, ideas of the universe have varied widely, depending on assumptions about factual observations. The current idea of a big bang has been the standard model for about 60 years. But, in the mean time, the number of observations that negate the assumption that the red shift of the light of distant galaxies can be explained by recessive motions, is increasing.’7

In other words, even the idea that the universe is expanding is under attack by some astronomers.

Arp continues his criticism of the big bang theory and calls for it to be rejected by the scientific community.

‘In my opinion the observations speak a different language; they call for a different view of the universe. I believe that the big bang theory should be replaced, because it is no longer a valid theory.’8

Professor Hans Jörg Fahr of the Institute for Astrophysics at Bonn University, Germany, writes of the demise of the big bang theory in his book, Der Urknall kommt zu Fall (The Demise of the Big Bang).

‘The universe originated about 20 thousand million years ago in a cosmic explosion (the big bang), it has been expanding ever since, and it will continue to do so until the end of time … This sounds convincing, and it is accepted by all present-day mainstream “natural philosophers.” But it should be obvious that a doctrine which is acclaimed noisily, is not necessarily close to the truth. In the field of cosmology the widely supported big bang theory is not more convincing than other alternatives. In fact, there are surprisingly many alternatives.’9

Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia, accepts the big bang model, but he concedes that a state of emergency exists regarding fundamental aspects of explaining why the universe exists.

‘There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.’ He later continues: ‘The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.’10

It is a great pity that many Christians are willing to ‘re-interpret’ the infallible Word of God to fit a fallible, man-made theory like the big bang. Such ideas are ultimately devised to counter the biblical record, which is firmly against cosmic evolution over billions of years. Those who urge trying to harmonize the big bang with Scripture find it only natural to go on to other evolutionary ideas, such as a ‘primitive earth’ gradually cooling down, death, and struggle millions of years before the Fall, and so on.

My considered opinion is that as long as we try to explain the universe apart from the Creator and without regard to biblical affirmations given by him, we will continue to be dazzled by a succession of ingenious cosmological ideas, none of which will remotely resemble the truth.11

This article was adapted from Dr Gitt’s book Stars and their Purpose

[SoonerInKCMO]

If the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly distributed.

Why? I've never seen an explosion where the dispersal of material was completely uniform.

[Ike]

I love doing this since Mike Rich hates it so much! :D

Like so many other astronomers and physicists, Hawking tries to explain the universe without acknowledging its Creator. But Isaac Newton (1642–1727), possibly the greatest physicist of all time, and a predecessor of Hawking in the same chair at Cambridge University, firmly believed that the solar system was created by God.

The idea that the solar system emerged from a swirl of matter began with Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Many present-day cosmologists describe the cosmos in terms of evolutionary development and most of them accept the so-called big bang theory.

According to this theory, the universe began about 10 to 20 thousand million [10–20 billion—Ed.] years ago as an inconceivably small volume of space (or a single point of vast energy) which has been expanding ever since. The most important observation supporting the concept of an expanding universe is the ‘red shift’ of light from distant stars.

This inferred expansion cannot be observed directly, but light coming from distant galaxies seems to have longer wavelengths (i.e. gets ‘redder’) as the distance increases. This is attributed to either the Doppler effect (that the wavelengths of light are ‘stretched out’ when galaxies move away from one another) or the relativistic stretching of the space between the stars as the universe expands. The big bang theory suggests that the cosmos was originally compressed into a hot and dense ‘cosmic egg,’ and as the universe aged, it expanded.

Space does not permit a full discussion of the evidence for and against the big bang. However, many discoveries made in recent years with improved instruments and improved observational methods have repeatedly shaken this theory.5 Interpretations of the available facts in terms of currently held cosmological models very quickly lead to unresolvable inconsistencies. There is an increasing number of astronomers who raise substantial arguments against the theory.

If the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven distribution of mass. This means that matter is concentrated into zones and planes around relatively empty regions. Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, embarked on a measuring program expecting to find evidence to support the big bang model. By compiling large star maps, they hoped to demonstrate that matter is uniformly distributed throughout the cosmos (when a large enough scale is considered).

The more progress they made with their cartographic overview of space, the clearer it became that distant galaxies are clustered like cosmic continents beyond nearly empty reaches of space. The big bang model was strongly shaken by this discovery.

It should be added that the visible galaxies do not contain enough mass to explain the existence and distribution of these structures. But the big bang model was not discarded. Instead, the existence of a mysterious, unknown, and unseen form of matter (‘dark matter’) was postulated. Without any direct evidence for its existence, this ‘dark matter’ is supposed to be 10 times the amount of visibly observed mass.

A critic of the big bang theory, Ernst Peter Fischer, a physicist and biologist of Constance, Germany, reflects on its popularity. He refers to the:

‘… warning given by [physicist and philosopher] Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker … namely that a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield.’6

Another critic of the big bang theory, Halton C. Arp, was attached to the world-famous Mount Wilson Observatory near Pasadena, USA, and to the Las Campanas Observatories in California. He explains the reasons for rejecting the big bang model in a notable article, ‘Der kontinuierlicher Kosmos’ (The continuous cosmos).

‘Since antiquity, ideas of the universe have varied widely, depending on assumptions about factual observations. The current idea of a big bang has been the standard model for about 60 years. But, in the mean time, the number of observations that negate the assumption that the red shift of the light of distant galaxies can be explained by recessive motions, is increasing.’7

In other words, even the idea that the universe is expanding is under attack by some astronomers.

Arp continues his criticism of the big bang theory and calls for it to be rejected by the scientific community.

‘In my opinion the observations speak a different language; they call for a different view of the universe. I believe that the big bang theory should be replaced, because it is no longer a valid theory.’8

Professor Hans Jörg Fahr of the Institute for Astrophysics at Bonn University, Germany, writes of the demise of the big bang theory in his book, Der Urknall kommt zu Fall (The Demise of the Big Bang).

‘The universe originated about 20 thousand million years ago in a cosmic explosion (the big bang), it has been expanding ever since, and it will continue to do so until the end of time … This sounds convincing, and it is accepted by all present-day mainstream “natural philosophers.” But it should be obvious that a doctrine which is acclaimed noisily, is not necessarily close to the truth. In the field of cosmology the widely supported big bang theory is not more convincing than other alternatives. In fact, there are surprisingly many alternatives.’9

Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia, accepts the big bang model, but he concedes that a state of emergency exists regarding fundamental aspects of explaining why the universe exists.

‘There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.’ He later continues: ‘The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.’10

It is a great pity that many Christians are willing to ‘re-interpret’ the infallible Word of God to fit a fallible, man-made theory like the big bang. Such ideas are ultimately devised to counter the biblical record, which is firmly against cosmic evolution over billions of years. Those who urge trying to harmonize the big bang with Scripture find it only natural to go on to other evolutionary ideas, such as a ‘primitive earth’ gradually cooling down, death, and struggle millions of years before the Fall, and so on.

My considered opinion is that as long as we try to explain the universe apart from the Creator and without regard to biblical affirmations given by him, we will continue to be dazzled by a succession of ingenious cosmological ideas, none of which will remotely resemble the truth.11

This article was adapted from Dr Gitt’s book Stars and their Purpose


Beware...there are a whole lot of half-truths here. When I have some more time, I'll try to address the ones that I know off the top of my head....

[OUDoc]

Isaac Newton also believed he could make gold out of chemicals and incantations.
Call him "Sir", dammit! ;)

[usmc-sooner]

it's not like scientist have never been wrong, and nobody on this board is studied in every scientific field out there. I'd like to see the internet poster who has a PHD in Physics, Chemistry, Zoology, Botony, Biology, Cellular Biology etc. etc. I mean we got some guys who believe they know everything but it's just a message board and you got take some of these people with a grain of salt.

I don't see why you guys even care tthat he Bear believes God created the universe how does that affect you. I could care less if you believe in big bangs, monkeys to man, or whatever.

[Ike]

Regarding OklahomaRed's post:

a) red shift: It is one of the most important observations, and proof that matter is moving away from us. The amount of red shift we observe tells us how fast an object is moving away from us, and this speed (more or less) is linear in distance. IMHO, a far more important observation supporting the big bang is the cosmic background radiation. An effect predicted by theorists before the big bang took was well known, and observed independently by 2 seperate groups (one of which was trying to measure something else entirely and stumbled onto the observation) to be exactly the value predicted by the theory.

b) distribution of matter / dark matter: Yeah, there are clusters of matter in the universe. However, dark matter was not "contrived" to make the distribution of matter uniform. Instead, its existence is inferred from looking at the evolutionary stages of galaxies...in other words, they spin and spiral in such a way that if the "bright matter" we can observe was the only thing there, the galaxies should simply spin apart. But they don't. It also explains some of the gravitational lensing effects we see in observation.
In fact, dark matter itself is not uniformly distributed about the universe, nor does it make the universes matter distribution uniform.
Secondly, the assumption that matter should be uniformly distributed turns out to be the most naive assumption we can make about the big bang. The final matter distribution is heavily dependent on the interactions of matter at the particle level which obey laws that (as far as we know so far) are strange enough...not to mention the fact that we know that there are some effects that must be missing from our current understanding of particle physics. Some of these effects are not expected to turn on except at enormously high energies, such as would be seen in the immediate remnants of the big bang.
A better question to ask about the big bang would be "where did all the antimatter go?"

The universe will expand forever: depends on what the measurements of the cosmological constants yield. (thus far it has large error bars). For some values of this constant, the universe may eventually collapse back in on itself.

so called "contradictory" pieces of evidence: they are not being ignored at all...Instead, they are being worked into the framework of the big bang, and thus far at least, none of them seem to indicate that the big bang needs to be abandoned. They do indicate that the initial model was insufficient, however, the general idea that space and time originated from a single point still works.

There is a lot that is still unkown about the universe. If the evidence mounts against the big bang, it will probably be abandoned. But we are nowhere near there yet.

[crawfish]

You can always count on Ike to explain these things. :)

I would add that there is no real "belief" in the big bang for scientists. There may be a belief that the big bang satisfies the known evidence better than any other theory put forward, but I don't think many scientists would have trouble accepting a new theory if new evidence made some other theory more plausible (or the big bang implausible).

As strong as a believer in God as I am, I feel that science should be agnostic. If we assume a God and assume a certain order to creation (such as the literal Genesis account), we're likely to avoid paths of truth because they seem to contradict the bible, when in fact it's our interpretation of said scripture that is in error.

[Ike]

You can always count on Ike to explain these things. :)

I would add that there is no real "belief" in the big bang for scientists. There may be a belief that the big bang satisfies the known evidence better than any other theory put forward, but I don't think many scientists would have trouble accepting a new theory if new evidence made some other theory more plausible (or the big bang implausible).

As strong as a believer in God as I am, I feel that science should be agnostic. If we assume a God and assume a certain order to creation (such as the literal Genesis account), we're likely to avoid paths of truth because they seem to contradict the bible, when in fact it's our interpretation of said scripture that is in error.

Bingo. In fact, good science is (or should be) agnostic about being agnostic. Evidence is what matters.

I will say however, that it is hard to reconcile science against a God that is active in the affairs of the universe. If taken to its logical extreme, where God is constantly fiddling with the dials and levers of the universe, it becomes impossible to formulate a description of the universe consistent with available evidence. At that point, science becomes a fools errand.

[AggieTool]

Bingo. In fact, good science is (or should be) agnostic about being agnostic. Evidence is what matters.

I will say however, that it is hard to reconcile science against a God that is active in the affairs of the universe. If taken to its logical extreme, where God is constantly fiddling with the dials and levers of the universe, it becomes impossible to formulate a description of the universe consistent with available evidence. At that point, science becomes a fools errand.

Agreed,

I get amused at those who tend to minimize the greatness of god by limiting his/hers abilities to those of merely biblical proportions.

I on the other hand hold god in such high regard, that I believe it is well within his/her abilities start the universe(s) as we can comprehend to the max of our abilties.

[Mjcpr]

He can do all that but can't stop a mother****in' 4th down and forever or a halfback pass in the Fiesta Bowl......believe me, I asked.

[OklahomaRed]

Bingo. In fact, good science is (or should be) agnostic about being agnostic. Evidence is what matters.

I will say however, that it is hard to reconcile science against a God that is active in the affairs of the universe. If taken to its logical extreme, where God is constantly fiddling with the dials and levers of the universe, it becomes impossible to formulate a description of the universe consistent with available evidence. At that point, science becomes a fools errand.

Ike,

I agree. Science needs to proceed, and theories need to be established, supported, and reinforced by evidence. Through Science, we can all move forward towards better lives, improved health, disaster avoidance, etc. I just get wound up when others "through science" try to make the statement that Christians are ignorant hillbillies, who don't understand the deeper meanings or are unable to participate in deeper discussions about the universe, where we came from, where we are going, and who's at the controls.

I feel more Christians need to practice true christianity by not judging others (to their own master they stand or fall), and more agnostics needs to quit judging Christians. We have bigger issues to deal with than who's right or wrong. :D

[OklahomaRed]

You got out-prayed by all them idahoians


Jaux,

Now that's funny. :pop:

[crawfish]

Bingo. In fact, good science is (or should be) agnostic about being agnostic. Evidence is what matters.

I will say however, that it is hard to reconcile science against a God that is active in the affairs of the universe. If taken to its logical extreme, where God is constantly fiddling with the dials and levers of the universe, it becomes impossible to formulate a description of the universe consistent with available evidence. At that point, science becomes a fools errand.

By "active", do you mean a God who runs the daily affairs of the universe? Or does that even include a God who set things into motion and simply "tweaks" where He sees fit?

[Ash]

The rain came down for 40 days and nights. But also the water burst forth from the earth as the Bible says that the springs of the great deep burst forth and the flood gates of heaven opened up.

The flooding was so severe that it covered the tops of the mountains plus more than another twenty feet of depth. The waters flooded the earth for 150days.

The springs of the deep and floodgates of heaven were closed and the rain had stopped, but it was until Noah had been on the boat for 9 full months that the mountain tops became visible. The Bible says that on the first day of the 10th month that the mountain tops were visible.

Noah was on the boat for about a year. Clearly, this was a catastrophic event and the Bible indicates that the floodwaters came from the earth and the sky. It is reasonable to believe that the water bursting from the depths of the earth led to or was caused by an upheaval of the earth's crust.

When the earth's crust moves...it ain't water that comes out.

[crawfish]

He can do all that but can't stop a mother****in' 4th down and forever or a halfback pass in the Fiesta Bowl......believe me, I asked.

God ignored you because of your potty mouth, you moron.

I'm glad I know who to blame now. :mad:

[Hamhock]

is there any debate that God created the bobcat? specifically, the one I killed and now have mounted on my wall?

[Mjcpr]

God ignored you because of your potty mouth, you moron.

I'm glad I know who to blame now. :mad:

Lewis Baker?

[Frozen Sooner]

Regarding OklahomaRed's post:

a) red shift: It is one of the most important observations, and proof that matter is moving away from us. The amount of red shift we observe tells us how fast an object is moving away from us, and this speed (more or less) is linear in distance. IMHO, a far more important observation supporting the big bang is the cosmic background radiation. An effect predicted by theorists before the big bang took was well known, and observed independently by 2 seperate groups (one of which was trying to measure something else entirely and stumbled onto the observation) to be exactly the value predicted by the theory.

b) distribution of matter / dark matter: Yeah, there are clusters of matter in the universe. However, dark matter was not "contrived" to make the distribution of matter uniform. Instead, its existence is inferred from looking at the evolutionary stages of galaxies...in other words, they spin and spiral in such a way that if the "bright matter" we can observe was the only thing there, the galaxies should simply spin apart. But they don't. It also explains some of the gravitational lensing effects we see in observation.
In fact, dark matter itself is not uniformly distributed about the universe, nor does it make the universes matter distribution uniform.
Secondly, the assumption that matter should be uniformly distributed turns out to be the most naive assumption we can make about the big bang. The final matter distribution is heavily dependent on the interactions of matter at the particle level which obey laws that (as far as we know so far) are strange enough...not to mention the fact that we know that there are some effects that must be missing from our current understanding of particle physics. Some of these effects are not expected to turn on except at enormously high energies, such as would be seen in the immediate remnants of the big bang.
A better question to ask about the big bang would be "where did all the antimatter go?"

The universe will expand forever: depends on what the measurements of the cosmological constants yield. (thus far it has large error bars). For some values of this constant, the universe may eventually collapse back in on itself.

so called "contradictory" pieces of evidence: they are not being ignored at all...Instead, they are being worked into the framework of the big bang, and thus far at least, none of them seem to indicate that the big bang needs to be abandoned. They do indicate that the initial model was insufficient, however, the general idea that space and time originated from a single point still works.

There is a lot that is still unkown about the universe. If the evidence mounts against the big bang, it will probably be abandoned. But we are nowhere near there yet.

Yeah. What he said.

[bri]

Science is like the most popular guy in school. It will date a theory until another, hotter theory that better explains things comes along.

Creationism, on the other hand, is like an arranged marriage. You're with it until the day you die. :D

[OUDoc]

Some days I think Bri, olevet and Dean are all related.
Other days, not so much.

[Ike]

By "active", do you mean a God who runs the daily affairs of the universe? Or does that even include a God who set things into motion and simply "tweaks" where He sees fit?

By active, I mean a God who may have set things up a certain way, but decides that for some reason or another, he should bend or break a physical "law" he has established to further some goal. If he decides to do such tweaking too often, it becomes impossible to determine the nature of the physical laws that were established in the first place.

I'm not saying that such a god can't exist...just that if god is too much of a micromanager, it becomes pointless to try to figure out what the hell he is doing.

[TopDawg]

Regarding OklahomaRed's post:

a) red shift: It is one of the most important observations, and proof that matter is moving away from us. The amount of red shift we observe tells us how fast an object is moving away from us, and this speed (more or less) is linear in distance.

I guess when you say "us" you mean "our universe", right? And, if so, do you mean all matter is moving away from us or just some matter?

[Ike]

I guess when you say "us" you mean "our universe", right? And, if so, do you mean all matter is moving away from us or just some matter?

by "us" I mean earth bound beings. Most matter is moving away from us. There are very few blue-shifted objects.

[Ike]

Ike,

I agree. Science needs to proceed, and theories need to be established, supported, and reinforced by evidence. Through Science, we can all move forward towards better lives, improved health, disaster avoidance, etc. I just get wound up when others "through science" try to make the statement that Christians are ignorant hillbillies, who don't understand the deeper meanings or are unable to participate in deeper discussions about the universe, where we came from, where we are going, and who's at the controls.

I feel more Christians need to practice true christianity by not judging others (to their own master they stand or fall), and more agnostics needs to quit judging Christians. We have bigger issues to deal with than who's right or wrong. :D

The ignorant hillbilly portrayal stems from a knee jerk reaction to people like, say, the Kansas Board of Education, who decide that because they don't like the findings of modern science decide that it shouldn't be taught in their schools, or that it should be replaced with something that says what they like all dressed up in dubious math (i.e. Intelligent Design)

For the record, I have no problem with the concept of an intelligent designer. However, I took a look at the so-called math behind the latest proposed intelligent design theory that was to go into clasrooms, and it was questionable at best...deceptive at worst. The number of random assumptions that were made was laughable, like say choosing a random big number (10^200) as the threshold for "possible due to natural causes" for the formation of object X. This was done with absolutely no basis. The 'theory' also made no attempt at taking into account physical mechanisms that would significantly increase the probability of something happening, nor did it ever make any mention of initial conditions which would surely play a significant role in determining whether something could or could not happen through natural processes. It was a lame attempt to dress up the answers someone wanted to find as "science" and then stick it into science classes. As a scientist, I get really offended by this kind of thing. Just like any Christian should be offended if I were to take some random passage of the bible way out of context and use it to "proove" that God cannot exist, and then further demand that my distorted logic be taught in sunday schools across the nation.

I try to stop myself short of labeling christians as ignorant hillbillies (although I admitiedly probably fail in this from time to time)...But I sort of understand how that mentality creeps in...Especially when Christians (generally only the loudest and most offensive) often try to portray scientists as godless heathens intent on spreading the gospel of immoral atheism (not that there aren't some of those among us...but they tend to be a small, but vocal minority...see Dawkins, Dennett).

[TopDawg]

by "us" I mean earth bound beings. Most matter is moving away from us. There are very few blue-shifted objects.

OK, I see. Even the stuff that is moving relatively close to us...almost "with" us...is still moving away, just at a slower rate than the stuff headed in the opposite direction...so that accounts for the varying degrees of red shift, right?

[AggieTool]

The ignorant hillbilly portrayal stems from a knee jerk reaction to people like, say, the Kansas Board of Education, who decide that because they don't like the findings of modern science decide that it shouldn't be taught in their schools, or that it should be replaced with something that says what they like all dressed up in dubious math (i.e. Intelligent Design)

For the record, I have no problem with the concept of an intelligent designer. However, I took a look at the so-called math behind the latest proposed intelligent design theory that was to go into clasrooms, and it was questionable at best...deceptive at worst. The number of random assumptions that were made was laughable, like say choosing a random big number (10^200) as the threshold for "possible due to natural causes" for the formation of object X. This was done with absolutely no basis. The 'theory' also made no attempt at taking into account physical mechanisms that would significantly increase the probability of something happening, nor did it ever make any mention of initial conditions which would surely play a significant role in determining whether something could or could not happen through natural processes. It was a lame attempt to dress up the answers someone wanted to find as "science" and then stick it into science classes. As a scientist, I get really offended by this kind of thing. Just like any Christian should be offended if I were to take some random passage of the bible way out of context and use it to "proove" that God cannot exist, and then further demand that my distorted logic be taught in sunday schools across the nation.

I try to stop myself short of labeling christians as ignorant hillbillies (although I admitiedly probably fail in this from time to time)...But I sort of understand how that mentality creeps in...Especially when Christians (generally only the loudest and most offensive) often try to portray scientists as godless heathens intent on spreading the gospel of immoral atheism (not that there aren't some of those among us...but they tend to be a small, but vocal minority...see Dawkins, Dennett).

Gotta remember,

the very technological advances that evangelicals enjoy today (TV, medicine, NASCAR), would have landed them in the gallows a long time ago.

They'll be along soon enough. I predict it will be when intelligent life is discovered elsewhere. After that, all terrestrial religion becomes moot. (cept fer the Scientologists).:)

[royalfan5]

Gotta remember,

the very technological advances that evangelicals enjoy today (TV, medicine, NASCAR), would have landed them in the gallows a long time ago.

They'll be along soon enough. I predict it will be when intelligent life is discovered elsewhere. After that, all terrestrial religion becomes moot. (cept fer the Scientologists).:)
Unless Christ has stopped by other planets too. The discovery of parallel universes is what will really screw things up.

[OhU1]

They'll be along soon enough. I predict it will be when intelligent life is discovered elsewhere. After that, all terrestrial religion becomes moot. (cept fer the Scientologists).:)

You massively underrate the theist ability to utilize logical fallacies. If BU Bear can defend a 6,000 year old universe do you think the discovery of extra terrestrial life would cause him any pause?

[AggieTool]

Unless Christ has stopped by other planets too. The discovery of parallel universes is what will really screw things up.

True, but that's not accounted for in the bible, as with most scientific principles(which is why the first demonstration of a siphon in Europe ended up with a stake burning).

[AggieTool]

You massively underrate the theist ability to utilize logical fallacies. If BU Bear can defend a 6,000 year old universe do you think the discovery of extra terrestrial life would cause him any pause?

Maybe, but for most evangelicals, it would be "sensory overload", and probably mass hysteria.:confused:

[royalfan5]

Maybe, but for most evangelicals, it would be "sensory overload", and probably mass hysteria.:confused:
If Star Trek is to believed, the most of the Evanagelicals will die in the Third World War. With assistance from Captain Picard, Zefram Cochrane will put in place FTL travel which will lead to us meeting the Vulcans. This should happen in 60 years.

[AggieTool]

If Star Trek is to believed, the most of the Evanagelicals will die in the Third World War. With assistance from Captain Picard, Zefram Cochrane will put in place FTL travel which will lead to us meeting the Vulcans. This should happen in 60 years.

You know wayyyy too much about that stuff!:D :D

On a serious note (and Ike can chime in), there actually is a formula that predicts when we will encounter intelligent life based upon the number of stars discovered with habitable planets, the rate of technological advances, and random chance. I seem to recall the solution being 100-300 years (if we don't destroy ourselves first).

[Mongo]

You know wayyyy too much about that stuff!:D :D

On a serious note (and Ike can chime in), there actually is a formula that predicts when we will encounter intelligent life based upon the number of stars discovered with habitable planets, the rate of technological advances, and random chance. I seem to recall the solution being 100-300 years (if we don't destroy ourselves first).

I hope that they are the kind of aliens that Natasha Henstridge played in Species

[crawfish]

They'll be along soon enough. I predict it will be when intelligent life is discovered elsewhere. After that, all terrestrial religion becomes moot. (cept fer the Scientologists).:)

...or so you assume.

God left the concept of "otherworld intelligent creatures" unspoken. Who knows what will happen; however, if there IS a God there will probably be some sort of message that allows our religion (and theirs) to remain valid. :)

[crawfish]

I hope that they are the kind of aliens that Natasha Henstridge played in Species

Or like the chick in "Lifeforce", who doesn't suck your life out of you. ;)

[Mongo]

Or like the chick in "Lifeforce", who doesn't suck your life out of you. ;)

"Lifeforce"? never heard of it. anygood?

How about the chick from "Total Recall" with the extra chesticle. That wouldnt be bad either

[crawfish]

"Lifeforce"? never heard of it. anygood?

How about the chick from "Total Recall" with the extra chesticle. That wouldnt be bad either

They find seemly hot dead naked chick. Dead naked chick turns out to be vampire alien who sucks the life out of people. I don't think she ever bothers to put on any clothes. :D

Frequent HBO late-night movie back in the 80's. Really, really dumb. But the naked chick is hawt. And naked. ;)

[crawfish]

BTW, from the creationism museum to hawt vampire alien chicks.

I'm giving this thread five stars.

[Mongo]

"The Gelgamek vagina is three feet wide and filled with razor sharp teeth. How are we supposed to have sex with that?"
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o259/hobbs70/gelgameks.jpg

[usmc-sooner]

"The Gelgamek vagina is three feet wide and filled with razor sharp teeth. How are we supposed to have sex with that?"
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o259/hobbs70/gelgameks.jpg

made me think of the brain bug in Starship Troopers

[AggieTool]

...or so you assume.

God left the concept of "otherworld intelligent creatures" unspoken. Who knows what will happen; however, if there IS a God there will probably be some sort of message that allows our religion (and theirs) to remain valid. :)

Meh...

Interesting perspective I guess.;)

[BigRedJed]

I think some of these posts would fit better in the "owned" thread.

[Pricetag]

...or so you assume.

God left the concept of "otherworld intelligent creatures" unspoken. Who knows what will happen; however, if there IS a God there will probably be some sort of message that allows our religion (and theirs) to remain valid. :)
Wasn't there a passage in the Bible where Jesus speaks of "other children" he has to minister to? I thought I remembered seeing something like that in a Latter Day Saints commercial one time. The LDS folks took that to mean people over here in the New World. I always thought it could mean out of this world, as well.

[royalfan5]

Wasn't there a passage in the Bible where Jesus speaks of "other children" he has to minister to? I thought I remembered seeing something like that in a Latter Day Saints commercial one time. The LDS folks took that to mean people over here in the New World. I always thought it could mean out of this world, as well.
As Part of the Trinity, I always figured that it would be fairly easy for Jesus to save as many worlds as there are. It's not like there is a real limit to what he can do.

[Fraggle145]

I wish I had something to add. Ike wins. See my sig for further reference.

[Frozen Sooner]

You can always count on Ike to explain these things. :)

I would add that there is no real "belief" in the big bang for scientists. There may be a belief that the big bang satisfies the known evidence better than any other theory put forward, but I don't think many scientists would have trouble accepting a new theory if new evidence made some other theory more plausible (or the big bang implausible).

That's certainly the way it's supposed to work.

Twist your theories to fit facts. Don't twist facts to fit your theories.

[crawfish]

That's certainly the way it's supposed to work.

Twist your theories to fit facts. Don't twist facts to fit your theories.

...and don't twist the Bible into saying something it was not intended to say.

[stoopified]

I'm a "creationist". What makes you think creationists don't believe in science? God created science. :confused: Unless you are saying that all creationists believe the same thing the museum creators believe - which isn't the case.
tRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN.

[Ike]

OK, I see. Even the stuff that is moving relatively close to us...almost "with" us...is still moving away, just at a slower rate than the stuff headed in the opposite direction...so that accounts for the varying degrees of red shift, right?
give or take, thats about right. The amount of redshift for any given object is roughly linear with respect to it's distance away from us. This breaks down a bit for stuff close by due to the fact that gravity starts playing a bigger role than the expansion of the universe in how a star moves with respect to us when you are close* to us.



close here is used in the astronomical sense i.e. roughly in our same galaxy.

[TopDawg]

Gotcha. Thanks.

[Penguin]

Wait a minute. Are you people saying that Jesus went to other planets to save more souls?

If this galaxy is full of Space Catholics, I'm going to have a major problem with that! I ain't bowing to no Space Pope.

[Frozen Sooner]

...and don't twist the Bible into saying something it was not intended to say.

That'd be great, too.

[royalfan5]

Wait a minute. Are you people saying that Jesus went to other planets to save more souls?

If this galaxy is full of Space Catholics, I'm going to have a major problem with that! I ain't bowing to no Space Pope.
Aliens are probably brighter, so it would be Space Lutherans with a variety of Space Synods.

[Frozen Sooner]

As long as they aren't Missouri or Wisconsin Synod.

ELCA ALL THE WAY, BABY!