Are there any Creationists out there?

[Bruce]

I have never met a real Creationist and I doubt that there really are any. By "real" I mean somebody who really defends his ridiculous ideas and who can respond to arguments without losing the thread and drifting off to slogan-type stuff.

 

Anybody who claims that the bible is literally true would qualify.

 

Alas I doubt that there is anybody out there

 

 

[Marty_d]

I have never met a real Creationist and I doubt that there really are any. By "real" I mean somebody who really defends his ridiculous ideas and who can respond to arguments without losing the thread and drifting off to slogan-type stuff.Anybody who claims that the bible is literally true would qualify.

 

Alas I doubt that there is anybody out there

There's that bloke who used to post on Rec Flying, don't know if he's discovered this site yet. What's his name? Grumpy Goo? Gullible Gun? Karly Sue? Something like that...

 

 

[Bruce]

wow Mark, Well I do know some physics, but what I really want to know about is the firmament.

 

Is it a hazard for Jabirus?

 

Do you really believe in the Genesis firmament? That would impress me for sure.

 

 

[Bruce]

Marty, you are referring to Gnarly Gnu. I don't think he is a hairy-chested creationist.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I really want to know about is the firmament.

Viagra or Cialis?

 

 

[hihosland]

good one Bex

 

 

[Marty_d]

I'll be your huckleberry.... Bruce

 

 

I will give you the opportunity of drawing first.... but prior to your move, swot up on consciousness (universal) and the physics that pertain to there being no big bang.

Well this'll be interesting.

 

Please explain both red shift and CMBR if you don't think the big bang happened.

 

Secondly explain how radiometric dating has given the age of this planet as 4.6 billion years, as opposed to the 6,000 / 10,000 / whatever silly number creationists come up with.

 

Manage to disprove all of those with valid scientific theories (show your workings now!) and then you can offer proofs on universal consciousness.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

if you don't think the big bang happened.

What happened before the Big Bang?

 

Who, what, etc. lit that fuse?

 

 

[old man emu]

What happened before the Big Bang? Who, what, etc. lit that fuse?

Dinner in a romantic little restaurant; a little wine; dancing cheek-to-cheek and the offer of a nightcap.

 

 

[Bruce]

I used to think that the mystery of the big bang left room for some sort of deity, but then I read this book " A universe from nothing" in which the author makes the case that the universe we see is actually lower-energy than a universe full of nothing.

 

All very difficult stuff, so I decided to concentrate more on Jabiru maintenance.

 

Do you notice that even on the new site, real creationists are hard to find? They are free to make fun of my ideas, just like I find theirs to be ridiculous.

 

 

[Bruce]

Marty, your question is easy... God created the universe complete with red shift and cosmic microwave radiation background to enable the unfaithful like yourself to be lured away from the holy path by their arrogance.

 

He also put fossils, all in the right place with the right carbon 14 for the same reason.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Bruce, Marty,

 

Please stop being so cynical and arrogant.

 

It is well documented that god made the universe in quite a rush. Do you really expect perfection from such a big project, completed in just six days? As far as we know this was the beta version of creation. And probably the only version of creation. Make some allowances for minor discrepancies in trivial details such as carbon 14, timelines, size of universe, location of post retirement existence, etc. These details do not significantly affect the concept of eternal life after death, and that concept is what brings people into the belief system.

 

Besides that, you are challenging people who clearly are not interested in frequenting this thread, nor debating this issue.

 

Lighten up.

 

 

[willedoo]

I'm a real creationist. I've made lots of things.

 

 

[Marty_d]

What happened before the Big Bang?

Who, what, etc. lit that fuse?

Who creates each bubble in a pot of boiling water?

 

I've heard theories that perhaps new universes pop into existence all the time, but if something's slightly out of whack with the physics then they disappear just as quick. Ours is stable (from our point of view - maybe 13.8 billion years is a cosmic eye-blink), but even our universe will either expand and cool down to total heat death, or contract again into another singularity which may then produce a subsequent big bang.

 

The point is, if you come up with the theory that some actual being/agency/god kicked the whole thing off, then you get asked the question "Well then, what created god?" - which requires another quite unnecessary layer of complexity to the whole "start of the universe" thing.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

The point is, if you come up with the theory that some actual being/agency/god kicked the whole thing off, then you get asked the question "Well then, what created god?" - .

Which leads me to my next question, what created the what that created this "god" thing?

 

.. and then I'm going to ask the next level ....

 

 

[nomadpete]

It's all very well to discard the "god created everything" theory, (just because you can't accept that god might have been the singularity), but it's a bit pointless to replace that theory without telling me who lit the fuse (thanks Bex) or created the matter required to have a big bang. (With apologies to the romantic seduction process that works for me)

 

Whether it's all about matter or antimatter, you anticreationists still can't come up with a better idea that withstands logical, provable argument.

 

 

[Marty_d]

It's all very well to discard the "god created everything" theory, (just because you can't accept that god might have been the singularity), but it's a bit pointless to replace that theory without telling me who lit the fuse (thanks Bex) or created the matter required to have a big bang. (With apologies to the romantic seduction process that works for me)

Whether it's all about matter or antimatter, you anticreationists still can't come up with a better idea that withstands logical, provable argument.

I'd argue that, far from waiting until we have the knowledge of what caused the big bang before we "replace" the creationist theory, we should all (including the god botherers) just admit that we just don't know... yet.

 

A working hypothesis must be logical and supported by evidence. Creationism isn't, and unless you're of the "god created the universe then stepped back and let it evolve" variety, it's actively contradicted.

 

 

[Bruce]

God would have to be more complex than the universe he created, by many orders of magnitude. For example, to be omniscient, you need to know, among a lot of other things, the temperature of every atom in the universe. But to know the temperature of an atom you need many atoms (or spirit stuff equivalent thereof) for the measurement .

 

So creating a god is a much harder job than creating a universe. And if you weasel out of this problem by saying that god always existed, then you may as well cut out the middleman and say the universe always existed.

 

I'm still waiting to find a creationist who will defend the notion of the firmament which "separates the waters above from the waters below" like a penthouse swimming-pool floor. It must be below freezing level huh?

 

 

[nomadpete]

But Marty, you still cannot support your "big bang" hypotheses with evidence based scientific proof. That is, unless you have found a way to 'create' a big bang, do it repeatedly, observe the process (and the prerequisites), and write a peer reviewed document about all of this.

 

Otherwise, by your own criteria for rejecting creationism, your own alternative theory will also fail.

 

Which puts us back to square one......

 

 

[nomadpete]

Bruce,

 

I do like your question. I have met many religious people. I delight in discussing faith with the few who don't feel threatened by an open discussion. But I cannot recall any who claimed to believe biblical creation exactly as it is written in our copies of the bible. Every one had to modify the "good word" in order to believe in the concept. Even the "universe is 6000 year old" believers are trying to make up a semi believable story (gotta admit it's a slightly better guess than seven days).

 

But open, logical debate is hard to find.

 

 

[octave]

It's all very well to discard the "god created everything" theory, (just because you can't accept that god might have been the singularity), but it's a bit pointless to replace that theory without telling me who lit the fuse (thanks Bex) or created the matter required to have a big bang. (With apologies to the romantic seduction process that works for me)

Whether it's all about matter or antimatter, you anticreationists still can't come up with a better idea that withstands logical, provable argument.

In what way is the god hypothesis "logical and provable" to a greater degree than the current cosmological hypotheses? Which creation hypotheses have you ruled out and on what grounds?

 

Whilst these competing scientific hypotheses have some mathematical support I do not think cosmologists are necessarily on the brink of the answer, this dose not mean that we should insert another layer that is also short on evidence.

 

Not knowing is the driving force of science.

 

Before the discovery of atomic structure people may well have said "we don't know what matter is made of and we can never know, so therefore god. But given time, research and technological breakthroughs we now know that matter is made of atoms and we even know what the atoms are made of. The fact that we don't know does not necessarily mean we will never know. Of course it could be that we can never know because of the limitations of our brains. Some of the great apes are quite intelligent but probably do not have the brain structures to solve differential equations or understand a metaphor.

 

Even as an atheist I absolutely have no problem with people believing god did it. Cosmological research continues and who knows what exciting things might be discovered, maybe even evidence for a god!

 

My question is, what is the downside for me of not believing in a cosmic creator? If there is a cosmic creator then so what? Now I suspect that at least some people who believe in a cosmic creator will then make a vast leap and suggest that the cosmic creator is the one that they were taught to believe in.

 

When arguing with a christian creationist at some point after the debate has gone around in circles I have been known to suddenly say "yes you are right, there must be a creator, praise be to allah" at this point they will usually spit their coffee across the room and say "no not that one" My point here is that if there is a cosmic creator that was the architect of billions of stars in billions of galaxies in the part of the universe we can see, why would she/he/it need me to acknowledge him/her/it? Would such an entity be concerned with whether I touch myself at night? (spoiler alert, sometimes I do).

 

As a sometimes debater with creationists I make it my business to know my opponent therefore I have watched may creationist videos and read many creationist books. I would hope that any creationist wanting to have a rigorous debate would also check out what their opposition is claiming. This lecture is quite accessible to the non scientist and perhaps a creationist watching this may find fault with the science presented. Note this lecture took place before the confirmation of the Higgs Boson at CERN but that is quite interesting to me, another example of the using maths and particle physics to propose that a this particle/field should exist and then actually confirming it much like Einstein's special and general theories of relativity.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z5M7OzLNJs

 

 

[octave]

But Marty, you still cannot support your "big bang" hypotheses with evidence based scientific proof. That is, unless you have found a way to 'create' a big bang, do it repeatedly, observe the process (and the prerequisites), and write a peer reviewed document about all of this.Otherwise, by your own criteria for rejecting creationism, your own alternative theory will also fail.

 

Which puts us back to square one......

 

Can you point me in the direction of peer review casting doubt on the so called big bang theory (yes it is a theory) I am aware of Sir Fred Hoyle and his steady state theory. By the way it was Fred Hoyle who coined the term Big Bang.

 

 

[Cosmick]

"42"

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-and-how-is-42-the-answer-to-life-the-universe-and-everything

 

 

[nomadpete]

Octave, I do not suggest that a god theory is any more provable than a big bang or steady state theory. My point was simply that all of the above theories are unprovable by a scientific method. The information's unavailable to the mortal man! One would have to observe an entire event and make those observations repeatable to satisfy scientific method. A bit hard for a human to achieve with a universe, or even just one planet.

 

Anyway, I was not suggesting that the god theory was more believable (I personally find it incredible. I rule out all permutations of God's because they seem highly illogical on many levels..)

 

In answer to your question, I cannot see a downside to nonbelief in a cosmic creator. However, I've been told that such a judgement will be made in due course, by someone better qualified than myself!

 

 

[kgwilson]

I always thought the answer was 42 but then I realised that everything including me was a figment of my own imagination. So in fact the answer is actually nothing because nothing exists. Therefore nothing does exist. Aw heck this is getting confusing. Time for another beer.