Are there any Creationists out there?

[Bikky]

If you can know or find the beginning then you will also know and find the end. Though most probably that would be beyond the wit of most 21st century science.

Silly me! have been led to believe the universe is expanding. Imagine for a moment this is fact. The end would be very hard to determine in this case.

 

I think it's a little more complicated than chanting, "Are we there yet, are we there yet?" from the back seat.

 

 

[Yenn]

It seems reading here that Brian Cox is the guru to believe.

 

I had thought he was a good presenter of science until I saw on the ABC TV a 3 day series about the stars. He had some sheila who seems to be popular with him and it looked like the usual commercial TV. He speaks, she speaks and so on. Not much content but plenty of blather. It certainly lowered my opinion of Brian Cox, but so what, he is just earning a living.

 

 

[octave]

It seems reading here that Brian Cox is the guru to believe.I had thought he was a good presenter of science until I saw on the ABC TV a 3 day series about the stars. He had some sheila who seems to be popular with him and it looked like the usual commercial TV. He speaks, she speaks and so on. Not much content but plenty of blather. It certainly lowered my opinion of Brian Cox, but so what, he is just earning a living.

The fact that he also is a science communicator does not mean he is not a respected scientist also. When not presenting science to the public he works at CERN

 

Higher education

 

Cox studied physics at the University of Manchester during his music career. He earned a first-class Bachelor of Science degree and a Master of Philosophy degree in physics. After D:Ream disbanded in 1997, he completed his Doctor of Philosophy in high-energy particle physics at the University of Manchester.[4] His thesis, Double Diffraction Dissociation at Large Momentum Transfer,[4] was supervised by Robin Marshall[4] and based on research he did on the H1 experiment at the Hadron Elektron Ring Anlage (HERA)[4][36] particle accelerator at the DESY laboratory in Hamburg, Germany.[37]

 

Career

 

Research

 

Cox was a PPARC[needs update][when?] advanced fellow and member of the High energy physics group at the University of Manchester, and works on the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)[38][39] at CERN,[40][41][42][43] near Geneva, Switzerland. He is working on the research and development project of the FP420 experiment in an international collaboration to upgrade the ATLAS and the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS)[44][45] experiment by installing additional, smaller detectors at a distance of 420 metres from the interaction points of the main experiments.[46][47][48][49]

 

Cox has co-authored several books on physics including Why does E=mc2?[50] and The Quantum Universe, both with Jeff Forshaw.[51] He has supervised or co-supervised several PhD students to completion.[6][7][8][9][10][12]

 

 

[Bruce]

Yep Mark, I thought you were a creationist, in fact the only one to put his head up.

 

Alas, my gloomy thought about there not really being one out there is proving true.

 

 

[octave]

Judging by the inclusions herein from external expert opinion, it appears to me there are a few folk that have garnished the genuine oil and they know where and how it all began.

The big bang theory is a scientific theory, whilst I am only a well read fool with a lifelong interest and some amateur involvement with astronomy I do not own a radio telescope or have access to the Hubble telescope. What in the world makes you think that big bang is something one can assert without reference to evidence beyond the realms of the lay person. As an amateur pilot I often seek out the advice of a professional instructor.

 

I did note a few posts back someone mentioning the rolling out of old chestnuts... I now know what he meant.

Not sure what you mean by this, what chestnuts?

 

Do you have anything new? Or a mind of your own, that is what I want to know.

Again this is about the sum total of the scientific evidence MY opinion is irrelevant. Some people believe that vaccination causes autism, these people have a mind of their own but it conflicts with the evidence and that is the bottom line.

 

I had suggested in a post or two back that if one really wanted to seek truth they should look within.

umm really, that does seem to be a philosophical or religious statement. How do I look for the answer about why the galaxies are moving away from each other at an ever increasing speed as measured via red shift. The evidence comes from astronomical instruments and physics.

 

I think that one of the problems with this is that religion is religion and science is science. If you want to dis the big bang theory then you should find flaws in the supporting evidence. Why not show me what is wrong with Hubble's Law. What I mean is that big bang is not a philosophy or a religion it is a scientific theory which can only be disproved with physical evidence - perhaps a galaxy that is not travelling away from a central point. You have not addressed the science at all. All you have done is post vague waffle about chestnuts and looking for the answer inside.

 

If you are going to say that Hubble's constant is rubbish you are going to have provide convincing evidence or perhaps provide links to astronomers or cosmologists that site evidence.

 

Can I ask if you watched any of the links I posted? And if so what it is that you find so obviously false? I know you can say you watched them even if you did not but to me intellectual honesty is extremely important. If you did not watch any of it, why not.

 

You can shoot me down in flames with good quality evidence.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

if one really wanted to seek truth they should look within.

 

How do I look for the answer about why the galaxies are moving away from each other at an ever increasing speed as measured via red shift.

You could look at Uranus I guess?

 

.

 

 

[Bruce]

The scientific world did not start out expecting that there was a big bang, that very term was an insulting one coined by ( I think) Fred Hoyle. First there was the red shift, then the cosmic microwave background, the temperature of which supported the timing as calculated from red-shift galaxy movement.

 

This stuff finally persuaded nearly everybody. Even the pope.

 

 

[old man emu]

You could look at Uranus I guess?.

Bexbetter has been suspended for two weeks for resorting to schoolboy humour. (Mod)

 

 

[facthunter]

You would be off the planet to make that suggestion. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Bexbetter has been suspended for two weeks for resorting to schoolboy humour. (Mod)

Not before time either.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I also detect the assumption emanating from a few contributors that I am religious ... what ever gave you guys that idea;

Well, your post #3 in this thread suggested you're not only religious but a creationist.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Keep rational argument outta This!

 

 

[Bruce]

Well so far the quest to find a creationist has failed. There was Mark, but he turned out to only be somebody who thinks that navel-gazing ( oops I mean looking within ) was the way to enlightenment.

 

I really doubt that there are any creationists really out there.

 

Well there are Jabiru-knockers on that other site who will have to do for making fun of.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Don't give up, Bruce. Be patient.

 

There might be a creationist or two out there. Maybe they are justifiably shy of coming out. The vigorous (sometimes hot) debate here can be intimidating.

 

Although, to my way of thinking, it should be easy for a creationist to simply say "I believe" and leave it at that, as it needs no further justification. The rest of us have to justify our theories with whatever observable phenomena that brought us to our conclusion.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I heard a scientist the other day talking about how she worked in the US, one of the Midwest states (North Carolina or somewhere).

 

Anyway, she said that going there she expected people to be churchgoers, given the location, but what surprised her was that they were full-on creationists. Total fundamentalists. Believed every word of the bible and thought the earth was 6000 years old.

 

BUT - and this is the kicker... these people were scientists, who knew from education, observation and logic that species evolved over time and that the Earth is 4 billion years old. How could they reconcile this? Apparently they didn't. They had one set of beliefs for their working life, where they absolutely trusted the scientific method, and a totally different set of beliefs for home.

 

I have no idea how a person can sustain 2 sets of totally contradictory views at the same time.

 

Anyway talking of creationists... anyone seen the Gnu recently?

 

 

[nomadpete]

I hope he's ok.

 

 

[Bruce]

Yep, the capacity of people to "believe" is amazing. But what would you do in flying if you believed in the firmament?

 

The one which " separates the waters above from the waters below"? Gosh you would need to stay lower than the freezing height, because the firmament does not have ice above.

 

Marty, did those Sunday fundamentalists insist that the geography of the bible was literally correct ? With the sun embedded in a firmament with waters above?

 

 

[facthunter]

Well the earth is flat ... Isn't it? Some still think so. Nev

 

 

[willedoo]

The subject is a bit mind boggling.

 

When you look at images of the Earth taken from space, we see this beautiful planet encased in a nice blue coloured atmosphere. Compared to what we know is around us, this seems a little bit too perfect to be anything but something created by some God or some such entity.

 

The other side of the coin is that science these days is getting very scientific. It might not be 100% right, but by the law of averages, a lot of it might be close to the mark. The video link that Phil recently posted, showing the Earth in relation to the Universe probably puts it into perspective, if it's in any way remotely accurate.

 

So going by that video, there possibly might be billions of planets out there with that same beautiful thin blue atmosphere. And also by the law of averages, a lot of them would contain the same type of crooks, thieves, fraudsters and cigar chomping dickheads telling their citizens that the age of entitlement is over, all the while burying their own snouts deeply in the trough.

 

So theoretically, let's just say that's the case. That would mean that if it was all created by some supreme being, he, she or it must be equally as greedy and corrupt as the creations, or incredibly stupid. Otherwise, why would you repeat the same mistake many times over throughout the universe.

 

 

[Marty_d]

The subject is a bit mind boggling.

When you look at images of the Earth taken from space, we see this beautiful planet encased in a nice blue coloured atmosphere. Compared to what we know is around us, this seems a little bit too perfect to be anything but something created by some God or some such entity.

 

The other side of the coin is that science these days is getting very scientific. It might not be 100% right, but by the law of averages, a lot of it might be close to the mark. The video link that Phil recently posted, showing the Earth in relation to the Universe probably puts it into perspective, if it's in any way remotely accurate.

 

So going by that video, there possibly might be billions of planets out there with that same beautiful thin blue atmosphere. And also by the law of averages, a lot of them would contain the same type of crooks, thieves, fraudsters and cigar chomping dickheads telling their citizens that the age of entitlement is over, all the while burying their own snouts deeply in the trough.

 

So theoretically, let's just say that's the case. That would mean that if it was all created by some supreme being, he, she or it must be equally as greedy and corrupt as the creations, or incredibly stupid. Otherwise, why would you repeat the same mistake many times over throughout the universe.

What a pessimistic view... a Joe Hockey equivalent on every developed planet...

 

 

[facthunter]

But those airfarms are revolting (perhaps he meant revolving) as I've said eleventy times. nev

 

 

[Bruce]

There were too many unlikely things happened with this planet for our situation to be repeated.

 

Here's just one of many... the earth-moon is almost a binary planet and it has a much more stable axis as a result.

 

Without this, the climate would not be stable enough for agriculture to exist. So those cigar-chomping dickheads ( nice turn of phrase!) would at best be living like Aborigines.

 

AND if there are advanced civilizations out there, where are their tourists?

 

 

[facthunter]

It's really BIG (the universe) as you already know. How much time do you have? Most of the progress has happened quite recently and it tends to improve at a rapidly increasing rate. Unless we ruin this place and send ourselves to extinction prematurely, this place should last for a while. I

 

 

[Marty_d]

There were too many unlikely things happened with this planet for our situation to be repeated.Here's just one of many... the earth-moon is almost a binary planet and it has a much more stable axis as a result.

 

Without this, the climate would not be stable enough for agriculture to exist. So those cigar-chomping dickheads ( nice turn of phrase!) would at best be living like Aborigines.

 

AND if there are advanced civilizations out there, where are their tourists?

Well, it is a big-ass universe. If indeed intelligent life happened/is happening/will happen, then it may have already bloomed 500 million years ago and collapsed, or it may not happen for another billion years, or it may be happening right now but be 300 million light years away. In fact there could be literally millions of civilisations at our technological level, right now, and because of the size of the universe none of them may ever know that any of the others exist.

 

That's why I scoff at UFO sightings - in the extremely remote chance that any advanced aliens live close enough to visit, they're still not going to do it in what looks like a space-going version of a Jab 170.

 

 

[octave]

Given that here on Earth we have only been using radio transmission for just over a century it means that these extremely weak signals have only travelled for a little over 100 light years. In terms of the Earth being detectable by radio transmissions we are only visible from within about 100 light years in any direction. I think the first deliberate radio transmissions into space are much more recent. The speed of light combined with the enormous distances will make contact between us and other civilisations rare. We are more than likely too far separated in time and space. But it would be interesting to think what the effect on the world would be if we received a broadcast .I suppose the religious folk and the anti science crowd would be claiming it as false news.