JadeaKai
May-be I missread my own qoute, but I never said that "my outside force" didn't have a cause! And that's not what's being argued anyway. And if it starts in
The same place as your outside force.be so kind as to enlighten me on what/where that is?
If it needs a cause what is the point of the question? I could answer "where did we come from?" with "somebody's uterus" if we weren't asking about the ultimate cause but you are probably knowledgeable enough to know that each of us came out of somebody's uterus so you wouldn't really have asked THAT question.
No, asking about our source, our origin, is about getting to the very first cause. This isn't inherently clear from the question itself but by far the greatest objection to "the big bang" as an answer is that it must have been caused by something.
JadeaKai
"A few do"
That's the understatement of the year. High school teachers and college professor (includuing one of mine) have been fired for including the THEORY of our world being started an outside hand.
I hear people say things like that a lot but what is the official statement of the institute about why he was let off (or other places for the other vaguely defined people you mentioned)?
Certainly you can understand how it would be possible to say that there was an outside hand in our origin in ways that were inappropriate. How do we know that those people did not behave as such?
JadeaKai
"a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action" -That's webster!
Creationism is a theory...
As of 2005 (most recent data), approximately 88% of the world's population were said to "believe in God" This is down from 96% in 2000. In the United States, 95&#xof; the population "believe in God."
-(Cambridge University).
It is definately a theory. And not to even attempt to teach the hows or whys would be promotting ignorance. And my point has yet to be disproven.
If the dictionary was the ultimate authority on science why would you need teachers at all?
A very big mistake people make in using the dictionary is thinking that any definition, or just the first, is always applicable to the use of a word. "I saw some stars in the bistro yesterday" "That's impossible, they would burn it down and then the rest of the Earth as well." Obviously those balls of gas so far away are not always what we mean by the word star. Celebrity is an alternative meaning in many situations but you would never see celebrities through a telescope pointed at the horse head nebula (or at least not any time in this century.)
Likewise theory means two very different things. There is the Sherlock Holmes style "I had an idea just now" theory but there is also the "I have compiled facts for months/years and thoroughly tested predictions about the forces at work to the point of proof beyond a reasonable doubt" theory. A bit more of a mouthful but critically different in the respect that a scientific theory is effectively proven rather than some guess. Given new evidence there may come reason to reopen the book and revise the concepts but the professionals at work take their job very seriously and give intensely thorough examination to the topic they are working on. Although one person/group is initially responsible for supporting a new concept many many others look closely at their methods with heavy criticism and in time the whole process is repeated again and again demonstrating repeatedly how solid of a job that initial group did, or did not.
However there is something disturbing here. Your statistic about the number of people that believe in God seems very out of place. You don't think that creationism is the same thing as faith do you?
JadeaKai
Almost all of the carbon that is present in the earth or its atmosphere was formed (in theory)by nuclear fusion in a generation of stars that existed before the formation of our own solar system. That is where carbon comes from...similar can be said for the other elements you've named.
These elements (effect) had a cause (?)
Why are you labeling cause with a question mark? You just gave the answer with that process of fusion. Or were you asking where the hydrogen that made up most of the initial content of those stars came from? The early moments of the big bang cover that detail but I explain it I want to know if you are just going to ask where the energy that became protons, neutrons, and electrons in hydrogen came from.
JadeaKai
Does
creationism make a definate prediction about what we should observe in the universe? is that what u mean?
Yes. We're asking them about it in this thread but in the past they've claimed we should see irreducible complexity, That we should see evidence that the oceans of the Earth came about in a certain 50ish day flood, and that there should be no valid evidence that the Earth is older than about 6000 years. This is a very, very kind summary of some of the things creationism has predicted but if were to list other things it might look like I was just here to mock them (creationists abandon quite a lot of claims they don't think people will accept any longer.)
JadeaKai
There isn't textbook proof of the existance of a diety, nothing you can measure and nothing you can actively observe and difinatively tie back to that source and nothing else. I'm not some religious nut. And I'm also not blinded by bais that prevent me from seeing facts.
But I am interested it that question most people don't bother ruminating over.
How the hell did we get here?
If you like our company to stick around in this thread for long you'll see that quite a lot of people ruminate over that. Well, you could read old pages too but if you feel like responding to something from back then those people are usually gone.
Quote:
I'm not satisfied with a theory that the universe started from a single point and has been expanding ever since. Until there is some understnding as to what that "single point" is and how it came to be I cannot exept that it was poof and were are here billions of years later.
That's a rather lousy description of big bang. I can understand elementary teachers not understanding the topic well enough to give a better description but high school teachers really ought to send you off with something better.
So light takes time to reach us so as we look further into space we see back in time. Because the universe is not infinitely old we cannot see infinitely far. The sphere we can see right now would have been compressed to a tiny point just about 14 billion years ago but there is no reason to think that there's not much space beyond that. No, there are many reasons to think that there is a lot of space beyond that, perhaps an infinite sprawl in every direction.
Of course, if space stretches infinitely far in all directions then you could never compress it all to a point. An infinitely long line scrunched up to half, a tenth, or a billionth of its length is still infinitely long. You could shrink it forever exceeding the speed of light many millions of times over while still having an infinitely long line.
Instead of all the matter and energy in the universe gushing forth from a ludicrous explosion like what you seem to have heard we would just have really dense gas becoming less dense as space expanded to give it more room. This still means the known universe would have started out as a very very high density region of energy but the overall form of what the universe is becomes very different.
Heartfout
JadeaKai
I never said it was a scientific theory. Someone stated that it wasn't a theory. I merely said that it was.
When was this?
Generally, in this thread, if people say theory, they mean a scientific theory rather than the lay theory.
The context of this thread makes the scientific form the default definition to use, so of like how places on Earth tend to make celebrity the default definition for star to use.
