Taint wrote:

Incidently, not that I know much about him anyway, but I was surprised to see that Ben Stein is a creationist. I just assumed he was a relatively intelligent person capable of rational thought. Surprise!

Not that I'm a creationist - but I'm waiting to hear the rational thought behind the "Big Bang" Theory - and please let's not rehash the "well there was this giant star and these gases" bit.  Come up with a rational beginning not just a random point in time where you want to start your story at.

Zookeeper wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Not that I'm a creationist - but I'm waiting to hear the rational thought behind the "Big Bang" Theory - and please let's not rehash the "well there was this giant star and these gases" bit.  Come up with a rational beginning not just a random point in time where you want to start your story at.

It isn't based on "a random point in time".  I'm no cosmologist but as I understand it scientists have measured (as best they can) the rate of expansion of the universe.  Based on that and the current size of the universe you can track back to the point in time that the expansion began.

Assuming, of course, that this, too, isn't a cycle, in which case there could already have been multiple big bangs.

tojo2000 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Not that I'm a creationist - but I'm waiting to hear the rational thought behind the "Big Bang" Theory - and please let's not rehash the "well there was this giant star and these gases" bit.  Come up with a rational beginning not just a random point in time where you want to start your story at.

It isn't based on "a random point in time".  I'm no cosmologist but as I understand it scientists have measured (as best they can) the rate of expansion of the universe.  Based on that and the current size of the universe you can track back to the point in time that the expansion began.

Assuming, of course, that this, too, isn't a cycle, in which case there could already have been multiple big bangs.

"The Big Yo-Yo Theory"?  What would be the force causing the universe to contract back to its previously compacted state?

Last edited by Zookeeper (2008-03-24 19:32:07)

Ben Stein worked for the Reagan administration, 'nuff said.... His voice is also very annoying. Like he's had too much placidil...

square wrote:

Lurker wrote:

Ben Stein worked for the Reagan administration, 'nuff said....

It was even worse: Nixon.

oops, my bad.

Emmeran wrote:

Taint wrote:

Incidently, not that I know much about him anyway, but I was surprised to see that Ben Stein is a creationist. I just assumed he was a relatively intelligent person capable of rational thought. Surprise!

Not that I'm a creationist - but I'm waiting to hear the rational thought behind the "Big Bang" Theory - and please let's not rehash the "well there was this giant star and these gases" bit.  Come up with a rational beginning not just a random point in time where you want to start your story at.

Yeah but the evidence all points to this universe being born from some kind of singularity in a period of rapid expansion.  Mathematically speaking, to the best of human knowledge at this time (though there's some interesting work being done in this area), you cannot figure out what conditions were like on the other side of the big bang.

I thought the Big Bounce was popped by current analysis of measurements of the mass and density of the universe.  That could still change as new data comes in and we find out more about what dark matter is or isn't.

But don't bother cluttering up your mind studying this stuff Em, as soon as Ben Stein and his cronies reawaken the GOP's Christian voting block you won't have to read about this scientific fluff to get a degree.

THE WEDGE STRATEGY

...Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art.

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.


Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.


Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-03-24 23:20:24)

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

I thought the Big Bounce was popped by current analysis of measurements of the mass and density of the universe.  That could still change as new data comes in and we find out more about what dark matter is or isn't.

But if there's no Big Crunch to send time going backwards then we won't have the Sensational Reverse Brothers!  Can't say that I've bothered to keep up with the latest research.  NASA seems to be doing quite a bit of work in this area, although the future of science funding is far from rosy.

so basically the evolutionist, much like their creationist bretheren, expect me to simply believe in their ideas which of course they can't fully explain.  Apparently, much like the clergy, the scientists must be right because they all agree with one another . . . . kinda reminds me of the bush administration.

Thankfully none this has any realistic impact on the world as it applies to us other than to amuse and tittilate.

opsec wrote:

Yeah, all my electronics are engineered with biblical theory.

Goddamn it, you make me laugh and waste my morning bongload.

Emmeran wrote:

so basically the evolutionist, much like their creationist bretheren, expect me to simply believe in their ideas which of course they can't fully explain.  Apparently, much like the clergy, the scientists must be right because they all agree with one another . . . . kinda reminds me of the bush administration.

Thankfully none this has any realistic impact on the world as it applies to us other than to amuse and tittilate.

Sweet Chocolate Jesus,

Cosmology has nothing to do with Evolution. Nor does Intelligent Design. Even the ID folks have disavowed the Young Earth fundies as way too crackpot for the masses to swallow. How do expect to help the takeover the body politic if you don't get with the program Emmeran?

Scientists on these subjects and in regards to cosmology in particular are far from being all in agreement. In my lifetime cosmology has gone through vast reassesments as new data has become availiable. Heck just 10 years ago there was a major recalibration of everyones theories to fit the discovery that the Universe was most likely much older then previously thought.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-03-25 12:12:25)

Not that I'm a creationist - but I'm waiting to hear the rational thought behind the "Big Bang" Theory - and please let's not rehash the "well there was this giant star and these gases" bit.  Come up with a rational beginning not just a random point in time where you want to start your story at.

. . . how silly of me to forget that all of the advances of humankind were the direct result of the theoretical musings of big-bang evolutionists . . . fucking necessity and curiosity didn't have shit to do with it.

Conflation and confusion.  Well, before the big bang, the speculation is that there was no space or time.  So not much was happening, at least as we comprehend "happening."  You likely would be comforted to believe that what is happening now is pretty much what was happening then (joining the congregation of the "Church of What's Happening Now"), but that is nothing more than a preference.  (Actually, it is most likely that there was no then then.) 

Random things do occur, and the big bang could well have been one of them.  You may not find comfort in the idea that time emerged from space, or that space emerged from singularity.

Bubbles man, it is all about bubbles or, at least, strings.

THANK YOU JESUS(luvspegging)

jesusluvspegging wrote:

"random things do occur" has been PROVED.

Let me get this straight.  You are belittling creationists for belief in the unprovable while espousing the idea that evolution as a science has proven that a singular random undefined event which may or may not have occurred an undeterminable time ago created many somethings(*1)  out of nothing without external catalyst.  Your school of belief has calculated that the mathematical odds based on unproven scientific theories(*2) are far greater for that scenario than the scenario that the creationist freaks put forth all the while adamantly emphasizing that nothing occurs without external catalyst or more specifically: proof via scientific method.

Even more amusingly you are willing to post until you are blue in the fingers to support these odds, including insults (You are literate, right?), capitalization for emphasis(has been PROVED) and re-inforcement of your position by the use of oversized and annoyingly colored fonts.  I'm amused and tittilated beyond a three beer buzz at your overly emphatic insistance of the unprovable while belittling others for the same.

jesusluvspegging wrote:

Now prove your God.

You are literate, right?  You may have failed to comprehend my first simple sentence:  "Not that I'm a creationist"

Let me simplify it for you, I was expressing my amusement at the extremist, whatever-wing evolutionist - the sort that steadfastly deny a lack of knowledge of that which they are unable to explain.  The sort which care more about debunking anothers concept than proving their own.  The sort which amusingly act just like the right-wing christian fundamentalist which they so happily pile shit on.


Thank you for identifying yourself as part of the wannabe scientific culture I was poking fun at - you have truly made my week.




Footnotes:
#1: Time, Space, Gravity, Matter and Anti-matter
#2: Proven being defined as the ability to recreate as opposed to observation of results

Last edited by Emmeran (2008-03-27 22:57:38)

There is a difference......  Creationists start by thinking they know the truth and look for evidence to support that "truth".....  Real science admits that they don't know what the fuck happened, but try to interpret the evidence that has been gathered to create a theory based on what is known....  Neither side has all the answers, but there is only one side that is actively and honestly seeking real truth rather than preconceived truth...

Hey, emm, if we all didn't do our parts and respond to the trolls around here, everybody would leave.

I'll be posting in a day or two with a partial coverage of the evidence supporting the big bang, but I have to consult a few references to make sure I'm getting it all right.  For those of you who haven't read it, I recommend Hawking's _A Brief History of Time_ as about as good a layman's guide to the subject as there is, though Sagan's books concerning the topic are also quite good.

This is old news. See -

http://imdb.com/title/tt1091617/

The comments are a flamewar.

I liken ID, creation science, creationism to stepping in dogshit in a new pair of extra grip runners - you can scrape and scrape but you'll never get rid of all of it.

Welcome to the new Dark Age.

An aside - all of these assholes should only ever be entitled to faith based medicine.

Felch - atheist on principle

Last edited by felch (2008-03-28 03:14:35)

jesusluvspegging wrote:

I'll be posting in a day or two with a partial coverage of the evidence supporting the big bang, but I have to consult a few references to make sure I'm getting it all right. .

Dood, don't bother - I was just taking the piss anyway

Last edited by Emmeran (2008-03-28 09:15:25)

choad wrote:

felch wrote:

I liken ID, creation science, creationism to stepping in dogshit in a new pair of extra grip runners - you can scrape and scrape but you'll never get rid of all of it.

The only person, here or at cruel, I ever saw try to argue that premise was CDWitless, who we can only pray found more promising congregations to minister.

Obviously, we're beyond redemption, denied recycle deposit, without a paddle. Doomed.

Witmer is now in Japan on his holy tour. He has, like, a million kids, too. He was a trip. A much more worthy troll than Princess Dipshit.

I had wondered what happened to him, and looked around for him a year or so back. He was a moron, but I admired his balls.

And yes, eventually we're all doomed. Life is a terminal condition. So it's best to believe whatever gets one through the day. Who cares if the fundies think stupid shit? If they didn't, life would be far less lulzy.

Fundies LOVE to go into parts of the world that believe even more backwards shit than the Jesus mythos, and convert the people to the tenets of Christianity (or Islam). They do this to "modernize" the belief system of the indigenous people, but I doubt if they see any parallel between their own missionary work, and what scientists are trying to do to drag THEM kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

If they don't want to adopt enough flexibility of thought to accept an updated, scientifically researched set of body of information, that is fine. I even understand why.

It's because science isn't as reassuring as an invisible dude who, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, is supposedly pulling for us. Science forces humanity as individuals to take full and complete responsibility for all aspects of our own lives. Some people can't wrap their minds around that. It's easier to blame everything (even the fossilized evidence of dinosaurs) on Satan.

Last edited by sofaking (2008-03-28 10:42:36)

Emmeran wrote:

opsec wrote:

Other than for entertainment, knowing 50% of the truth is far more useful than knowing 100% of a convenient fiction.

Agreed but let's not under estimate the value of good entertainment no matter how implausible the underlying concept is.

and if by some wild chance the nut-job creationists happen to be correct then all of us here are fucked beyond belief.

So are they.

The high standards of a "perfect Christian" are utterly impossible for any person to even attain, let alone always demonstrate.

"Thou shalt not kill...unless approved to by congress, or if you're hungry for a steak."

"Thou shalt not steal...unless it is rationalized by manifest destiny."

"Thou shalt not commit adultery...unless you're the governor of New York, and wealthy enough to afford to spend the equivalent of a small house on high-quality hookers."

I could go on....but I'll let Yellow Thunder Woman take it from here. I gotta get to work. It's not like Jesus is gonna pay mah bills...

Last edited by sofaking (2008-03-28 10:54:15)

sofaking wrote:

The high standards of a "perfect Christian" are utterly impossible for any person to even attain, let alone always demonstrate.

That's the most frustrating thing having been raised Christian.  Those that try to impose the standards of a "perfect christian" are missing the whole point.  The Bible states in no uncertain terms that nobody can achieve that.   There are standards laid out, but with the understanding that it's something to work towards, not something that you must have to pass muster.  Now whether you agree with where they set the standards is a whole other story, but the whole finger-pointing and nose-upturning thing is -- dare I say it -- not Christlike (assuming that's what you're going for).

Speaking of which, I've heard good things about this documentary:  http://www.lordsaveusthemovie.com/

I know my last post sounded high and mighty, "Here I am, a free thinker!!!  I'm above all Bible thumpers!!"... I have to give the whole Bible thumper thing credit on one level though.....  I just got back from fucking a nineteen year old in a Days Inn.....  Right now I'm drunk off my ass like I am every night of the week and I spent the whole day doing absolutely nothing productive and being overpaid for it....  I guess for some reason I think I should feel some level of guilt for it all, but I don't.....  None of the Bible thumpers I know would never think of doing what I do on a day to day basis and that's most definitely a good thing.....  Society would collapse, let's give credit where credit is due, even if they're being ignorant, irrational, and unreasonable......

Dirckman wrote:

I know my last post sounded high and mighty, "Here I am, a free thinker!!!  I'm above all Bible thumpers!!"... I have to give the whole Bible thumper thing credit on one level though.....  I just got back from fucking a nineteen year old in a Days Inn.....  Right now I'm drunk off my ass like I am every night of the week and I spent the whole day doing absolutely nothing productive and being overpaid for it....  I guess for some reason I think I should feel some level of guilt for it all, but I don't.....  None of the Bible thumpers I know would never think of doing what I do on a day to day basis and that's most definitely a good thing.....  Society would collapse, let's give credit where credit is due, even if they're being ignorant, irrational, and unreasonable......

You're a wanker.

Felch