• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

The origin of the universe cannot be determined scientifically

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Again: The theory of evolution has nothing to do with stars. Nothing Krauss says here connects the content of the theory of evolution to stellar processes.

So he's not talking about what they call "Stellar Evolution Theory"?

The fact that we come from star stuff has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection

But didn't you read, in my quotation, where Krauss says, "You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time"? You want to sit there and tell me that "the things that matter for evolution" have "nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection"?

BTW, what—if not merely faulty reading on your part—precipitated your reaction to @marke 's post:


Nonsense. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about stars

What he had written is this:

Evolutionists concoct unprovable speculations about the stars then claim those speculations are scientific facts or evidence

As you can see, marke had not even used your phrase, "the theory of evolution," much less, your phrase, "the theory of evolution by natural selection," in his post to which you were reacting.
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
There is no such "fact".
Nice try. Let's recap lest anyone be duped:

- Someone erroneously attributed belief a connection between the lives of stars and the theory of evolution to Lawrence Krauss.
- I explained the error of such an attribution
- No you move the goalposts by merely denying - with no supporting argument - what Krauss really claimed, that is that the atoms in your body were forged in stars (which, of course, has nothing to do with the theory of evolution).
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I do not think most experts would agree...

Since, by your phrase, "most experts," you're merely referring to interested propagandists for the irrational farce they call "the Big Bang,"

  1. of course they would say they don't agree with those who criticize their cherished farce. Duh.
  2. why should we care that they (and those who, like you, are their shoulder parrots) say they don't agree?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Re your first point: Hardly an argument that helps your position - you have cited a definition that few experts would agree with and yet expect us to believe it is a legitimate characterization of what science is?=.
That is how real science works. This is an example of the scientific method:

2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png

The creation of the universe does NOT fall into this realm.
Re your second point: Obvious moving the goalposts - I never claimed that truth is based on what falls within the definition of science. You claimed that the origin of the universe was not something that science could address. And you used a faulty definition of what counts as science to make that claim.
Not true. The OotU is outside the realm of science as commonly defined.

1660781000708.png
Re your third point: the Big Bang theory makes a falsifiable prediction about the relative abundance of hydrogen and helium in the universe.
No, it does not. "God created" is the correct answer as to where the "relative abundance of hydrogen and helium in the universe" originates.
Re your fourth point: Obvious evasion - you cannot simply dismiss the fact that, given the limited speed of light, when we peer out into space we are, of course, observing the past.
How do you KNOW that the "speed of light is limited". What "science" determines this? What experiments prove this? How do you KNOW that the speed of light has a "limit"?

That you dismiss the Creator "a priori" is your own personal problem.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
the Big Bang theory makes a falsifiable prediction about the relative abundance of hydrogen and helium in the universe.

It also makes a prediction about how much antimatter there should be in the universe. One which, on its own, falsifies the theory.

There's literally an entire universe worth of missing antimatter.


given the limited speed of light, when we peer out into space we are, of course, observing the past.

This assumes that the speed of light is the same in both directions, which is, last I checked, impossible to establish, because we are (at least currently) unable to measure the one-way speed of light.

Discussion here:

Thread 'Real Science Radio: One Way Speed of Light Measurement Proposal' https://theologyonline.com/threads/...ay-speed-of-light-measurement-proposal.59064/

In other words, you can't claim the speed of light as your premise, because part of it is unestablished.
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
Since, by your phrase, "most experts," you're merely referring to interested propagandists for the irrational farce they call "the Big Bang,"

  1. of course they would say they don't agree with those who criticize their cherished farce. Duh.
  2. why should we care that they (and those who, like you, are their shoulder parrots) say they don't agree?
This is one of the many corners of the internet where people come to advance crackpot ideas, sheltered from the sunlight that is the overwhelming consensus of appropriately qualified experts.

Hence the wacky theories about vaccines and pedophilloic presidents, just for starters.

The Big Bang is a very robustly supported theory, your disinformation notwithstanding.

Evidence for the big bang:
  1. Most of the galaxies appear red shifted, an indication that they are moving away from us and that the universe is expanding.
  2. The remnant radiation from the Big Bang is observed today as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), a low-level radiation with a temperature of 2.725 K,
  3. The percentage of light elements such as hydrogen and helium agree with the idea that the universe started in a hot and dense phase.
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
That is how real science works. This is an example of the scientific method:

2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png

The creation of the universe does NOT fall into this realm.
From Scientific American:

One-time astronomical events like the big bang, however, are of great value since they allow reproducible scientific studies of their consequences. For example, conditions in the early universe resulted in the brightness patterns of the cosmic microwave background that seeded the formation of large-scale structure in the universe. These outcomes can be studied repeatedly, in detail, and used in concert with theoretical calculations to determine the constituents of the cosmic mass budget.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
The Big Bang is a very robustly supported theory
Opinion.
Evidence for the big bang:
  1. Most of the galaxies appear red shifted, an indication that they are moving away from us and that the universe is expanding.
  2. The remnant radiation from the Big Bang is observed today as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), a low-level radiation with a temperature of 2.725 K,
  3. The percentage of light elements such as hydrogen and helium agree with the idea that the universe started in a hot and dense phase.
Evidence not proof.
 

Right Divider

Body part
From Scientific American:

One-time astronomical events like the big bang, however, are of great value since they allow reproducible scientific studies of their consequences.
"Reproducible studies".... HILARIOUS!!
For example, conditions in the early universe resulted in the brightness patterns of the cosmic microwave background that seeded the formation of large-scale structure in the universe.
There are other explanations, like special creation.
These outcomes can be studied repeatedly,
"Repeated studies" are not the same as repeated EXPERIMENTS. i.e., the event itself.
in detail, and used in concert with theoretical calculations to determine the constituents of the cosmic mass budget.
The "theoretical calculations" have MANY problems. Including the need to "cling" to the models even when they have TONS of problems.

This paragraph is trying to BLUR the idea of "repeatability" in a vain attempt to justify fantasy over fact.
 
Last edited:

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
This is one of the many corners of the internet where people come to advance crackpot ideas, sheltered from the sunlight that is the overwhelming consensus of appropriately qualified experts.

Would you say you are qualified to call those whom you choose to call "appropriately qualified experts," "appropriately qualified experts"; or, instead, do you just call them that reflexively, and out of deference to them, because you like what they tell you to think and speak? And, if you are qualified to do so, then what would you say qualifies you to do so?

Who or what would you say is/are overwhelmed by whatever it is you fancy to call "the overwhelming consensus"?
 
Top