
TazG
Veteran
/ Moderator

Dec 22, 2006, 12:47 AM
Post #5 of 28
(310 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Re: [MegaGraphiteMan] big bang? millions of years?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
K, I'm not tired now so I'll read the post again with a better functioning mind.
the big bang, was said to make all of the unvierse weve come to know. is it true? no. and here is the reason. the big bang, was said to start out as an atomic egg an atom. and then it was said to explode is this true? well, when this "egg" blew up it would not have placed everything so neat and tidy as it did. it would have exploded and everything would move for ever. now even if it was true, then all the planets would have to rotate in the same direction, well pluto and other planets in the milky way rotate in the opposite direction as the other planets. so from whereim at now, it looks to me if there is a god he has a sense of humor, i mean he did create human after all(im a creationalist by the way). and if you still dont beleve me, then where did this atomic egg come from huh? did aliens drop it there? where did the aliens come from? there has to be some sort of higher power, or god, for anything to have happened. I think the problem with the big bang theory is also its redeeming quality and the reason some people still use it: It's vague. Anything can happen. These are the same people who say that creationists all argue that "God works in mysterious ways" when actually most creationists I know of have facts and logic surrounding their arguments. If you look at a Big Bang argument, it is just a growing pile of vague "possibilities" that really all boils down to "the Big Bang works in mysterious ways." If a believer of this theory replied to your post that's what you would get. You find that there is really only a couple facts backing up the basic assumption. You'll find a bunch of math and science explaining what would have happened afterwards assuming the big bang actually happened, so it appears to be supporting the theory, but if you take out the initial assumptions or "possibilities", it's irrelevant. And if you look closer, you find that the Big Bang doesn't even explain the origin of the universe in the first place. In an attempt to dismiss the possibility of intelligent creation, most of them will say something about how the universe shrunk to form the beginning of the explosion. Not only does the "possibility" of the universe being in a cycle make little to no sense, it doesn't explain its existence in the least. The main basis for all of this (the one that is actually based on facts, that is) is the observation that the universe is expanding. So, this is like looking at someone blowing up a balloon, and assuming that the balloon has always been growing and therefore started at an infinitely small size, and that's how the balloon began its existence. Well that doesn't really explain how it got there so let's say it used to be really big and then it shrunk and blew up again. And that's why the balloon is getting bigger. That's silly. The balloon used to be smaller, and someone started blowing it up. Duh. Why should the movement of galaxies be traced so far back to an impossible starting point? If everything in the universe is in some kind of orbit on such a large scale, humans don't have the time to watch their movement long enough to get a good sample and conclude the full "flight path". But that's what they did to invent this theory. They assumed that everything started from one single point, even though nobody really has a clue how that could possibly work and it doesn't explain why everything exists anyway.
2wice loland it has been proven that man can only drown once a day. lol
If you're trying to make the tired old argument about God creating everything in six days, then... Why can't each of the 'days' in the Bible be an immense period of time? Arkanor it's funny that you called that a tired old argument, because it wasn't even an argument. It was just generally accepted until the gap theory challenged it, and the gap theory has countless problems that have been exposed for a long time now. So in this case you're the one using the "tired old argument".
Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg Gg
|