Basically what the subject says. Do you guys have any reasonable arguments against old earth creationism)the idea that suggests god being the cause of the Big Bang and the Evolution). Old earth creationists always argue that there is no reason to say that god could not have been the cause of the Big Bang and Evolution, so why should science rule god out as a possibility?
Any responses are appreciated!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
You suggest that god was the cause of the big bang and whatnot.
I suggest hat the universe was created by an orange super-space-fish named Lacy, who laid it as egg.
Now when we look to see which suggestion matches observation, we discover to our horror that they both have just as much evidence: that being none! Furthermore, there seems to be an infinite number of these possible stories, which seem to have the same character (0 evidence). Worse still there is no way to make predictions about future observations with these stories (which is the scientific way to tell which one is more accurate). At the end of the day all of these stories add nothing to the science and so they are not considered. The moral of the story is if you want your story to receive special treatment from science, you will need to offer considerably more than "god did it", as this has no predicative power.
That's one good point that I never mention being afraid to offend them by "attacking" their beliefs. But I guess this is one of the most compelling arguments though, so I will use it later in my debates. Thanks for the answer!
And yet 0 evidence for a big bang.
Nyarlathotep
The only way someone with access to a computer in the information age could believe there is 0 evidence for the big bang, is if they are being dumb on purpose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence
Again I have to explain this with hope that you will get it.
In all the WRITINGS you and anyone else has tried to show as proof, is simply someone's claim WRITTEN down in trying to say it is proof. When they show only pictures that are an artist's rendition of it. Which that person drew do to the belief in their head, not from real evidence. Somebody scribbling down some mathematical problems claiming of their own selves to be right, but still not being able to show proof. If they can find it in math then they should be able to show were to see it.
The ignorance of claiming the red shift which from looking from earth is in every direction shows that everything is moving away from us. Which makes no sense because if there was a big bang everything that supposedly is behind us spreading out in the same direction as the earth from the center of were this so called big bang occurred, would not have the red shift. That's impossible because even if we were going away from the stars that are behind us (which would mean we are traveling faster) they would still be coming towards us which means there would be no red shift from our vantage point on earth looking at those stars coming in the same direction. The red shift doesn't occur just because something is traveling slower and going in the same direction as the observer. The source of light has to actually be traveling away from the observer.
But the red shift backs up the Bible in which says that God stretched out the Heavens. The universeagrees with God.
“When they show only pictures that are an artist's rendition of it.” - False. While there are several artists renditions of the big bang, this is not the evidence for the big bang I linked to you.
“Which that person drew do to the belief in their head, not from real evidence.” False, see above
“Somebody scribbling down some mathematical problems claiming of their own selves to be right, but still not being able to show proof.” - False, the mathematical model that describes that big bang (and makes the many predictions that have been experimentally verified) is derived from first principles, and can (and often is) be derived by anyone who knows a little calculus.
“If they can find it in math then they should be able to show were to see it.” - False. This has been done many times. For example, there have been many projects to collect data from the cosmic background radiation; and the data collected agrees with the predictions made by the big bang.
“The ignorance of claiming the red shift which from looking from earth is in every direction shows that everything is moving away from us.” - False, in fact there are many objects in the local group moving towards us (that are blue shifted).
“Which makes no sense because if there was a big bang everything that supposedly is behind us spreading out in the same direction as the earth from the center of were this so called big bang occurred, would not have the red shift.” - False. First off there is no preferred reference frame to define a “behind us”. Also space is expanding in more than one direction, so that makes your statement even more misguided.
That's impossible because even if we were going away from the stars that are behind us (which would mean we are traveling faster) they would still be coming towards us which means there would be no red shift from our vantage point on earth looking at those stars coming in the same direction. - False. Again with the “One Direction” version of the big bang...
“The red shift doesn't occur just because something is traveling slower and going in the same direction as the observer.” - False. Even if your “One Direction” cartoon big bang was right, there would still be red shift! Two objects accelerating away from the origin at different velocities will both experience red shifting in relation to the other since the relative distance between the objects will be constantly increasing.
“The source of light has to actually be traveling away from the observer.” - False, see above.
9 false statements in a row about the big bang... Remember what I said about being "being dumb on purpose"?