Creation Stories

[linwood]

You were right this first time No*s
The BB is just a model.
The evidence that supports it is nowhere near as complete or unquestionable as that which supports evolutioSpinks can`t even give me evidence for The Particle yet here he is proselytizing.

 

[No*s]

You were right this first time No*s
The BB is just a model.
The evidence that supports it is nowhere near as complete or unquestionable as that which supports evolutioSpinks can`t even give me evidence for The Particle yet here he is proselytizing.

Well, it seems that I'm going to sit back with some popcorn and a coke and enjoy myself. I'll let you two who are more knowledgable than I duke it out .

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think it will eventually be discarded. Over the last several months, NPR has interviewed several prominent scientists who are beginning to say that it appears the big bang theory is not panning out but they're not sure what to replace it with. They're going to "study" the situation further though.

Those silly scientists, and their "studies". I share your sentiment, Melody. Who needs to study things when we already have a perfectly good story about a woman made from a rib and a talking snake?

You were right this first time No*s
The BB is just a model.
The evidence that supports it is nowhere near as complete or unquestionable as that which supports evolutioSpinks can`t even give me evidence for The Particle yet here he is proselytizing.

Don't listen to linwood's alarmingly-Creationist-like dribble, No*s. I'll leave the density of the universe debate to another thread, but what's important here is that the BB, like evolution, is both a set of facts and a dynamic theory set up to explain those facts. Scientists might argue about how exactly Dinosaurs are related to ostriches, for example...or what exactly the universe was like 14 billion years ago...but it is an undisputed fact that species change over time due to natural selection, and similarly it is a fact that the universe we live in is the result of the expansion of the ancient primitive universe.

linwood, I think, is confused because "The Big Bang" sounds like a singular catastrophic event that happened a long time ago, when in fact BB theory is about how our universe has changed/is changing over time (just like evolutionary theory). Just as we can currently observe species evolving, we can also currently observe the universe "Bang!"-ing.

 

[linwood]

Scientists might argue about how exactly Dinosaurs are related to ostriches, for example...or what exactly the universe was like 14 billion years ago...but it is an undisputed fact that species change over time due to natural selection, and similarly it is a fact that the universe we live in is the result of the expansion of the ancient primitive universe.

Yep

linwood, I think, is confused because "The Big Bang" sounds like a singular catastrophic event that happened a long time ago,

Nope

when in fact BB theory is about how our universe has changed/is changing over time (just like evolutionary theory). Just as we can currently observe species evolving, we can also currently observe the universe "Bang!"-ing.

Yep

I have no problem with the Big Bang.
I only have a problem with all the cool extra options they attached to it for funs n giggles.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I have no problem with the Big Bang.
I only have a problem with all the cool extra options they attached to it for funs n giggles.

You also dispute my assertion that the BB is both a model and a fact, just as Darwinian evolution is both model and fact. Do you stand by this contention?

 

[linwood]

You also dispute my assertion that the BB is both a model and a fact, just as Darwinian evolution is both model and fact. Do you stand by this contention?

If you mean the model that starts at an infinitely dense particle before which niether space nor time existed and expands at a known rate verified by Hubbles constant up to the present time which has recently had Dark Energy incorporated into it to account for the discrepencies in rate of expansion then yes...I do stand by that contention.



Editted due to epicycle mix up

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If you mean the model that starts at an infinitely dense particle before which niether space nor time existed and expands at a known rate verified by Hubbles constant up to the present time which has recently had Dark Matter incorporated into it to account for the discrepencies in rate of expansion then yes...I do stand by that contention.

Dark matter was something hypothesized to explain the discrepencies in the rotations of galaxies....are you sure you didn't mean Dark Energy?

I think you might not be understanding what I am saying: I am not saying that the model of the big bang is a fact. I'm saying that the term "big bang theory" refers to two things--a set of facts, and an explanation of those facts. The term "evolutionary theory" also refers to both a set of facts and an explanation for them. I hope that helps.

 

[linwood]

Dark matter was something hypothesized to explain the discrepencies in the rotations of galaxies....are you sure you didn't mean Dark Energy?

My apologies, I do mean dark energy.
I seem to get my epicycles mixed up al the time.


I think you might not be understanding what I am saying: I am not saying that the model of the big bang is a fact.

We have an 18 page thread filled with some pretty heavy implications by you towards what you are now telling me you aren`t saying.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=125528#post125528

I'm saying that the term "big bang theory" refers to two things--a set of facts, and an explanation of those facts. The term "evolutionary theory" also refers to both a set of facts and an explanation for them. I hope that helps.

I`ve never disagreed with this outlook Spinks.
I`ve merely critisized some of those explanations for their lack of foundation.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I`ve never disagreed with this outlook Spinks.

Oh, then I misunderstood you. I had just said

The BB is not "just a model" No*s....like evolution, it is also a fact.

So when you said

You were right this first time No*s
The BB is just a model.

I took it to mean you disagreed that the BB was both a model and a fact.

We have an 18 page thread filled with some pretty heavy implications by you towards what you are now telling me you aren`t saying.

Perhaps you should ignore the "pretty heavy implications" and concentrate on what I've actually said. For example, I have said that I agree with you the infinite density of the early universe is not certain. I disagree that it is not a reasonable hypothesis.

 

[No*s]

You two are so much fun to read on this .

 

[linwood]

Oh, then I misunderstood you. I had just said
So when you said I took it to mean you disagreed that the BB was both a model and a fact.

AAAAAAAAAAAA!!
You`re killing me Spinkles...Killing me.

Perhaps you should ignore the "pretty heavy implications" and concentrate on what I've actually said.

I think you should pay attention to what YOU actually said.

You first said....
The BB is not "just a model" No*s....like evolution, it is also a fact.

I disagreed with this and still do, the Big Bang Model is not a fact.
It has not garnered enough evidence nor silenced it`s critics enough to be a FACT yet as evolution has done.

Then you said....
I think you might not be understanding what I am saying: I am not saying that the model of the big bang is a fact.

This I agreed with because it is my view as well considering the available evidence but I was a bit puzzled by the statement considering you had just previously said...

The BB is not "just a model" No*s....like evolution, it is also a fact.

Lets look closer and maybe we`ll discover the source of my confusion

I am not saying that the model of the big bang is a fact.
The BB is not "just a model" No*s....like evolution, it is also a fact.

I am not saying that the model of the big bang is a fact.
The BB is not "just a model" No*s....like evolution, it is also a fact.

I am not saying that the model of the big bang is a fact.
The BB is not "just a model" No*s....like evolution, it is also a fact.

Hmmmm..Nope.
Still confused.



You`re doing this on purpose aren`t ya Spinks?
Trying to drive me mad and then when I`ve fully curled up in a fetal position beneath my desk shivering and drooling too much to respond anymore you`ll say ..

"See, he knows I`m right he won`t even reply."

For example, I have said that I agree with you the infinite density of the early universe is not certain.

Yes you did say this.
BUT IT TOOK YOU 18 PAGES IN A THREAD 170 POSTS LONG TO SAY IT!!

OH..OH..My eye is twitching again.
:areyoucra

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hmmmm..Nope.
Still confused.

I know you are, I said so myself a couple posts ago, to which you replied simply "Nope".

Allow me to explain: "The Big Bang" is a term. Terms stand for things. Sometimes, a term can stand for more than one thing. This particular term stands for two things. One of those things is a model, the other is a set of facts.

Therefore, "The Big Bang" is a term which refers to both a model and a set of facts....but that does not mean the model is a set of facts, nor does it mean the set of facts are a model.

I hope this helps.

 

[linwood]

Are you denying the fact that what you`ve said is completely contradictory or are just hoping it`ll go away?

I am not saying that the model of the big bang is a fact.
The BB is not "just a model" No*s....like evolution, it is also a fact.

I am not saying that the model of the big bang is a fact.
The BB is not "just a model" No*s....like evolution, it is also a fact.

I am not saying that the model of the big bang is a fact.
The BB is not "just a model" No*s....like evolution, it is also a fact.


Is the model a "fact" or isn`t it?

Allow me to explain: "The Big Bang" is a term. Terms stand for things. Sometimes, a term can stand for more than one thing. This particular term stands for two things. One of those things is a model, the other is a set of facts.

Oh wait, you`re not denying or hoping.
You`re harmonizing!!
This is just too good!!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You seem to have a hard time accepting that one word can stand for two things. Here's an example: "evolution" commonly refers to both a model and a set of facts. The following is part of an excellent article found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.

Is the model a "fact" or isn`t it?

No, the model is not a fact. Nor is the fact a model.

"The big bang", however, is a term that commonly refers to both the model and the facts.

 

[linwood]

Is that "Herring" I smell?

No, the model is not a fact. Nor is the fact a model.

Thank you Spinks.
I don`t know why it took two threads and almost 180 posts to get that but thanks.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Thank you Spinks.
I don`t know why it took two threads and almost 180 posts to get that but thanks.

I don't know why it took two threads and almost 180 posts for you to ask.

 

[linwood]

I don't know why it took two threads and almost 180 posts for you to ask.

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to Mr_Spinkles again.

Touche`