CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
If the big bang happened...
If the big bang happened then why are there planets and stars and clumps of plants and stars (galaxies)? If something compact, like all the matter in the universe, exploded or began expanding (depending on what scientists you trust in regards to the big bang theory), wouldn't it evenly disperse over the universe? If it was an expansion then this concept negates the theory because it would be impossible for something to slowly expand without breaking equilibrium and create something with more mass and thus more gravitational force (Newtonian Laws of Physics). The only way to explain such things would to believe it exploded, since explosions disperse material "randomly." However, this then begs the question of how an explosion could happen within a vaccuum because nothing could get that compact without being within a vacuum.
Nope gravity is just Satan's way of trying to pull you to hell! If you believe in science, you are therefore believing in gravity and will succumb to his will and be pulled down to the depths of hell. Therefore; all science is garbage!
But does that old Italian dude share the same mind as every Christian? He's just an individual who was persecuted by other Christians who rejected the theory at that time.
Remember, back then if you rejected Christianity, you'd get massacred or jailed.
When exploring gravity, there is no reason to deny a god unless you were asking for imprisonment. That's what happened to Galileo. Galileo said he believed in God too, but he was imprisoned by the church.
What if he had said how he really felt about the church and the insane religion forcing him to lie? They would have killed him.
Don't take history so perfectly literally. We can't really know how it was, but based on the sorts of things these people do, and what the church does, you can't really think he was as devoted as they say.
Christianity may be within the Church but the Church does not always represent Christianity the way it should.
I do not condone their actions in arresting Galileo, but those actions were purely political instead of religious.
And I'm really confused with your argument. It appears to be made mostly of assumption. Do you have any sort of evidence to suggest that Isaac Newton wasn't a devout Christian?
You are a Christian, not a scientist who is making theories based on evidence and logical explanation for how the world works, so I would think your opinion would be in favor of "everyone who is wise is on my side", just as many atheists are about wise, famous people. However, Newton was born before evolution was discovered, it would be wise to at least assume deism.
He was born in highly religious times when speaking out against the church meant death or jail, as I said. It's not wise for either of us to assume that a scientist was devoutly christian or deist. Just because he said he believed doesn't mean he actually did. Galileo gave in too, to the threat of death and "admitted" heliocentrism was wrong.
It just seems like Christianity is a frightening institution that demands that you say you believe or receive death on earth and hellfire after.
And please don't speak of shoulds. The Church is part of Christianity, no matter how modern you are. They are the people who taught people of the Bible and enforced the rules. Don't bother trying to cut your ties to the evil organizations that bind you just because you personally don't want to be associated with typical religious insanity.
From creationism, to forcing people to lie about the truth under the threat of death, to claiming that anyone who was forced to say that they believed or they would suffer is a Christian, I don't exactly trust the Church or anything within Christianity. It's history is built upon blood and lies.
"You are a Christian, not a scientist who is making theories based on evidence and logical explanation for how the world works, so I would think your opinion would be in favor of "everyone who is wise is on my side", just as many atheists are about wise, famous people. However, Newton was born before evolution was discovered, it would be wise to at least assume deism."
So because I'm a Christian it's impossible for me to be a scientist? Or a logically minded person who does make theories based on evidence?
"He was born in highly religious times when speaking out against the church meant death or jail, as I said. It's not wise for either of us to assume that a scientist was devoutly christian or deist. Just because he said he believed doesn't mean he actually did. Galileo gave in too, to the threat of death and "admitted" heliocentrism was wrong."
He actually spent a lot of time studying scripture, some historians even go as far as to state that he only studied science as a hobby and spent the majority of his time reading the Bible and studying theology.
"It just seems like Christianity is a frightening institution that demands that you say you believe or receive death on earth and hellfire after."
It's very easy to judge something that happened several centuries ago as immoral. Likewise I could say that several centuries ago some atheists were involved in the slave trade. It doesn't make the whole of atheism immoral.
"And please don't speak of shoulds. The Church is part of Christianity, no matter how modern you are. They are the people who taught people of the Bible and enforced the rules. Don't bother trying to cut your ties to the evil organizations that bind you just because you personally don't want to be associated with typical religious insanity."
Please state the rules in the Bible which apparently say 'lock up non-believers'? Either way, you are being very generic with your definition of 'Church', you should understand that during Newton's time the institution of the Church was as political as it was religious.
"From creationism, to forcing people to lie about the truth under the threat of death, to claiming that anyone who was forced to say that they believed or they would suffer is a Christian, I don't exactly trust the Church or anything within Christianity. It's history is built upon blood and lies."
Once again, your confusing politics with Christianity.
The page you linked me to PROVED MY POINT. Issac Newton IS IN HELL. He did not worship Jesus as the son of god.
He refused the sacrament on his death bed even. This guy did not accept what you did. He may have found the Bible wise, he may have found Jesus wise, but he did not believe in Jesus as you do. He was not a Christian. He was raised in difficult times, but I am sure that he was not a Christian the way you are. Had he been raised now, with modern knowledge of space and time, do you think he would be an atheist? He had already rejected Jesus even then, without evolution, without relativity, without the Big Bang theory. Those key discoveries would have made him the next Dawkins, perhaps.
However, we cannot know.
What we do know is that he did reject Jesus, proving my point to be at least semi-correct.
-
And the last bits, you are just trying to separate the church from religion from politics. Yet, even today there is a lot of religion in politics. Do you see the harm it does? The entire faith is tied to society. Politics is society, religion is society, it's all mixed in between, along with science and art even. You can't separate them so easily, and simply cast off the horrors of the ancient church by saying it's only politics.
The best hing for a Christian to do is steer clear of the religion debates. Mos of the atheists on this site will ignore everything you say as they believe you're more stupid than they are.
smh.... upvote for you cuaroc u made me giggle. Christians, don't you think that if there was a flaw in the big bang simple enough for you to think of, our leading physicists would have figured it out by now? .
In this case, the world's leading physicists got there because they have proven their reliability through experiments, breakthrough, etc. The world's leading physicists got there for their ground breaking work in the field, or their impeccable mathematics, etc. There is a logic behind this "trust" in the world's leading physicists. So no, it is not faith.
It is faith in a person or a community of persons. Have you ever seen the actual evidence for said theories? How do you know that there is any actual evidence? You have faith in the scientists. You have faith that they have proven themselves. You have faith in the people who advocate and trust the scientists. You have faith in the human collection of scientists. You have faith that science is reliable. You have faith.........
I'm saying that there is tremendous evidence against evolution yet scientists do not bring it forth because of many reasons. I will highlight a couple:
1) Intelligent Design could be considered part of the church and America believes in separation of church and state. They want some sort of origin story to be taught to the populous. Therefore, they choose evolution.
2) Evolution is tax funded.
3) Every sub-discipline of evolution you talk to will point to a different sub-discipline to have the evidence/logic. None of them have it. Geology points to biology. Biology points to paleontology. Paleontology points to geology. Geology points to biology................ In fact, just today my history professor pointed to geology to prove the evidence for evolution and referred to the geologic column. He didn't realize that there is no geologic column and that geologists don't get their evidence from geology. Its circular reasoning.
4) There is tremendous amount of evidence for intelligent design yet as Romans 1 and 2 Peter 2 says... people don't want to believe in a God. Just as Haeckel said about how if evolution is incorrect then special creation would be the only other explanation and that is unthinkable.
That is one definition of faith, yes. Faith is also used as "trust." That definition you are referring to is the secular world trying to put down Christianity with an underlying meaning. For example, bats are considered birds in the Bible. But scientists just to smite us said it was a mammal. I'm not denying that they are but the thing is people are constantly trying to put down Christianity by twisting words and ideas... just like Satan did to Jesus in the wilderness.
Once again, there is no evidence.
Faith means trust along with numerous other definitions... it is contextual and most Christians will even deny that faith is "believing in something without proof." And even if you want to say faith is "believing in something without proof" you still have to determine some point in your life what you want to believe and have faith in. You have trust in scientists because they have proven themselves. Why? Because they have trust in evidence. Why? Because of ....... Why? At some point you must make a decision as to what you want to measure truth by. At that point it is faith.
Where is this evidence against evolution that scientists are suppressing? I'm interested in hearing it.
1) Science is interested in the truth that can be verified and demonstrated reliably. Creationism has no evidence that can be verified and demonstrated reliably, evolution DOES.
2) Religion/churches are tax exempt, what is your point?
3) Each field of science that is relevant to evolution has its own evidence that verifies the other field, they all provide a consistent picture. This is not circular reasoning. If evolution were false, we would find that each field of science provides conflicting evidence, but the fact is it does not. If you understand circular reasoning, you will realize that this is not in any sense of the word circular reasoning.
4) It's not that people do not want to believe in God. It's that people want to believe in things that they can be reasonably certain to be true. Some people cannot be reasonably certain that God is real and that the bible is true, due to the complete lack of evidence so far. Now, if evidence comes up supporting god and the bible, I (and I imagine many others) wouldn't have a problem believing in god so long as he was benevolent.
You are committing equivocation here. You use faith with one definition, then you change the definition to mean something else. Faith in the religious sense is belief without evidence. Religious people have faith in this sense. Scientists and such do not have faith, because they do not believe things without evidence. The Theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory, etc, all those theories have evidence. A scientist will trust another scientist because maybe the fellow scientist has a nearly impeccable track record for being reliable. This is belief with evidence. Trust does not equal faith.
I do not have faith in the religious sense. My trust is based on evidence. No, at that point it is not faith in the religious sense. I trust skepticism and evidence because it is the most reliable method to the truth. Blind faith that religion preaches is not the most reliable method to the truth.
Sorry, the Discovery Institute is probably the most infamous organization for preaching the pseudoscience of intelligent design.
Why is the Discovery Institute not a credible source? Because I can name 15 scientific organizations that disagree with it.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of University Professors
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Psychological Association
American Society of Agronomy
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
On second though, I'll settle for 10.
From the wikipedia article:
"A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis",[8] through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community."
This quote is verified by citations 8, 9, 10, and 11 in the references section of the page.
Have fun learning that the source you just quoted is at best pseudoscience, and at worst an organization with a political agenda.
I like how you abandoned this debate. The discovery institute isn't credible at all. I have no clue why people like you try to assert it as scientific, when all these organizations are doing is making a mockery of science. They pervert it until it is unrecognizable as science.
I'm not sure you understand the argument... but I have no idea where to start on explaining it... haha where are you confused? I'll walk you through it!
The galaxies formed when the evenly dispersed matter was drawn together by gravity. Seriously, I understood the formation of solar systems when I was like 7.
People have answered you a few times now. The answer for why everything in the universe is not randomly dispersed, is because of gravity.
However, this then begs the question of how an explosion could happen within a vaccuum because nothing could get that compact without being within a vacuum.
How do you know that there is a vacuum outside of the universe?
It's because the universe is EXPANDING. WE CAN SEEEEEEEEEEEEE IT EXPANDING.
This is not a guess or an inference. We can look at it right now and see that everything is moving away from each other.
If you DO NOT question the unthinkable, then it would make sense that long long ago, if you reverse expansion, it gets smaller, until it reaches a tiny tiny point.
well it was infinitely dense, infinitely small, and infinitely expanding, it was bound to collapse within itself eventually, why does everything look the way it is? because our senses reduce what they sense into something that can make sense to us.... so the big bang was probably just energy and dark matter getting thrown everywhere
God creating the world is a theory and the big bang is a theory, you know what they both have in common? They were written by man and have a very high probability of being wrong.
No, something like the fact that it has no evidence. We are using the scientific definition of the word theory, correct? Or are we using the layman's definition? Which is a mere conjecture, opinion, or speculation.
If we are using the layman's definition for theory, then the theory of God creating the universe certainly makes sense.
If we are using the scientific definition of the word theory, then "god created the universe" is clearly not a theory for it lacks any evidence.
What evidence do you propose? I have not once found convincing evidence of God's existence. Neither has Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Hawking, etc.
Well, we can test theory's like the Big Bang and we can gather evidence and come to a conclusion based on that. However, we cannot test nor prove tat some magical genie in the sky created this entire universe, all its compartments, and the earth, in six days. Give me a break.
God creating the world is not a theory. The Big Bang IS a theory, you got that right at least. The conclusion does not follow the premises you made.
Both were written by man, but only one has a high probability of being wrong. That being "god created the world". There is no evidence for such a claim, indicating its unlikeliness at being true. There IS however, lots of evidence to support the big bang theory.
How would we know if it has evenly dispersed across the universe? You may not have noticed but our efforts in space-travel have only gone so far.. We have not yet explored outer-space in its vastness and size, so... what is that you're trying insinuate here?
If the speck of everything began in a central dot not larger than the dot of an "i" and slowly spun out, it would be impossible to explain planets and stars and galaxies. The Law of Angular momentum refutes it. If something spinning causes things to spread out because of centrifugal force (which would be the only explanation for the expanse because gravity would be too strong to allow anything else) then everything in that dot would continue in its same path until it was acted upon by an outside force, which would also be impossible because all other outside forces would too be going outward in equilibrium. For something to be spinning so fast and so compact, there would no feasible way for it to be clumpy within the dot. It would have to be equal on all sides because for something to be so tightly compact, it would not be able to separate except for centrifugal force. If the expanse was clumpy from the beginning then all matter in the universe would have accumulated yet again into that one over balanced mass of an object and there would be no continuous expansion we see today. Therefore, it would be required for this "dot" to be equal on all sides to even believe that there was an expanse. However, it is impossible for anything to be acted upon if these materials (the only materials in the universe) were to continue in their same paths. This means that planets and stars and galaxies would have to be formed by some outside force because this equilibrium would be impossible to break. Therefore, the big bang theory is in no way feasible for an expansion.
If you argue it is an explosion then there would be no way for it to happen also because no explosions happen within a vacuum (so I'm told) and we all know better than to believe that explosions cause any sort of order. They cause chaos.
But the second law of thermodynamics dictates that the universe IS expanding because it is cooling down... The Big Bang was not some supernova of an explosion- it was the tiniest little pop- it is so famously named the Big Bang for ironic purpose because something so small created something as huge and vast as the universe- how's that for logic? ;)
If the speck of everything began in a central dot not larger than the dot of an "i" and slowly spun out, it would be impossible to explain planets and stars and galaxies.
Where does it say that the big bang was the universe merely slowly spinning and expanding ever so slowly?
I find it difficult to follow your logic in this paragraph. Could you possibly rephrase it in clearer more efficient terms?
You are on a merry-go-round. It begins to spin. It gets up to high speeds. You fly off in one direction and stay in that one direction until acted upon by an outside force (Newtonian Laws of Physics). The Big Bang theory stats that the universe was in one dot smaller that the dot of an "i" and that it was spinning very fast and was very hot and began expanding out due to centrifugal force (much like the kids on the merry-go-round). This dot would have to be equalized on all sides to be spinning efficiently. Gravity would also play a big role in the idea that it was uniform; gravity of every mass in the dot would be pulled together into one equalize spinning dot. Therefore, if something was spinning outward like that of the merry-go-round example, nothing be there to counteract it. All matter would be expanding infinitesimally without an interference from any force. Therefore, planets and stars and galaxies would be impossible to form if nothing would caused them to go out of equilibrium.
Well the universe is and was one large vacuum. It gathered all the matter into a small small space, becoming so dense that it exploded on it self. The reason things are in clumps is because GRAVITY. And, we are expanding, and moving further and further away from everything, but you have to realize how freaking massive these things are, so gravity is pulling things together, and the big bangs explosion is pushing things away.