Tim Thompson, a regular here, took on some creationist claims about Venus and its mountains in the March 2003 feedback of The Talk.Origins Archive. I am sure people here will find it useful.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/f...mar03.html#r39

It's an interesting response, and well written, but there is one thing that troubles me, the article he quoted said, "Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (a beginning suggests a Creator)". And I've always thought that an infinite (Maybe even Steady State) universe implied a Creator more than our current big-bang model. I've always thought that infinity lay in the realm of Philosophy and Religion, not Science. In addition I thought that our big bang theory allowed for a universe before this one (That had collapsed and started the whole thing over again), does the WMAP data that says the universe has flat geometry exclude this possiblity?

Huh? :-?

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

My thoughts exactly, coming from an engineering direction, infinity all to often rears it's head in the theory of many processes.

Without wishing to speak for Nexus, I'm perfectly happy for Science to stick to the observable universe. Anything out in the possible infinity beyond that is kind of speculation by definition, and the above two do a great job in that area. Its a bit like suggesting that Big Bang is correct, but that before the Universe came into being Spacetime was filled to the gills with giant penguins (to be frivolous). Since its unprovable either way, its an interesting argument that has no right answer.

In a open Universe with its eventual demise into heat death time will still reportedly going on for "infinity". Agree or not this is still in the realm of science.

How does either one imply an invisible man "created" it?

__________________
I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world.
- John Diefenbaker

If we say the universe began with a big bang then it could be asked "Well what was before the Big Bang?" It could be responded that there was another Big Bang universe. Theoretically that discussion could go on forever. For each Big Bang universe it could be asked what was before it. Its hard to see how science could ever give an ultimate answer to that question, so in that sense I can see what nexus is saying. Whether that requires a creator is a different matter, but I can see how philosophy and religion at least become appropriate places to discuss the matter.

This topic is mind boggling
Who created the creator that created the creator who created the creator this goes on for infinity. There is no logical way to explain who created the universe. What kind of explanation is there in religion for this? this doesn't have to turn into a religious debate which would probably make the BA angry so if anyone has links about his subject that would be great.

[edited for re-wording]

You want to discuss religion without it turning into a religious debate? :roll:
Yes I'm very interested in these web sites that have proof pertaining to said conversation.

__________________
I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world.
- John Diefenbaker

I dont want to debate it on this board but maybe if someone knows of some websites that pertain to this subject I can dicuss it elsewhere. I just dont want to make the BA angry
you know what he is like when he gets angry :P

Well, there's always the Great Debates forum on the Straight Dope Message Board (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...p?s=&forumid=7). Religious debates come up there all the time.

Be warned, though, that the Straight Dope Message Board gets a huge volume of posts every day, and because of this, their servers can be slow sometimes.

You asked for some websites. Well this gives one angle on the subject
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/fea...cm15_ross.html

I see so theres absolutely no evidence what so ever but a book writen by farmers 1000s of years ago.
O.K. prinz I'm in :wink:

__________________
I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world.
- John Diefenbaker

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm

I ask that you please avoid all the advertising for trinkets and stuff that will fill your screen. Please note that St. Tom could not have known about the annoyance of internet advertising.

The argument is not religious argument, requiring a belief in any specific god. Instead, it is simply a logical argument. (I don't mean you will necessary see the logic, just that it takes the form of a logical argument.)

DJ

Getting away from the religion vs science stuff, there is another issue intertwined here. Why shouldn't science address issues it does not yet have answers to?

We may be at a place in our understanding of cosmology that does not yet allow us to study the first fraction of a second and the time before the big bang. We don't have a method yet of looking at the internal structure of a black hole. There is only early speculation about the possibility of multiple universes. But that doesn't mean those things are only for philosophers and theists.

One has to think about problems and the 'not yet known' before one can find scientific means to test those things. That doesn't push the unknown out of the scientific realm.

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

<<Indeed, a beginning might suggest a creator (though it certainly does not require a creator)>>

The what?

I can't see any reason why it even suggests a creator.

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

It doesn't. Some people would argue that it "allows" a creator, but that isn't even necessary. An omnipotent creator can create the universe in any form he desires. For all we know, the world really could be 4000 years old and science is just God's elaborate hoax...

This is just complete insanity, can any creationist just give one just one piece of evidence for a creator. The god lovers used to be 100% shure of there knowledge in reality. You can see over the centurys it slowing winding down, now they try to hold to there faith with comments like "suggests a creator". I guess i should not say "insanity" the proper term would be conditioning from infacy, witch I concede to be normal.


P.S. I.ve seen many a links from these people with quotes about having to believe or your going to hell with the rest of the wicked so I realy dont care if any are offended.

__________________
I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world.
- John Diefenbaker

Hey Beav,

As for your PS, I wouldn't worry. You're probably already in hell.

I'm not a creationist who believes in the 4000 year old earths, I do believe the universe is many billions of light years old, and I believe in evolution. But regardless of a big bang, a steady state, an oscillating whatever -- you choose your potion -- I do believe in something called god.

How big god is, how wide, how vast, how smart, how tall, grey hair, or no beard at all -- it's not important except at the personal, philosophical level. It changes nothing about the universe, except to give it context.

Thus the reason for my request to you in your own words [without questioning anyone's mental pecularities]: can any scientist just give one just one piece of evidence for no creation.

DJ

DJ, unless I'm misinterpreting and you're not a creationist, maybe you can help me. Do you think that the creator or God set up the universe with a set of rules that it is now following without intervention, or do you think that God frequently intervenes and directs the course of events in the universe throughout the history of the universe?

I've asked this question of creationists so many times that I think at this point I've lost track of why I wanted to know the first time I ever asked it. You'd be the first one to actually answer it ... perhaps not a feather for your cap, but at least you'd make my day.