Schouwenaars

The universe is in fact just a large bunch of some atoms and some more particles who are randomly reacting with each other. I cannot really believe that same universe consists a whole moral law. Like there is no rule a elektron may not destroy a positron, but there would be a rule a human may not kill a human? The thing i can believe best is that moral depends on how a species survives. It's not positive for a species to kill each other, so that will be in our (their) head as bad.

The decaying of an radioactive atom happens by pure chance. No force or nature can let it decay more quickly. And by saying this you totally negated my the essence of my last post. That was all about showing many things have to do with chance. I can give you many more sources, but it's finally up to you to ignore them or not. and well then, if you insist on other sources than wikipedia and some 'real' research: http://sunsetridgemsbiology.wikispaces.com/file/view/0132542498Chance.pdf http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Random_chance a theist article, so you cant blame it on atheism: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2314 http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/kprestwi/intro/intro_notes/intro_25_evolution&Chance.pdf Totally not true. I would like to see this 'proof' of yours. And a single piece of DNA is NOT more complex than our fastest computers. By far not. If some supercomputers can simulate other universes, i think we can deal with some DNA. http://www.space.com/13151-universe-evolution-nasa-supercomputer-simulation.html

Please look back at my previous exemple of the bordplayer. With this, it doesn't matter how complex it is. The changing of conditions was a chance on itself. That is the whole point. I can give countless exemple when and why this is wrong. Like Shrödingers cat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat The decay of an radioactive core is a pure matter of chance. If you go at the size of an atoms, you enter the quantumphycisal world. And in quantumphysics, everything has to do with chance: ( i don't expect you to read it fully, just get an impression) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle this formula for exemple, describes that we cannot be certain of the place AND momentum (speed and mass) of a particle. the more we are certain about one, the less we can be certain about the other: This is the physics you thought had nothing to do with chance. Actually, it has everything to do with it. A particle is (on quantum level) a wavefunction of the chance of being on that place. Where the wavefunction is the highest, so the most chance, we suppose the particle is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction -> "the modulus squared of the wavefunction, |ψ|2, is a real number interpreted as the probability density of finding a particle in a given place at a given time, if the particle's position is to be measured." Please do not read all those articles fully. That's not my purpose.

No, it has everything to do with chance. With yet another exemple: There was a large population of white owls in scandinavia. because of all the snow, they could hardly be seen. but, every generation owls had some gray owl. but because they were seen very quickly, they were berely albe to reproduce. but when some time ago the snow was mostly gone because of some temperature raise, the white owl were suddenly very uncovered. but the grey owl, who would normally die quickly because he couldn't hunt properly, survived because now they were lucky they would not be seen. so now the most large population are the gray ones. yet it was all a matter of chance. and you still are fallible in your decision of wich is infallible. that makes your believe fallible. creation is an evidence for both sides. and i just said i agree none of both theories have been proven yet.

1. Bottom line is that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy site for research. If you trust it, that is up to you. 2. I don't believe in the Big Big hypothesis because it contradicts the Bible and the Bible isn't wrong. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God and I trust God more than I trust fallible little men. 3. My biggest issue with the Big Bang is the insistence by people who want to argue that it is "proven" and should be accepted as proven fact. The truth is that it is a long way from being proven. It takes a certain amount of honesty to admit that it is not proven and evidently the scientific community cannot muster up enough integrity to admit that fact. 4. There is evidence that to you is credible, to me it is not credible and is asking me to accept theory that is on the level of believing that the tornado could hit a junk yard and build a 747 airplane. Your believe on itself is fallible because you're a human. And because you're a human, you cannot be certain that it's totally right what you believe. Believing doesn't give facts or prove, my dear friend. I agree it's not proven yet, but at the other side it is not proven that the bible or creationism is right. Those are supported by even less evidence, almost none. Your only 'evidence' is some believe. i'll give a more appropriate exemple for evolution: imagine you're playing a bordgame, like chess for exemple, but you don't know the rules. You're playing against a masterplayer who is very good. But, you can play on thousands of bords. Now, when it's your turn and you do something random (because you don't know the rules), the master will immediatly defeat you on that bord. But on some bords, you do something good, without knowing. On those bords you can continue playing, and you get other bords for more possiblitys. This goes on many and many turns, and eventually you will have played some good games on some bords, by pure random chance. People will ask: 'how did you do that?' and you just say: 'i don't know, just some luck i guess.' this is what evolution looks like.

Well i know enough science to see the correctness of the page. And i know many many people who do trust wikipedia. So i think that's a stalemate. However big bang theory has enough evidence to be take as very credible. If you don't agree, please give me an error. If you cannot then 1) it is correct so you cannot see a fault. or 2) you don't know the science behind it so your opinion that it's fault is just a thought based on nothing. The bible can now not be used to prove an error, because we are looking or an error inside this theory itself.

If someone wants to search something on the internet, wikipedia is the most safest possible source. I'm sure i can find americans here on this forum who also think wikipedia is to trust. and for the tirth time: if you think the article on wikipedia is not correct or neutral, please point it out!! Just find something incorrect, just something!

Well then, you seem to think there is some evidence for creationism. Can you describe me some please? It's you against at least 10million people here, and some 100million in europe. I don't say you're wrong because of that, but the chance you're right is smaller. The atomic model is also a hypothesis actually. Yet a hypothesis can have a huge chance of being close to be right, so it becomes true.

Here at school wikipedia is the most trusted website we can citate. and if someone finds an error, he can correct that and informate the people of wikipedia. we are discussing this because you thought the page on wikipedia i gave was not correct. again, i challenge you to find an error on that page, to prove me that page on wikipedia is not to trust. and we are not following the original subject anymore.

if wikipedia is full of errors, then please point some out in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang i would be very very suprised if you found some. i would even bet if i could. and we are not following the original subject anymore.

I'm very happy that this is finally pointed out by a christian. it's not science versus faith, but science with faith. And being a christian does not have to imply that you believe in creationism.

Well i would chose a theory who has 99.9999% chance of being right over believe in something were is no prove for at all!! you are constantly saying there is no neutral evidence for the big bang, but there is not even a single piece of possible neutral evidence for creationism. and believing in God does not has to be taking the bible pure litterally. there are many many many people who believe in the god but do not take the bible litterally. they are christians too. i suspect 20-30% of the belgians is believes in god, but at highest 1% takes the bible litterally and believes in creationism. this can be taken for the majority of west europe. even our bisshops, the ones who should have the most strongest believe here, say they believe in evolution and the big bang.

i just checked to be sure, and no, you cannot just add something randomly. go to the link i gave to wikipedia and add something. i challenge you to prove me wrong and we are not following the original subject anymore.

then may i ask you how you deduct the existence of god? and indeed everything in science is proven by observation eventually. but sometimes there can be something you cannot just observate directly. then you have to deduct. and if the correctness of that deduction is very likely, then it counts as proof. for exemple: when we had proved the existence of the higgsboson, last year in the LHC, there was no way we could be certain of the result, because we were working on the terrain of quantumphysics, where everything is mesured in possiblities, and where certainties don't exist. so they did the experiment so that the result would have possibility of 99.999999%. it was still no exact observation, but a deduction of the last energy. they came out with a 5sigma signal for 125GeV as mass of the boson, wich is a very high chance, so they are convinced it is indeed 125 GeV.

may i also add that every atom with an atomic number higher than about 3 cannot be formed without the dying of a star. elements like carbon and oxygen are formed during the proces of fusion inside a star, and they can only come free when the star dies, most likely by a super nova. however, it is impossible for physics that a star forms, lives, dies and provides atoms for the formation of the earth in just a little 5000 years. if you attack this fact, you attack the very core of today's physics. and to add: not everything has to be proven by observation. if we observe that some formulas are correct, then we can continue calculating with them. and because those forumlas are correct, it is very very likely the result will be correct too. that's how theorys emerge. theories are not just random toughts, but sollutions for other calculations. and because that is very high math, there can be multiple results or interpretations. then we just have to test the predictions of those different theories to see wich sollutions is the correct one.

then take a look at my atom exemple. by the way redshift is observational. and more important: a way to test a theory is to look at it's predictions. every theory in (quantum)physics makes predictions. if we test one or more predictions, and they seem to be correct, then it is likely that the theory is correct. this is a generally accepted method, approved by every (quantum)physicist. gravitationals waves was one of the predictions of the big bang theory. and because we recently found them, it is very very likely for the theory to be correct too.

if god already defeated evil, then nothing now is evil anymore? and what is satan then? and i don't accuse god for bad things that happen. i not even accuse anyone if something randomly goes wrong. if tomorow my mother dies, i will not accuse god or anybody else. if some day i lose my leg due to a falling rock in the mountain, i won't accuse anyone. most people don't 'like me' don't accuse god, because we think god, if he exists, has nothing to do with our lives. you might change your thought on this. and my dear friend epicuros doesn't say evil comes from god or something like that. he tries to slove the question i asked: if god exists, why is there evil? and why could god not just destroy evil and sin? because you say he is good and omnipotent.

if god cared about us and he is almighty, then why doesn't he just kill satan? if you really love someone, do you let him suffer? or would you help him/her? like epicuros could say it so correctly:

still almost all the criminals are judged this way. so if there is no proof of their crime, why are they judged? they are judged because of the same principle that makes deduction proof. when i let 2 atoms fuse, and i see there is suddenly less energy around, then i deduct that that energy is used for the fusing to bind. however, i cannot prove where that energy is now. i can only deduct. and that is enough. observation isn't always the answer. if we only related on observation then we would never be this far in technology, wich we are using now to post.

now you totally neglect my point. and the digitalising of an encyclopedia isn't lazyness, but advantage of technology and possibilities. i'm sure many people on this forum approve the positives about wikipedia. wikipedia is also larger than any encyclopdia can ever be, and it is in many different languages.

adaption is a phase in evolution. of couse a lizard does not change in a bird in just one day, but due to many and many adaptions the lizard will finally become a bird. the wolf -> dog is a good exemple. and not everything that is not in the bible cannot exist or have happened.

what about satan? can't we just take him out? would make things more easy

i'm happy that you say you just want them to tell the truth, not oppress them your ideas and hold them from expressing theirs. but if satan is a real person, why don't we just kill him? if you give his adress, we can bomb his house. i care about people and i'm not happy if they do wrong things, but i believe strongly in free will. so with pain in my hearth i will let them do.

So you're saying that if there was proof for creationism there would be no discussion too? seems legit. and the big bang is supported by quantumphysics. so you trow away quantumphysics however, your computer is made and works because of this quantumphysics. it's the same physics. so i suggest you trow away your computer too then... That is a lousy and rather weak standard of proof. Like I said, if there was real proof, this discussion would not exist. Until you can replicate the Big Bang in the laboratory, you can't prove it empirically. of course. let's just make a whole new universe in our lab. because our lab is certainly big enough. quantumphysics has mathematical and physical (observated) proof that something can appear from nothing in the quantumfog. it is happening trillions of times around you at the moment. and proof can be deducted too. one can never see a quark or boson himself, but but mesuring we can deside that it exists and was there at the moment. so can we do with the big bang, but on larger scale. gravitational waves is just one piece of the proof. redshift is another. speed limit is one.... but as i say before to you: something will never be proof to someone of that person keeps denying everything. proof has to accepted as proof by one.

when that is a man's choice, who are you to hold him from it? and darkness is just the absence of fotons. if satan is a real person, as you say, can you give me his adress please? maybe i'll go on a tea visite once. how does he dresses himself? is his skin really red? what does he eat and drink? does he really has a tail and horns? seems very logical.