Creationist Explains How Humans Could Have Hunted The Tyrannosaurus Rex

[Skybird]

Oooops! Somebody played foul there.

But that can be helped:

---

6000 years ago, the Lord said: "Let there be light".

A slightly confused caveman who had evolved through natural selection looked around, seing nothing said: "OK", he struck a piece of flint with an iron pyrite nodule, and started a fire.

The Lord looked at the fire, and said: "It is good."

The caveman looked back and said: "WE've been doing this for 50,000 years, are you not a bit late?"

And the Lord looked confused, he said: "Where did you come from, how did you get here without a creator?"

And the caveman looked back and said: "I was about to ask you the same question."

Was that divine retribution?

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Was that divine retribution?

I think the responsible divine entity just responded to the numerous "please deliver us from the drivel" prayers suddenly originating from Subsim.

[Jimbuna]

Some might say...Amen.

[Armistead]

I doubt science will ever be able to prove origin of life, because first cause is scientifically impossible to find. Yes, they're a few theories saying something can be created from nothing, but nothing" doesn't exist, as even empty space has particles, energy, etc.. The problem is each time we figure an energy or life source out, we're left with another one to figure out...cause and effect. Right now, our laws require a first cause, but a first cause is impossible by current science, that's a big problem.

Many scientist believe in God out of logic, that if within our physical laws it's impossible to ever prove origin of life, then we should consider another source outside physical law.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I doubt science will ever be able to prove origin of life, because first cause is scientifically impossible to find. Yes, they're a few theories saying something can be created from nothing, but nothing" doesn't exist, as even empty space has particles, energy, etc.. The problem is each time we figure an energy or life source out, we're left with another one to figure out...cause and effect. Right now, our laws require a first cause, but a first cause is impossible by current science, that's a big problem.

Many scientist believe in God out of logic, that if within our physical laws it's impossible to ever prove origin of life, then we should consider another source outside physical law.

Religion always demands perfect proof from science, feeling triumphant if science does not give that, just "another theory".

For some reason, religion never demands perfect proof for its own claims.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Religion always demands perfect proof from science, feeling triumphant if science does not give that, just "another theory".

For some reason, religion never demands perfect proof for its own claims.

Hah, good point. But then again, that's the definition of religion: faith in the unseen without the need for proof.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Religion always demands perfect proof from science, feeling triumphant if science does not give that, just "another theory".

For some reason, religion never demands perfect proof for its own claims.

Many religions created doctrines connected to events in the bible that must be taken literally, instead of changing doctrines, they'll hold these events took place regardless of scientfic or historical evidence otherwise.

Like the head scientist at the creation museum stating he believes in science as long as it supports the bible, if not, he admits science is discarded and faith is used.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

6000 years ago, the Lord said: "Let there be light".

Many years ago I postulated my own theory on that. One day God decided to tell the world how he came to create the universe. He picked a random shepherd. Why he didn't pick the head of a major city-state, I don't know. Maybe he didn't like any of them. We'll call this random shepherd "Abraham" (or "Moses" if you like). So anyway, one day God appears to this guy, and says he wants to tell him how it was done. But God has a problem. This shepherd (or the most advanced learned man of the time) isn't going to understand quantum physics or string theory. Heck, I don't understand them and I have the benefit of thousands of years of developed science. So God decides to show him instead, filling his head with images of the Big Bang. Abraham sees this and scratches his head, then writes "God said 'Let there be light!' And there was light."

[NeonSamurai]

I have to say, the big bang theory is one theory that I think is utter rubbish and am extremely skeptical of. Sheldon is ok though (figured I would preempt you all).

Seriously though, bang and the universe was flung into existence? Before there wasn't even nothing, as the big bang even created the vacuum of space and space itself. Otherwise the universe couldn't be "expanding". There are so many gigantic flaws in the theory it isn't funny. Ironically I think it is just another creationist "theory".

[MH]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

I have to say, the big bang theory is one theory that I think is utter rubbish and am extremely skeptical of. Sheldon is ok though (figured I would preempt you all).

Seriously though, bang and the universe was flung into existence? Before there wasn't even nothing, as the big bang even created the vacuum of space and space itself. Otherwise the universe couldn't be "expanding". There are so many gigantic flaws in the theory it isn't funny. Ironically I think it is just another creationist "theory".

Do you have any scientific data to back it up or this is just how you feel/believe?
Yep , someone should come up with something less creationist lol

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by MH

Do you have any scientific data to back it up or this is just how you feel/believe?
Yep , someone should come up with something less creationist lol

The evidence backing up the big bang theory is pretty scant at best (and can be explained in other ways). Most of it seems to be a lot of postulation. There are also huge problems with it and our other theories, like for example how did the galaxies spread out as far as they did in the time frame that the universe was supposed to come into existence.

As for the existing evidence, my suspicion is that they are measuring signals from the birth of galaxies, not the universe. I really do not think that the universe truly exists in our linear perspective of time. I am also not sure that it has a beginning or an end, in time, or space, or anything.

Plus the theory to me logically does not make sense. In the beginning, there was nothing (not even time or space or anything), then there was some universe creating explosion and the universe went expanding out in all directions from one point, the end.

I am also skeptical of the entropy theory as well, though the logic is more sound at least. I suspect though, that the universe has mechanisms to deal with this, and that the formation of galaxies is cyclical.

But this is pure wild theorizing.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

But this is pure wild theorizing.

Hypothesizing, actually. A theory requires some proof.

Sorry for being pedantic...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Plus the theory to me logically does not make sense. In the beginning, there was nothing (not even time or space or anything), then there was some universe creating explosion and the universe went expanding out in all directions from one point, the end.

I don't think the Big Bang theory assumes what came before the Bang. The Bang itself is theorized on the concept that the universe is expanding, and seems to have been doing so for as long as it has existed. If that is true then it likely had to start somewhere. What came before can only be guessed at.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

The evidence backing up the big bang theory is pretty scant at best (and can be explained in other ways). Most of it seems to be a lot of postulation. There are also huge problems with it and our other theories, like for example how did the galaxies spread out as far as they did in the time frame that the universe was supposed to come into existence.

As for the existing evidence, my suspicion is that they are measuring signals from the birth of galaxies, not the universe. I really do not think that the universe truly exists in our linear perspective of time. I am also not sure that it has a beginning or an end, in time, or space, or anything.

Plus the theory to me logically does not make sense. In the beginning, there was nothing (not even time or space or anything), then there was some universe creating explosion and the universe went expanding out in all directions from one point, the end.

I am also skeptical of the entropy theory as well, though the logic is more sound at least. I suspect though, that the universe has mechanisms to deal with this, and that the formation of galaxies is cyclical.

But this is pure wild theorizing.

You have to realize that human knowledge is always evolving. Religions were early attempts by man to explain his environment.

The Big Bang Theory is the most logical explanation based on our current scientific knowledge, but we could easily be in a situation 50-100 years from now where a better explanation is found.