Letter: Don't let science get in the way

In Paul Richins' letter to the editor, he made it clear that he has a hard time understanding the Big Bang Theory, and he believes our universe was created by supreme intelligence.

[Freedom Fighter]

Paul Richins isn't the only one questioning the big bang theory. Any decent, reasonable human being would have to ask themselves; "If any gases collide, do they creat new life and universes? If so, look out at the next bean feed you go to."

[Travis]

Freedom Fighter wrote:

Paul Richins isn't the only one questioning the big bang theory. Any decent, reasonable human being would have to ask themselves; "If any gases collide, do they creat new life and universes? If so, look out at the next bean feed you go to."

Can you at least question the beliefs of others without asserting that we are indecent and unreasonable, because that doesn't sound very Christian-like to me. Besides did you ever think that the Big Bang Theory could be humans uncovering the means God used to create the universe? From what I've experienced God doesn't just materialize, fold his arms, and nod his head like I Dream a Genie and make things appear. He uses natural phenomenons to do his will. The next thing you're going to try and tell everyone is that the theory of plate-tectonics isn't real and that earthquakes occur when God is mad and shakes his fist.

[Mit]

Travis wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you at least question the beliefs of others without asserting that we are indecent and unreasonable, because that doesn't sound very Christian-like to me. Besides did you ever think that the Big Bang Theory could be humans uncovering the means God used to create the universe? From what I've experienced God doesn't just materialize, fold his arms, and nod his head like I Dream a Genie and make things appear. He uses natural phenomenons to do his will. The next thing you're going to try and tell everyone is that the theory of plate-tectonics isn't real and that earthquakes occur when God is mad and shakes his fist.

Are you saying that earthquakes don't happen because God is mad at me? Whew!

[Parkview]

Speaking of mad. What is Paul Tullius so angry about? I did not see anything in the letter he refered to that woud make Mr. Tullius be so rude. Makes you wonder....

[LeRoy]

If the universe was created by a big bang, where did the stuff that went bang come from?

[DOL]

Travis wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you at least question the beliefs of others without asserting that we are indecent and unreasonable, because that doesn't sound very Christian-like to me. Besides did you ever think that the Big Bang Theory could be humans uncovering the means God used to create the universe? From what I've experienced God doesn't just materialize, fold his arms, and nod his head like I Dream a Genie and make things appear. He uses natural phenomenons to do his will. The next thing you're going to try and tell everyone is that the theory of plate-tectonics isn't real and that earthquakes occur when God is mad and shakes his fist.

So are you saying that the theory of evolution is a belief or in other words a religion?

Maybe the question you should ask yourself is why are evolutionist so close-minded?

Why do people who believe in evolution reject other ideas without looking into to them scientifically? Why do evolutionist continue to preach ideas that have no scientific merit?

[Travis]

LeRoy wrote:

If the universe was created by a big bang, where did the stuff that went bang come from?

If there was nothing before God created it, then where did God come from?...We can do this all day.

[DOL]

Travis wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you at least question the beliefs of others without asserting that we are indecent and unreasonable, because that doesn't sound very Christian-like to me. Besides did you ever think that the Big Bang Theory could be humans uncovering the means God used to create the universe? From what I've experienced God doesn't just materialize, fold his arms, and nod his head like I Dream a Genie and make things appear. He uses natural phenomenons to do his will. The next thing you're going to try and tell everyone is that the theory of plate-tectonics isn't real and that earthquakes occur when God is mad and shakes his fist.

Are you saying that someone has to be Christian-like to question scientific theories?

Does that mean someone has to be a Republican to question the murder of unborn babies?

Does someone who is a Democrat not have the right to question their parties opposition to the 2nd Amendment?

[Travis]

DOL wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you saying that someone has to be Christian-like to question scientific theories?
Does that mean someone has to be a Republican to question the murder of unborn babies?
Does someone who is a Democrat not have the right to question their parties opposition to the 2nd Amendment?

No, what I'm saying is that judging an individual based on their personal beliefs isn't very Christian-like. Doesn't the Bible say, "Judge not less ye be judged"? Being Christian-like is a valid thing to bring up, especially when an individual is making claims that people who don't believe the literal interpretation of the Bible are indecent and unreasonable individuals. Please, do me a favor, the next time before you post a comment, take a minute and think about what you are going to say, then turn your computer off.

[LeRoy]

Travis wrote:

<quoted text>
If there was nothing before God created it, then where did God come from?...We can do this all day.

That's the difference, I didn't ask where God came from because if you believe in God you take it as faith that God was always there.

However, if you believe that the big bang created the universe as we know it, then one must answer the question, what created the bang? In other words, you are taking on faith that the universe was already here in some form i.e. gases and so on. That seems logical as well but it implies that the big bang was just a milestone in the time line. So then where did that stuff come from?

----

Every week there is an article in some newspaper that I call space hype. Some new finding about a dual star or that water on mars, etc. It is designed to keep NASA and space in the news. I have no problem with any of it because I know it is hype (I was a rocket scientist at one time). However, what is funny is recently there was an article that implied that astronomers proved the universe was shrinking but in 2007 the University of Florida physics department proved it was expanding. The problem is you can't tell what the universe is doing unless you look at the entire universe all at the same time. That's the problem with both creation and the big bang, you were not there when it happened - you did not see it happen. In reality God could have said let the big band happen or some gases that have always been here could have finally found the right mixture and two rocks could have collided and caused a spark. Either way you are taking it on faith.

[Food for thought]

LeRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the difference, I didn't ask where God came from because if you believe in God you take it as faith that God was always there.
However, if you believe that the big bang created the universe as we know it, then one must answer the question, what created the bang? In other words, you are taking on faith that the universe was already here in some form i.e. gases and so on. That seems logical as well but it implies that the big bang was just a milestone in the time line. So then where did that stuff come from?
----
Every week there is an article in some newspaper that I call space hype. Some new finding about a dual star or that water on mars, etc. It is designed to keep NASA and space in the news. I have no problem with any of it because I know it is hype (I was a rocket scientist at one time). However, what is funny is recently there was an article that implied that astronomers proved the universe was shrinking but in 2007 the University of Florida physics department proved it was expanding. The problem is you can't tell what the universe is doing unless you look at the entire universe all at the same time. That's the problem with both creation and the big bang, you were not there when it happened - you did not see it happen. In reality God could have said let the big band happen or some gases that have always been here could have finally found the right mixture and two rocks could have collided and caused a spark. Either way you are taking it on faith.

Not to get into a huge creation vs evolution debate, but why is it that people who believe in God always refer to the cosmological argument of first cause? This is a double edged sword, because if everything has a first cause i.e big bang, then God also must have a first cause, meaning that something had to exist or be his first cause before he existed. I'll admit that the big bang is far fetched but also saying that God has been there forever is the same as believing that the big bang just happened.

You always say that God has always been there, because of faith, this is called a "thought terminating cliche". Meaning that you try to answer a seemingly impossible question with a simple explanation that doesn't even closely address the question.

[Food for thought]

DOL wrote:

<quoted text>
So are you saying that the theory of evolution is a belief or in other words a religion?
Maybe the question you should ask yourself is why are evolutionist so close-minded?
Why do people who believe in evolution reject other ideas without looking into to them scientifically? Why do evolutionist continue to preach ideas that have no scientific merit?

What I've seen is that what ever side you are on, evolution or creationism, people in general are stubborn and narrow minded and unwilling to change or even accept the possibility of something different.

[LeRoy]

Food for thought wrote:

<quoted text>
Not to get into a huge creation vs evolution debate, but why is it that people who believe in God always refer to the cosmological argument of first cause? This is a double edged sword, because if everything has a first cause i.e big bang, then God also must have a first cause, meaning that something had to exist or be his first cause before he existed. I'll admit that the big bang is far fetched but also saying that God has been there forever is the same as believing that the big bang just happened.
You always say that God has always been there, because of faith, this is called a "thought terminating cliche". Meaning that you try to answer a seemingly impossible question with a simple explanation that doesn't even closely address the question.

Because the Christian (not speaking for any other religion) take's God on faith and two verses. Which speak to the first cause.

Rev 22: 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

John 1:1-3 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

So if you debate creation v. evolution you with a Christian you must realize that this is were they are going to begin. You can not sway anyone who believes on faith.

This is also true for those who believe the big bang. As a scientist and researcher I know many who people who try to prove their belief in their research by looking for what they believe. The problem with this is if you believe creation or the big bang or anything else and you are trying to prove that, are you closing your eyes to the possible truth.

Note there is nt place in my posts that say I am for or against creation or the big bang or anything else. I am saying everything is based on faith and I can not sway you to my side and you can not sway me to yours unless we believe the same thing.

So debating this issue is like expecting a tree to talk.

[Food for thought]

LeRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
Because the Christian (not speaking for any other religion) take's God on faith and two verses. Which speak to the first cause.
Rev 22: 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
John 1:1-3 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
So if you debate creation v. evolution you with a Christian you must realize that this is were they are going to begin. You can not sway anyone who believes on faith.
This is also true for those who believe the big bang. As a scientist and researcher I know many who people who try to prove their belief in their research by looking for what they believe. The problem with this is if you believe creation or the big bang or anything else and you are trying to prove that, are you closing your eyes to the possible truth.
Note there is nt place in my posts that say I am for or against creation or the big bang or anything else. I am saying everything is based on faith and I can not sway you to my side and you can not sway me to yours unless we believe the same thing.
So debating this issue is like expecting a tree to talk.

I cannot agree more. So debating this issue is like expecting a tree to talk. Yes because no one is wrong except only to the other person, therefore if everyone is wrong then everyone is right as well.

What do you mean everything is based on faith.

[LeRoy]

Food for thought wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you mean everything is based on faith.

What I mean by this is that no human was alive at the dawn of creation so you are basing creation, big bang, or the big sneeze (hitcher's guide to the galaxy version) either on religious faith or some form of evidence. Most people's evidence is "their science teacher told them". But no matter what type of evidence you have your belief on the origin is based on faith. Be it the faith in your science teacher, your preacher, or some scientist somewhere.

When an astronomer says they have recorded the echo to the big bang, do you believe them? If you do you have faith in their equipment, knowledge, their guess as to what they recorded. When a scientist tells you that they found rocks from Mars on Antarctica, if you believe them (big mistake) you have faith that rocks somehow fall off of Mars and land on Earth, and only rocks from Mars happen to be found.(What about asteroids?) Believing in things that we can not prove in anyway is having faith in someone's conjecture based on their beliefs and observations.

The theory of evolution is a theory, that man can control global warming is a conjecture, and that women are always correct that may be a fact but I believe it is a theory. The truth is unless you observe it and you observe every aspect of it only then can you believe it not on faith. The fact that you are believing someone else's observation doesn't make it true.

Faith is not a reason. Faith is not an excuse. Faith is the belief of things unseen. Some people say faith is the evidence of things unseen but that is too strong. Faith is not evidence it is a belief.

[Food for thought]

Thanks. I agree perception is not reality. I'm curious, no offense taken, if you're a scientist and your main objective is to find empirical evidence and/or truth in whatever you research doesn't this contradict believing in something you can't prove to exist i.e. God? To keep this simple, because this debate could go pretty deep, how does one explain why almost all cultures throughout time have beliefs in their own gods? Cultures that far existed 1000 years before the main three religions started.

[ChicoLibertarian]

About the discovery of "rocks" that appear to be from Mars, why do you believe that this is not possible? What evidence do you have to counter the evidence provided by scientists?

The theory of gravity is only a theory as well, however it is so well supported that it has been confirmed as one of the fundamental laws of physics. Evolution is not far behind in terms of the strength of the "theory". Just because you might not believe it does not make it invalid. If you have some evidence that can falsify the theory, please provide it, otherwise it is a valid theory. Note that theory does not mean "I think X might be happening..." it means "X is happening...".

You people that have no grasp of science and yet attempt to weigh in on scientific matters would crack me up, if you weren't so dangerous. What's next? Teach creationism in schools?

[LeRoy]

ChicoLibertarian wrote:

About the discovery of "rocks" that appear to be from Mars, why do you believe that this is not possible? What evidence do you have to counter the evidence provided by scientists?

You people that have no grasp of science and yet attempt to weigh in on scientific matters would crack me up, if you weren't so dangerous. What's next? Teach creationism in schools?

I did not say it was not possible but if you believe those rocks came from Mars you are smoking something. Look at this way, the scientists said that an astroid hit Mars and knocked rocks off Mars (Mar's gravity did not bring them back to Mars) and that those rocks hit Earth. We know those are Martian rocks because they have the same composition as rocks from Mars. It was reported as a fact they came from Mars. So from this:

1. Mars is unique in that no other place in the universe including the astroid that hit Mars has the same composition as Mars.-- That statement alone then disproves the big bang theory.

2. We know the composition of every other planet in existence and all other astroids.

What this is NASA hype to get the US to spend money on going to Mars, because those rocks supposedly also had proof of life on them. Supposedly there was a worm trail that some bacteria made on the rocks while they were on Mars. Once again, on Mars and not the astroid that hit Mars. Or the other plant in the next galaxy that collided with an another plant right after the big bang, Or so on. Not saying they were wrong about life on the rock just saying that finding a rock on Antarctica that came from Mars has the same probability that a Chico Libertarian will be the first ambassador to the Star Sol.

As for "You people that have no grasp of science" --- hmmm I have a BA, BS, MS, PH.D., a PostDoc and I teach at one of the most prestigious Universities in the US. Enough said, I win.

[Brad]

LeRoy,
Thank you for your comments, I have the same thoughts as you. I am Christian. You are right on, anything that Humans did not observe is based on faith.

[ChicoLibertarian]

You clearly have no grasp of stellar evolution, do you? There were no "rocks" from other galaxies in the initial accretion disk that our solar system formed from. Right there you showed your ignorance and lost the debate.

Now, please explain to me how your item #1 disproves the Big Bang.

With regard to #2, you're pretty much right on. We do know the basic composition of the bodies in the solar system, and from that and the chemical/mineral composition of the meteorite we can gather that the most likely source is Mars.

I'm sorry you feel the need to inflate your credentials, but you're clearly shooting from the hip and have no real education or knowledge in this arena.