I dont get you athiest you all talk like your all sciencetist but the first rule of science is to observe. So observe the universe what do you see.
1.Complexity
2.Design
3.Order
Now tell me if an explosion can bring any one of these three things, it cant! But it brings the opposite.
49 comments
1.Complexity
Designers seek the simplest possible form for their
2.Design
In what respect? Do straight lines or round numbers occur in nature?
3.Order
In the sense that life seeks survival and propogation, yes; but in incredibly mutually contradictory ways, without any apparent or consistent higher purpose.
I observe that the world is morally neutral, and while functional for the purposes of life, clearly imperfect. If it were not functional for this purpose (like most planets), then we would not be here to discuss it. If there were a god of theism, then the world would be probably be perfect, morally coherent, or at least act in a manner suggesting planning. My conclusion, therefore, is that probably no such god exists.
"Now tell me if an explosion can bring any one of these three things, it cant!"
It can and it does.
When the extremely hot and dense early universe began to expand (first few seconds) it began to cool, causing the first protons and neutrons to condense out. Further cooling allowed the earliest nuclei to form.
This was first explained in the gloriously named "Alpher-Bethe-Gamow" paper (named for authors Ralph Alpher, Hans Bethe and George Gamow) in 1948. Try to keep up.
In observing the universe, I see a number of physical laws and principles that seem to generally hold true. By applying those theories to the universe, I can both explain the observations I have made and accurately predict the results of other observations in advance. My ability to repeatedly and demonstrably anticipate the unknown using these natural theories leads me to accept them as accurate descriptions of how the universe works.
Gods are not among these principles and, though nothing actually prevents one from existing, nothing in the universe is sufficient evidence to invoke one.
"Ralph Alpha, "
ROTFLMAO!
@Quantum Mechanic:
Oops, sorry, I corrected this to "Ralph Alpher" before I saw your comment. I'm so used to calling this the "alpha-beta-gamma" paper that I had to look up whether Gamow had one or two 'm's, guess that error slipped through.
One of Alpher's great achievements was the prediction that the Big Bang would have left a signature behind in the form of a Plank spectrum of radiation corresponding to just a few Kelvin (i.e. in the microwave range). It would be another 17 years before someone actually detected this "cosmic microwave background".
But I'm sure a keen observer as DDFF232 has a perfectly consistent and logical explanation for why the universe's designer felt it necessary to create a background radiation field exactly in the range that would be expected if the universe had expanded from an incredibly hot and dense state not more than 20 billion years ago.
* crickets *
Alfven, H.,Bethe, HA, Gamow, G. (1948): The origin of chemical elements.
1.Complexity
2.Design
3.Order
Now tell me if an explosion can bring any one of these three things, it cant! But it brings the opposite.
Thermodynamically speaking, the universe was more ordered at the start than it is now. Wrap your little fundie brain around that!
I don't know how the universe started, but our best guess is an 'explosion', yes.
it wasn't the explosion itself that formed what you call order, though, it was the gravitational and magnetic forces, and later, life.
One of Alpher's great achievements was the prediction that the Big Bang would have left a signature behind in the form of a Plank spectrum of radiation corresponding to just a few Kelvin (i.e. in the microwave range). It would be another 17 years before someone actually detected this "cosmic microwave background".
http://xkcd.com/54/
SCIENCE: It works, bitches.
I honestly don't know where you get the idea that these buzzwords prove anything.
"Complexity" can come about through chance and without any external influence (see: ice crystals).
"Design" is a description of complexity that, by the very nature of the word, presupposes a designer, which is just an attempt to be deceptive on the part of your fellow Creationists. It is the equivalent of saying that a tree is finely crafted, and then, by the merits of that description alone, asserting that the tree must have been wittled by Paul Bunyan.
And what makes you think that "order" is an accurate description of reality? Ordered relative to what? I think the order that you perceive is simply a case of human pattern seeking, reading into an essentially random universe.
And finally, the Big Bang is to explosions as you know them as nuclear fusion is to a campfire: they have comparable effects (movement and light respectively), but the underlying mechanisms, and magnitude are completely different.
"I dont get you athiest you all talk like your all sciencetist but the first rule of science is to observe."
Actually it's "don't fudge your data or we'll repossess your lab coat, revoke your laboratory privileges and smash your Bunsen burner."
"So observe the universe what do you see.
1.Complexity
2.Design
3.Order"
Your point? All of those, when they're not simply illusions created by the human mind seeing a pattern where none exists, are easily explained by elementary forces acting upon whatever it is that happens to be "complex" or "ordered." The "designed" bit I disagree with totally as we have no way of determining if, say, a fucking universe is "designed" since we only have the one to look at.
"Now tell me if an explosion can bring any one of these three things, it cant! But it brings the opposite."
The Big Bang was not an explosion. Why do you people insist on being ignorant of even the most basic points of what you rail against?
Not that it's present here, but I especially love it when Creationists presume that the big bang was some sort of gas detonation that exploded out AROUND THE EARTH. I shit you not, I have seen this said multiple times. Not to Zen out on you too much, but if these people can't even picture the EARTH as something accidental and impermanent, I can't imagine them getting rid of the idea of themselves having a purposefully made, permanent soul any time this century.
Right. The Big Bang wasn't that kind of explosion.
But if you must go with that then yes, an explosion CAN bring any of those three things.
Look at a quarry, or a mine, or a railway tunnel/cutting. All of those use explosions for design and order, if not complexity.
But then, THE BIG BANG WASN'T THAT TYPE OF EXPLOSION!
Complexity--true. All the more reason to study the universe using the best tool we have--the scientific method.
Design--completely subjective, and therefore not really an argument.
Order--true, to a degree. There's also a lot of disorder.
[Now tell me if an explosion can bring any one of these three things, it cant! But it brings the opposite.]
You seem to be trying to refute the Big Bang Theory. You also seem to be grossly misunderstanding what it's about.
You dummy! There's more to it than just the explosion.
Fuck, you're such an incompetent imbecile!
I hate these people today.
if the universe is ordered, why do I need to clean my apartment ?
Also, matter isn't equally distributed throughout the universe, as a matter of fact it only makes up a small percentage of the universe.
So if the universe is complex and designed, why is it mostly empty ? Doesn't seem very well designed OR complex (well maybe a little) to me.
I hate to contradict Horsefeathers, but I thought the first rule of science is, "Deception, always deception."
I only see complexity (of the things you mentioned). I do see design, but only in man made objects / structures. I certainly do not see order outside of human routines and the like. Certainly there is order to traffic lights, street lamps, television programming, etc. but what order do you see in nature? The only thing resembling order and design in nature is best defined as evolution and natural selection. This of course also shows us the origins of complexity since evolution can easily trace the vastly complex organisms we see today to the very simple organisms of yesteryear. The design you think you see is all in your head. Humans just think that way since we're very prone to designing things ourselves.
Based on your inability to form a complete and coherent fucking sentence, I regret to inform you that you are too fucking stupid to understand any explanation regarding your "silly" gism.
Now fix me those fucking fries like I asked you too and get off that "sciency" computer!
"I dont get you athiest you all talk like your all sciencetist but the first rule of science is to observe"
Observe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
Judge John E. Jones III - a Christian Conservative personally appointed to the Federal bench by Christian Conservative (who believes in Creationism) George Dumbya Bush, voted in (twice) by Christian Conservatives who believe in Creationism - decided, in spite of all the 'evidence' for 'Intelligent Design', that what we see around us on this planet, our solar system, galaxy, universe & space-time continuum as a whole, was not as the result of complex order by a designer .
Evolution - and the 'Big Bang' (as in a cosmic expansion )- is fact ; 'Intelligent Design' - and thus Biblical Creationism - is lies . The law says so (PROTIP: Romans 13:1-5, and all that jazz, as far as you fundies are concerned). Deal with it.
I wasn't aware understanding the base concepts behind incredibly complex theories made you a scientist. perhaps i'll go apply at NASA...
Jokes aside, it helps explains the fundies attitude towards any and all things scientific.
We all talk like we're all scientists, because we all have an education. Btw, it sounds like that to you, but to a real scientist we sound rather amateurish.
OK, observing the Universe; I see chaos, complexity, simplicity, death and destruction.
For the umpteenth time, the Big Bang was an expansion, not an explosion. Think of a beach ball or a hot-air baloon. First it's small, scrunched up, but the more it's expanding, the larger it gets.
“I dont get you athiest”
Whew!
“you all talk like your all sciencetist”
Good IPU i hope i do not.
“but the first rule of science is to observe.”
I think you are thinking about an important part of the scientific method, but close enough. So?
“So observe the universe what do you see.
1.Complexity”
Which does not require an intelligence to produce it. Or at least, no one has produced the observation that intelligence is required.
“2.Design”
‘Trial And Error’ is a design process. Intelligence isn’t required for this.
“3.Order”
Well, yes. Order and stability will allow order and stability to extend. Stiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill no need for an intelligence to explain it.
“Now tell me if an explosion can bring any one of these three things, it cant!”
You do know that the term ‘big bang’ was coined by a critic of the theory, right? I wouldn’t place too much weight on the image that brings to your mind, it’s probably not helpful.
“But it brings the opposite.”
The opposite? Au contraire. Explosions bring a LOT of complexity to a situation. Did you even try to think about this?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.