Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with the Big Bang theory
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 224 of 303 (369630)
12-13-2006 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by crashfrog
12-13-2006 7:10 PM


Re: A delicate reply... and then back to the topic
I've never known an atheist who did anything more serious than a couple of beers on a Friday night.
You never knew me when I was an atheist. I hope you're not saying that there is anything immoral about that.
I am more than a drug addict. I am a liar, and a murderer; a thief, and a sexual deviant. I am insolent arrogant and boastful. I invent ways of doing evil. In fact if you ask Ringo, I am only human.
And that is precisely why I sought to accept the mercy of God.
Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2006 7:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2006 7:43 PM Rob has replied

DivineBeginning
Member (Idle past 6027 days)
Posts: 100
Joined: 11-16-2006


Message 225 of 303 (369633)
12-13-2006 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by crashfrog
12-13-2006 7:31 PM


Re: actually considering evidence
Your talking to a guy that believes in the almighty God, creator of the universe....so YES!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2006 7:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 226 of 303 (369634)
12-13-2006 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Rob
12-13-2006 7:39 PM


Re: A delicate reply... and then back to the topic
I am more than a drug addict. I am a liar, and a murderer; a thief, and a sexual deviant. I am insolent arrogant and boastful. I invent ways of doing evil.
Well, if you say so. I'm Lawful Neutral, myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Rob, posted 12-13-2006 7:39 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Rob, posted 12-13-2006 7:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

DivineBeginning
Member (Idle past 6027 days)
Posts: 100
Joined: 11-16-2006


Message 227 of 303 (369635)
12-13-2006 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by crashfrog
12-13-2006 7:31 PM


Re: actually considering evidence
I watched a documentary on how this happened (the erosion)...I will get the name of the DVD, you should check it out. It was produced by scientists by the way. So, to answer your question...YES, I absolutely believe it can happen. The earth has never seen the amount of water that was present during the flood. Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2006 7:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by sidelined, posted 12-13-2006 7:49 PM DivineBeginning has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 228 of 303 (369636)
12-13-2006 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by DivineBeginning
12-13-2006 6:56 PM


Re: actually considering evidence
DivineBeginning
This is what I watched in a documentary put together by scientists. They explained that the Grand Canyon didn't take millions of years to form, but rather hundreds.
I suppose you would be willing to share with myself the location of this documentary and the peer review that accompanied its release? It would be good to see the evidence and the experiments performed to back up the claims made. It would also be interesting to see the quality of science performed as well.

Dear Mrs Chown, Ignore your son's attempts to teach you physics. Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is.
Best wishes, Richard Feynman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-13-2006 6:56 PM DivineBeginning has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 229 of 303 (369637)
12-13-2006 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by crashfrog
12-13-2006 7:43 PM


Re: A delicate reply... and then back to the topic
Well, if you say so. I'm Lawful Neutral, myself.
I could have guessed. So was I as a prophesing atheist.
So you're lafully neutral? So you don't believe in the laws of physics or prefer them to say... non-existence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2006 7:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 230 of 303 (369638)
12-13-2006 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by DivineBeginning
12-13-2006 7:45 PM


Re: actually considering evidence
DivineBeginning
The earth has never seen the amount of water that was present during the flood. Right?
Damn straight considering that that much water has never been present on the Earth and that such a flood is impossible due to the physical properties of water and the laws of thermodynamics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-13-2006 7:45 PM DivineBeginning has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 231 of 303 (369639)
12-13-2006 7:52 PM


TOPIC
This topic is PROBLEMS WITH THE BIG BANG THEORY
NOT - theology
NOT - Grand Canyon
NOT - The Great Flood
NOT - anyone's Christianity
NOT - drug use or non-use
I'm closing this thread for an hour or so to let everyone get a chance to see this.
AbE - Opening the thread again, but the topic remains the same. Also, I would prefer that posters NOT immediately email me with their accusations of bias and cover-ups. There are threads devoted to yelling at admins. Please leave it at that.
Edited by AdminAsgara, : No reason given.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]
    http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 232 of 303 (369648)
    12-13-2006 8:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 221 by Rob
    12-13-2006 7:31 PM


    Why it is irrelevant.
    You sir are no monkey. You are a pompous ass! A bad combination by any measure.
    Since when do you presume to tell others what is relevant. There is more to life than your own opinion.
    First, Orangutans like Humans are not monkeys but primates, apes.
    But the reason it is irrelevant is important. The BB is a conclusion based on observation and evidence. Whether someone is Theist, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Islamic, Satanist, Taoist, Buddhist, Confucian, Wiccan or any other belief system is irrelevant to BB.
    Beliefs are not science. They are beliefs. If you wish to believe that GOD is the cause, that is fine. It has no bearing on the BB.
    The BB is simply "What happened", it does not address, nothing in science addresses, questions of "Why" or the supernatural or the imaginary.
    I personally believe that GOD is the cause, but that is just personal belief. It is NOT science and will never be science. If someday we later learn that the BB was the result of branes colliding or string vibration, I would simply say "Oh, that's how GOD did it."
    But again, that is only belief, it is irrelevant to the science.
    Edited by jar, : +,

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 221 by Rob, posted 12-13-2006 7:31 PM Rob has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 235 by Rob, posted 12-13-2006 10:20 PM jar has replied

    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 233 of 303 (369651)
    12-13-2006 9:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 220 by Rob
    12-13-2006 7:27 PM


    Re: This isn't hard.
    quote:
    It makes me glad to report that the Bible doesn't say that God (the creator) lives in time, but that He lives eternally.
    Which is irrelevant to the thread here.
    -
    quote:
    Do you find it a coincidence that the Bible could have avoided that trap?
    First of all, I don't see this as a trap. By definition, the universe consists of everything that exists. Therefore, by definition, there is nothing outside of the universe. Therefore, there is no external "cause" for the universe. Because once you posit that there is something beyond the "universe", then you are really saying that the universe is a little bit bigger than what we initially thought.
    Second, the Bible doesn't avoid the "trap" anyway. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that God is outside of the universe or time. But that is not on topic here, and I don't want to reinvoke Asgara's wrath.

    Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 220 by Rob, posted 12-13-2006 7:27 PM Rob has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 234 by Rob, posted 12-13-2006 10:00 PM Chiroptera has replied
     Message 240 by Rob, posted 12-13-2006 11:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

    Rob 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
    Posts: 2297
    Joined: 06-01-2006


    Message 234 of 303 (369656)
    12-13-2006 10:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 233 by Chiroptera
    12-13-2006 9:39 PM


    Re: This isn't hard.
    But that is not on topic here, and I don't want to reinvoke Asgara's wrath.
    So you say all that without leaning me an option to reply?
    I have a response, but will withhold it out of 'real' respect for the power held in the hands of... god?
    talk about a trap!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 233 by Chiroptera, posted 12-13-2006 9:39 PM Chiroptera has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 237 by Chiroptera, posted 12-13-2006 10:42 PM Rob has not replied

    Rob 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
    Posts: 2297
    Joined: 06-01-2006


    Message 235 of 303 (369657)
    12-13-2006 10:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 232 by jar
    12-13-2006 8:48 PM


    Re: Why it is irrelevant.
    I think I understand everything in your last post very well. But what the BB does is far more than tell us how God created (in our opinion).
    The BB is a conclusion based on observation and evidence
    The BB is not a conclusion. It is a theory. It is an alternative explanation (other than the Biblical one) which attempts to explain how the universe was formed. It is based on pieces of a puzzle that show significant coherence.
    It's like one of those hexagon number puzzles we've all seen. You know? The little orange disk with 9 blue hexagons? All the hexagons have numbers on each of their sides, and all the sides touch the adjacent hexagons. All of the numbers much match up if the solution is correct.
    The BB is like someone getting all but one or two of the hexagons to match, and then telling someone they have a legitimate solution.
    It's not a perfect analogy, but it works for me.
    The public is told that some of the evidence lining up confirms the strategy. And in so doing refutes the Biblical model, or at least leads to very contrived interpretations of the scriptures or a conclusion that the Bible is errant.
    There is a lot of buzz about the bang, but buzz is not the same thing as revelation. Revelation is when you get it right and you know that you couldn't have even thought of it, because it is that brilliant and that simple.
    Revelation is when God gives you the solution for free! It is when you fall to your knees and sing, 'I was blind but now I see'!
    Hey, how come I don't see warnings to you about topic violation. it would be nice to see one. It would at least provide cover for any rumblings of conspiracy (intentional or sovereign).

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 232 by jar, posted 12-13-2006 8:48 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 236 by jar, posted 12-13-2006 10:27 PM Rob has replied

    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 236 of 303 (369658)
    12-13-2006 10:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 235 by Rob
    12-13-2006 10:20 PM


    Re: Why it is irrelevant.
    The BB is not a conclusion. It is a theory.
    Well again, that just isn't correct. The Big Bang is the conclusion based on the evidence. There are several Theories to explain the Big Bang, but it is a conclusion based on the evidence.
    Hey, how come I don't see warnings to you about topic violation. it would be nice to see one. It would at least provide cover for any rumblings of conspiracy (intentional or sovereign).
    Because I don't post irrelevant stuff like:
    scottness writes:
    The public is told that some of the evidence lining up confirms the strategy. And in so doing refutes the Biblical model, or at least leads to very contrived interpretations of the scriptures or a conclusion that the Bible is errant.
    There is a lot of buzz about the bang, but buzz is not the same thing as revelation. Revelation is when you get it right and you know that you couldn't have even thought of it, because it is that brilliant and that simple.
    Revelation is when God gives you the solution for free! It is when you fall to your knees and sing, 'I was blind but now I see'!

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 235 by Rob, posted 12-13-2006 10:20 PM Rob has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 238 by Rob, posted 12-13-2006 11:22 PM jar has replied

    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 237 of 303 (369663)
    12-13-2006 10:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 234 by Rob
    12-13-2006 10:00 PM


    Re: This isn't hard.
    quote:
    So you say all that without leaning me an option to reply?
    Just the Bible stuff. You can start a new thread if you want to discuss that. Arachnophilia and Brian might like to discuss the particular verses you would bring up.
    But the "beginning" of the universe stuff and the "first cause" stuff might be on topic here, if you want to continue there.
    -
    quote:
    talk about a trap!
    Heh. I wish I was that clever.

    Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 234 by Rob, posted 12-13-2006 10:00 PM Rob has not replied

    Rob 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
    Posts: 2297
    Joined: 06-01-2006


    Message 238 of 303 (369669)
    12-13-2006 11:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 236 by jar
    12-13-2006 10:27 PM


    Re: Why it is irrelevant.
    I said:
    quote:
    The BB is not a conclusion. It is a theory.
    You said:
    Well again, that just isn't correct. The Big Bang is the conclusion based on the evidence. There are several Theories to explain the Big Bang, but it is a conclusion based on the evidence.
    Yes jar! You are correct. But you totally ignored how I explained what that means. For any who missed it, here it is..
    The BB is not a conclusion (ok scratch that!). But it is a theory. And an incomplete one at that!
    It is an alternative theory (other than the Biblical explaination) which attempts to explain how the universe was formed. It is based on pieces of a puzzle that show significant coherence.
    It's like one of those hexagon number puzzles we've all seen. You know? The little orange disk with 9 blue hexagons? All the hexagons have numbers on each of their sides, and all the sides touch the adjacent hexagons. All of the numbers much match up if the solution is correct.
    The BB is like someone getting all but one or two of the hexagons to match (significant coherence), and then telling the world they have a legitimate solution.
    Do you understand that jar?
    I don't mind the parsing of words so much as the attempt to deflect my meaning. It's like when you corrected me and said orangutans and humans are not monkeys but primates. I think I made my point clear, but you are a machine my friend! You correct people over details that only prove to show how clever you are. And you're quite clever (no doubt there!) but it does indeed make you a (shh 'what I called you'). It was not meant as an insult, but as an accurate description of your platitudinous efeetism (care to critique the spelling?). You've proven to everyone your inellectual prowess, now let's show a little humility as well.
    In fact, I respect your intellect enough to engage in this chess match. Let's not forget that we play for a reason. let's not forget that it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.
    I don't think it would bother me so much if I wasn't the same way by nature. You may call yourself a primate, but I feel like a monkey with some of this stuff! We are too often bringing out the worst in each other.
    So... with all due respect to my orange friend ( spit/cough ), my point still stands. Though BB is a conclusion based on evidence, it is an incomplete theory.
    To suggest otherwise is putting the primate before the protazoan!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 236 by jar, posted 12-13-2006 10:27 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 239 by jar, posted 12-13-2006 11:34 PM Rob has replied
     Message 241 by ringo, posted 12-13-2006 11:39 PM Rob has replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024