Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 11:10 PM
253 online now:
(253 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,321 Year: 15,144/29,783 Month: 1,088/1,502 Week: 86/492 Day: 49/37 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
46NextFF
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3867
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 46 of 687 (520674)
08-23-2009 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by lyx2no
08-22-2009 10:55 PM


Link problem - Bad message number
AbE: Hey Admin, Why did my second [midt=x] include the word "Message". It worked fine for the first one.

You transposed a couple of digits in the message number, turning 519534 into 591534. Message 591534 does not yet exist, causing the glitch you saw. The link, prior to my repair, went nowhere.

It's always good to click on your links, to check that they are going where you intended them to go.

ABSOLUTELY NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE. DOING SUCH WILL RESULT IN A SUSPENSION.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by lyx2no, posted 08-22-2009 10:55 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 47 of 687 (520684)
08-23-2009 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Phage0070
08-23-2009 1:23 AM


Re: Old
quote:
ICANT writes:
quote:
What is the scientific answer to how the universe began? "We don't know."

No, that isn't the scientific answer. The answer is: "We have lots and lots of data, and many ideas. The currently accepted one is the Big Bang Theory, and research is ongoing to either support or replace it. Check back for more updates!"

ICANT writes:

quote:
...but you don't have one shread of evidence of the facts of exactly how the universe began to exist.

Really, so you are claiming that all of the math that gets so close to your much-parroted "T=0" isn't based on any data at all? Is that what you are claiming?



ICANT seems to be asking about the origin of the Big Bang. He is correct; we don't have a scientific answer to this, and may never have one.

We have scientific speculations. Some suggest a random fluctuation in the vacuum (whatever that would mean before the Big Bang) and others suggest collisions between branes in a multiverse scenario. It may be possible to obtain some secondary evidence and limits for these speculations, but they are not really testable in the normal sense, so it is questionable whether they should even be called "scientific".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Phage0070, posted 08-23-2009 1:23 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 08-23-2009 8:31 AM kbertsche has responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 48 of 687 (520686)
08-23-2009 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by ICANT
08-22-2009 9:23 PM


Re: Old
quote:
Phage0070 writes:
quote:
Scientists didn't come up with the big bang theory without observing background radiation and the expansion of the universe.

Lets see, the Lematre theory, was confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations in 1929. (The universe was expanding) The BBT got it's name on March 28, 1949 by Fred Hoyle on BBC radio. The MBR was not discovered until 1964. So your facts are a little out of kelter.



Something similar to the Big Bang theory was suggested by Edgar Allan Poe in the mid 1800's. Lemaitre, a Poe buff, likely got the idea from Poe. At this time there was observational evidence that the universe was finite (Olbers' paradox), but of course no observational evidence of CBR or expansion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 08-22-2009 9:23 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3114 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 49 of 687 (520700)
08-23-2009 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by kbertsche
08-23-2009 4:56 AM


Re: Old
kbertsche,

Yeah, but there is evidence that there was one, which "proves" that genesis was wrong

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by kbertsche, posted 08-23-2009 4:56 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by kbertsche, posted 08-23-2009 11:44 AM mark24 has responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 50 of 687 (520709)
08-23-2009 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by mark24
08-23-2009 8:31 AM


Re: Old
quote:
Yeah, but there is evidence that there was one, which "proves" that genesis was wrong
Mark

You are saying that evidence that a Big Bang occurred proves Genesis wrong? That the Genesis account precludes a Big Bang? How so??

From the time of the ancient Greeks until the 20th century nearly all philosophers and scientists believed the universe to be eternal. They changed their opinion, primarily due to the extremely strong evidence for the Big Bang. Throughout this entire time the Genesis account proclaimed that the universe had a beginning, consistent with the Big Bang.

I don't know ICANT's views on the Big Bang, but I see no inconsistency between the Big Bang and the Genesis account.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 08-23-2009 8:31 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by mark24, posted 08-23-2009 3:25 PM kbertsche has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3114 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 51 of 687 (520727)
08-23-2009 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by kbertsche
08-23-2009 11:44 AM


Re: Old
kbertsche,

You are saying that evidence that a Big Bang occurred proves Genesis wrong? That the Genesis account precludes a Big Bang? How so??

Because one involves the solar system taking ~10 million years to appear, the other takes < 7 days. A tiny discrepancy?

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by kbertsche, posted 08-23-2009 11:44 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 08-23-2009 3:39 PM mark24 has responded
 Message 56 by kbertsche, posted 08-23-2009 5:33 PM mark24 has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5970
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 52 of 687 (520729)
08-23-2009 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by mark24
08-23-2009 3:25 PM


Re: Old
Hi Mark,

Mark24 writes:

Because one involves the solar system taking ~10 million years to appear, the other takes < 7 days. A tiny discrepancy?

Where does the Bible say the solar system took 7 days to appear?

Some very vocal YEC creationist say it took 6 days. But that is not what the Bible says.

The Bible says in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The heaven existed prior to Genesis 1:2-2:3.

The earth existed prior to Genesis 1:2-2:3.

In fact the earth is said to be in darkness and covered with water in Genesis 1:2.

So explain how they were created in the 7 day period you reference when they already existed.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mark24, posted 08-23-2009 3:25 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 08-23-2009 3:43 PM ICANT has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3114 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 53 of 687 (520730)
08-23-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ICANT
08-23-2009 3:39 PM


Re: Old
ICANT,

So explain how they were created in the 7 day period you reference when they already existed.

That would be creation week.

Where does the Bible say the solar system took 7 days to appear?

It's implicit. If everything was created in creation week, then so was the solar system.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 08-23-2009 3:39 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 08-23-2009 4:58 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5970
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 54 of 687 (520744)
08-23-2009 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by lyx2no
08-22-2009 10:55 PM


Re: Getting Older
Hi lyx2no,

lyx2no writes:

No you haven't. Tuffers said the creation story had been shown to be wrong. You interpreted this thusly: Only Gen 1:1 speaks of the creation; therefore, tuffers is saying that Gen 1:1 has been scientifically proven false.

In his OP tuffers said:

tuffers writes:

Many people today who accept that science has proven the creation story of the Bible to be fictional, somehow still believe in the creator from that story.

tuffers said "science has proven the creation story of the Bible to be fictional".

That is plain to me.

If you have a different explanation lets have it.

Genesis 1:1 says in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Declarative sentence of completed action. God created not will create in the 7 days found in Genesis 1:2-2:3.

Therefore tuffers said science has proven Genesis 1:1 false unless fiction means something else.

I simply ask for the evidence that proves Genesis 1:1 false/fictional.

lxyn2o writes:

Tuffers needs to present evidence that Gen 1:1 In the beginning God creates the heaven and the earth.

tuffers or anyone else has never been asked by me to present evidence that Gen. 1:1 is correct.

I have asked that the evidence that proves it false be presented.

lyx2no writes:

If your entire argument is that it hasn't been proven that a god of some sort did not create the Heavens and the Earth you,ll not find any sane challengers.

My argument is nobody has presented any scientific evidence of the creation of the universe. There is none, it does not exist.

Yet tuffers, and others have claimed science proves the Genesis account of creation false.

Either they do not know what the Genesis creation account says or they don't know what they are talking about.

Science has zero evidence of facts of how the universe began to exist.

Many here have said it did not begin to exist. "It just is".

"It just is", makes the universe infinite. That is the Steady state theory. Hoyle and Einstein held this theory to be correct.

Because of the discovery of expansion Einstein began a search of how God created the universe.

If expansion is true the universe did not exist and began to exist.

Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Science says: "In the beginning we don't know".

lyxn2o writes:

Gen 1:1 doesn't say enough that it can be proven wrong.

Sure it does. All you or anyone has to do is produce the evidence of the facts of how the universe began to exist There are several ideas but they are all the imaginations of man.

lyx2no writes:

The claim is the bit that evidence need be supplied for.

The claim is: "science has proven the creation story of the Bible to be fictional".

That is the claim.

My statement is that the evidence I asked for does not exist.

I am glad you agree that the evidence does not exist.

But I can't understand why the facts would not falsify Genesis 1:1 if it is not correct.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by lyx2no, posted 08-22-2009 10:55 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by lyx2no, posted 08-23-2009 7:54 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5970
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 55 of 687 (520746)
08-23-2009 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by mark24
08-23-2009 3:43 PM


Re: Old
mark24 writes:

It's implicit. If everything was created in creation week, then so was the solar system.

There is no creation week.

The only things created in Gen 1:2-2:3 is huge water creatures in verse 21 and mankind in verse 27.

There is a creation day. Gen 1:1 "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".

Genesis 2:4 delcares itself to be the account of the heaven and earth in the DAY the Lord God created the earth and the heaven.

BTW are you a YEC atheist?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 08-23-2009 3:43 PM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ochaye, posted 08-23-2009 6:42 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 56 of 687 (520751)
08-23-2009 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by mark24
08-23-2009 3:25 PM


Re: Old
quote:
quote:
You are saying that evidence that a Big Bang occurred proves Genesis wrong? That the Genesis account precludes a Big Bang? How so??

Because one involves the solar system taking ~10 million years to appear, the other takes < 7 days. A tiny discrepancy?

Mark



I think you are missing the main point of this thread. ICANT claims the text does NOT say that the heavens and earth were created in a 7-day period. They were created in Gen 1:1, before the 7-day period commenced. Their creation (and the length of time to accomplish it) are undated in Scripture.

I agree with ICANT on this point, as do many theologians and Hebrew scholars.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mark24, posted 08-23-2009 3:25 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by mark24, posted 08-23-2009 6:28 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3114 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 57 of 687 (520752)
08-23-2009 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by kbertsche
08-23-2009 5:33 PM


Re: Old
Learn something new every day .
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by kbertsche, posted 08-23-2009 5:33 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
ochaye
Member (Idle past 3158 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 58 of 687 (520753)
08-23-2009 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by ICANT
08-23-2009 4:58 PM


Re: Old
Maybe there has to be a creation week to justify people in medieval clothes parading around in pointy buildings on 'sabbaths' to provide a nice safe ritual version of Christianity. Maybe the only reason there is such a thing as a week is to provide protection from Christianity.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 08-23-2009 4:58 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2635 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 59 of 687 (520759)
08-23-2009 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ICANT
08-23-2009 4:46 PM


Re: Getting Older
That is plain to me.

If you have a different explanation lets have it.

It has been explained it to you more then once, but I'm always happy to give it another try.

When you are chairing one of your bi-monthly meetings of The Secret Society of Utter Nut-Balls have you ever noticed tuffers to be in attendance? No? That's because he's not a member. When non-members use the phrase "The creation story" they're not referring to just the first ten words. Like the hand shake, the ten word rule is a members only idiosyncrasy.

Tuffers, and other non-members, mean all of it. Sloppy usage to be sure, but when in Rome So when tuffers says "science has proven the creation story of the Bible to be fictional" he means the bits about God creating hot dog buns in packs of ten when all the scientific evidence 'proves' they only come in eights.

tuffers said "science has proven the creation story of the Bible to be fictional".

That is plain to me.

If you have a different explanation lets have it.

Genesis 1:1 says in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Declarative sentence of completed action. God created not will create in the 7 days found in Genesis 1:2-2:3.

Therefore tuffers said science has proven Genesis 1:1 false unless fiction means something else.

I simply ask for the evidence that proves Genesis 1:1 false/fictional.

You really, really don't need to keep saying this, though maybe you do need to read it.

No one has said Gen 1:1 has be shown to be wrong: No one. No one even tried. You have turned tuffers statement into your statement and then demand that he defend it. He is only responsible for defending his own statements. (Which, by the way, he hasn't done either, but as it's been done to death it shouldn't be necessary.)

lxyn2o writes:

Tuffers needs to present evidence that Gen 1:1 In the beginning God creates the heaven and the earth.

You'll have to take that up with lxyn2o. The man's been at the swill, if you ask me. It's not even a full sentence.

But I can't understand why the facts would not falsify Genesis 1:1 if it is not correct.

Because Gen 1:1 only say that God did it. It does not restriction how God did it. Therefore, no matter how it was done God could have done it.

Try this: You're playing Clue with an idiot. The cards are all dealt out, the clues hidden away. On the idiot's first roll he declares he did it. No one has his card, save maybe himself, but he's an idiot. He has no alibi. Now if he said he did it with a wrench, well, Colonel mustard produces the wrench. If he said he did it in the study, Miss Scarlet was in the study. If he said the victim was Mr. Green, Mr. Green can put up a fuss. But, until such time as more is said the idiot's story can't be contradicted. Any idiot can present a story too vague to be contradictable. Especially in ten words or less.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 08-23-2009 4:46 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by caldron68, posted 08-23-2009 9:44 PM lyx2no has responded

  
caldron68
Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 79
From: USA
Joined: 08-26-2007


Message 60 of 687 (520762)
08-23-2009 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by lyx2no
08-23-2009 7:54 PM


Re: Getting Older
Considering that science has proven the broader story of Genesis to be false, isn't it only logical to assume that the first 10 words are also false?

Edited by caldron68, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by lyx2no, posted 08-23-2009 7:54 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by lyx2no, posted 08-23-2009 10:08 PM caldron68 has not yet responded
 Message 62 by kbertsche, posted 08-23-2009 10:48 PM caldron68 has not yet responded
 Message 70 by ochaye, posted 08-24-2009 2:54 AM caldron68 has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Sasuke, posted 08-24-2009 2:55 AM caldron68 has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
46NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018