Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2018 1:53 AM
194 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, ICANT, Tanypteryx (4 members, 190 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,276 Year: 19,099/29,783 Month: 1,044/2,043 Week: 89/507 Day: 0/89 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8687
88
8990
...
95Next
Author Topic:   Creation
ringo
Member
Posts: 15791
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 1306 of 1411 (844645)
12-03-2018 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1303 by ICANT
12-02-2018 11:23 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:

Since you have the evidence would you please present it in this thread.


quote:
Evidence supporting the Big Bang theory includes the presence of cosmic microwave background radiation, visual observation of redshifted objects and the abundance of primordial elements found throughout the universe. link

ICANT writes:

Please explain how that, 'a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.' is based on any kind of evidence?


That is not how assumptions are defined in science. For example, the "assumption" that radioactive decay rates do not change has been tested thoroughly.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1303 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2018 11:23 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1310 by ICANT, posted 12-04-2018 11:19 PM ringo has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1559
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 1307 of 1411 (844662)
12-03-2018 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1294 by ICANT
12-02-2018 4:52 PM


Re: Creation
Below is the actual address but I prefer you use the search above.

The content of Google searches is different depending on your IP and your cookies. Would have been more useful to just point me to the Encyclopedia Britannica article, but thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1294 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2018 4:52 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6146
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1308 of 1411 (844749)
12-04-2018 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1304 by Tangle
12-03-2018 3:37 AM


Re: Creation
Hi Tangle,

Tangle writes:

You have no business picking a side that you think supports your religious argument whilst pretending that it's settled science and that no other position exists it isn't and it doesn't.

I thought I picked the majority side.

quote:
I think that at least 99.9 percent of the people working in scientific cosmology today believe that the universe evolved from a hot dense state, exactly as Sandra Faber spoke about earlier. This theory is strongly supported by the direct observation of the expansion of the universe via the redshift of the light from distant galaxies, by the measurement of the abundances of the light chemical elements, and by the now very precise measurements of both the spectrum and the very small nonuniformities of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Thus, most scientists (including me) believe that the universe as we know it began in a big bang some 11 to 16 billion years ago.

Tangle writes:

You haven't the first idea what the Big Bang is, never mind whether anything existed before it. You're miles out of your depth arguing dishonestly.

This is quoted from a talk given by Alan Guth at Cosmic Questions, April 14-16, 1999, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.

I argue facts that are presented by the scientists I quote.
If they are right or wrong is not my fault.

Do you think Guth's side is the wrong side?
If so why don't you try to present the correct side.

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 1304 by Tangle, posted 12-03-2018 3:37 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1311 by Tangle, posted 12-05-2018 4:16 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6146
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1309 of 1411 (844754)
12-04-2018 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1305 by ringo
12-03-2018 10:44 AM


Re: Evidence?
Hi ringo

ringo writes:

Paul did:

quote:
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Had the translators used the primary definition instead of the secondary definition it would have read unseen.

But exactly what did Paul say? He is the image of the... Who is the He Paul is referring too? Paul is referring to Jesus. The firstborn of creation being in the image of the unseen God.

quote:
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

If you have seen one you have seen the other. They are one and the same John 10:30 "I and my Father are one."

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 1305 by ringo, posted 12-03-2018 10:44 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1314 by ringo, posted 12-05-2018 2:24 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6146
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1310 of 1411 (844756)
12-04-2018 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1306 by ringo
12-03-2018 10:52 AM


Re: Creation
Hi ringo

ringo writes:

quote:
Evidence supporting the Big Bang theory includes the presence of cosmic microwave background radiation, visual observation of redshifted objects and the abundance of primordial elements found throughout the universe. link

Yes the cmbr is evidence of a long light period in the beginning.

But that also supports the day the Lord God Created the heavens and earth in that lasted until He created darkness.

The primordial elements being found throughout the universe also supports God creating the universe. They would have to be there

Since God stretched out the heavens you would also see that the universe is expanding.

Yes you have presented evidence that supports the BBT as for as it goes. But there are many problems with the BBT.

But the evidence you presented supports creation by God as good if not better than the BBT.

here

Are the top 10 problems with the Big Bang Theory.

ringo writes:

That is not how assumptions are defined in science. For example, the "assumption" that radioactive decay rates do not change has been tested thoroughly.

Words have meanings and we don't get to redefine them to suit our particular situation. Invent words if necessary.

Tested thoroughly over how many years.

Can you tell me what the radioactive rate of decay was a trillion years ago as we measure time? And yes I believe the universe is a lot older than that.

Can you even tell me what the radioactive rate of decay was 13.7 billion years ago.

You can make all the assumptions you want but you were not there to test it then so what ever you decide is just an assumption. It may be true or it may be false.

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.


"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 1306 by ringo, posted 12-03-2018 10:52 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1312 by Son of Man, posted 12-05-2018 6:36 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 1315 by ringo, posted 12-05-2018 2:39 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 1316 by Pressie, posted 12-06-2018 4:04 AM ICANT has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6397
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 1311 of 1411 (844761)
12-05-2018 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1308 by ICANT
12-04-2018 7:56 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:

I thought I picked the majority side.

Why are you picking sides? The fact that there are sides tells you that there is not yet a settled scientific concensus yet you picked a side that you thought would help you.

You're also confused about what the scientists are saying - not surprising because you're not a scientist, so you post stuff that you don't understand imagining that it supports your position.

The scientists are not saying that the big bang didn't happen, they're saying that a universe existed before it. ie it's eternal.

If so why don't you try to present the correct side.

Because there is no correct side yet. Obviously.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1308 by ICANT, posted 12-04-2018 7:56 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1321 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2018 11:43 PM Tangle has responded

  
Son of Man
Junior Member
Posts: 26
From: Ireland
Joined: 11-13-2018


Message 1312 of 1411 (844770)
12-05-2018 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1310 by ICANT
12-04-2018 11:19 PM


Re: Creation
Scientist make up theories that are their assumptions based on what they see as fact, their theories are held as fact until another scientist can PROVE it is wrong, there for science is an evolving process, yet religious people have made their minds up full stop. give a scientist the phrase I and my farther are one and he will ask who is his father not who is God?
Jesus father was Joseph, so I believe he was saying that he maybe in his eyes he both looks and thinks like his farther? Not that his father is God? If he meant God maybe he would have said his creator? Or maybe just said God. My assumption being that religion is not a scientific theory and doesn't have to be proven by the religious (its only their belief) but can be disproved by scientists hands down? or can it?

the first will be the last and the last will be the first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1310 by ICANT, posted 12-04-2018 11:19 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1313 by Pressie, posted 12-05-2018 6:51 AM Son of Man has responded
 Message 1317 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2018 4:35 AM Son of Man has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1977
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1313 of 1411 (844771)
12-05-2018 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1312 by Son of Man
12-05-2018 6:36 AM


Re: Creation
Your essay is downright confusing. Try capital letters, basic spelling, paragraphs and full stops.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1312 by Son of Man, posted 12-05-2018 6:36 AM Son of Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1325 by Son of Man, posted 12-07-2018 4:58 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15791
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1314 of 1411 (844805)
12-05-2018 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1309 by ICANT
12-04-2018 10:25 PM


Re: Evidence?
ICANT writes:

Had the translators used the primary definition instead of the secondary definition it would have read unseen.


Unseen and invisible is the same thing.

ICANT writes:

If you have seen one you have seen the other. They are one and the same John 10:30 "I and my Father are one."


Apparently Jesus was not telling the truth, since He was visible and His Father was not.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1309 by ICANT, posted 12-04-2018 10:25 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1319 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2018 3:04 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15791
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1315 of 1411 (844806)
12-05-2018 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1310 by ICANT
12-04-2018 11:19 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:

Yes the cmbr is evidence of a long light period in the beginning.


No it isn't. It says nothing about duration.

ICANT writes:

But that also supports the day the Lord God Created the heavens and earth in that lasted until He created darkness.


God did not "create" darkness. He separated the light from the darkness -i.e. He separated the day from the night. That has to do with the rotation of the earth, not the Big Bang.

ICANT writes:

But the evidence you presented supports creation by God as good if not better than the BBT.


It is not possible to scientifically support creation "by God" unless you can support scientifically that God exists - and you can't.

ICANT writes:

Words have meanings and we don't get to redefine them to suit our particular situation.


That's right. YOU don't get to redefine how science defines assumptions.

ICANT writes:

Invent words if necessary.


No, it's perfectly fine to use different definitions of words in different contexts. For example, the word "unity" has a different meaning in politics than it does in mathematics.

ICANT writes:

Can you even tell me what the radioactive rate of decay was 13.7 billion years ago.


If you think it was different, you'd have to show that it was different AND you'd have to show what caused it to change. Without evidence of a change, we can't pretend that there was a change.

ICANT writes:

You can make all the assumptions you want but you were not there to test it...


We can test the aftereffects, if any. We don't have to "be there" when a murder is committed to observe that the body is dead and that there is a bullet-hole in it.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1310 by ICANT, posted 12-04-2018 11:19 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1322 by ICANT, posted 12-07-2018 12:19 AM ringo has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1977
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1316 of 1411 (844832)
12-06-2018 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1310 by ICANT
12-04-2018 11:19 PM


Re: Creation
This one is always quite amusing to me.

ICANT writes:

You can make all the assumptions you want but you were not there to test it then so what ever you decide is just an assumption. It may be true or it may be false.


Well, I wasn't there when my father banged my mother and I was concieved as a result. All the DNA evidence indicate that I'm their biological child...I didn't have to be there in a peep show to know that it happened. And we can test it. DNA. It is true. My father banged my mother.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1310 by ICANT, posted 12-04-2018 11:19 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1320 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2018 3:25 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6146
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1317 of 1411 (844833)
12-06-2018 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1312 by Son of Man
12-05-2018 6:36 AM


Re: Creation
Hi Man

Son of Man writes:

Scientist make up theories that are their assumptions based on what they see as fact,

Scientist don't make up theories.

Assumptions are made. Hypothesis are formed evidence is gathered, examined, tests are made, conclusion are made, and if enough scientists agree it can become a theory. Even if they are wrong, as they have been so many times in the past.

Son of Man writes:

Jesus father was Joseph,

Jesus had no human father his mother was a virgin when He was born.

Son of Man writes:

God maybe he would have said his creator?

Why? Jesus created everything and made everything that was made and is the force that holds it together.

Son of Man writes:

My assumption being that religion is not a scientific theory

Religion is not a theory. It is a fact if when you use the word religion you are talking about a set of beliefs that are believed and practiced by people.

There are over 4,000 different religions in the world, and 34,000 so called Christian denominations. But when it comes down to it one's of those that are doing things the way that pleases God is very few.

Son of Man writes:

disproved by scientists hands down?

What belief can be disproved by scientist? Be specific.

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 1312 by Son of Man, posted 12-05-2018 6:36 AM Son of Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1318 by Pressie, posted 12-06-2018 5:28 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1326 by Son of Man, posted 12-07-2018 5:28 AM ICANT has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1977
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1318 of 1411 (844834)
12-06-2018 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1317 by ICANT
12-06-2018 4:35 AM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:

God Bless,

May the Holy FSM touch you with a Holy Noodly Appendage.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1317 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2018 4:35 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6146
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1319 of 1411 (844853)
12-06-2018 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1314 by ringo
12-05-2018 2:24 PM


Re: Evidence?
Hi ringo

ringo writes:

Unseen and invisible is the same thing.

How so?

You are unseen to me as I have never seen you. But are you also invisible?

I think you exist as someone using the nickname of ringo. Unseen to me yes but invisible no.

God to you is unseen by you but that does not make Him invisible.

ringo writes:

Apparently Jesus was not telling the truth, since He was visible and His Father was not.

Since they are one and the same they are both visible.

If I was standing in front of you, your physical body would be visible to me but your spirit and mind would not be visible to me. But they would be there just the same. They are all 3 one and the same.

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 1314 by ringo, posted 12-05-2018 2:24 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1328 by ringo, posted 12-07-2018 10:53 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6146
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1320 of 1411 (844854)
12-06-2018 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1316 by Pressie
12-06-2018 4:04 AM


Re: Creation
Hi Pressie

Pressie writes:

My father banged my mother.

So What?

You were there when the 23 chromosomes from the egg of your mother was fertilized by the 23 chromosomes from your fathers sperm.

It makes no difference that occurred because you mother and father had sex or your mother's egg was put in a test tube with your fathers sperm. It works either way. You could have then been placed in a surrogant mother to carry you to natural birth.

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 1316 by Pressie, posted 12-06-2018 4:04 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
8687
88
8990
...
95Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018