Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 4:37 AM
182 online now:
caffeine, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 177 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,778 Year: 18,601/29,783 Month: 546/2,043 Week: 98/386 Day: 1/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
868788
89
9091Next
Author Topic:   Creation
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 1321 of 1358 (844862)
12-06-2018 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1311 by Tangle
12-05-2018 4:16 AM


Re: Creation
Hi Tangle

Tangle writes:

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.

I actually thought 99.9% consensus was considered an accepted theory in scientific circles.

Tangle writes:

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.

As long as I post what they say you can argue against what they say and not what you imagine I am imagining they said.

Tangle writes:

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.

There is no scientific evidence of anything existing prior to the singularity at T=0.

Quote me one published scientist that can support with evidence of any thing existing prior to the singularity that existed at T=0).

Tangle writes:

Because there is no correct side yet. Obviously.

Sure there is a correct answer.

quote:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

It was not created by spontaneous combustion from an absence of existence.

It had to be created by something or someone, that had all power, required to produce all the matter in the universe.

There only two theories of the origin of the universe.
1. The oldest is that the universe is eternal having no beginning and no end. There are several different versions of this one.

Einstein believed in 1 of them called Static universe. Until Hubble used the Doppler effect to determine that the universe is expanding.
Then Einstein changed his mind. Because an expanding universe can not be eternal due to entropy.

2. The other is that the universe was created at some point in time.

The BBT is one of those with a little different explanation stating time, and space began to exist at the same time. Lately it has been modified to add everything existed in a pea sized universe that existed 1 billionth of a second after T=0. No explanation of where that little universe came from.

Later Hawking proposed an instanton to produce the universe with no explanation of where it came from. Later some said that little universe was produced by two branes banging together. With no explanation of where those branes could have existed. They require a vacuum to appear in. No explanation of where that vacuum came from or existed.

There was several problems with the big bang theory.
The Horizon Problem
The missing magnetic monopole problem.
The Flatness Problem.
Lack of universal galactic uniformity.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Inflation violates Einstein's General Law of Relativity
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as Entropy.
It violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
link
Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.
The microwave background makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
link

Here is an open letter to science concerning problems with the big bang theory. Partial quote:

quote:
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community was published under the title:
Bucking the big bang
Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

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 1311 by Tangle, posted 12-05-2018 4:16 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1323 by Tangle, posted 12-07-2018 3:17 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 1324 by Pressie, posted 12-07-2018 4:50 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 1322 of 1358 (844864)
12-07-2018 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1315 by ringo
12-05-2018 2:39 PM


Re: Creation
Hi ringo

ringo writes:

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

10 billion K would produce a lot of light.
3 billion K 380,000 years later would produce a lot of light. All this before the first atom was formed. That would make for a pretty long day in my book.

ringo writes:

God did not "create" darkness.


quote:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I know you don't believe God exists but I would warn you since it is possible that He does exist you refrain from calling Him a Liar.

ringo writes:

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

There is more real evidence that God exists than the universe began to exist from non existence. Or that it is scientifically eternal.

ringo writes:

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

The root word was around along time before modern science came along and started making assumptions.

ringo writes:

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.

I thought it meant oneness in either.

ringo writes:

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.

You were the one making assertions and I ask a question you did not answer.

You can not test the aftereffect of an assumption.
You can only test observations and see if they fit your assumption

After the body is totally decayed and there is no body left if the bullet did not hit a bone you can't tell if the victim has been shot or not.
In other words you need a pretty fresh body.

But we are talking about assumptions that were made of events that took place billions of years ago


"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 1315 by ringo, posted 12-05-2018 2:39 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1329 by ringo, posted 12-07-2018 11:13 AM ICANT has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6352
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1323 of 1358 (844865)
12-07-2018 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1321 by ICANT
12-06-2018 11:43 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:

I actually thought 99.9% consensus was considered an accepted theory in scientific circles.

Why are *all* creationists intellectually dishonest?

I have no idea where your 99.9% comes from - or rather I do, but it would be rude to say - but I suspect that what you mean is that most physicists accept the big bang hypothesis.

Fine, and so does the group that also hypothesise that the universe existed before it. No one yet knows what was before the big bang.

There is no scientific evidence of anything existing prior to the singularity at T=0.

There are mathematically explained hypotheses. One of which - the one I showed you - is that the universe existed before but in a different state.

Quote me one published scientist that can support with evidence of any thing existing prior to the singularity that existed at T=0).

Huh? I already did.

It had to be created by something or someone, that had all power, required to produce all the matter in the universe.

No it doesn't, Hawking believed that it could be a spontaneous birth.

But no one knows yet.


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 1321 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2018 11:43 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1327 by Son of Man, posted 12-07-2018 6:32 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 1330 by ICANT, posted 12-07-2018 1:59 PM Tangle has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1965
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1324 of 1358 (844868)
12-07-2018 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1321 by ICANT
12-06-2018 11:43 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:

I actually thought 99.9% consensus was considered an accepted theory in scientific circles.

Nope. Scientific consensus comes around when the conculsions of the specialists following independent research on a subject converge.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1321 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2018 11:43 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1331 by ICANT, posted 12-07-2018 2:50 PM Pressie has responded

    
Son of Man
Junior Member
Posts: 25
From: Ireland
Joined: 11-13-2018


Message 1325 of 1358 (844869)
12-07-2018 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1313 by Pressie
12-05-2018 6:51 AM


Re: Creation
pressie writes:

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


not an essay just trying to make a point
stay confused
failed basic English so what
should be petty pressie? no caps!!!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1313 by Pressie, posted 12-05-2018 6:51 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Son of Man
Junior Member
Posts: 25
From: Ireland
Joined: 11-13-2018


Message 1326 of 1358 (844871)
12-07-2018 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1317 by ICANT
12-06-2018 4:35 AM


Re: Creation
Hi ICANT
We can all rely on your answers for the facts and figures, thanks
It is an impossibility for Jesus to not have a human father, every one born on this planet has a human father. He like me was born to a virgin, that virgin being Virgo the virgin. look up the facts about your virgin Mary and then look up the facts about the star formation Virgo, you will find a lot of similarities. I wouldn't be the first to notice them, which brings me to the question why does the Catholic church hold the worlds largest collection of ancient astrology books known and why doesn't it share them?

ICANT writes:

Why? Jesus created everything

now your getting closer to the truth

ICANT writes:

What belief can be disproved by scientist?

that was my point, nothing in religion can proved , or disproved in the religious eyes, your belief about God is different to every other persons as is mine, do we need a more scientific approach?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1317 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2018 4:35 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1332 by ICANT, posted 12-07-2018 2:57 PM Son of Man has not yet responded

  
Son of Man
Junior Member
Posts: 25
From: Ireland
Joined: 11-13-2018


Message 1327 of 1358 (844873)
12-07-2018 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1323 by Tangle
12-07-2018 3:17 AM


Re: Creation
another wrangle with Tangle
hi Tangle

Tangle writes:

Why are *all* creationists intellectually dishonest?


I must be a different kind of Creationist I'm not intellectual or dishonest!

Tangle writes:

No one yet knows what was before the big bang.

I reckon it was a man telling his children to stand back while he lighting a small fuse.

Tangle writes:

that it could be a spontaneous birth.

that was after the immaculate conception I believe?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1323 by Tangle, posted 12-07-2018 3:17 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15740
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1328 of 1358 (844875)
12-07-2018 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1319 by ICANT
12-06-2018 3:04 PM


Re: Evidence?
ICANT writes:

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


That doesn't apply in this context. If Jesus and His father are one, you can't have one being invisible and one being unseen.

ICANT writes:

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

quote:
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

ICANT writes:

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


Since Jesus was visible and God is not, clearly they are not one and the same.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1319 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2018 3:04 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1333 by ICANT, posted 12-07-2018 3:09 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15740
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1329 of 1358 (844877)
12-07-2018 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1322 by ICANT
12-07-2018 12:19 AM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:

10 billion K would produce a lot of light.


Light is not the only form of energy.

ICANT writes:

quote:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I know you don't believe God exists but I would warn you since it is possible that He does exist you refrain from calling Him a Liar.


I'm not calling God a liar. I'm saying Isaiah was wrong. Darkness is not a "thing" that can be created.

ICANT writes:

There is more real evidence that God exists than the universe began to exist from non existence.


There is no objective evidence that God exists.

ICANT writes:

ringo writes:

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


The root word was around along time before modern science came along and started making assumptions.

The root word is irrelevant. When new things come along, we have to use old root words to describe them. New meanings come from old roots. For example, the word "plane" was around long before there were flying vehicles.

ICANT writes:

You can only test observations and see if they fit your assumption


And that is what science does. An assumption in science is not, "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof," as you claimed in Message 1303. The conclusions from one set of observations become the assumptions for the next set of conclusions; they are all based on fact.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1322 by ICANT, posted 12-07-2018 12:19 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1335 by ICANT, posted 12-07-2018 8:10 PM ringo has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 1330 of 1358 (844901)
12-07-2018 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1323 by Tangle
12-07-2018 3:17 AM


Re: Creation
Hi Tangle

Tangle writes:

but I suspect that what you mean is that most physicists accept the big bang hypothesis.

I got the 99.9% figure from a physics web site.

The Big Bang Theory is a theory not a hypothesis. It has consensus of the majority of scientist. That is what it takes to reach the point a hypothesis becomes a theory. That still does not make it a fact.

Tangle writes:

No one yet knows what was before the big bang.

Why would you make that statement and follow it with this:

Tangle writes:

There are mathematically explained hypotheses. One of which - the one I showed you - is that the universe existed before but in a different state.

Mathematics is not evidence.

If no one knows what existed before T=0 how can anyone write giving evidence for anything that existed prior to T=0?

They can have all kind of ideas, musings, thoughts, equations, but from all that they can only make assumptions with no facts of any kind to support those assumptions.

Now as far as the universe having existed before in a different state.

If you check my past posts from 2007 on you will find I have always agreed with Einstein's eternal universe. My statements went something like this.

I believe the universe is much older than anyone on this website as I believe it has always existed being eternal in the past just not in the form we see it today. I have mentioned trillions of years and quadrillion years but I believe the universe has existed eternally in the past.

Tangle writes:

Huh? I already did.

You have presented no one who has presented any evidence for something existing prior to one billionth of a second after T=0 at which time the universe is said to have a temperature of 10 billion degrees K. Before that is known as singularity which is a mathematical term telling us the math don't work as General Relativity breaks down and gives no information.

This is a quote taken from a review of Sir Roger Penrose book, listed as NON-FICTION Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe 2016.

quote:
Theoretical physicists are an idealistic lot.
Theirs is the noble struggle to understand the nature of the universe: to know, as Stephen Hawking put it, the mind of God. Yet physicists are human too. They are as flawed as the rest of us subject to the whims of fashion, dogmas of unquestioning faith and flights of unadulterated fantasy.
These human flaws have led to the present impasse in physics, warns Sir Roger Penrose. His penetrating new book is the long anticipated follow-up to three eponymous lectures he gave at Princeton in 2003. In those talks, he called out the problems, both sociological and technical, in the way physics is done today. In particular, he calls string theory a fashion, quantum mechanics faith, and cosmic inflation a fantasy.

You can read more here

Tangle writes:

No it doesn't, Hawking believed that it could be a spontaneous birth.

I think I was the one who mentioned that. But yes I know Hawking and Hartley presented what they called an instanton as the source of the universe.

The problem with that is the instanton requires a vacuum in order for the particles to pop into existence in. But there was non existence prior to the universe. That would mean the vacuum required for the instanton to begin to exist in did not exist.

That is the problem with the scientific method of the universe beginning to exist. There had to be existence prior to the Big Bang, Hawking/Hartley instanton, any string theory and branes banging together, as all require existence for them to take place in. Hawking even borrowed imaginary time and inserted it in a vertical position so he could do away with the singularity. So he posits the universe beginning to exist in imaginary time.

Tangle writes:

But no one knows yet.

Sure they do.

God told Moses to tell the children of Israel that "I AM THAT I AM" has sent me. The Hebrew word היה means exist. Exodus 3:14.

Therefore God existed prior to the universe.

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 1323 by Tangle, posted 12-07-2018 3:17 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1334 by Tangle, posted 12-07-2018 6:27 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 1331 of 1358 (844904)
12-07-2018 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1324 by Pressie
12-07-2018 4:50 AM


Re: Creation
Hi Pressie

Pressie writes:

Nope. Scientific consensus comes around when the conculsions of the specialists following independent research on a subject converge.

I did not state how they reached their consensus nor do I care how they reach their consensus. They are wrong, as their eyes have been blinded to the truth and they can't see what is truth and what is fantasy.

Some do get it like Sir Roger Penrose, one of the most promient scientist of my lifetime. He believes we need better theories than the ones that is presently the most popular.

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 1324 by Pressie, posted 12-07-2018 4:50 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1354 by Pressie, posted 12-10-2018 3:50 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 1332 of 1358 (844905)
12-07-2018 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1326 by Son of Man
12-07-2018 5:28 AM


Re: Creation
Hi Man

Son of Man writes:

that was my point, nothing in religion can proved

There has been very little evidence presented in this thread for anything scientific. Nothing as far as creation is concerned but assertions in a thread named Creation.

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 1326 by Son of Man, posted 12-07-2018 5:28 AM Son of Man has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 1333 of 1358 (844906)
12-07-2018 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1328 by ringo
12-07-2018 10:53 AM


Re: Evidence?
Hi ringo

ringo writes:

That doesn't apply in this context. If Jesus and His father are one, you can't have one being invisible and one being unseen.

Which one is invisible?

Jesus was here on earth and seen by thousands.

God the Father is in heaven and has been seen only by Moses.

If you were sitting with me here in my office I could see your physical manifestation. I could not see your spiritual manifestation nor the manifestation of your mind. You are a triune being in the image of God whether you believe in Him or not does not make any difference.

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 1328 by ringo, posted 12-07-2018 10:53 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1341 by ringo, posted 12-08-2018 10:44 AM ICANT has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6352
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 1334 of 1358 (844910)
12-07-2018 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1330 by ICANT
12-07-2018 1:59 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:

I got the 99.9% figure from a physics web site.

Which you can't now source.

But even if you could it would be irrelevant because my point has nothing to do with the big bang. The issue being discussed is what was before the big bang.

The Big Bang Theory is a theory not a hypothesis.

It's a hypothesis but never mind, it's irrelevant to the point being made.

It has consensus of the majority of scientist. That is what it takes to reach the point a hypothesis becomes a theory. That still does not make it a fact.

It's still irrelevant to the point being made. (And a theory is stronger than fact, because it is an explanation of facts; but that is also irrelevant.)

Mathematics is not evidence.

That's why it's a hypothesis. A hypotheis supported by validated mathematics.

If no one knows what existed before T=0 how can anyone write giving evidence for anything that existed prior to T=0?

It's what science does, creates hypothesise about things that are not known yet.

I believe the universe is much older than anyone on this website as I believe it has always existed being eternal in the past just not in the form we see it today. I have mentioned trillions of years and quadrillion years but I believe the universe has existed eternally in the past

Why should I care what you believe? Show your workings.

But there was non existence prior to the universe.

Why should I care what you believe? Show your workings.

There had to be existence prior to the Big Bang, Hawking/Hartley instanton, any string theory and branes banging together, as all require existence for them to take place in. Hawking even borrowed imaginary time and inserted it in a vertical position so he could do away with the singularity. So he posits the universe beginning to exist in imaginary time.

So just what is your problem? You agree that there are scientists that hypothesise that the universe existed before the big bang.
So you now agree that you're wrong. Weird.

God told Moses to tell the children of Israel that "I AM THAT I AM" has sent me. The Hebrew word היה means exist. Exodus 3:14.

Why should I care what you believe? Show your workings.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


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 1330 by ICANT, posted 12-07-2018 1:59 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1337 by ICANT, posted 12-07-2018 9:58 PM Tangle has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 1335 of 1358 (844912)
12-07-2018 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1329 by ringo
12-07-2018 11:13 AM


Re: Creation
Hi ringo

ringo writes:

Light is not the only form of energy.

I thought it took energy to produce light.
Light is photons and electromagnetic waves.

At 10 billion degrees K the soup that existed one billionth of a second after T=0 would have been pure energy.

Pure energy would produce bright light.

ringo writes:

I'm not calling God a liar. I'm saying Isaiah was wrong. Darkness is not a "thing" that can be created.

If the entire universe was bathed in this bright light where would darkness come from? As darkness did not exist.

You think of darkness as we know it today with the rotation of the earth relative to the sun producing light periods and dark periods.
But darkness did not exist in the beginning.

ringo writes:

There is no objective evidence that God exists.

Do you mean objective evidence like the objective evidence for the universe not existing at T=0 and yet existing 1 billionth of a second later?

Two branes colliding and creating the universe.

An instanton beginning to exist and producing the present universe.

There is no objective evidence for any of those, making them equal in objective evidence for their existence.

ringo writes:

The root word is irrelevant. When new things come along, we have to use old root words to describe them. New meanings come from old roots. For example, the word "plane" was around long before there were flying vehicles.

But a plane is not a flying vehicle.
Definition of Plane:

quote:
a flat surface on which a straight line joining any two points on it would wholly lie.
link

An airplane is a flying vehicle and defined:

quote:
a powered flying vehicle with fixed wings and a weight greater than that of the air it displaces.

link

ringo writes:

The conclusions from one set of observations become the assumptions for the next set of conclusions; they are all based on fact.

Where do you find that definition of assumption?

It is assumed the universe existed 1 billionth of a second after T=0.
what fact is that assumption based on.

You said they are all based on fact.

ringo writes:

as you claimed in Message 1303.

In Message 1303 I gave the definition of assumption in the form of a question as: "'a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.' is based on any kind of evidence? "

Here are some dictionary definitions of assumption.

quote:
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
link

quote:

A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
link

quote:
a willingness to accept something as true without question or proof:
link

quote:
The definition of an assumption is an idea that is formed without evidence.
link

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 1329 by ringo, posted 12-07-2018 11:13 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1336 by DrJones*, posted 12-07-2018 8:50 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 1343 by ringo, posted 12-08-2018 11:07 AM ICANT has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
868788
89
9091Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018