Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Critics
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3634 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 46 of 130 (244391)
09-17-2005 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
09-17-2005 12:43 PM


Re: Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
No rush mate. I've seen you putting your effort in elsewhere on the board... Do you do any work

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2005 12:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2005 9:11 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 130 (244393)
09-17-2005 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by LA Buck
09-16-2005 10:54 PM


Re: Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
quote:
I wasn't meaning to say that Big Bang and Evolution were the SAME theory, only that they are both based on similar faulty "backward" reasoning.
I get the impression that what you meant was that they both contradict your preferred creation myth.
Maybe you would like to discuss this "backward" reasoning that you find faulty? Since this thread is now officially off-topic, maybe the moderators will allow you to discuss it here; otherwise iano has started a thread on uniformatarianism that may be more relevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by LA Buck, posted 09-16-2005 10:54 PM LA Buck has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2005 1:32 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3634 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 48 of 130 (244401)
09-17-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Chiroptera
09-17-2005 1:15 PM


Re: Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
Since this thread is now officially off-topic
Since when?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Chiroptera, posted 09-17-2005 1:15 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Chiroptera, posted 09-17-2005 1:44 PM cavediver has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 130 (244405)
09-17-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by cavediver
09-17-2005 1:32 PM


Re: Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
Hi, cavediver.
Reading the OP, it appears that Sylas intended this thread to be about criticism of Big Bang from within scientific circes. Our discussion with LA Buck seems to be more about whether Big Bang is science or religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2005 1:32 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2005 1:55 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3634 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 50 of 130 (244410)
09-17-2005 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Chiroptera
09-17-2005 1:44 PM


Re: Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
Oh, fair point. I thought that my discussion with nwr couldn't get any more on-topic - something of which I am justly proud, given my tendancy to head off-topic at the passing of a neutrino

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Chiroptera, posted 09-17-2005 1:44 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 51 of 130 (244429)
09-17-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by cavediver
09-17-2005 12:58 PM


Re: Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
I'm afraid you will be disappointed for many millenia yet!
It's not exactly an urgent problem. I can wait a few millenia
By the way, I agree that our discussion has been on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2005 12:58 PM cavediver has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 130 (244705)
09-18-2005 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by cavediver
09-17-2005 1:03 PM


Re: Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
Do you do any work
Regular. It's sleep that's the problem, especially when I'm having so much fun

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by cavediver, posted 09-17-2005 1:03 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4024
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


Message 53 of 130 (244898)
09-19-2005 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by LA Buck
09-16-2005 10:25 PM


Re: Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
You're right I am a layman.
A layman who is handed a state authorized science textbook in class and told by state ordained "professionals" that the Big Bang is how the universe came into being.
"Ordained?" They aren't ministers, LA Buck. You're handed a textbook and told that this is the best description available based exclusively on the evidence of the early universe. Big Bang theory does not explain how or why the universe "started out" as the singularity - all it does is point out that the universe is expanding (an observable fact) and extrapolate that in the past the universe must have been much smaller, more dense, and hotter. Further observations of more and more distant (both in distance and time, due to the cosntant speed of light) objects confirms all of those extrapolations.
A layman who is told that any other theory is ridiculous, ignorant, or delusional.
N, you're only told that ideas not based on any evidence whatsoever are rediculous. You can't pull a scientific theory out of thin air, and you can't hold an old book above what scientists can see with their own eyes.
A layman who is concerned for the thousands of students in this country who are fed this inaccurate info!!
Prove that it's inaccurate. You'll get a Nobel Prize, I guarantee. The best way to gain fame and respect in the scientific community is to disprove long-accepted ideas. If you can disprove the Big Bang, if you can show how it is an inaccurate description, by all means do so.
But somehow I doubt that you can.
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Again, based on webster's definition, a theory is still a POSSIBLE explaination for a group of facts.
Stop being dense. In science, only one definition for a theory applies. I bolded the relevant definition. Note the part that says "one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." Perhaps that should be altered to say "accurate predictions," but it's good enough. This is an entirely different meaning from the other definitions:
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
These are the typical laymans version of a theory. They have nothing to do with evidence or the scientific method. Since we are discussing science, they do not apply here. Let's stick with the first definition, since it's the only one that's relevant to science.
Again, based on webster's definition, a theory is still a POSSIBLE explaination for a group of facts.
Only if you use one of the definitions that has nothing to do with a scientific theory. A scientific theory is the best available explanation based on evidence, and has been exhaustively tested by multiple scientists and is widely accepted to be true.
It's a lot differnt from, say, a police detective who says "I've got a theory."
All the science- the observing, the testing, etc- is still only testing what remains and then deriving a highly educated speculation of the how.
I do not disagree with the testing results, only in the conclusions drawn and the leaps made that this MUST be the way the universe began.
The Big Bang is less a description of the "beginning" and more a description of the state of the early universe and its transition from then to now. It says nothing of what came "before" the singularity (if such a thing as "before" can exist when time would have existed only within the singularity as well, being tied to space). It says nothing of what "Caused" the expansion. It says only "this is what we observe, and it looks like this is the way it would have been a few billion years ago."
This seems to be backwards reasoning:
I study A,B,C at length, use it to formulate D then use D to explain A,B,C.
I study light, time, space intricately, elaborately, use the results to formulate a theory of a "Big Bang," and then say that light, time, and space are a result of a "Big Bang."
Nope. We make various observations, and use proven concepts such as relativity and the speed of light to make predictions based on those observations. In this case, we observe that the universe is expanding. We conjecture that the early universe must have been smaller, and thus more dense and hotter. We then make further observations to see if this is indeed the case - observations of distant objects (in effect gazing into the past due to the speed of light and the extreme distances involved). We observe the microwave background, and find that its presence and structure fit the predictions of the theory. And so forth and so on. We conclude that, given that the universe is expanding, and was smaller, hotter, and more dense in the distant past, that at some point the entirety of the universe, including space and time, existed at a single point known as the singularity.
How is that circular reasoning?
And no matter how you package it...studied, educated, hypothesis widely accepted, etc...it is STILL just a guess!
Please, let's call it what it is!
Maybe the only authorized, accepted, taught guess...BUT STILL A GUESS!
Sorry, LA Buck. It's not just a guess. It's a very well-tested description that makes very accurate predictions about the natural world. I hate to disappoint you, but a scientific theory is not just some idea pulled out of some scientist's ass. I think you need to go back to high school and learn some more about the scientific method. You don't seem to grasp even the most basic concepts.
My ire comes from the fact that is is touted as FACT!
No. It's touted as a highly accurate description that fits all of the evidence and has not been disproven despite amny attempts to do so.
Science doesn't deal in fact, LA Buck. Science deals in the most accurate descriptions available of natural processes based on the facts and observations. Subtle difference, but it means that scientific theories can be proven wrong with additional evidence. As I stated earlier, that's the quickest and best way to gain fame in the scientific community.
LA Buck, your arguments are all based on using multiple dictionary definitions, some of which do not apply to science. I strongly suggest that you read up a little more on what the scientific method, a scientific theory, and the Big Bang theory actually are before you try using such arguments.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by LA Buck, posted 09-16-2005 10:25 PM LA Buck has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 130 (244930)
09-19-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by LA Buck
09-16-2005 10:25 PM


Re: Big Bang /Evolution is a Religion NOT a Science
quote:
This seems to be backwards reasoning:
I study A,B,C at length, use it to formulate D then use D to explain A,B,C.
This isn't quite how it works. We observe A, B, and C. We then formulate D as an explanation. So, yes, D does explain A, B, and C.
But now we notice that if D is true, then we should also see E. So then we look and see whether E is true. If E is true, then we say that D has been confirmed.
In the case of Big Bang, it was observed that distant galaxies exhibit a red shift, and that this red shift is larger when the galaxy is farther away. This is indisputable fact. One interpretation is that the universe is expanding. So now we have an explanation for the red shift. Of course, there are other possible explanations.
But now we make a prediction. If the galaxy is expanding, then a long, long time ago, the universe must have been smaller, with things closer together. According to thermodynamics, the universe must have been hotter. Because of the high temperature, there must have been a blackbody radiation for a high temperature. But then, as the universe expanded, this radiation would have been "stretched out" so that it is mostly microwave radiation.
This was a prediction made of Gamow. There is no reason to expect there to be a microwave radiation permeating the universe with the characteristics of blackbody radiation. However, it must exist if Big Bang were accurate.
Then, in the 1960s I believe, Penzias and Wilson actually discovered a Cosmic Microwave Background that has the characteristics of blackbody radiation. There was no reason to expect this radiation to exist, except that it had to exist if the Big Bang theory were accurate. And sure enough, there it is. So we say that Big Bang has been confirmed.
There have been many other predictions based on Big Bang that have been observed. Big Bang is, quite simply, very well confirmed and established.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by LA Buck, posted 09-16-2005 10:25 PM LA Buck has not replied

  
LA Buck
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 130 (245053)
09-19-2005 11:02 PM


Thank and goodnight
Let me start by saying how much I’ve appreciated this dialog! I’ve learned a great deal about being able to give an answer; to defend a position logically, intelligently and yet still passionately. Like the Bi . .I mean, like an ancient book of practical wisdom says, “Iron sharpens iron” and you guys have done that for me. You’ve encouraged me to go outside what I knew (or thought I knew) to find clearly defined meaning not just opinion!
Like I said, I am a layman. I have a somewhat basic understanding of the inner-workings of our universe and the wonders contained within. I cannot argue the finer points of the Theory of Relativity or the varying speeds of light bands over distance and time. I have an equally basic understanding of biblical doctrinal theology, but would find myself lost in a debate over predestination or the Trinity.
What I am primarily concerned with are the principles behind the whole debate. Why is science accepted as fact and religion dismissed as myth? And when I went searching for the definitions . the primary foundations . of these terms and then applied them to what I knew, it seemed obvious to me that both creation and big bang stemmed from the term theory . a guess . a supposition . and that by subscribing to EITHER theory required FAITH; Faith in the theory to be correct, Faith that any unanswered questions would be forthcoming and fully supportive of the initial theory, Faith that says we’re on the right track to discovery.
I said that a theory of the origin of the universe was, by definition, a religion.
I said that both theories of the origin of the universe were untested.
You challenged the notion of untested. So I went in search of how to say exactly what I mean. I found this out:
Many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ”science’ originally meant ”knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ”know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, it is linguistically fallacious to claim that even now, ”science really means knowledge’, because meaning is determined by usage, not derivation (etymology). A lot of this is semantic word-play, and depends on how the matter is defined, and for what purpose the definition is raised.
Ok, so I need to be precise in how I define the word science and make sure of that when I say Big Bang is not a SCIENCE.
You also challenged my statement of “backward reasoning.” (studying A,B,C to formulate D and then using D to support A,B,C)
So I found this:
There are many areas of life in which circularity and truth go hand in hand
(e.g. What is electric charge? That quality of matter on which an electric field acts. What is an electric field? A region in space that exerts a force on electric charge. But no one would claim that the theory of electricity is thereby invalid and can’t explain how motors work.) ” it is only that circularity cannot be used as independent proof of something.
Ok, so it wasn’t “backward reasoning” I wanted to say . it was circular reasoning. I found out that circular reasoning used in Big Bang science doesn’t make the science invalid, it means that it cannot be used as independent proof of the initial singularity of the universe.
You challenge my definition of the term theory. I said it was a guess; a word which has a tendency to reflect back a meaning of “unsubstantiated.” You said there were all kinds of definitive tests and sound mathematics that were able to be quantified.
So I found this:
“Evolution is just a theory.” What people usually mean when they say this is ”Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ”theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye-Hckel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin-Landau/Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.
Ok, so a better way of saying what I intended would be that Big Bang/Evolution are not proven fact and should not be promoted as such. I should have clearly differentiated between data collection and data interpretation. Much of the information we receive in science class in school is merely the researchers’ interpretations . without data or alternative views and even the scientists use interpretations and conclusions to bolster arguments rather than going back to the data for support for ideas.
Then, further research into this whole circular reasoning thing brought me to an article that made it all very clear! I’ve included pieces of it. But before you read it, just remember . the whole point of this topic was NOT if Big Bang/Evolution science data was correct, nor was it if the Biblical account of creation was correct . .the whole point was that the TWO THEORIES SHOULD BE EQUALLY CLASSIFIED AS RELIGIONS based on present definitions. And then, consequently, why IS one a science and the other a religion?
It’s not science’
by Don Batten
Anti-creationists . by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ”good scientific theory’. A common criterion is:
” the bulk of modern day practicing scientists must accept it as valid science.
” the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested.
Many attempts to define ”science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ”what scientists do’!
The definition of ”science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The earlier approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:
observation ’ induction ’ hypothesis ’ test hypothesis by experiment ’ proof/disproof ’ knowledge.
Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality and induction.
Perceptions and bias
The important question is not ”Is it science?’ We can just define ”science’ to exclude everything that we don’t like. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions.
The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:
”Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.’2
The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:
”We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’1
Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they don’t even realize that they have these metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as ”science’. It’s part of their own worldview, so they don’t even notice.
We recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.
So the fundamentally important question is, ”which worldview (bias) is correct?’, because this will determine the correctness of the conclusions from the data.
Of course the founders of modern science were not materialists (Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant. This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.
Michael Ruse, the Canadian philosopher of science also made the strong point that the issue is not whether evolution is science and creation is religion, because such a distinction is not really valid. The issue is one of ”coherency of truth’. In other words, there is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ”science’ and creation as ”religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.
A valid distinction
However, we can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s Creation”repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past”unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a ”time machine’ to travel back into the past to observe). Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.
Tertiary (college / university) courses in science mostly don’t teach the philosophy of science and certainly make no distinction between experimental / operational and historical / origins sciences. Organometallic chemist Dr Stephen Grocott, although having been through at least seven years of university training, later remarked:
”Though I’d been working as a scientist for 10 years, I really only just learned what science was. Some of the things people call “science” are really outside the realms of science; they’re not observable, testable, repeatable. The areas of conflict are beliefs about the past, not open to experimental testing.
*******************************************************************
Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.
***********************************************************************
The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as science, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would like to see no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly sees the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own ”science’ and assumes that it applies equally to all science. Not so.
Do you believe in hot water?
Creationists have absolutely no problem with operational science, because the evidence drives operational science. It does not matter if you are a Christian, a Moslem, a Hindu, or an Atheist, pure water still boils at 100C at sea level. However, the true Hindu might still think it is all an illusion, and some atheists embracing postmodernism espouse that ”truth’ is an illusion. However, origins science is driven by philosophy. One’s belief system is fundamental to what stories you accept as plausible. Now if the majority of practitioners of origins / historical science have the wrong belief system (materialism), then the stories they find acceptable will also be wrong. So a majority vote of ”contemporary scientists’ is hardly a good way to determine the validity of the respective stories. And origins science, or historical science, is essentially an exercise in story telling”Lewontin alluded to this story telling in the quote above.
References
1. Richard Lewontin, ”Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31. Return to Text.
2. Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History 103(2):14. Return to Text.
3. Kerkut, G. Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960. Return to Text.
Just one more of my own thoughts .
So if it is all about the philosophy of science . the bias, the understanding, the faith you bring to the data . what if you’re wrong?!
If a creationist dies and “discovers” that there is no God and dead is IT he has lost nothing in the process. But if an atheist dies and comes face to face with God . .
Thanks again, guys, for “sharpening” me into a clearly defined, solid foundation of understanding!
God says, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent' (1 Corinthians 1:19).

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by nwr, posted 09-19-2005 11:18 PM LA Buck has not replied
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2005 7:23 AM LA Buck has not replied
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2005 8:34 AM LA Buck has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 56 of 130 (245056)
09-19-2005 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by LA Buck
09-19-2005 11:02 PM


Re: Thank and goodnight
I'm just commenting on a few points in your post.
Why is science accepted as fact and religion dismissed as myth?
The difference is that we have strong empirical evidence for our science, and we can make useful predictions with it.
I said that a theory of the origin of the universe was, by definition, a religion.
Possibly correct. But note that the Big Bang theory is not a theory of the origin of the universe. It is a theory about what happened in the early universe, shortly after its origin.
There are many areas of life in which circularity and truth go hand in hand
(e.g. What is electric charge? That quality of matter on which an electric field acts. What is an electric field? A region in space that exerts a force on electric charge. But no one would claim that the theory of electricity is thereby invalid and can’t explain how motors work.) ” it is only that circularity cannot be used as independent proof of something.
The science really isn't circular, although it may appear that way. The distinction is that with electrical fields and charges, we can go out and measure them. They are defined by their physical behavior, which is what the measuring makes use of. They only look circular when you try to treat the definitions as abstractions disconnected from the physical behavior.
The mistake you are making throughout your long post, is that you are not understanding the relevance of the empirical nature of science, and all of the careful testing that entails.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by LA Buck, posted 09-19-2005 11:02 PM LA Buck has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 130 (245101)
09-20-2005 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by LA Buck
09-19-2005 11:02 PM


Re: Thank and goodnight
But if an atheist dies and comes face to face with God . .
With a God who's obviously very adamant that he doesn't want to be believed in? As a believer I'd say that you have far more to fear from God than I do. I'm simply taking him at his word. You? You're determined to disobey his very clear and obvious intention to not have people believe in him, and how do you think he's going to react to that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by LA Buck, posted 09-19-2005 11:02 PM LA Buck has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 130 (245432)
09-21-2005 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by LA Buck
09-19-2005 11:02 PM


Re: Thank and goodnight
So I found this:
so what is the source for this copy and past that covers the rest (3/4ths) of your post?
Ok, so I need to be precise in how I define the word science and make sure of that when I say Big Bang is not a SCIENCE.
No, you just need to use the current definition in the same way that it is used by scientists today. Last time I checked there were no posters from the roman era posting in latin.
Communication is based on common usage of the same words, and any attempt to obfusticate meaning is not communication.
Seems to me this whole post is another {declare victory and run from the field} because your position is untenable and you can't admnit it to yourself.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by LA Buck, posted 09-19-2005 11:02 PM LA Buck has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by b b, posted 09-25-2005 6:41 AM RAZD has replied

  
b b
Member (Idle past 6122 days)
Posts: 77
From: baton rouge, La, usa
Joined: 09-25-2005


Message 59 of 130 (246240)
09-25-2005 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by RAZD
09-21-2005 8:34 AM


Re: Thank and goodnight
hi all just found this site. No matter what I believe or anyone else, there is only one truth. I believe in that truth. I don't quite understand it but that's how I got to this forum in the first place. I believe the big bang "could" have happened. I don't believe there is any solid proof which man has. But i believe that if the big bang happened it happened because God willed or spoke it into existence. I don't think God is a magician. I believe everything that he does can be explained. That does not mean he did not do it. If I start a fire, scientist can explain how the fire started; does this now mean I did not start it? an object at rest remains at rest until acted upon by an outside force. If the universe was ever at rest, then even science laws stated that an outside force (God) changed that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2005 8:34 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by b b, posted 09-25-2005 6:54 AM b b has not replied
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2005 8:17 AM b b has replied
 Message 62 by sidelined, posted 09-25-2005 9:58 AM b b has replied

  
b b
Member (Idle past 6122 days)
Posts: 77
From: baton rouge, La, usa
Joined: 09-25-2005


Message 60 of 130 (246241)
09-25-2005 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by b b
09-25-2005 6:41 AM


Re: Thank and goodnight
"With a God who's obviously very adamant that he doesn't want to be believed in? As a believer I'd say that you have far more to fear from God than I do. I'm simply taking him at his word. You? You're determined to disobey his very clear and obvious intention to not have people believe in him, and how do you think he's going to react to that?"
God is very adamant that he wants the world to believe, know, love, and fear, him. It is man who try to cover him up. He isn't Freddy Kruger, he does not need anyone to believe in him to exist. you have every right not to believe in him; but you also have every right to burn in hell if you don't. Don't mean to be harsh but that's my beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by b b, posted 09-25-2005 6:41 AM b b has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024