Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,357 Year: 3,614/9,624 Month: 485/974 Week: 98/276 Day: 26/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1330 of 1482 (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 replied

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

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1331 of 1482 (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 replied

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

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1332 of 1482 (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 replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1333 of 1482 (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 replied

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

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1335 of 1482 (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 replied

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

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1337 of 1482 (844916)
12-07-2018 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1334 by Tangle
12-07-2018 6:27 PM


Re: Creation
Hi Tangle
Tangle writes:
It's a hypothesis but never mind, it's irrelevant to the point being made.
Why do you classify the Big Bang Theory as a hypothesis?
Is that because it is a TV show?
Tangle writes:
(And a theory is stronger than fact, because it is an explanation of facts; but that is also irrelevant.)
How can a theory which can be disproven be stronger than a fact that never changes?
Tangle writes:
It's what science does, creates hypothesise about things that are not known yet.
What would you base such a hypothesis on? The only thing you would have is to make the assumption it was true then try to prove your assumption was true. But you can not base evidence of something you believe to be true. That is faith and faith is not allowed in science or so I have been told many times on this site.
Tangle writes:
That's why it's a hypothesis. A hypotheis supported by validated mathematics.
You can take numbers and make them say anything you want them to say. If you don't believe that check out Einstein's biggest blunder.
As long as the math is all that supports the hypothesis it will remain a hypothesis. It will never become a theory until there is evidence to support it.
Tangle writes:
Why should I care what you believe? Show your workings.
quote:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now if you can tell me when the beginning was I will give you a definite time. But until then I will just say "the universe has always existed in some form."
Actually that is not far from what several scientist believe. Einstein believed it was eternal in existence until he was hoodwinked by Hubble.
Tangle writes:
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.
No I am not wrong.
Just because there are scientist that don't believe in the Big Bang Theory and have tried to come up with something else does not make me wrong.
They have zero evidence for anything they have dreamed up, imagined, or devised as to how the creation took place.
At least I have a Book I have come to believe that is true due to the things foretold thousands of years before they took place. Even scientific things foretold long before man discovered the facts about certain things.
Tangle writes:
Why should I care what you believe? Show your workings.
Exodus 3:14
quote:
ויאמר אלהים
אל־משה אהיה אשר
אהיה ויאמר כה
תאמר לבני ישראל
אהיה שלחני אליכם׃
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 1334 by Tangle, posted 12-07-2018 6:27 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1340 by Tangle, posted 12-08-2018 2:40 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1338 of 1482 (844918)
12-07-2018 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1336 by DrJones*
12-07-2018 8:50 PM


Re: Creation
Hi Dr.
Dr writes:
plane
NOUN
An aeroplane.
words can have multiple meanings dummy.
If you had been honest you would have included the following.
quote:
Origin
Early 20th century: shortened form.
Well 200 years before the airplane was invented in 1903 it meant:
"A flat surface on which a straight line joining any two points on it would wholly lie."
quote:
Origin
Early 17th century: from Latin planum ‘flat surface’, neuter of the adjective planus ‘plain’. The adjective was suggested by French plan(e) ‘flat’. The word was introduced to differentiate the geometrical senses, previously expressed by plain, from the latter's other meanings.
quote:
A tool consisting of a block with a projecting steel blade, used to smooth a wooden or other surface by paring shavings from it.
quote:
Origin
Middle English: from a variant of obsolete French plaine ‘planing instrument’, from late Latin plana (in the same sense), from Latin planare ‘make level’, from planus ‘plain, level’.
So yes old words can be co-opted and used as slang by people to lazy to use the complete word when talking about an object.
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 1336 by DrJones*, posted 12-07-2018 8:50 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1339 by DrJones*, posted 12-08-2018 1:00 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1345 of 1482 (844929)
12-08-2018 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1340 by Tangle
12-08-2018 2:40 AM


Re: Creation
Hi Tangle
Tangle writes:
You don't seem to be able to understand that my point is that there are scientifically valid hypothesises that DO say that the the universe has existed forever.
Can you explain one of the hypothesis that is valid?
Then give me the evidence that makes it valid. Using the scientific definition of validity found here
quote:
In its purest sense, this refers to how well a scientific test or piece of research actually measures what it sets out to, or how well it reflects the reality it claims to represent. Like reliability, validity in this sense is a concept drawn from the positivist scientific tradition and needs specific interpretation and usage in the context of qualitative research.
Bloodletting was practiced until the 20th century, as a cure for diseases. George Washington was bled to death by doctors practicing the accepted cure for diseases.
Today we know that the life of the flesh is in the blood as the red blood cells carry oxygen and energy to the body cells and then transport the cell waste to the liver and kidneys. Thus we know that the life of the flesh is in the blood. This was not fully understood until the 1900's. But Moses made that statement over 2800 years ago, in my book you call a book of mythology. How did a shepherd 2800 years ago have that information and write it down for us to have today.
quote:
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
If the Bible is a book of myth how would it be able to record information 2800 years before it was discovered?
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 1340 by Tangle, posted 12-08-2018 2:40 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1348 by Tangle, posted 12-08-2018 1:09 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1346 of 1482 (844930)
12-08-2018 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1341 by ringo
12-08-2018 10:44 AM


Re: Evidence?
Hi ringo
ringo writes:
Whether you believe in Him or not does not make any difference.
My God does exist "Whether you believe in Him or not does not make any difference."
One day you will meet Him face to face and give an account of your life and make your excuses for not believing in Him. You will believe then but it will be too late.
I pray God bless you anyway and open you eyes that you might see before it is too late,

"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 1341 by ringo, posted 12-08-2018 10:44 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1347 by ringo, posted 12-08-2018 12:47 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1349 of 1482 (844933)
12-08-2018 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1343 by ringo
12-08-2018 11:07 AM


Re: Creation
Hi ringo
ringo writes:
At 10 billion degrees K it would be well beyond the visible spectrum.
Are you saying the Big Bang Theory is wrong and we cannot see the cmbr?
ringo writes:
It wasn't.
Why does the cmbr exist then?
ringo writes:
On the contrary, everything was dark until it cooled down enough to be visible.
You know that because?
ringo writes:
Who said there was objective evidence for that?
You said, "There is no objective evidence that God exists."
I was just asking did you require the same kind of objective evidence that was available for those events for the existence of God.
ICANT writes:
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.
Message 1335
But you seem to require more evidence for God than those events.
ringo writes:
The difference is that the Big Bang is the best explanation for the objective evidence that we do have. God is not.
But you just said above there was no objective evidence supporting the Big Bang. Make up your mind.
ringo writes:
You're being dishonest. I bet you have used the word yourself exactly in that context.
Never since I read about the Wright brothers was the first to build an airplane.
ringo writes:
If you were honestly looking for answers, you could have googled that yourself. For example:
But you are not arguing that assumption have to be proven but that they are fact. Unless I misunderstood what you were saying.
ringo writes:
That's why the Big Bang is still a hypothesis.
Where can I find that the Big Bang is a hypothesis rather than the Standard Theory?
ringo writes:
Dictionary definitions are the first layer of understanding,
If dictionaries do not give us the definitions of words why do we have dictionaries?
Can anybody make up any kind of definition that suites their belief system?
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 1343 by ringo, posted 12-08-2018 11:07 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1350 by ringo, posted 12-08-2018 1:47 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1351 of 1482 (844936)
12-08-2018 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1347 by ringo
12-08-2018 12:47 PM


Re: Evidence?
Hi ringo
ringo writes:
That statement has no value. You could say the same thing about the Tooth Fairy.
You do realize the words "Whether you believe in Him or not does not make any difference." were your words don't you?
ringo writes:
If there was a god, he would be more likely to judge you on your behaviour than on someting as petty as belief.
Yes I will have to give an account of my life to God one day. He will judge me according to what I have done and not done in my lifetime here on earth. Many of those things are not going to get me any rewards but regardless of whether I do or not get any rewards I already have the greatest reward that He could give to me.
In 1949 I had believed in God for quite some time but I had never trusted Him to do what He said He would do for me if I met His conditions. I came to the realization I had to believe on Him rather than just to believe in Him. Believing on Him means I would put my total trust in Him to do what He said He would do. He said if I believed on Him I had eternal life.
quote:
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
.
He also tells me why people don't have eternal life.
quote:
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Those who believe on Him is not condemned.
Those do not believe on Him is condemned already.
Simply because they have not belived on Him for deliverance.
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 1347 by ringo, posted 12-08-2018 12:47 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1352 by ringo, posted 12-08-2018 2:15 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1353 of 1482 (844999)
12-10-2018 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1350 by ringo
12-08-2018 1:47 PM


Re: Creation
Hi ringo
ringo writes:
I'm saying that Genesis talks about visible light - i.e. the difference between day and night.
I thought light was light especially if it was made by a 10 billion degree kelvin temperature ball of quark soup.
Don't heat produce light and light produce heat?
ringo writes:
The authors of Genesis could not "see" the cmbr and had no way of knowing that it existed.
Moses might have known what it was when he came down off the mountain the second time they had to cover his head because nobody could look at his head as it shown so bright.
But regardless of that no one knew the cmbr existed until May 20, 1964.
ringo writes:
The difference is that we are actively looking for objective evidence,
Looking for objective evidence and having objective evidence is two different things. Either you have objective evidence (and if you do produce it) or you don't have objective evidence in which case you can not present any.
Yet you demand that I present objective evidence for Gods existence.
So give me any objective evidence available to prove the universe began to exist like science so called say it did.
That includes Big Bang Theory, String theory, Big bounce theory or any other theory.
ringo writes:
No. As I said, those events are not considered as fact until they are supported by evidence.
Are you saying the universe don't exist?
It is a fact it exist as I can see part of it. I just want to know how it began to exist.
I have read where Hawking said if his instanton popped into existence it would produce a universe just like the one we live in.
They are known to pop into existence and then disappear in a vacuum. The problem with that is since there would be no existence prior to the universe existing there would be no place for a vacuum to exist for the instanton to pop into existence in.
Scrap that idea.
Two branes banging together caused the universe to begin to exist. You have the same problem as with the instanton as there would be no existence for the branes to exist in.
Scrap that idea.
This hot glob of quark soup existed, it began to expand/inflate and produced the universe.
If there was no existence where did it exist?
Where did it come from?
How did it get to be 10 billion/trillion which ever degrees?
How did all the energy and mass get packed into that little universe that is said to be expanding at 1 billionth of a second after T=0?
If it had been around for eternity without expanding/inflating what caused it to start all of a sudden?
Now lets look at the bounce theory. A universe existed and had x=(available energy) amount of energy and lost y= (unusable energy) amount of energy before it contracted to the size of what ever existed at T=-23 s.
Then the inflation/expansion began again with less x than before and more y than before. Goes through the same process.
The process repeats and x is reduce and y is increased during the process.
The process repeats and x is reduced and y is increased.
When x and y becomes equal and there is no more useable energy to use available you have reached equilibrium the process will cease.
Therefore the universe could not have existed eternally in the past according to known scientific processes.
ringo writes:
No. The Big Bang is the best EXPLANATION for the evidence that we do have.
But you have no objective evidence for the universe having existed or beginning to exist. What you call the Big Bang Theory is only trying to explain what has taken place since 1 billionth of a second after T=0.
ringo writes:
No, I'm not. I'm arguing that assumptions are tested and shown to be valid.
The universe is assumed to exist at 1 billionth of a second after T=0.
Where is the test and results that support that assumption? It is just an assumption that is accepted as fact without any proof or evidence of any kind. String theory and bounce theory all require the same assumption.
ringo writes:
Google.
I did and this is what I found.
quote:
Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.
According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
Big Bang Theory
ringo writes:
Be sure not to use yours for anything else.
I use pneumatic nail guns.
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 1350 by ringo, posted 12-08-2018 1:47 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1355 by ringo, posted 12-10-2018 11:15 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1356 of 1482 (845042)
12-10-2018 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1354 by Pressie
12-10-2018 3:50 AM


Re: Creation
Hi Pressie,
Pressie writes:
That's your problem. You don't know what science is.
After 10 years of hanging around here I am about ready to agree with you.
I was taught and used to believe that science was a search for the truth. But it seems that it has become a search for fame and fortune at any cost of the truth.
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 1354 by Pressie, posted 12-10-2018 3:50 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1357 by DrJones*, posted 12-10-2018 11:27 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 1359 by Pressie, posted 12-11-2018 6:05 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 1360 by Pressie, posted 12-11-2018 7:08 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1358 of 1482 (845044)
12-11-2018 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1355 by ringo
12-10-2018 11:15 AM


Re: Creation
Hi ringo
ringo writes:
If you want to be picky about the definitions of Hebrew words, you can't impose modern definitions on them.
Every language that has been translated into English has had our modern English imposed upon them. Don't be silly.
ringo writes:
And he might have come down on a skateboard but we have no reason to think that he did.
I don't think that happened because if it had the Jewish History would have recorded it.
They did record that his face shown so bright they covered his head as they could not be in his presence with it uncovered.
ringo writes:
quote:
The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, or CMB for short, is a faint glow of light that fills the universe, falling on Earth from every direction with nearly uniform intensity. It is the residual heat of creation
What is the cosmic microwave background radiation? - Scientific American
This light is the residual heat of creation.
Which verifies there was a light period in which the universe began to exist.
Science assumes this supports the BBT.
I say it supports the Hebrew text of the Torah that was written 3800 years ago.
quote:
The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding.
Evidence for the Big Bang | National Schools' Observatory
Science says the redshift supports an expanding universe.
I say it supports the Hebrew text of the Torah that was written 3800 years ago. Isa 44:24, Zec 12:1. God stretched out he heavens.
ringo writes:
Been there; done that: cmbr, redshift, etc.
Both support my version of the creation event.
ringo writes:
I said that the event of its "beginning" is not fully understood
Then when it is understood my version may be the correct one.
ringo writes:
No, I'm inclined to keep Hawking's idea and scrap yours.
Then explain to me where the instanton appeared to begin creating the universe.
Logically speaking if there is non existence no thing could begin to exist. For the instanton to appear it requires a vacuum in which to appear. Since there would be non existent the vacuum would not exist and could not begin to exist. Therefore the instanton could not begin to exist nor create the universe.
If you can believe a fairy tail like that you will fall for anything.
ringo writes:
I didn't ask you to google the first instance you could find of the Big Bang being called a "theory". Try being honest and googling for it being called a hypothesis.
I did google for it being called a hypothesis.
There are a couple of hundred scientist and engineers that don't even believe it is a decent hypothesis. But most scientist believe and accept it as a theory.
Now if you only accept it as a hypothesis why do you argue like the events of the BBT is fact?
Any other theory that had as many holes in it as the BBT would have been discarded a long time ago. cavediver and Son Goku both agreed that the BBT is not sufficient to describe the beginning to exist of 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 1355 by ringo, posted 12-10-2018 11:15 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1362 by ringo, posted 12-11-2018 11:17 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1364 of 1482 (845089)
12-12-2018 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1359 by Pressie
12-11-2018 6:05 AM


Re: Creation
Hi Pressie
Pressie writes:
Again, you don't have a clue what science is.
If science is not a search for the truth then what is it?
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 1359 by Pressie, posted 12-11-2018 6:05 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1367 by ringo, posted 12-12-2018 3:53 PM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024