|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
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:. He also tells me why people don't have eternal life. quote: 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
They were your words, in Message 1333. You do realize the words "Whether you believe in Him or not does not make any difference." were your words don't you?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
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 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
ICANT writes: That's your problem. You don't know what science is.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
We didn't discover photons beyond the visible spectrum until quite recently. When the Bible was written, light was either sunlight or moonlight or lamplight, all definitely visible. If you want to be picky about the definitions of Hebrew words, you can't impose modern definitions on them.
I thought light was light especially if it was made by a 10 billion degree kelvin temperature ball of quark soup. ICANT writes:
And he might have come down on a skateboard but we have no reason to think that he did.
ringo writes:
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. The authors of Genesis could not "see" the cmbr and had no way of knowing that it existed. ICANT writes:
I don't demand anything. I conclude that since you don't show any objective evidence, you don't have any. And I conclude that since you're not actively looking for objective evidence, you don't think there is any.
Yet you demand that I present objective evidence for Gods existence. ICANT writes:
Been there; done that: cmbr, redshift, etc.
So give me any objective evidence available to prove the universe began to exist like science so called say it did. ICANT writes:
If you want to know what I'm saying, you could try paying attention to what I'm saying instead of making it up in your own head. I didn't say that the universe doesn't exist. I said that the event of its "beginning" is not fully understood - yet. If a baseball appears in your back yard, you don't question its existence just because you don't know exactly how it got there.
ringo writes:
Are you saying the universe don't exist? ... those events are not considered as fact until they are supported by evidence. ICANT writes:
No, I'm inclined to keep Hawking's idea and scrap yours.
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. ICANT 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. ringo writes:
I did and this is what I found. ICANT writes:
Google. Where can I find that the Big Bang is a hypothesis rather than the Standard Theory? Edited by ringo, : capitAlization. Edited by ringo, : moAr capitalization - @#$%ing sHift keY!And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
But it seems that it has become a search for fame and fortune at any cost of the truth.
yeah cause there's sooooooooooooo much money in science. You're like the idiots who claim the scientists studying climate change are pushing a fake story so they can keep their funding, who do you think has more wealth to spread around, MIT or BP?It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
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: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: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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Again, you don't have a clue what science is.
May you be touched by a Holy Noodly Appendage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
ICANT writes: You don't have the foggiest what science is. 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. Let's give you a hint. The best explanation for what is observed. That's basically it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son of Man Junior Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 26 From: Ireland Joined: |
pressie writes:
You got it right, scientist observe and mainly see what they are looking for biased on a theory they have, wanting to be the first to see it.
The best explanation for what is observed. That's basically it. ICANT writes: it has become a search for fame and fortune at any cost of the truth. lot of truth in that statement, why else would anyone do anything these days? Some so called scientist may as well put their time and effort into winning the lottery and sell their theories to other like minded greedy people! yeh that's right its already being/been done. The search for a cure to cancer is another greedy mans effort. The list goes on and on!!!..the first will be the last and the last will be the first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
The King James version is four hundred years old. They had the same sunlight and moonlight and lamplight then as the ancient Hebrew authors had. They did not know about "light" beyond the visible spectrum.
Every language that has been translated into English has had our modern English imposed upon them. ICANT writes:
No, I did not write that.
ringo writes:
quote: ICANT writes:
It is the residual radiation from the Big Bang. It is NOT what the ancient Hebrews would have called "light".
This light is the residual heat of creation.Which verifies there was a light period in which the universe began to exist. ICANT writes:
Science concludes this supports the Big Bang. Your dissenting opinion has no value. You might as well disagree with a pilot about aerodynamics.
Science assumes this supports the BBT.I say it supports the Hebrew text of the Torah that was written 3800 years ago. ICANT writes:
It's unlikely that all of science will be thrown away in favour of your uninformed opinion.
ringo writes:
Then when it is understood my version may be the correct one. I said that the event of its "beginning" is not fully understood ICANT writes:
There is no logic in that. "Existence" is not a thing; it's a property.
Logically speaking if there is non existence no thing could begin to exist. ICANT writes:
So you were being dishonest. You did know that the Big Bang has been called a theory and/or 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. ICANT writes:
I haven't said what I accept.
Now if you only accept it as a hypothesis.... ICANT writes:
You are not remotely near qualified to talk about holes in the Big Bang theory/hypothesis.
Any other theory that had as many holes in it as the BBT... ICANT writes:
Nonsense. Science doesn't just discard explantions that are incomplete. It modifies them and/or replaces them when better explanations are found. ... would have been discarded a long time ago.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Son of man writes:
You contradict yourself. If scientists want to be the first to discover something, they're quick to criticize what other scientists discover. They're more likely to look for the flaws in the other guy's work than to jump on the band wagon and give him undue credit. ... scientist observe and mainly see what they are looking for biased on a theory they have, wanting to be the first to see it.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Pressie
Pressie writes: Let's give you a hint. The best explanation for what is observed. That's basically it. If science is not a search for the truth why do it. If it's just looking for the best explanation to soothe someone's mind into believing their version of their beliefs is the truth why waste the time. 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."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024