Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
72 online now:
jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 68 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,288 Year: 4,400/6,534 Month: 614/900 Week: 138/182 Day: 18/27 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 301 (722410)
03-20-2014 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by kbertsche
03-20-2014 9:38 PM


you guys are making this much more complicated than it really is. A "creationist" is simply someone who believes in creation.

That would be simpler, but the definition ship has already sailed. Creationist means someone who believes that creation occurred in the way their religious text says.

What does 'believe in creation' even mean?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by kbertsche, posted 03-20-2014 9:38 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by kbertsche, posted 03-20-2014 11:57 PM NoNukes has taken no action

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1370 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 32 of 301 (722415)
03-20-2014 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
03-20-2014 10:21 PM


NoNukes writes:

That would be simpler, but the definition ship has already sailed. Creationist means someone who believes that creation occurred in the way their religious text says.


That's not a bad definition, either, so long as we realize that there are many different religious texts, and many different interpretations of what any single religious text says. Hence "young-earth creationists", "old-earth creationists", and "evolutionary creationists."

NoNukes writes:

What does 'believe in creation' even mean?


Synonyms: "accept creation", "be convinced of creation".

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2014 10:21 PM NoNukes has taken no action

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8496
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 33 of 301 (722423)
03-21-2014 2:59 AM


The Institution for Creationism are denying the news quoting Isaiah.

So what did cause the CMB? That's an open question. But since the CMB data are generally inconsistent with inflation (a fact quickly glossed over in Monday's announcement), it is definitely not "leftover" radiation from an alleged Big Bang. Secular scientists have made many such splashy announcements over the years, announcements which have supposedly proven various aspects of their evolutionary worldview but which have eventually been rejected (often quietly) by evolutionists themselves. This is not the first such announcement, nor will it be the last. Readers should resist the temptation to embrace these ever-changing secular origin stories. The inerrant, inspired, true creation account never changes, however: "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" (Isaiah 40:8).

They're missing a trick, Orthodox Jewish scientists are claiming that it proves their beliefs to be true.

For believing Jews, the story of the Big Bang resonates perfectly with the story of creation told in Genesis, Aviezer said. “Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

Read more: New Big Bang evidence supports Biblical creation, says Orthodox physicist | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/...ion-is-a-fact/#ixzz2wZsi1VKq


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 12:49 PM Tangle has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 643 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 34 of 301 (722442)
03-21-2014 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tangle
03-20-2014 6:58 PM


... now have to go and invent something sciency sounding to get round the problem ...

Don't worry, they'll just become more polarized.


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


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2014 6:58 PM Tangle has taken no action

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 35 of 301 (722465)
03-21-2014 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ringo
03-19-2014 12:21 PM


Yes, we do. From an evolutionary viewpoint, human reproduction - in all of its various facets - is more important than the shape of the room it's done in.

Good point and well said. It is remarkable that we ever managed to notice anything else. I guess that both subjects involve a fascination with inflation.

It is so incredible that we can actually know stuff like this. That we can figure out what happened in the first instants of time that passed some 13.8 billion yrs ago. Talk about the predictive ability of a theory. I stand in the shadow of giants.

The deniers become ever less worthy of consideration and helpful only for gauging how well we are educating ourselves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 03-19-2014 12:21 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 03-21-2014 12:08 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19530
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 36 of 301 (722476)
03-21-2014 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dogmafood
03-21-2014 10:33 AM


ProtoTypical writes:

I stand in the shadow of giants.


You should be standing on their shoulders, like Newton.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dogmafood, posted 03-21-2014 10:33 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dogmafood, posted 03-21-2014 1:32 PM ringo has seen this message

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2172 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 37 of 301 (722480)
03-21-2014 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tangle
03-20-2014 6:58 PM


thanks, that explains it for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2014 6:58 PM Tangle has taken no action

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1370 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 38 of 301 (722484)
03-21-2014 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Tangle
03-21-2014 2:59 AM


Tangle writes:

The Institution for Creationism are denying the news quoting Isaiah.


In contrast, old-earth creationists are embracing the discovery:

quote:

Big Bang 'Gravity Wave' Discovery Supports Biblical Creation, Say Old Earth Creationists

Some Christian scientific experts believe that the discovery of the "gravity wave," announced earlier this week by scientists working with a South Pole telescope called BICEP 2, provides confirmation for the biblical account of creation by supporting the theory of the "big bang."

"The Bible was the first to predict big bang cosmology," according to Hugh Ross, president and founder of Reasons to Believe, an Old Earth Creationist organization that believes Christianity and science are complementary.


http://www.christianpost.com/...ld-earth-creationists-116363

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2014 2:59 AM Tangle has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by AZPaul3, posted 03-21-2014 3:15 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 39 of 301 (722490)
03-21-2014 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ringo
03-21-2014 12:08 PM


You should be standing on their shoulders, like Newton.

I know but, alas, I am not. I take comfort in knowing that I provide someone for these guys to tower above. They make me feel a little bit less like an ape even if just by association. That and the fact that I can begin to appreciate the view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 03-21-2014 12:08 PM ringo has seen this message

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 301 (722496)
03-21-2014 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by kbertsche
03-20-2014 9:38 PM


You guys are making this much more complicated than it really is. A "creationist" is simply someone who believes in creation.

Not in the context of the Evolution vs. Creation debate. Here, a creationist is someone who denies evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by kbertsche, posted 03-20-2014 9:38 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6647
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 41 of 301 (722503)
03-21-2014 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by kbertsche
03-21-2014 12:49 PM


Some Christian scientific experts believe that the discovery of the "gravity wave," announced earlier this week by scientists working with a South Pole telescope called BICEP 2, provides confirmation for the biblical account of creation by supporting the theory of the "big bang."

That BICEP2 has no connection to any religious concept, be that Genesis, Tripitaka, Bhagavad Gita, Rasa'il al-hikmah ,etc., and that the design of the experiments and the analysis of the data is oblivious to any such religious concept means the results do not lend any credence to any such concepts. The only thing the results of the BICEP2 experiments support is the concept of a major inflationary epoch in the first instant of our universe and that this epoch does not conflict with the simpler hypotheses of cosmic inflation presently under consideration while precluding a number of the more complex inflationary hypotheses.

To say these results "support" such religious creationist accounts is to say that BICEP2 did not grind them into dust. By the same token BICEP2 "supports" marijuana legalization in Arizona as well.

There is a logic problem here. Where is Fallacy Man when you really need him?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 12:49 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 4:36 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1370 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 42 of 301 (722510)
03-21-2014 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by AZPaul3
03-21-2014 3:15 PM


AZPaul3 writes:


To say these results "support" such religious creationist accounts is to say that BICEP2 did not grind them into dust. By the same token BICEP2 "supports" marijuana legalization in Arizona as well.

There is a logic problem here. Where is Fallacy Man when you really need him?

I don't see a logic problem here; can you clarify the logic problem that you see?

Rather, I suspect there is simply a difference of interpretation regarding the biblical text. IF you interpret the biblical text as predicting Big Bang cosmology (as Hugh Ross does), THEN any discovery that supports Big Bang cosmology automatically supports the biblical text. This seems completely logical, given his interpretation of the biblical text.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by AZPaul3, posted 03-21-2014 3:15 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2014 6:42 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 45 by AZPaul3, posted 03-21-2014 10:50 PM kbertsche has taken no action
 Message 46 by ramoss, posted 03-22-2014 11:05 AM kbertsche has taken no action

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 301 (722522)
03-21-2014 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by kbertsche
03-21-2014 4:36 PM


You haven't said much here...
IF you interpret the biblical text as predicting Big Bang cosmology (as Hugh Ross does), THEN any discovery that supports Big Bang cosmology automatically supports the biblical text.

Yes, that is true, but is it of any worth whatsoever? Isn't it just a tautology? If Ross mangles the Bible text so that it reads on science, then what is shown when science turns out to be right?

Let's ask these questions. This new evidence supports in particular an inflationary model in which the universe expanded from a small to a large size so that widely dispersed parts can be in thermal equilibrium. So what does the Bible say about that?

Or is it that just a vague "cosmic energy egg" thingy work just as well for Hugh Ross?

Or we might ask how much of the Bible Ross must dismiss, (like for example the order of creation rather than just it's duration, in order to make his claim that the Bible is essentially GR written in Greek. In short is Ross's claim the least bit reasonable?

Finally, I note that you stop short of endorsing Ross' interpretation. What is your actual opinion on what Ross proposes.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 4:36 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 9:43 PM NoNukes has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1370 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 44 of 301 (722530)
03-21-2014 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NoNukes
03-21-2014 6:42 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
NoNukes writes:

Let's ask these questions. This new evidence supports in particular an inflationary model in which the universe expanded from a small to a large size so that widely dispersed parts can be in thermal equilibrium. So what does the Bible say about that?

Or is it that just a vague "cosmic energy egg" thingy work just as well for Hugh Ross?


Hugh interprets the Bible to predict Big Bang cosmology. But Big Bang cosmology has some difficulties. "Inflation" was essentially an ad hoc theory proposed to solve some of these difficulties. But until now, there has been no direct evidence for inflation. This new evidence supporting inflation puts Big Bang cosmology on a firmer footing. And given Hugh's biblical interpretation, it also supports the Bible.

NoNukes writes:

Or we might ask how much of the Bible Ross must dismiss, (like for example the order of creation rather than just it's duration, in order to make his claim that the Bible is essentially GR written in Greek. In short is Ross's claim the least bit reasonable?


Hugh makes a strong, plausible case that the biblical sequence of creation is consistent with what an observer on earth would have seen. But rather than recounting all of the details, I would recommend that you consult his books or his website (www.reasons.org).

NoNukes writes:

Finally, I note that you stop short of endorsing Ross' interpretation. What is your actual opinion on what Ross proposes.

Hugh is a friend of mine. I generally agree with what he says, though I would not always word it the same way myself. Regarding this discovery I would express things a bit more like another friend, Leslie Wickman, in the blog she wrote for CNN:

quote:

Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?

The remarkable discovery, announced this week, of ripples in the space-time fabric of the universe rocked the world of science – and the world of religion.

Touted as evidence for inflation (a faster-than-the-speed-of-light expansion of our universe), the new discovery of traces of gravity waves affirms scientific concepts in the fields of cosmology, general relativity, and particle physics.

The new discovery also has significant implications for the Judeo-Christian worldview, offering strong support for biblical beliefs.

...

So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused – or created – by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.


Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2014 6:42 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2014 4:47 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 49 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-24-2014 12:17 AM kbertsche has taken no action
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2014 12:50 PM kbertsche has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6647
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 45 of 301 (722531)
03-21-2014 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by kbertsche
03-21-2014 4:36 PM


IF you interpret the biblical text as predicting Big Bang cosmology (as Hugh Ross does), THEN any discovery that supports Big Bang cosmology automatically supports the biblical text.

The Greek Cosmogonical can be interpreted to "predict" the big bang. So can the Väinämöinen. You could interpret The Nancy Drew Mysteries as predicting the big bang if you stretch it far enough.

Lemaître, Penzias & Wilson and now BICEP2 cannot support, let alone confirm, the Genesis myth since its "predictions" of the big bang were post Lemaître adaptations as seen through fatuous eyes. The only connection is within the desperate minds of those searching for some gossamer threads to hold their faith. There is no connection at all and the insistence of some support, some connection, some confirmation is an illogical conclusion based on emotional wishful thinking and nothing more.

And, again, the same (il)logic can say the BICEP2 results support moves to legalizing marijuana since there is a direct clear connection from big bang to the presence of marijuana in the universe.

If you accept the one then you must likewise accept the other along with any number of fictions that may pop into some tiny little brains. That is the illogic of Ross's pronouncement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 4:36 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022