Originally posted by KellyJayThis answer surprises me, especially when it comes from our friend KJ.
I agree
Kelly
He think that religious matters have precedence over scientific matters. "Because God is always right!" "Because it says so in the bible!" "Becaue I know!"
Was it he who said that BigBang is also a part of evolution theory (or was it someone like him?), making his own religious definition about what BigBang really is. Only science that explains religious matters is okay. Like using radiological methods to prove that the age of remnants of the Noah's Ark found on MtArarat making it the very Ark, but using exactly the same method to prove the age of dinosaur fossils, then the scientists are plain wrong, and delusional.
So whenever KJ says that he agrees, then I smell something fishy.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou just don't know him well enough. He has always claimed that we do not know everything, especially when it comes to the past. I have often disagreed with him regarding whether or not some guesses are better than others, and whether and to what extent knowledge about the past can be evidence based, but I don't think he is being inconsistent here.
So whenever KJ says that he agrees, then I smell something fishy.
He would probably add that he has faith (not firsthand knowledge) in whatever the Bible says about the history of the universe, but that does not contradict what he has said here.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen it comes to evolution, he is dead sure that it is a false theory. He knows everything, he says. Yet he doesn't know much about evolution, nor science.
You just don't know him well enough. He has always claimed that we do not know everything, especially when it comes to the past. I have often disagreed with him regarding whether or not some guesses are better than others, and whether and to what extent knowledge about the past can be evidence based, but I don't think he is being inconsistent here.
He wo ...[text shortened]... le says about the history of the universe, but that does not contradict what he has said here.
He claims that we doesn't know anything about BigBang. We know quite much about it,and we're learning more. But ask him the age of the universe, then you decide who knows more.
This is the truth: We don't know everything. And quess what? Noone claims that. But those who believe in a creation that happened some thousands years ago by an intelligent being, does know less.
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe claims that teh BigBang theory is nothing more like a guessing. He doesn't believe in evolution theory, because it's against the bible. Yes, he claims such things. Not exactly as I described it, but in the same spirit.
You are misrepresenting him. I do not think I have ever seen him make any such claims.
Ask him if he belives in the scientific theory of BigBang. Ask him if he belives in the scientific theory of evolution. If 'no' in either theory, ask him why, and you'll see.
For the religious folks there should be no conflict with the BBT. The scientific view of the universe and the BBT seems to be plausible explanations of how the universe is now. The back ground radiation idea and it's mostly uniform in all directions. The left overs of the big bang right? Galaxies in redshift all still expanding outward.
Manny
Originally posted by Scotty70Isaac Asimov actually wrote that as a theory and others also. Right now the scientific level of the human race as a whole, all of it, including physics, quantum and otherwise, is in a box trying to break out to understand the universe as a whole and we only have parts of the answer.
Is it possible that there is no real "beginning", and that our perception of the universe is simply one in a cycle of expansions and contractions?
That means that any religious views about what came before is just as valid AT THIS POINT IN TIME than any scientific theory or conjecture. It may well come to pass science will advance beyond any rational of religious nature. Or not🙂
So religious people are just as valid in believing some god waggled its little finger and the universe was created and then followed the known laws of physics or whatever.
The thing religious people cannot say is god makes people come back to life, virgins getting impregnated by supernatural godly forces. That intrudes in our known universe having nothing to do with what happened before.
The crime there is how religious people deal with that issue, for instance, taliban killing women for not wearing there whole body armor because some book demands it. For instance, right wing christian killing abortion doctors.
All that goes way beyond any debate about the origin or destiny of the universe as a whole and that has to be considered a crime against humanity in any light.
Originally posted by sonhouseI disagree. My speculations about possible pasts, are not equivalent to religious beliefs about possible pasts. Mine are speculations, theirs are beliefs. It would be unreasonable of me to believe completely in one of my speculations - and I do not.
So religious people are just as valid in believing some god waggled its little finger and the universe was created and then followed the known laws of physics or whatever.
Originally posted by pink floyd123It was the result of a higher universe equivalent to a high school physics class. The students each had a universe making machine but had to devise the rules of physics for their own project. We happen to have been made in one in which the student set up rules that for him, by chance it turned out to be favorable for life on Earth.
the universe is like a seed thats unfolding into its own nature????
The student put in his projected physic rule specs into his machine with a portable remote control device that started the universe going but inside his multi-dimensional force field cage that defines the size of our entire universe which for the student, is the size of a bird cage.
The instructor gave that student an A for his work. That was the best grade in the whole class.