Originally posted by blindfaith101In my post, I was trying to show its mankind, specifically young
Why do you and others limit what GOD can do or has done. You seem to be trying to make man a independant thought or being. You and others seem to think that Life begins and ends with mankind. There are those that seem unable, to get by that same question that have stumped even the angels. What is man,that you.........PSALMS 8:3-8, HEBREWS 2:5-9
earthers, who denigrate all that came before, implying nothing
existed before 6000 years ago. That is so incredibly, profoundly
blindingly arrogant, its not ME making the assumstions all this
supposed deception was to confound mankind, its the young earthers.
They are the ones who automatically assume WE, mankind is the
pinnacle of creation, beings how we were made in HIS image and all.
It is arrogance to the point of insanity.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy, pray, is it arrogance to consider yourself a creation of God? Its profoundly humbling IMO...
In my post, I was trying to show its mankind, specifically young
earthers, who denigrate all that came before, implying nothing
existed before 6000 years ago. That is so incredibly, profoundly
blindingly arrogant, its not ME making the assumstions all this
supposed deception was to confound mankind, its the young earthers.
They are the ones who automat ...[text shortened]... eation, beings how we were made in HIS image and all.
It is arrogance to the point of insanity.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYes when God speaks to us, He does it with the intent on our under
Just to clarify, you believe that when Genesis says 'day', it means a day just like we understand the term today, and any interpretation that deviates from that fails to give God due credit in his ability to communicate with us, correct?
I am also patiently awaiting your responses to the Pangea and DNA Serious Questions.
standing. Since He created our ears, eyes, mouths, brains, and so
on He is quite able to do so, so that we can understand what He is
saying. People do like to try and read into His Word things that are
not there, just to make their views right, even if they have to change
the meaning of the words they see to do it.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayHave any of the people who have translated the Bible into your chosen version done this?
People do like to try and read into His Word things that are
not there, just to make their views right, even if they have to change
the meaning of the words they see to do it.
Have all of the people who have translated it into competing English versions done this?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPlease tell me what you think occured and under what conditions for
What characteristic of the Big Bang model makes it not falsifiable?
this event the "big bang?" Then we can see if there is something
testable that we can prove false. Like evolution it is how we define
the term and under what conditions do people start to split hairs on
what is true or not.
I do believe I have admitted more than once or twice I'm a Young
Earther that believes God did it all in 6 literal days as we understand
the word day, a 24 hour day.
Kelly
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt is a great danger, that is why I like the versions that have several
Have any of the people who have translated the Bible into your chosen version done this?
different groups working together, keeping each other honest. This
is good because for the most part, all people can create error with
intent and without it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm not a cosmologist. I can't give a succint and accurate formulation of the Big Bang model here. Those that I have read and understood pass the falsifiability test: the theories are such that if they are false, then there exist empirical tests (whether he have already discovered them or not) that would show that the theory is false.
Please tell me what you think occured and under what conditions for
this event the "big bang?" Then we can see if there is something
testable that we can prove false.
Note that the ability to be proven false is not a requirement of all scientific theories. It is only a requirement for false theories. There only needs to be such a possible test if the theory were incorrect. The failure to be able to design a test for a theory whose truth value is unkown, and the subsequent conclusion that the theory is not falsifiable and thus should be rejected, is a misunderstanding of the principle of falsifiability.
An example of a non-falsifiable theory is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If that theory were false, there would exist no empirical test to demonstrate that falsehood. Note that this is stronger than saying that we have yet to conceive of an empirical way to test its falsehood - the nature of the theory logically prohibits the existence of any such falsifying experiment.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWell, as you understand the 'big bang' what were the conditions
I'm not a cosmologist. I can't give a succint and accurate formulation of the Big Bang model here. Those that I have read and understood pass the falsifiability test: the theories are such that if they are false, then there exist empirical tests (whether he have already discovered them or not) that would show that the theory is false.
Note th ...[text shortened]... - the nature of the theory logically prohibits the existence of any such falsifying experiment.
of all things a second before and a second afterwards? Was
there anything before, and I do mean anything? What blew up?
I don't think you have to be a cosmologist to say what you
think happened if you believe it occured, it isn't like any cosmologist
was there taking notes so that they can say you what you think
happened is wrong! Well, they could say it, but it isn't like they
were there or anything!
Kelly
12 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayAs for what happened just before:
Well, as you understand the 'big bang' what were the conditions
of all things a second before and a second afterwards? Was
there anything before, and I do mean anything? What blew up?
Suppose I am a two-dimensional scientist living on a piece of paper.
Suppose that you, a three-dimensional being, drop a marble covered with paint onto my world and it rolls around, tracing out a path of paint.
I can find the wettest end of the path, and trace it back along its path, following a progression towards dryer paint, until I hit the dryest point at the end of the observable path. This would be the point at which the ball entered my two-dimensional universe. It is also the point beyond which I could say no more about the phenomenon. I might even call this special point the Big Landing.
Being a two-dimensional scientist of integrity, I refuse to answer pseudo-scientific questions about the third dimension, for while I could possibly conceive of it in a metaphysical sense, my physical world is limited to two dimensions and thus no explanatory theory about events in my world that requires a third dimension is falsifiable, and thus worthwhile. While I may conceive of a three-dimensional being dropping a three-dimensional object into my unvierse, I would never espouse such a scientifc theory. My science is limited. I cannot make a scientific statement about the state of any supposed ball before it enters my universe. If you ask me as a two-dimensional scientist, "So where was the ball just before the dryest part of the path?," I would have to say that that question lies outside of my jurisdiction, and I would direct you to a two-dimensional philosopher.
Asking a cosmologist within our universe about the state of the universe just before the big bang is analogous to asking the paperland scientist where the ball was just before the dryest part of the path. You're asking the wrong person. The cosmologist doesn't claim to have an answer to it, I don't claim to have an answer to it, and the theory doesn't claim to have an answer to it.
As for what happend just after, this the theory does speak to, and rightly so, but I do not have the familiarity to attempt to describe it. It might be interesting to a nuclear physicist or chemist, but to the rest of us, it would just be a boring litany of various chemical reactions and interplay of the physical forces.
As for what blew up, again, that's analagous to asking the paperland scientist what fell into his universe to make the tracks, and who dropped it there. It's outside of his jurisdiction to answer. Cosmologists study the universe - that's their charge. They are not responsible, nor do they have any scientific authority, to speak to what came before or what existed outside of the universe that may have brought the universe into existence. They study the path only up to the dryest point, and then yield the floor to the philosophers.
You don't need to fear them. Any of them who claims as a matter of science that God, or any other particular metaphysical phenomenon, did not cause the Big Bang is a fraud.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI don't fear this...What blew up? Answer we don't know, we only know
As for what happened just before:
Suppose I am a two-dimensional scientist living on a piece of paper.
Suppose that you, a three-dimensional being, drop a marble covered with paint onto my world and it rolls around, tracing out a path of paint.
I can find the wettest end of the path, and trace it back along its path, following a progression ...[text shortened]... hat God, or any other particular metaphysical phenomenon, did not cause the Big Bang is a fraud.
it did. 🙂
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseIts arrogant for humans to think they occupy some special place
Why, pray, is it arrogance to consider yourself a creation of God? Its profoundly humbling IMO...
on earth, like our supposed superiority over animals.
The arrogance you and your christian buddies show is just what is
killing the planet now. Your unspeakable arrogance that humans
are somehow better than the animals, we have been led to beleive
we somehow 'own' the planet, we are the chief gardners or some
such rot, leads you and your ilk to suck the planet dry of resources
your arrogance naturally assumes we own. Wake up and smell
the coffee, take a look at just how well we pinnacles of creation
are handling the planet. If there is a god grading us you can be
sure we are getting an F. Think very hard about your answer,
think about the rot we are bringing to the world which before the
advent of mankind was truly a jewel, the best planet for quite
literally light years around. You think its still that jewel? You think
its not arrogance that leads us to believe we can crucify the whole
planet in our monstrous sheparding we are doing here?
Originally posted by sonhouseYou do not think you are displaying a tad bit of arrogance in your
Its arrogant for humans to think they occupy some special place
on earth, like our supposed superiority over animals.
The arrogance you and your christian buddies show is just what is
killing the planet now. Your unspeakable arrogance that humans
are somehow better than the animals, we have been led to beleive
we somehow 'own' the planet, we are the ...[text shortened]... ds us to believe we can crucify the whole
planet in our monstrous sheparding we are doing here?
stance here too? You think you have it all worked out and know
what is the proper way to behave and what is the correct thing
to believe? What makes you so special that you can say that those
that are Christians are in error, you have a corner on the truth of
the universe? If you believe you do, well, stand in line!
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNothing "blew up". The term "Big Bang" is a pithy one coined by an opponent of the theory; it caught on, but it is not an accurate description of the scientific theory. In essense, all the matter in the universe was at a single point and then the universe started expanding. We do know what expanded i.e. the universe. I'm not going to get into an entire description of the cosmological theory labelled the "Big Bang" and the massive amounts of proof in support of it; those people here who do not understand it should google "Big Bang" theory and go to a reputable scientific website or better yet, audit a first year course in astronomy.
I don't fear this...What blew up? Answer we don't know, we only know
it did. 🙂
Kelly
