Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have just given you a Biblical and a scientific fact, its incredulous that you cannot comprehend this, how simple must it get? what is it about it you do not understand? i still want to hear you say it, when did science establish that the universe had a beginning, when! nor do i believe that i cannot ever understand science, that my friend is a c ...[text shortened]... this is nothing more than unreasonableness and an unwilling prejudice to accept a simple truth!

<<i have just given you a Biblical and a scientific fact, its incredulous that you cannot comprehend this,>>

err, robbie old bean, the word is "incredible," not "incredulous."

You gotta know what words mean to use them properly.

You gotta know how to use words properly to even think well.

You don't do either.

sorry

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Then I have to assume that you actually think this is a scientific fact:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - Genesis 1:1"
Then I understuand why I didn't find it. [b]Because it's not a scientific fact. (Sorry if I smile a bit! 🙂 )

Do you think it's a scientific fact only because you found it in a book? Then we can prove ev ...[text shortened]... at hard. But you actually have to open a book that is not black and has not thin pages.[/b]

ok Fabian, let me spell it out for you the last time, 'in the beginning', you do not have to accept the latter part, 'God created etc etc', let us simply start with 'in the beginning', is this a scientific fact or not, that the universe had a beginning, for the Bible clearly and unambiguously states that it did, and please try not to be facetious. for if you will not confirm this, i will go to the science forum and have them confirm it, and i will come back here and make you publicly admit that the Bible contains scientific fact!

Originally posted by Scriabin
again, this problem with language, truth and meaning -- you don't really speak English, do you, Robbie?

what are these strange symbols and archaic markings, evidence of a lost civilization?, an intelligence, if only i could decipher them, what are these strange beings trying to communicate?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok Fabian, let me spell it out for you the last time, 'in the beginning', you do not have to accept the latter part, 'God created etc etc', let us simply start with 'in the beginning', is this a scientific fact or not, that the universe had a beginning, for the Bible clearly and unambiguously states that it did, and please try not to be facetious. f ...[text shortened]... i will come back here and make you publicly admit that the Bible contains scientific fact!

the bible "contains" scientific fact?

what does that mean?

the bible refers to things -- that establishes them as a fact?

that is evidence of that which the bible refers to?

that's all you need?

something follows from this?

you are from this planet, are you not?

Originally posted by Scriabin
<<i have just given you a Biblical and a scientific fact, its incredulous that you cannot comprehend this,>>

err, robbie old bean, the word is "incredible," not "incredulous."

You gotta know what words mean to use them properly.

You gotta know how to use words properly to even think well.

You don't do either.

sorry

the word is incredulous and its sound, an American trying to lecture a native of Britain with regard to the use of the English language, well to borrow one of your phrases, 'thats real rich, that is'.

Originally posted by Scriabin
the bible "contains" scientific fact?

what does that mean?

the bible refers to things -- that establishes them as a fact?

that is evidence of that which the bible refers to?

that's all you need?

something follows from this?

you are from this planet, are you not?

answer the question Scriabin, which Fabian is going at great lengths to avoid, when did the scientific community accept that the universe had a beginning? you do accept that the universe did have a beginning, don't you, just as the Bible clearly states.

Originally posted by buckky
Have you ever thought about how everything is made up of Atoms, and in that way everything is alive in a sense? If atoms are the buiding blocks of the universe then maybe God is what atoms are ? Everything is God !! The Hundus already think this. Maybe they are right.

Its all in the Bible. Something about atoms and eves I think.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok Fabian, let me spell it out for you the last time, 'in the beginning', you do not have to accept the latter part, 'God created etc etc', let us simply start with 'in the beginning', is this a scientific fact or not, that the universe had a beginning, for the Bible clearly and unambiguously states that it did, and please try not to be facetious. f ...[text shortened]... i will come back here and make you publicly admit that the Bible contains scientific fact!

But you have to understand this, robbie, it's not science if you don't back it up with observations. It's not scientific only because you can read it in some black book with thin pages. You have to understand the difference.

Let's go back to the "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." If this is science, tell me why I read 'heavens', plural. Tell me how god created Earth before stars. Tell me any observations that Earth was the first thing that was into being. And do it scientifically, back it up with observations. Not just religious opinions. Do this and I will tell you where you are wrong.

There are a lot of religious fundamentalists who actually believes that they are right, and want to make it true by putting the word 'scientific' in front. Religious fundamentalists don't know much about science. They often enough don't know how science work. But they eagerly call it science to raise it into some kind of truth. They use science to prove there religious views, and deny science when it contradicts their views.

Robbie? Do you believe in science and it's scientific methods? Congratulations, then you believe in atomic theory, the theory of evolution, and BigBang theory.

But religion and science cannot ever mix.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
... which Fabian is going at great lengths to avoid ...

You will not understand the answer, nor accept it. Why bother to answer, it's totally futile?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
answer the question Scriabin, which Fabian is going at great lengths to avoid, when did the scientific community accept that the universe had a beginning? you do accept that the universe did have a beginning, don't you, just as the Bible clearly states.

no, I'm not sure I do accept that the universe did have a beginning, just as the Bible clearly states. We have a theory. We think we know some possible answers, but we do not know anything "clearly" either as stated in the Bible or anywhere else.

There is not enough data to confirm the various theories out there about the universe. The part of the universe we can see is limited because of the existence of visual horizons. What we see is just a small fraction of all there is: the universe is dominated by dark matter, which we do not comprehend in the least.

We do not know what the universe is made of and how it all works. We do not know how things originate.

It is precisely by limiting its scope to the experimentally verifiable that modern science has had such enormous success within its domain. The downside is that it cannot therefore by itself provide a satisfactory overall worldview, even though this is sometimes attempted.

The failure of such attempts, and the realization that major areas of human concern lie outside the scope of the modern scientific vision, underlie a present widespread turning away from science towards various a-scientific or even anti-scientific worldviews.

We think we have a good theoretical view of how the universe we see may have started -- but we have no way to know what came before it, whether the singularity that comprised the origin of the theoretical Big Bang was preceded by something else we cannot now detect.

The Big Bang Model postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

According to NASA, the Big Bang Model rests on two theoretical pillars: Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the Cosmological Principle, which is the assumption, constantly being tested by observation, that if you viewed the contents of the universe with sufficiently poor vision, it would appear roughly the same everywhere and in every direction. That is, the matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when averaged over very large scales.

The Big Bang model is not complete. For example, it does not explain why the universe is so uniform on the very largest scales or, indeed, why it is so non-uniform on smaller scales, i.e., how stars and galaxies came to be.

It does not account for the needed fluctuations to produce the structure we see.

You see, scientists, as NASA reports, believe that depending on the assumption one makes about whether the universe is flat, or curved, and dominated by ordinary or dark matter, the age of the universe varies. So we really do not know how old the universe is -- anywhere from 9 to about 20 billion years may be right. The "community" of scientists have not reached a consensus.

Some astronomers believe that this uncertainty will pass as soon as measurements improve.

So, again, farther along, we'll know all about it, farther along, we'll understand why.

In the meantime, if I were you, I'd keep my powder dry and suspend judgment.


see
* Peebles, P.J.E., Schramm, D.N., Turner, E.L. & R.G. Kron 1991, "The Case for the Relativistic Hot Big Bang Cosmology", Nature, 352, 769 - 776.
* Peebles, P.J.E., Schramm, D.N., Turner, E.L. & R.G. Kron 1994, "The Evolution of the Universe'', Scientific American, 271, 29 - 33.
* Will, Clifford, "Was Einstein Right?"

Originally posted by Scriabin
no, I'm not sure I do accept that the universe did have a beginning, just as the Bible clearly states. We have a theory. We think we know some possible answers, but we do not know anything "clearly" either as stated in the Bible or anywhere else.

There is not enough data to confirm the various theories out there about the universe. The part of the univ ...[text shortened]... '', Scientific American, 271, 29 - 33.
* Will, Clifford, "Was Einstein Right?"

thankyou Scriabin my friend, this is really amazing for me. i really appreciate you're having taken the time for this miserable theist, for at present we have seventy or eighty years on the planet and it is simply impractical to absorb everything. i really did think, although i cannot remember where i read it, that the scientific community had unanimously agreed that the universe did, at some point, have a beginning. awesome post my friend! now i need to turn my attention to your classical Sicilian! 🙂

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You will not understand the answer, nor accept it. Why bother to answer, it's totally futile?

pathetic, prejudiced, condescending and utterly contemptible! you aught to be ashamed of yourself!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thankyou Scriabin my friend, this is really amazing for me. i really appreciate you're having taken the time for this miserable theist, for at present we have seventy or eighty years on the planet and it is simply impractical to absorb everything. i really did think, although i cannot remember where i read it, that the scientific community had unan ...[text shortened]... nning. awesome post my friend! now i need to turn my attention to your classical Sicilian! 🙂

What Sicilian exactly?

Could it be the noble Scheveningen, which occured after deep meditation of the ancient Masters over that profound Paulsen's 1.e4 c5 line as a result of the fotprints of Void and its reflection at the Universe through Logos, which it emerged when the primordial wavefunction was collapsed??
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
What Sicilian exactly?

Could it be the noble Scheveningen, which occured after deep meditation of the ancient Masters over that profound Paulsen's 1.e4 c5 line as a result of the fotprints of Void and its reflection at the Universe through Logos, which it emerged when the primordial wavefunction was collapsed??
😵

Ah, fOOtprints, fOOtprints, double o'h😵

Originally posted by black beetle
What Sicilian exactly?

Could it be the noble Scheveningen, which occured after deep meditation of the ancient Masters over that profound Paulsen's 1.e4 c5 line as a result of the fotprints of Void and its reflection at the Universe through Logos, which it emerged when the primordial wavefunction was collapsed??
😵

LOL, soooooo funny Beetle, i think it is the classical Sicilian, although the noble Scriabin may indeed have transposed into the Scheveningen, in a roundabout way. i counsel all adherents of the Sicilian, play the Hyper accelerated dragon 1.e4 c5, 2. Nf3 g6!!, it does not officially exist, but whos to say that which is unknown also does not exist! it requires absolutely no meditation, even less preparation, and a level of insanity well within the reach of most amateurs! but alas its not for the faint hearted!