Originally posted by jaywillOk, it something of a misnomer.
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ancient people encountered a great deal of unexplainable phenomenon, many of those they tried to explain using gods or mythical creatures (like explaining lightning as Zeus's weapon or something). As science progresses, we need less and less of these supernatural explanations.
++++++++++++++++++++
You mean like ...[text shortened]... he existence of the world, you have done well with the intended purpose of the communication.[/b]
"
To the public, the model means that the universe began from a single point, underwent an explosion, and has been flying apart ever since.
However, the big bang is not an explosion at all. This is an unfortunate misnomer that cosmologists would like to correct. But the bad name has stuck.
The big bang is the expansion or stretching of space. It is not that things are flying out from a point. Rather, all things are moving away from each other. It is like having an infinite rubber sheet with people sitting on it. Stretch the rubber sheet, and all the people move away from one another. Each things they are at the center of an explosion. It is an optical illusion - everybody moves away from everybody else and there is no center.
Run the story going back and time and the sheet was more and more unstretched and the people were closer together. When everybody is so close they are on top of one another, that is is the beginning of the big bang picture - the cosmic singularity. At that time, the universe has nearly infinite density and temperature.
"
-- http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/
Playing the defense attorney, I should remind everyone that
"We call this the Hot Big Bang. Which is a misnomer. It was actually a name given the theory by astronomer Fred Hoyle who was trying to discredit the theory. Unfortunately the name has stuck."
--- http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/bmendez/ay10/2002/notes/lec19.html
(and scroll down a bit)
1 edit
Originally posted by RetrovirusOk, that too.
With that in mind, it is indeed easy to reconcile faith and evolution ; Indeed, I know many religious* biologists, none of them claims that evolution is a fraud or anything - as a matter of fact, many of them are specialists of evolution studies and related subjects (and also stem cells researchers, but that's besides the point).
So, why the enmity?
Originally posted by whodey
Ignorance and/or pride.
Originally posted by Sargent CarpfaceEvery single one of these statements of yours shows a profound lack of knowledge of anything you express an opinion on. Please at least do some reading - firstly about your statement that we evolved from apes. When you do, please tell me which evolutionist says that?
Ok. You all got great points, But heres another. The moon it moves I dunno off the bat right now I thing 6 inches away from earth each year. Millions of years ago not only would it blow up the planet, but it would scatter earth across the galaxy. Hmm Who found bits of earth. No gravity means it would be like a meteor. They also claim that we can act ...[text shortened]... lution. If we evolved from apes, why are there apes and no cave men? Other Than Osama bin Laden.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungi think that KJ's faith is much bigger than a scientist's faith, probably. Surely that means that what he says is more true?
We can't know that there was gravity yesterday. It's all faith. You might have faith in your memory, but it's only faith, just like the YEC's faith that the Earth was created 6000 years ago. 🙄
Originally posted by Retrovirus"What I'm really saying is faith is faith, we are people and we live by it.
I think I have missed that one.
Can you assist me, please?
You can try to say your faith in the logic of some scientist is better
than someone else's faith in God, I don't care! It is still faith, when
you apply your belief system to the world around you and come up
with what you call truth or facts. You may be right, you may be wrong,
it depends on the subject matter, bottom line you are still a person of
faith, it is just being put into something other than what I put mine
into.
Kelly"
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's not the point. The point is that no arguments were given. I, above most people, accept different opinions and points of view. Fundamented ones. I'm sure some don't understand the points of discussion, because barbarities with no sense at all were said (independent of religion, faith or science)
You think that because someone does not agree with you they do not
understand the points of the discussion?
Kelly
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHa YOU CRIMINAL, KELLY HAS 2 USER NAMES. YOU SHOULD STOP SIGNING YOUR NAME IF YOU DONT WANNA GET CAUGHT!
"What I'm really saying is faith is faith, we are people and we live by it.
You can try to say your faith in the logic of some scientist is better
than someone else's faith in God, I don't care! It is still faith, when
you apply your belief system to the world around you and come up
with what you call truth or facts. You may be right, you m ...[text shortened]... faith, it is just being put into something other than what I put mine
into.
Kelly"
Originally posted by KellyJayI agree that one can never be absolutely sure of anything just as you cannot be absolutely sure that yesterday really happened. God or some other entity could have planted the memories in your head. But it therefore follows that we can never know the history of any device so even that requirement is useless to us. After all how will you know the history of the history?
I can stress devices and cause them to appear to age and
measure the results, I can also just grab devices that just aged and
set them side by side, they will behave the same way! I cannot look
at a the results of a test and know the difference, I have to know the
history of the device!
However here in the real world we can be sure of something without being absolutely sure. We can also talk about 'reasonable explanations'. For example that a green alien planted yesterdays memories in your head is not a reasonable explanation. That yesterday really happened is.
Do you agree so far?
When we talk about things that appear to be a certain age, then there are many explanations, one could be that it truly is that age, the other could be that a green alien or God faked it. Which is a reasonable explanation?
My point has always been we do not know, you
want to assume that because of tests all done in the here and now
that gives us clear understanding of the past, it does not necessarily
mean that, to assume it does is pure faith, to reject all complaints
about it as religious base is prejudiced and unwise to say the least.
Kelly
OK, please answer this question honestly:
Do you accept that all the scientific evidence available indicates that the earth is millions of years old (whether it truly is or isn't)?
I have no problem with you saying that God faked the evidence or that the evidence is wrong for whatever other reasons but I do have a problem if you say the evidence is not there - that would be lying.
OH.. and for Kelly and all those that think Carbon Dating is wrong... For the age of the earth being calculated to be ~4.5 billion years old IS NOT used carbon dating. Carbon dating is not very precise for such huge time.
There are many different methods to calculate it, and they ALL match.
So, there are 2 hypothesis.
1- Your faith based system is right because it says so in the Bible and thousands of brilliant scientists are completely wrong.
2- You are wrong and science got it right (only) this time.
Of course now you can reinterpret the whole thing to be in accordance with reality.
It's not a 100% certain, but it is 99.99999(9)%: the earth is OLDER then 6000 years.
Originally posted by snowinscotlandIn life what is true is true, what is believed is believed you want to
i think that KJ's faith is much bigger than a scientist's faith, probably. Surely that means that what he says is more true?
make a distinction where there isn't one. We are creatures of faith,
we live it out in our daily lives all the time, the issue you and others
seem to have is that you belittle one while holding to another with
the claim you are some how more pure.
Kelly