Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh dear.
It seems to me that he merely introduces the paper in its historical context, that's its later been retracted is practically irrelevant as there are , in his opinion, other instances where general relativity lends itself to his arguments, irrespective of what has transpired since the seventies. ( I myself do not know what general relativity is, but ...[text shortened]... is within the framework of his arguments, merely to know that's its accepted and established)
The fact that a theory once seemed to provide evidence is not relevant if that theory has been proved to be false.
General Relativity is incapable of explaining the first moments of the Big Bang so it is not valid to claim that it makes any useful statement whatever in support of or in opposition to the Biblical account of the moment of creation.
Ross makes a claim that has no validity. He claims the support of scientists who explicitly and publicly say that is not the case.
Another term for this you may appreciate - ROSS IS LYING through his teeth and he know it.
Originally posted by jaywillYes there is a whole industry of this rubbish and it makes great sport for debate with the so called fundie atheists, bringing Christianity and religion into disrepute. At some point one has to accept that the whole enterprise is a waste of time and move on to something that actually matters. Unfortunately it supports sinister political agendas, and since politics is inherently coercive then it has to be countered. But it is so boring - this is a lie, that is a lie, the other is a lie, these people not only lack scientific credentials, they lack the ethics on which science also depends.
J.P. Moreland on [b]"The Discovery of Biological Information" - Video #3 of "Has Science Made Belief in God Obsolete ?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVh5w7UfJEc&feature=related
"What's source for the SETI goose ought to be source for the DNA gander." J.P. Moreland[/b]
3 edits
Originally posted by finnegan
Yes there is a whole industry of this rubbish and it makes great sport for debate with the so called fundie atheists, bringing Christianity and religion into disrepute. At some point one has to accept that the whole enterprise is a waste of time and move on to something that actually matters. Unfortunately it supports sinister political agendas, and since p ...[text shortened]... people not only lack scientific credentials, they lack the ethics on which science also depends.
Originally posted by finneganAs you pointed out with Hugh Ross, Hawking, and Penrose, humans
Here is a copy of my post on this topic dated 30 April 2010 - no reason to update it and confirms that this video has been going round and round and round. Quite what you mean by "purely objective" escapes me. Do you mean "uncritically" as in suspension of disbelief when listening to fairy stories? Well that's nice for you.
"OK I have watched the le ...[text shortened]... since he patently does, but I am not going to be persuaded by such methods."
are fallible. No matter how intelligent they seem to be, they make
mistakes, even in science. Without the infallible word of God, we would
have no measuring stick to determine what is true or false. Hugh Ross
knows this and is trying to square things between science and the Holy
Bible. However, he either does not understand what the "Big Bang"
theory consists of or does not understand that it conflicts with the Holy
Bible because he wants to reconcile the two. I believe he is still
brainwashed into believing the "Big Bang" theory is true because how
could he not understand it. So, it seems clear to me that he does not
know it contradicts the Holy Bible.
Originally posted by RJHinds“...Without the infallible word of God ...”
As you pointed out with Hugh Ross, Hawking, and Penrose, humans
are fallible. No matter how intelligent they seem to be, they make
mistakes, even in science. Without the infallible word of God, we would
have no measuring stick to determine what is true or false. Hugh Ross
knows this and is trying to square things between science and the Holy
Bible. H ...[text shortened]... derstand it. So, it seems clear to me that he does not
know it contradicts the Holy Bible.
Obviously, before you can rely on “ the infallible word of God” you have to first reliably demonstrate that there IS a god ….which you haven’t.
Originally posted by finneganoh dear, you are havering, he wasn't using it to explain the first moments of the
Oh dear.
The fact that a theory once seemed to provide evidence is not relevant if that theory has been proved to be false.
General Relativity is incapable of explaining the first moments of the Big Bang so it is not valid to claim that it makes any useful statement whatever in support of or in opposition to the Biblical account of the moment of cre ...[text shortened]... .
Another term for this you may appreciate - ROSS IS LYING through his teeth and he know it.
universe, he was using it to show that the universe had a beginning, are you now
disputing that the universe had a beginning, no, well then, you are taking it out of
context.
Did the universe have a beginning, yes, does the Bible say that the universe had a
beginning, yes, is the Bible therefore scientifically harmonious in this regard, yes
Is the universe expanding, yes, does the Bible state that the universe is expanding,
yes, is the Bible scientifically harmonious in this regard, yes,
Are you now stating that these simple truths are in some way unscientific? no, well
then, your beef about this paper or that paper amounts to what?
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganAnother argument by boredom.
Still pushing this tiresome video after I (and I am sure many others) refuted it in a thread some while ago! Tired circular arguments going nowhere to no useful purpose because you have no desire to learn.
What's your beef ? You have a formula proving beyond a shadow of doubt that the universe was not created by a Creator ?
Publish it and cut to the chase. Save us all some time.
ps. I don't have to agree with everything on a video in order to recommend that it be watched.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
“...Without the infallible word of God ...”
Obviously, before you can rely on “ the infallible word of God” you have to first reliably demonstrate that there IS a god ….which you haven’t.
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress
the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known
about God is evident within them; for God made it evident
to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, has been
clearly seen, being understood through what has been
made, so that they are without excuse."
(Romans 1:18-20 NASB)
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds“....His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, has been
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress
the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known
about God is evident within them; for God made it evident
to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, has been
clearly se ...[text shortened]... erstood through what has been
made, so that they are without excuse."
(Romans 1:18-20 NASB)
clearly seen, ...”
that is clearly false.
Firstly, how can “ invisible attributes” be “clearly seen” when, by definition, something that is “invisible” cannot be seen! ???
That is clearly a logical contradiction!!!
( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/invisible
"...1. Impossible to see; not visible:
2. Not accessible to view; hidden:
3. Not easily noticed or detected; inconspicuous: ..." )
Secondly, if 'his' eternal power and divine nature has been “clearly seen” then, given the fact that science is often based on observations and no confirmed observations are (or can be) ignored by science, theism would right now be part of science and it would be a scientific fact that there is a 'god'. But it is not scientific fact that there is a 'god' ; why? Because no 'god' or 'his' attributes has been “clearly seen” ( i.e. observed ) .
And you STILL haven’t demonstrate that there is a god.
Quotes from the Bible wouldn't demonstrate that there is a god because some book merely stating something is so doesn't make it true.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThere are a lot of things that are invisible to our eyes;
“....His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, has been
clearly seen, ...”
that is clearly false.
Firstly, how can “ invisible attributes” be “clearly seen” when, by definition, something that is “invisible” cannot be seen! ???
That is clearly a logical contradiction!!!
( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/invisible
".. ...[text shortened]... re is a god because some book merely stating something is so doesn't make it true.
but we know that it exists. For example electricity and
the wind are invisible, but would you say it does not
exist because you can not see them? Maybe, evolution
explains or causes this too. Maybe if you would reread
that Holy Bible quote with the intent to understand rather
than to criticise you could see how God could be known
wthout seeing Him.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe was using it to claim that science - specifically this piece of science - supported his belief. As such he was lying because he was citing a paper which is out of date and has been famously refuted, and whose authors have retracted its mistaken elements, and he knew that at the time.
oh dear, you are havering, he wasn't using it to explain the first moments of the
universe, he was using it to show that the universe had a beginning, are you now
disputing that the universe had a beginning, no, well then, you are taking it out of
context.
Did the universe have a beginning, yes, does the Bible say that the universe had a
...[text shortened]... e way unscientific? no, well
then, your beef about this paper or that paper amounts to what?
Your simple truths are indeed unscientific. I am not interested in debating that here though I have in the past.