Originally posted by dj2beckerWhy? What's to say that when God called the world into existence, it didn't occur in the manner described by the big bang theory? Just because I put ice in the freezer doesn't mean it didn't freeze in the manner science describes it as doing. The thing science missed is that I chose to put it in the freezer; I started the action. Why couldn't a similar situation have occured with God and the universe?
I hope you understand that the big bang theory is a direct attack on God's Word.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI hope you understand that the big bang theory is a direct attack on God's Word.[/b]
[b]I'm not too sure if understand what you mean.
Do you think it wouldn't please me or God if I stood up for Him?
edit: Or do you think it would please God if I just sat back and watched some guys trample His word underfoot?
I be the first to say that I don't know a whole lot about science or advanced physics but while not completely proven it a good theory that the universe started with a so called big bang. The uniformity of the back ground radiation & tempeture in the universe. Why could if you believe that God started the universe why not with a big bang??Theory:explanation based on scientific study & reasoning. I guess my point is because of blindness & ignorance people once thought the earth was flat & that the planets & sun orbited around the earth. Remember Galieo ?? So how is it an attack on Gods word?? well that is my 2cents 4 what its worth. Manny
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by TheSkipperYou have a good point there. But you see, most people switch off when you speak about the Bible, because they seem to think that science does not agree with the Bible.
So you view your threads here as a pre-emptive strike against heresy? Interesting.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that God wants you to be speaking to people about his word so that they might experience Christ and his love for themselves. Defending the Bible by making, let's face facts here, specious arguments against science does not seem lik ...[text shortened]... our free will allows us to understand it as we see fit.
Have a nice day, dj2.
TheSkipper
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloi believe that i have hands.
[b]You seem to forget that everything you believe has an element of faith.
i believe that i have hands. how does this belief invoke 'faith'? do you really think it is the same type of 'faith' that characterizes your belief in a supernatural being?[/b]
And you believe that these hands of yours evolved, no?
how does this belief invoke 'faith'?
The reason behind why you believe you have hands and where they came from would probably invoke faith, no?
do you really think it is the same type of 'faith' that characterizes your belief in a supernatural being?
Not quite. I believe you require much more faith than I do. I believe that I and all other humans were created with hands as they are today. If you do not believe in creation, then you probably believe that all the matter in the universe was squashed into a dot the size of a period on a page, which exploded and after a few billion years that matter formed your hands. I personally believe that you require a much stronger type of faith than I do if you believe that.
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou're talking about some sort of scientific fundamentalism--which would be unscientific. Abiogenesis is a theory, open to debate, and not a dogmatic ideology.
If you do not believe in creation, then you probably believe that all the matter in the universe was squashed into a dot the size of a period on a page, which exploded and after a few billion years that matter formed your hands. I personally believe that you require a much stronger type of faith than I do if you believe that.
The evolution of hands is an interesting topic...certainly not closed. For example, read this...http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/01/03evolution.html
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerso when you said that everything one believes requires faith, you were actually just throwing up all over yourself. what you meant is that belief in evolution requires faith (in your estimation).
The reason behind why you believe you have hands and where they came from would probably invoke faith, no?
the belief that i have hands is a properly basic belief: it is self-evident to my senses. it does not require 'faith'. sure, my hands could be illusions (i could be a brain in a vat, for example); but i would consider myself crazy to reject the belief that i have hands. concerning where my hands came from, do you really want to know where my hands have been?
Not quite. I believe you require much more faith than I do.
needless to say, we differ on our definitions of 'faith'. i don't feel like debating semantics with you. the point is that you assert that a supernatural being exists who created everything, and i estimate that you have failed miserably in bringing any evidence to the table. i also estimate that there is considerably more evidence for evolution than creationism.
I personally believe that you require a much stronger type of faith than I do if you believe that.
so your faith is not very strong? He will not be pleased to hear that.
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2becker* in a vain attempt to fill a vacuum the immortal frog leaps out of the pond and pours knowlege into the hole in dj's head*
i believe that i have hands.[/b]
And you believe that these hands of yours evolved, no?
how does this belief invoke 'faith'?
The reason behind why you believe you have hands and where they came from would probably invoke faith, no?
do you really think it is the same type of 'faith' that characterizes your belief in a supernatu personally believe that you require a much stronger type of faith than I do if you believe that.
"One of the most intriguing outcomes of the mathematical theory of black holes is the uniqueness theorem, applying to the stationary solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations. Asserting that all electrovac black hole space-times are characterized by their mass, angular momentum and electric charge, the theorem bears a striking resemblance to the fact that a statistical system in thermal equilibrium is described by a small set of state variables as well, whereas considerably more information is required to understand its dynamical behavior. The similarity is reinforced by the black hole mass variation formula [3] and the area increase theorem [84], which are analogous to the corresponding laws of ordinary thermodynamics. These mathematical relationships are given physical significance by the observation that the temperature of the black body spectrum of the Hawking radiation [83] is equal to the surface gravity of the black hole. "
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-1998-6&page=node1.html
*sadly the frog watches as his last attempt to enlighten the poor lad goes for naught as words of error spill forth from dj's mouth*
RIBBIT:
Dj you one can die once,but the frog croaks everynight.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI agree that it cannot be an explanation of the origin of natural laws, but nether can a god explain this.
Hi Maarten
I also hope you realise that the Big Bang theory cannot explain the origin of natural laws and the many particular constants such as the strength of gravity or the mass of the electron, all of which seem so precisely tuned to permit stars and planets and life to exist.
There are also many other problems with the theory.
Just for start ...[text shortened]... few, see: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.html
Hope this helps.
But in your initial post you claim not to believe the big bang ever occured...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI agree that it cannot be an explanation of the origin of natural laws, but nether can a god explain this.
I agree that it cannot be an explanation of the origin of natural laws, but nether can a god explain this.
But in your initial post you claim not to believe the big bang ever occured...
Would you mind explaining how the existence of an omnipotent God would fail to explain the origin of natural laws?
But in your initial post you claim not to believe the big bang ever occured...
Sure I don't. Everything I see in nature points towards a God.
Originally posted by dj2beckerAnd a God existing means the Big Bang didn't happen how?
[b]I agree that it cannot be an explanation of the origin of natural laws, but nether can a god explain this.
Would you mind explaining how the existence of an omnipotent God would fail to explain the origin of natural laws?
But in your initial post you claim not to believe the big bang ever occured...
Sure I don't. Everything I see in nature points towards a God.[/b]
Originally posted by dj2beckerIf a god created everything you will always be left with the question of who created the god...
[b]I agree that it cannot be an explanation of the origin of natural laws, but nether can a god explain this.
Would you mind explaining how the existence of an omnipotent God would fail to explain the origin of natural laws?
But in your initial post you claim not to believe the big bang ever occured...
Sure I don't. Everything I see in nature points towards a God.[/b]
To me it seems most logical than the universe has always been here and will always stay here. This does not mean that I dont believe the big bang occured, I just think that before the big bang, the universe was already here but in another form.
Because a human lifetime does not last forever, it is hard for us to understand that some things do last forever. For example the atoms that we and the entire universe is made of.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI don't disagree with your main point (at least not right now), but how does the universe existing back infinitely seem any more plausible/easier to wrap your head around than the big bang. I personally like the big bang theory, but it seems like either way you go, secular or religious, static or big bang, it doesnt look pretty from a thought perspective if you know what I mean. There is strong physics evidence in support of the big bang versus static universe but I don't want to write a book explaining it, read a book on it yourselves please people.
If a god created everything you will always be left with the question of who created the god...
To me it seems most logical than the universe has always been here and will always stay here. This does not mean that I dont believe the big bang occured, I just think that before the big bang, the universe was already here but in another form.
Beca ...[text shortened]... t some things do last forever. For example the atoms that we and the entire universe is made of.