|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 10/17/2006 : 01:29:23 [Permalink]
|
Help me out here.... a while back, in another thread, you were claiming that the big bang was impossible...
Now you think it was mentioned in the bible?
...
And after reading that silly little apologetics piece its pretty clear that the writers don't know anything about (or are deliberately misrepresenting) the big bang.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 01:54:35 [Permalink]
|
If you don't believe in the Big Bang, then why are you quoting some guy who says Moses knew it first? Isn't that being dishonest, like Ann Coulter?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 03:45:18 [Permalink]
|
No one here believes in the Big Bang. I know you can't understand that, and that is a fundamental reason why you are the way you are.
Again, you claimed you were an atheist at one point. I seriously doubt it. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 04:04:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Again, you claimed you were an atheist at one point. I seriously doubt it.
Well, he can't really have been born a theist.
 |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 04:13:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Again, you claimed you were an atheist at one point. I seriously doubt it.
Well, he can't really have been born a theist.
Ha ha! Got me there...however, our bible believin' brethern would beg to differ...I've heard "arguments" that we are all born with knowledge of God (the One True God(tm)) and we lose it when we get older and filled with evil knowledge. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 04:33:40 [Permalink]
|
Hugh Ross.... I haven't heard anything from him in a long time.
He is very high on the AiG, ICR and CMI shit-lists due to his having regained at least a trifle of sanity and abandoned his 6-day-creation beliefs. He is now an old-earth creationist.
If you want to jack Wieland and Sarfati up, just mention his name.... 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 05:22:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
For those who believe in the Big Bang here is an article that claims the bible taught about it first.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first
When a religion professor of mine from college (took the class in 19 ought 86) was on sabbatical doing some research on Sufis and Sunnis in Iran (1969, it was safe for Americans to travel in that area then) a local came up to him and congratulated our country for the moon landing. He also mentioned that it was foretold by the Qu'ran.
Same login for the assertation that the big bang was taught by the Bible. Although many scientists who are Christians are intellectually honest enough to call that belief a statement of faith, not a scientific one. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 05:33:21 [Permalink]
|
How lame. Igorning for the moment the rather tortured grammatical leaps Ross and Rea make in their article, it is always rather annoying when someone tries to claim that the Biblical authors-- inspired by the god Yahweh-- had some amazing knowledge of the fundamentals of the universe thousands of years before mere mortals could understanding them. For every coinsidence between a Biblical concept and reality ("look-- the Bible says the skies were 'stretched' out-- kinda sorta like cosmic expansion!"), a dozen other concepts are in direct opposition to the universe as we know it. Just look at Genesis. On the third day, in Gen 1:11-13, God created plants and vegetation. Then, on the fourth day, in Gen 1:14-19, he created the sun, moon, and stars (astute readers might wonder if the Bible got it wrong about the moon being made at the same time as the sun and starts, but that's another issue altogether). Plants before the sun? So, the apologist has to jump through more tortured hoops to say that there was really light before then, but Yahweh just didn't seperate it into this or that, blah blah. But it's just tortured logic.
None of this "proves" that Yahweh isn't real. But it is very clear that the Biblical writers were no more aware of the fundamentals of the universe than were the Babylonians, Maya, or Celts. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 07:29:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
For those who believe in the Big Bang here is an article that claims the bible taught about it first.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first
Well it starts off reasonable enough. Illustrating the cumulative nature of science and the work that scientist do. What it failed to show is that any of these scientist listed in the first two paragraphs relied in any way on cherry picked verses from the Bible for their work.
What you have from Ross and Rea is no different than what you might expect from present day authors reading significants into The Quatrains. In light of present day knowledge this is what these bible verses really mean. I suppose that the next article from Ross and Rea will contain Bible verses that actually support the Second Law of Thermodynamics
You've got nothing GK Paul.
edited changed od to of |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 10/17/2006 07:31:14 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 10:06:54 [Permalink]
|
I just read the entire article and reviewed all the referenced Scriptural passages. The entire argument that the Big Bang theory is in the Bible amounts to this:
1.) Many times, the Bible says the universe was created, or had a discreet beginning
2.) 11 times in 5 different books, the Bible says the universe was stretched, both continuously being stretched and done being stretched.
3.) At least 4 times the Bible says the stars are very old.
1.) The concept that the universe in its current state has a discreet beginning is one possibility out of 2 conventional ones. The other possibility is that the universe is eternal. A 50/50 chance of guessing right isn't exactly impressive. It is especially unimpressive when we consider that most things that people observe change. Most things have an obvious cause and effect, beginning and end, and so to assume this is true of the universe is totally natural and intuitive. I fail to see how this is specific to the Big Bang Theory.
(That said, modern physics tells us that time and space are connected, so in the grand scheme of things, to argue over whether all thing which exist are ultimately eternal or having a discreet beginning is nonsensical.)
2.) The authors claim that the continuously being stretched verses refer to how the universe is still expanding, and that the finished being stretched verses refer to the formation of the laws of physics as they function in our universe. There's a gigantic assumption based on very little evidence, especially considering that the authors admit that the “heavens” being stretched are shehaqîm (clouds of fine particles of water or dust in the Earth's atmosphere), not shamayim (the astronomical universe). At least they get points for their honesty, if not their logic.
3.) The stars are very old – well no duh. To ancient people the stars would have been these very mysterious things that slowly rotated around the earth but were otherwise unchanging, while on earth living things grew and died, and the landscape was constantly transformed by nature and people. Like the guess about the universe having a discreet beginning, it is totally natural and intuitive to assume that the stars are one of the oldest things around. That's why the Greeks thought they were gods!
As for Romans supposedly telling us about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I just read all of Romans, and the law referred to is the “law of sin and death”. It refers to the Christian concept of the fall of mankind.
If someone claims this refers to the physical concept of the heat death of the universe, we must conclude that God created that physical law in response to Adam and Eve's sinful transgression in the Garden of Eden. But Ross and Rea claim that all the laws of physics were fixed from the start (the whole thing about the stretching being completed.) So which came first, the fall of man or the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
To further the interpretive difficulties with this claim, Romans 8:22 reads: quote:
8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
He refers to the coming of the Messiah, which saved mankind from the law of sin and death. But apparently this salvation does not come to the physical world?
The more I read the Bible, the more the Christian God sounds like your standard run-of-the-mill ancient myth. When we don't understand the physical world, we make up spiritual explanations that make sense from our limited human perceptions.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/17/2006 10:09:32 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 10:11:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Help me out here.... a while back, in another thread, you were claiming that the big bang was impossible...
Now you think it was mentioned in the bible?
...
And after reading that silly little apologetics piece its pretty clear that the writers don't know anything about (or are deliberately misrepresenting) the big bang.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. That's how we got Christmas Trees and Easter Egss.  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 10:14:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
No one here believes in the Big Bang. I know you can't understand that, and that is a fundamental reason why you are the way you are.
Again, you claimed you were an atheist at one point. I seriously doubt it.
The truth is there is a certain amount of 'belief' involved with anything. I mean, I'm trusting that all those scientists arn't in some huge conspiracy to fool all of us into believing their scientific theories. How many of us could independently verify them, afterall? So you have faith, of a kind... It's not irrational faith with a capital F. But still... |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 12:10:07 [Permalink]
|
I am still in awe of the Prophet John F Kennedy who foretold of the moon landing in great detail.
We have what Ill term, FiBBs and EBBs,
EBB = Evidence based belief
FiBB = Faith based belief
And yes I used the 'i' instead of 'a' for spite |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 15:30:52 [Permalink]
|
One of the usual kinds of fights here is between ToE supporters and Young Earth Creationists (the 6,000 year old universe folks). We don't get much contact with Old Earth Creationists, who basically do not dispute science's timeline, but still add "God did it."
In a way, the OEC's are a pitiable lot, neither scientific fish nor Old Testament fowl.
They exist in an untenable state, in that unstable territory between reason and faith, getting no support from science for their belief in their Creator, and getting nothing but contempt from fundamentalists who see them, quite correctly, as rejecting the literal truth of Genesis.
Poor, lost fellows, the Old Earth Creationists!
GK Paul, I appeal to you: Do not become an OEC! Better reason devoid of faith, or faith devoid of reason, than that desolate middle ground of neither faith nor reason!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 11:22:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
One of the usual kinds of fights here is between ToE supporters and Young Earth Creationists (the 6,000 year old universe folks). We don't get much contact with Old Earth Creationists, who basically do not dispute science's timeline, but still add "God did it."
<snip>
Poor, lost fellows, the Old Earth Creationists!
GK Paul, I appeal to you: Do not become an OEC! Better reason devoid of faith, or faith devoid of reason, than that desolate middle ground of neither faith nor reason!
Please clarify what you mean by OECs. Are they still claiming the Earth was created ala 6 Days and Genisis and all -- but just a lot longer ago? Or are they saying that God created everything with the Big Bang and has guided the development of the Universe and so on -- essentially that all observed science is correct, but God's behind it all?
I think the latter scenario is really the only way to go if you're going to insist on believing in God. There's absolutely no reason a religious person can't accept God AND science. Indeed the argument can be made that the pursuit of science is the pursuit of God; a much better way to 'worship' than kneeling and reciting prayers in Church every Sunday. The study of God's Creation, so to speak.
This is the tac taken by Deists, I believe. That is that the Universe is a Created Thing but there's no evidence that God has interfered since. Therefore all revealed religion is exactly what it appears to be: ignorance based myth. Coupled with a healthy dose of agnosticism, I think this is a reasonable approach. These arn't the folks you consider OECs, is it? |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 10/18/2006 13:06:25 |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
