(extra and unecessary post to the discussion deleted)
Bible Vs. Science
Sort:
The cause and effect approach has always stumbled atheists, who usually give a complex response. Christians usually answer by saying God has neither a beginning nor an end.
Oct 24, 2015
0
#24
17rileyc wrote:
The cause and effect approach has always stumbled atheists (which I'm not), who usually give a complex response. (Which my sketchiness on both God and the BB barely even was.)
I would say it makes better sense to these Atheists than "stumbling Christians' " attempt at explaining God through phenomenal mishaps and fortunate events alike. Humans are logical beings as much as they are spiritual; why wouldn't they think in a "cause and effect" manner when it comes to matters of origin?
17rileyc wrote:
Christians usually answer by saying God has neither a beginning nor an end.
Atheists could easily claim just this of the material universe. To these people, it makes more sense than a God that is only real if one "believes in him" (which, to them, might be akin to the childhood fantasy of Santa Claus's existence).
Science makes me cry. And so does the English language. :'(
"Who put the ram in ramalama ding dong"? The Edsels 1957
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KStsPPgeka4
Who was that man? I'd like to shake his hand. He made my baby fall in love with me.
KlaasFaak wrote:
As long as Christians keep being ignorant and keep quoting bible phrases to prove that science isnt real or something, this discussion will keep going on.
Science is just a past time you are permited to enjoy during your recreation period. The purpose of your life is to more perfectly develop your faith in God.
I'll buy that.
All things that exist have a cause, thereforevtje universe had a cause.
Now we just have to find what it was.
Oct 24, 2015
0
#32
alex-rodriguez wrote:
"big bang theory, evolution and the Bible."
Bible thumpers do not like strong scienitfic facts like the big bang and evolution. Science makes them cry.
I don't think I've ever come across "strong scientific" explanation as to what supposedly triggered the Big Bang. The whole theory just doesn't seem to add up logically, as much as it was meant to be a logical scientific juxtaposition to God.
The singularity just "grew so intense and hot in energy that, Voila, a destructive explosion gave simultaneous rise to material matter, positive and negative space, and time, did it? Well. What made it grow so hot and intense to begin with? What was even considered "hot", and what was "energy"? None of these things were supposed to have pre-existed in its physical form until after the explosion happened, right? How could events even occur (physical movement, molecular development, etc.) if time wasn't yet running?
From my understanding, it seems that it was merely a hastily proposed theory that was born out of our "Exodus" from religious Dogma; that we needed something to explain the Universe in order to discredit the notion of God's creation, and so this was it.
Unless there's something I'm misunderstanding or not yet understanding, as I mentioned previously, the Big Bang seems every bit as fantastical as the story of God's creation is. While I can respect the positive components of each side, neither make much logical sense.
And, so, until I come into contact with better rational evidence for either one, I will simply continue to believe that things have always been and always will be, with no human-constructed origin and "final day"; that we humans, with 5 limited senses, can never truly know the universe, because we are forever created to be "trapped in the cave."
Oct 24, 2015
0
#33
BattleChessGN18 wrote:
alex-rodriguez wrote:
"big bang theory, evolution and the Bible."
Bible thumpers do not like strong scienitfic facts like the big bang and evolution. Science makes them cry.
I don't think I've ever come across "strong scientific" explanation as to what supposedly triggered the Big Bang. The whole theory just doesn't seem to add up logically, as much as it was meant to be a logical scientific juxtaposition to God.
The singularity just "grew so intense and hot in energy that, Voila, a destructive explosion gave simultaneous rise to material matter, positive and negative space, and time, did it? Well. What made it grow so hot and intense to begin with? What was even considered "hot", and what was "energy"? None of these things were supposed to have pre-existed in its physical form until after the explosion happened, right? How could events even occur (physical movement, molecular development, etc.) if time wasn't yet running?
From my understanding, it seems that it was merely a hastily proposed theory that was born out of our "Exodus" from religious Dogma; that we needed something to explain the Universe in order to discredit the notion of God's creation, and so this was it.
Unless there's something I'm misunderstanding or not yet understanding, as I mentioned previously, the Big Bang seems every bit as fantastical as the story of God's creation is. While I can respect the positive components of each side, neither make much logical sense.
And, so, until I come into contact with better rational evidence for either one, I will simply continue to believe that things have always been and always will be, with no human-constructed origin and "final day"; that we humans, with 5 limited senses, can never truly know the universe, because we are forever created to be "trapped in the cave."
For now,I'll agree with this guy.
Good to see you Einstein.
Oct 24, 2015
0
#35
Right on, RonaldJosephCote. lol
I hope, however, I don't come off as pompously thinking that I'm "right". These are just my strong beliefs. There is so much about the Big Bang theory that I admit I don't yet know. And so, I accept that I could be misguided with my answer. It's simply the best formulated one that incorporates much of my understanding at this time. =D
BattleChessGN18 wrote:
From my understanding, it seems that it was merely a hastily proposed theory that was born out of our "Exodus" from religious Dogma; that we needed something to explain the Universe in order to discredit the notion of God's creation, and so this was it.
In 1848, Hippolyte Fizeau noticed that the light from stars exhibited the Doppler Effect, shifting to the red if they moved away and to the blue if they moved toward us.
In 1912 Vesto Slipher discovered that most spiral nebulae had very high red shifts. This led to the realization that they were not nebulae at all, but galaxies seperate from our own.
In 1927 Georges Lemaitres, a Belgian Catholic priest, proposed an expanding model for the universe, which was confirmed by Edwin Hubble in 1929 when he observed that the speed of recession is proportional to the distance from the earth. Hubble's findings also showed that it is space itself that is expanding, because some distant galaxies appear to be receding faster than the speed of light.
In 1931, Lemaitres proposed his 'hypothesis of the primevil atom'. George Gamow developed this idea further by adding that the early universe was very hot and mostly radiation instead of matter.
The term Big Bang was coined in 1949, by Fred Hoyle, as a derogatory term. Hoyle favored his own Steady State Theory, and from 1950 to 1965 the two competing theories had approximately equal support in the scientific community.
This changed with the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CMB), which the Big Bang predicted, but the Steady State could not account for. However, it was not until 1990, when the COBE satellite gave good measurements of the CMB that the predictions of the Big Bang Theory were shown to be completely accurate.
So based on observations and ideas begun in 1848, a proposal was made in 1931, which was then tested for another 59 years. This is not hasty. And the man who made the proposal was a Catholic priest, so certainly not trying to discredit God's creation.
Most of this info came from Wikipedia. History of the Big Bang theory. Some from the article on redshift.
Oct 25, 2015
0
#37
The Battle of Midway was a crucial and decisive naval battle in the Pacific Theatre of World War II.Between 4 and 7 June 1942, only six months after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and one month after the Battle of the Coral Sea, the United States Navy under Admirals Chester Nimitz, Frank Jack Fletcher, and Raymond A. Spruance decisively defeated an attacking fleet of the Imperial Japanese Navy under Admirals Isoroku Yamamoto, Chuichi Nagumo, and Nobutake Kondo on Midway Atoll, inflicting devastating damage on the Japanese fleet that proved irreparable. Military historian John Keegan called it "the most stunning and decisive blow in the history of naval warfare." It was Japan's first naval defeat since the Battle of Shimonoseki Straits in 1863.
BIBLE was US book
SCIENCE was JAP guide
WHO WON ??
Oct 25, 2015
0
#39
latvianlover hat geschrieben:
BattleChessGN18 wrote:
From my understanding, it seems that it was merely a hastily proposed theory that was born out of our "Exodus" from religious Dogma; that we needed something to explain the Universe in order to discredit the notion of God's creation, and so this was it.
In 1848, Hippolyte Fizeau noticed that the light from stars exhibited the Doppler Effect, shifting to the red if they moved away and to the blue if they moved toward us.
In 1912 Vesto Slipher discovered that most spiral nebulae had very high red shifts. This led to the realization that they were not nebulae at all, but galaxies seperate from our own.
In 1927 Georges Lemaitres, a Belgian Catholic priest, proposed an expanding model for the universe, which was confirmed by Edwin Hubble in 1929 when he observed that the speed of recession is proportional to the distance from the earth. Hubble's findings also showed that it is space itself that is expanding, because some distant galaxies appear to be receding faster than the speed of light.
In 1931, Lemaitres proposed his 'hypothesis of the primevil atom'. George Gamow developed this idea further by adding that the early universe was very hot and mostly radiation instead of matter.
The term Big Bang was coined in 1949, by Fred Hoyle, as a derogatory term. Hoyle favored his own Steady State Theory, and from 1950 to 1965 the two competing theories had approximately equal support in the scientific community.
This changed with the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CMB), which the Big Bang predicted, but the Steady State could not account for. However, it was not until 1990, when the COBE satellite gave good measurements of the CMB that the predictions of the Big Bang Theory were shown to be completely accurate.
So based on observations and ideas begun in 1848, a proposal was made in 1931, which was then tested for another 59 years. This is not hasty. And the man who made the proposal was a Catholic priest, so certainly not trying to discredit God's creation.
Most of this info came from Wikipedia. History of the Big Bang theory. Some from the article on redshift.
Thank you - this is a very interesting timetable to ilustrate the history of the Big Bang theory.
I did not know that the term "Big Bang" was invented as a derogatory term.
Interesting question what is the sound of a silent "Bang" in an empty universe just coming into existence. Is a Bang without sound a Bang at all? 
We are all ancestors of aliens. Their mother ship, a meteorite, crashed on earth and fought the dinosaurs to extinction. They then proceeded to take over planet earth.