| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| lets play " whack a moehle " | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 12 2009, 09:34 PM (1,922 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Apr 13 2009, 03:47 AM Post #11 |
|
Deleted User
|
"Big Bang = Jesus Christ" Is that the Creationist hypothesis? Big bang is an event, Christ is a supernatural being, the two are not equivalent, not even by definition. Fail. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Apr 13 2009, 04:03 AM Post #12 |
|
Deleted User
|
"Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross" Uh oh, looks like you should have looked into this a bit more, breeze: Refuting the heresies of Dr. Hugh Ross The piece lists a dozen other rebukes. Creation Science isn't even good religion. |
|
|
| ngc1514 | Apr 13 2009, 05:43 AM Post #13 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Why Big Bang = Jesus Christ " That's pretty funny, Breeze! The problem with posting things you don't understand is you really look silly. Here you are trying so hard to show (I won't honor any of your snips as an effort to "prove") that the earth is really only a few thousand years old rather than the 4.3 billion science claims it to be. And then you come up with this really silly "Why Big Bang = Jesus Christ." You now have the problem of dating creation back 13.8 billion years rather than the 6-10,000 years of the New Earth Creationists. So what's it gonna be? And get some grammar school English teacher to explain the word "metaphor" to you. Once you understand what a metaphor is, you'll be better able to understand the terms the scientists were using when describing the discovery of tiny temperature fluctuations in the Cosmological Microwave Background Radiation. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Apr 13 2009, 08:27 AM Post #14 |
|
Deleted User
|
If breeze knew half of this we could get into interesting discussions about how astrophysicist refer to big bang not as the beginning of the universe, but the universe as we know it, how man's knowledge is restricted by the event horizon to see further in the past (or distance), and how, according to Hawking and others the universe is finite but unbounded. That's what good challenging discussion does, opens the mind a little to learning about our world, rather than worrying about the next. |
|
|
| ngc1514 | Apr 13 2009, 08:32 AM Post #15 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Don't ANY of these people tell the truth? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Apr 13 2009, 10:00 AM Post #16 |
|
Deleted User
|
I think they're like politicians moving their lips. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Apr 13 2009, 10:12 AM Post #17 |
|
Deleted User
|
Here's one that might divert attention to more interesting things. I got in an argument with a Creationist who for some reason seemed to think the notion of the Big Bang as a singularity held some significance for his beliefs in a creator God. I reminded him of the fact that the universe is expanding everywhere, each point is expanding, not expanding from a single point. He didn't like that, even though after a few go arounds arguing I admitted we could be saying the same thing for the initial instant of inflation, though from that point in time all points as well expanded. Any comments on that? What I always fear--and you mentioned this to breeze--is that with my meager understanding of astrophysics, I end up believing the metaphor rather than understanding the science behind it. That I think is a general problem with religion. Not knowing God, religious leaders are forced to explain, and revert often to analogies and metaphors, and man ends up over time believing in the metaphors, forgetting they point or refer to something else ineffable, there, or not, but ineffable. But I wander off my interest in what it means to say the universe is everywhere expanding, and how that comports with the notion of a singularity. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Apr 13 2009, 05:03 PM Post #18 |
|
Deleted User
|
Hang in there Bruce, you are winning.... |
|
|
| Deleted User | Apr 13 2009, 08:44 PM Post #19 |
|
Deleted User
|
What's he winning, Jackie, the I don't know what I'm cutting and pasting award? The let me make Christians look stoopid award with all this Creationist crapola? The let me lie for Jesus award? Go troll somewhere else, Jackie. |
|
|
| ngc1514 | Apr 14 2009, 12:15 AM Post #20 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think "singularity" is a term used by cosmologists to describe one POSSIBLE state of the universe during the first few billionth billionth billionths of a second - the time before which we have no knowledge because both quantum physics and relativity break down if you try to go too far back. The laws of physics today have no bearing on the time before those laws came into being along with the rest of the universe. Getting the idea across that the Big Bang did not take place at a place, but everywhere at once (although everywhere encompassed - as far as we can determine - a much smaller place than we see today) is a tough concept for many to grasp. When people ask where did the Big Bang happen, "Right here," is the only possible answer. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic » |








![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)

12:41 AM Jul 14
