| 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 (1,921 Views) | |
| ngc1514 | Apr 14 2009, 12:19 AM Post #21 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The "I can cut and paste more erroneous information than anyone can possibly refute" award? He, and you, are welcome to it, Jack. You seemed to have gotten pretty badly spanking on the "SPEAK FOR YOURSELF OBAMA" thread on another debate forum. |
![]() |
|
| the breeze | Apr 14 2009, 12:28 AM Post #22 |
the breeze
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Einstein's theory of general relativity, academic scientific society was operating on the premise that the universe was static. Belief in a Static Universe Led to Darwinian Evolution That was really what fostered the birth of Darwinian evolution, the idea that the universe is static, infinitely old and infinitely large. Static, in that it maintained the conditions essential for elements to assemble themselves into living systems, as Emanuel Kant reasoned, long before Charles Darwin came up with a theory. Emanuel Kant longed to come up with a theory of biological evolution but he didn't have the biological data to develop it. Nevertheless, he laid the philosophical foundation that if the universe is infinitely old and infinitely large and static, maintaining the ideal chemical situation for life chemistry to proceed, then one can posit that the dice of chance is thrown an infinite number of times and in an infinite variety of ways. If you have infinite throws at the dice of chance, then any matter of complexity would be conceivable - even something as complicated as a German philosopher. But this equation challenged that very notion by saying that the universe is not static; it decelerates. Einstein was well aware that the term for pressure (P) in the universe is rather tiny compared to the term for mass density (represented by the Greek letter Rho ). It's divided by a huge number - the velocity of light squared. You've got this extremely small number divided by a huge number. This means that for all intents and purposes, we can ignore that “3P/C²” relative to the density. We can drop that term out, and then we have something much simpler to solve. Proof that the Universe is Not Static, but Expanding It's still a non-linear differential equation, so it's not all that easy. But Einstein was able to perceive and demonstrate that, according to this equation, the universe not only decelerates, it positively expands. Hence, the Big Bang. How so? Normally, I demonstrate this for audiences by bringing a grenade, but they no longer let you take grenades on airplanes. I only do that demonstration when I'm on TV or in California, so you're just going to have to pretend that I've got a grenade here in front of me. If I were to pull the pin from the grenade, you'd feel a few effects. One being that the pieces of the grenade would expand outward from the pin. That's positive expansion. Those outwardly expanding pieces of the grenade would inevitably bump into obstacles into this room. When they collide with those obstacles, they slow down. That's deceleration. After a grenade has exploded, a physicist could make measurements of the positions and the velocities of the pieces of shrapnel, and through the equation Velocity = Distance/Time, he could calculate the moment that the pin was pulled on the grenade. We can do the same thing with the galaxies in the universe. We can measure their positions and their velocities and calculate the moment that the “pin” was pulled on the entire universe. As Einstein pointed out, the significance is that the universe has this moment of pin pulling. It has a beginning. Through the principle of positive fact, if the universe has a beginning, it must have a beginner, hence the existence of God. To his dying day, Einstein held to his belief that as the result of the verification of his theory of General Relativity, God exists. (Good book on Einstein's extensive discussions of religion and theology: Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology by Max Jammer -Ed ) God created the universe and God is intelligent. Today, we don't deny that God is personal. Einstein died too soon. If he had lived to the late 1980's, he'd have seen direct scientific proof for the personality of the creator. But he acknowledged as a result of the confirmations of his equations and his theory that God is transcendent. That God exists, he is intelligent, he is creative and he is responsible for the universe. But he didn't know the details of that transcendence. The details of that transcendence had to equate to a deeper solution of those equations of General Relativity. They are non-linear, which means they're hard to solve. |
![]() |
|
| the breeze | Apr 14 2009, 12:30 AM Post #23 |
the breeze
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
thanks jack. its pretty easy. i have the proof. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Apr 14 2009, 12:38 AM Post #24 |
|
Deleted User
|
Interesting way to describe it, the Big Bang happened here--and there, and everywhere. Understand before that the laws of physics do not apply, in fact no laws we could concieve could imply, we can't know--thus cosmologist, astrophysicists, clearly saying big bang describes the beginning of the known universe, not the beginning of the universe, which we cannot know. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Apr 14 2009, 12:46 AM Post #25 |
|
Deleted User
|
Yes, you do have the proof, proof you haven't a clue what your pasting. Yesterday, thinking you were proving science, evolution, something wrong, you pasted proof Creationism is wrong. Yes, Bruce, you're winning alright! You could give Alicia Silverstone a run for the money. |
|
|
| ngc1514 | Apr 14 2009, 04:32 AM Post #26 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The sight of Breezie posting about the Theory of Relativity is... well... not sure exactly how to define it. The absolute magnitude of the errors in that post are incredible! It starts at the first line and gets worse from there.
Sheer idiocy! The concept of a static universe didn't even pop up on screens until decades AFTER 1859. The universe was not though of in terms of static or dynamic until Hubble discovered the true nature of the galaxies in the early 1920s. Until he detected Cepheid variables in Andromeda, the Milky Way was thought to be the only galaxy in the universe. External galaxies were thought to be just little gas or star clouds associated with our own galaxy. The dynamics of the universe and the question of Steady State (static) or Big Bang cosmology didn't come about until Hubble theorized that the red shift of galaxies was relational to the distance of the galaxies. And that didn't come about until 1929 - or 70 years after Darwin published his "Origin."
Wrong.. wrong... wrong... wrong... wrong. The universe before Darwin was thought to be a pretty small place made up of a single galaxy - the Milky Way. And while people were moving away from the concept of a new universe, no one had projected the age of the universe back an infinite number of years.
In a sense, yes. However, it's far more difficult to nail down the Hubble Constant. The problem for you, breezy, is to explain why you think the universe was only created a few thousand years ago ex nihilo but the calculated moment when the pin was pulled is more than 13.5 BILLION years ago. You outdid yourself on this one, breezy one. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Apr 14 2009, 04:49 AM Post #27 |
|
Deleted User
|
"It starts at the first line and gets worse from there." It's usually enough to pick off the first statement or two, since those make up the premises of the rest of the blather. Interesting explanation given that the notion of static v dynamic universe came way after Darwin. Of course that will not stop breeze from eventually re-pasting the same argument, whack-a-mole-style. It also makes no sense semantically. Darwin gave us a picture of the world that is active, alive, changing, adapting, evolving, a complex-dynamical system with emergent properties. And I should say Darwin, those who preceded him in politics, Edmund Burke, and economics, Adam Smith, described social and economic systems in the same way, and Darwin borrowed from them. And the mathematics to describe and model complex adaptive systems had to wait until recent times. Rather it was the Christian view that was back then--and apparently, according to Bruce's pasties, still now--static, from the lowliest creatures to the Divine Right of Kings in the Great Chain of Being. So again, Breeze has posted material that backfires and criticizes his own view. |
|
|
| the breeze | Apr 14 2009, 05:03 AM Post #28 |
the breeze
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Stephen Hawking and Friends Solve The Equation By 1970, three British astrophysicists had combined to produce a deeper solution of the equations of General Relativity. They culminated the paper, The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology, published in 1970. You should all go get it - its exciting reading. It closes with the Space-Time theorem of General Relativity, which states that if the universe is governed by the equations of General Relativity, not only are we faced with an ultimate origin, we are all of the matter in the universe, and all of the energy in the universe. But we're faced with a coincident ultimate origin for even the dimensions of length, width, height and time. Even Time Itself Was Created As Steven Hawking, one of the three authors, boasted many years thereafter, we proved that time was created. We proved that time has a beginning. But through his contacts with certain Christians like his wife Jane, who's an Anglican, as a friend of mine from Cal Tech, Don Page, who had daily Bible studies with Steven and Jane Hawking while he was doing research pointed out, if you prove that time has a beginning, that it was created, it eliminates all theological possibilities but Jesus Christ. Of all world religions, only Judeo-Christian theology says Time has a beginning Why? Because if you were to open up the Holy books of the religions of the world, only one of them would describe God as a being that creates the universe independent of time, space, matter and energy. The other Holy books describe God as creating within time. The Bible states that God creates independent of time. That's the difference. Some verses that you might be familiar with: The first verse which states, “In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth…” The Hebrew words for heavens and Earth literally refer to the entire physical cosmos of matter, energy space and time. The universe. Hebrews 11:3 makes it more specific stating, “The universe that we detect was made from that which we cannot detect.” We can make detections within matter, energy, length, width, height and time, but not beyond. Eight places in the Bible tell us that God created time. I'll give you two examples: 2 Timothy 1:9 which states, “The Grace of God that we now experience was put into effect before the beginning of time” and Titus 1:2 which states, “The hope that we have in Jesus Christ was given to us before the beginning of time.” The three things that the Apostle Paul was saying in those two verses were that time is beginning, that God created the time dimension of our universe and, most importantly, that God has the capacity to operate through cause and effect before the time dimension of our universe even exists. Your friendly neighborhood physicist will tell you that time is defined as that dimension or realm in which cause and effect phenomena take place. What the Apostle Paul is telling us in these two places and in the six other portions of Scripture, is that we are confined to a single dimension of time. In fact it's worse than that. We're confined to half of a line of time. Time, for us, is a line that goes forward only. Have you ever noticed that you cannot stop or reverse the arrow of time? No matter what you do, it just keeps going forward in one direction. Any entity confined to half of the line of time, must have a beginning and must be created. I can walk home tonight, and that's it. It's the simplest, most rigorous proof of the existence of God. We're confined, and the entire universe is confined to half of the line of time. Therefore, the universe must be created and we must be created. But God is not so confined. When I present this evidence to atheists, their most frequent response is the same one I got from both of my sons when they were three years of age. It's, “If God created us, then who created God?” God: Not Confined by Time My sons and the atheists are assuming that God is confined to time in the same way that we are. But the Bible and the equations of General Relativity tell us that the entity that brought the universe into existence is not confined in time like we are, or the way that the universe is. God can move and operate in at least two dimensions of time. In two dimensions of time, time becomes a plane, like a sheet of paper, length and width. In a plane, you can have as many lines as you want and as many directions as you want. It would be possible for God to dwell on a time line running through a sheet of paper that's infinitely long, and that never crosses or touches the timeline of our universe. As such, God would have no beginning, no end and he would not be created. Sound familiar? Why the God of Modern Physics Matches the God of the Bible Both John Chapter One and Colossians Chapter One make that claim about God; He has no beginning, no end and He is not created. The Bible is the only Holy book that makes that statement about God. What I've done for you in these few minutes is to establish the doctrine of the independent transcendence of the Creator. But we can go beyond this abstract, rigorous proof of the existence of the God of the Bible. It's Jesus Christ because we proved that the Creator must be an independent, transcendent being. What I've discovered, even on the University campus, is that audiences much prefer tangible proof for the existence of God, to the abstract proof of the existence of God. Today we have that, thanks to the efforts of astronomers in measuring the universe. Ours is the only generation of man that has ever lived to witness the measuring of the universe. This wasn't the case 15 years ago. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Apr 14 2009, 07:24 AM Post #29 |
|
Deleted User
|
I'll let Eric take apart the pseudoscience, I'll focus on the pseudoreligion you foist upon others, breeze. Your theology is fakery. "Of all world religions, only Judeo-Christian theology says Time has a beginning " There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian theology. One, while Christianity borrowed from Judaism, Judaism has not reciprocated, it does not accept Jesus as Messiah. Two, Judeo-Christian is a coinage first appearing in the late 1800s and not gaining popularity till the 1950s as propaganda against communism. It is made up by Christians. When Jews use the term hey imply differences, not similarities. Thus the entire premise subsequent theological claims rely on is a theological lie. A number of interesting claims:
Then the following is offered as evidence: Indeed the words seems to imply that. But the author ignores context. One, "In the beginning" precedes God. Two, it takes God six days to finish. God thus operates within time. Also, the implication is not literal, but metaphorical. Moreover, the Judaic creation myth is not unique. The Egyptian Ptah spoke everything into existence just like the likely borrowed Judaic God. Chinese philosophy of the 4th century BCE, offers the Tao Te Ching, or Dao De Jing, as creator of all. Plato's Demiurge has the same attributes. If that's not bad enough, the author then reveals how Hebrews contradicts Genesis 1: The problem here is the word used in Genesis 1 for create means create from nothing, creatio ex nihilo. Hebrews 11:3 claims the universe we can see was create from something, albeit something we cannot detect. This was probably an idea Paul likely borrowed from the Greeks. Regardless, the author doesn't understand the text. Or uses it when it suits his agenda, abandons it when it doesn't. And that brings us back to the fiction of Judeo-Christian anything. Christianity is a combination of Judaic prophesy and Greek mysticism. In short, this author doesn't even get the theology right. And I know he misrepresents the cosmology. I believe Hawking himself has responded to these misrepresentations. But I'll not take all the thunder here. I'll simply point out that breeze who tells us Jesus is the truth is fooled by these fakes he pastes. |
|
|
| ngc1514 | Apr 14 2009, 07:46 AM Post #30 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nothing to respond to, Chris. That one came from our previously mentioned Hugh Ross. I wonder if el breeze understands that taking someone's work and posting it without any attribution or citation of the author is called plagiarism. We know it's not breezy's work because the words are too long and he has never shown any signs of understanding any of the concepts in the paper - whether they are correct or not. It's stealing, breeze. Number 7 or 8 in that list of Ten Really Good Ideas. You are stealing the work of others and posting it without giving any credit to the original authors. Cribbing for Christ. You are hellbound for sure. |
![]() |
|
| 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
