ManitouDan wrote:If we knew ALL there was to know about creation and life and ______ and ________ there would be no need for Faith .
You could also put it another way.........
Mankind would not have had to create the idea of faith if answers were readily available. We had fewer answers in early civilization which meant the idea of faith was even more crucial back then.
NYBuckeye96 wrote:So the theory of relativity is a "silly superstition and fable"? Interesting. I guess there was no need to take physics classes in school!
...and you should do a web search cause its about to fall. N/P as it was never anything but a theory to start with anyway
NYBuckeye96 wrote:So the theory of relativity is a "silly superstition and fable"? Interesting. I guess there was no need to take physics classes in school!
...and you should do a web search cause its about to fall. N/P as it was never anything but a theory to start with anyway
Show me a credible physics website that says the theory is about to fall. Remember, I said credible website. None of those hocus pocus sites you like to fall back on.
It's funny. If you believe in an unproven scientific theory you're enlightened. If you believe in an unproven religious belief your a nut job. Guess only us nut jobs will inhabit the Kingdom of God.
mikepike wrote:It's funny. If you believe in an unproven scientific theory you're enlightened. If you believe in an unproven religious belief your a nut job. Guess only us nut jobs will inhabit the Kingdom of God.
Maybe they could join us by taking the capsule through the wormhole as Jodie Foster did in "Contact"?
NYBuckeye96 wrote:So the theory of relativity is a "silly superstition and fable"? Interesting. I guess there was no need to take physics classes in school!
...and you should do a web search cause its about to fall. N/P as it was never anything but a theory to start with anyway
Show me a credible physics website that says the theory is about to fall. Remember, I said credible website. None of those hocus pocus sites you like to fall back on.
Do a web search, it's caving in all around them. Again, it's simply a theory.
Now, back to the thread..scientist have said that there was a 'big bang' or a beginning of the universe' problem, where did the matter come from to start that big bang? they're trying to say there was no beginning but it tosses out so many of their other theories that they're backed into a corner...so, they spin more fibs to cover their earlier fibs.
The scientific theories are hardly caving in. They continued to be bolstered by the kind of work being done at CERN and other labs. The evidence keeps piling up.
If I took the time to create an infinite universe using all sorts of exotic matter and complex laws of physics and quantum mechanics, and some knucklehead came along and argued that I just thought it in to existence, I'd be one pi$$Ed off deity.
Creationism is just laziness, and it encourages laziness.
God simply spoke everything into existence. The reason that water boils at 212° and freezes it 32 is because God decided that they would work that way. Have you elected so it could've been completely reversed. The rules of physics that you count on are just temporary.
Tuck, we can have physics and a belief in an all omnippotent God..........Why either or?...Did God not give us a mind to think and reason with?........... :12224
kantuckyII wrote:God simply spoke everything into existence. The reason that water boils at 212° and freezes it 32 is because God decided that they would work that way. Have you elected so it could've been completely reversed. The rules of physics that you count on are just temporary.
So God is in the middle of creation and has lunch and thinks, "you know, I think water should boil at 212F" :aaaaa24 :aaaaa24 :aaaaa24 :aaaaa24 :aaaaa24 :aaaaa24 :aaaaa12
Does the earth exist because of random chance or was it finely tuned by a designer?
Last week we saw that Princeton physicist Peter Steinhardt rejects The Big Bang Theory out of hand because he refuses to believe anything could come into being with such a fine tuned design. He is not alone. The Big Bang Theory haunts science because if it is true then the universe had a beginning and no plausible naturalistic explanation can account for it. But it is not just the beginning that bothers naturalists, it is what happened immediately afterward that is truly mind-boggling.
The enlightenment view interpreted the work of Copernicus to produce The Principle of Mediocrity, which holds that the earth does not hold a special or privileged place in the universe. The late Carl Sagan popularized this view with his bestselling book “Pale Blue Dot.†But, as we learn more about what factors it takes to produce a life-giving planet, it appears we may be pretty special after all.
What factors are necessary? You need water to evaporate and transport nutrients across the globe and to absorb heat from the sun and give us a temperate climate. But in order to have water you have to be a certain distance from a star or what NASA scientists call “The Goldilocks Zone†where it is not too hot and not too cold. Otherwise, water will boil away or freeze out.
If the earth were 5% closer to the sun, it would be a greenhouse with temperatures running up to 900 degrees Fahrenheit. If the earth were 20% farther out it would produce carbon dioxide clouds that would freeze the planet.
Speaking of location, a planet in our galaxy would have to be away from the center of it where a giant black hole exists and outside of one of the spiral arms where supernovas are common and we are exactly in the right place to avoid harm.
But you need much more than just water and location.
In fact, astrobiologists have determined that as many as twenty factors are needed for a life-sustaining planet, or at least one that sustains complex life. These include factors related to such things as:
As we discussed yesterday, it is understandable why TV Producers look for controversial ideas like Sagan’s flawed “oscillating theory†but why do serious scientists indulge them? Why are so many tenured professors bent on overturning something as obvious as The Big Bang? As Lee Strobel points out in The Case for a Creator, Einstein was irritated by the idea of an expanding universe, Astronomer Athur Eddington called it “repugnant†and Phillip Morrison at MIT admitted he would, “like to reject it.â€
Why?
Robert Jastrow wrote in his wonderful book God and the Astronomers, “There is a kind of religion in science . . . every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause. . . . This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.â€
Journalist Jim Holt interviewed a number of the scientists and philosophers seeking to avoid the “trauma†of admitting the universe had a beginning in his best-selling book Why Does the World Exist? An Existential Detective Story. One proposal Holt explores is the “multiverse theory,†where our universe is one of many universes birthed by an “inflationary cosmology.â€
What this means in non-Geek terms is that “our universe is one of nearly infinite past universes, generated as another “bubble†among untold trillions of other bubble universes.â€
In the end, these lines of argument assert that the universe created itself. But does that make sense? There is no evidence that something could come from nothing or that anything that exists that we can observe or test is eternal.
So, what some atheists and skeptics have tried to do is re-define the meaning of nothing. For example, in an episode of Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman (doesn’t anything sound smart when spoken by Morgan Freeman!), physicists assert that a vacuum created the universe. But a vacuum is something. It is energy governed by certain physical laws. It can’t just appear out of nothing either.
This is why the overwhelming majority of astronomers, physicists, etc. reluctantly admit that the evidence points to a “big bang.â€
What exactly was “the big bangâ€? According to the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, “The Big Bang Theory is based on the observation that all the stars and galaxies of the universe are in motion and not stationary. The American astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889–1953) discovered in 1929 that the light of all visible stars was redshifted. Hence the movement of the myriad of galaxies is not random but everything is moving further away. If all galaxies are now racing away from one another then at one point all matter must have been clustered together in an infinitely dense space and its present motion might best be explained by an original explosion of matter. Hence the term Big Bang. The 1965 discovery by Arno Penzias (b. 1933) and Robert Wilson (b. 1936) of the background radiation produced by the intense heat of this “explosion†served to further confirm the theory. The Big Bang Theory brought to an end the idea of a static universe and made respectable again discussions of the beginning and possible creation of the universe.â€
If there is, it's God's will that its there, nothing is by chance. 'The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork' - Psalms 19.1
...and all of Gods creation, including man's, sole purpose is simply this, to bring glory to God. We were created to bring glory to God and to worship Him
Science is a problem for the "creationists". While it explains much of our known world, the nutjobs feed you supernatural garbage. The Universe is billions of years old. So is the earth. Hurts the" 7 Days "theory of the nutjobs. Then there is the fact that other species were here for hundreds of millions of years , leaving behind their bones & carbon dating. Even ancestrol man can be tracked back almost one million years which kills off the "Earth is only less than 10,000 years old "theory. While man marches forward with science blazing trails, the nutjobs want to denigrate science because it destroys the "teachings", and which now see fewer attending church, fewer members of a church, a declining number who "believe", making religion a threatned species itself. " Creation" is doomed and so are most religions. Science has a long and revealing future ahead.
I dont have a problem with the earth being millions of years old .. the newer Christian teaching accepts this . Nothing that contradicts the Bible at all.
ManitouDan wrote:I dont have a problem with the earth being millions of years old .. the newer Christian teaching accepts this . Nothing that contradicts the Bible at all.
And I don't have a problem with that, either. We can all subscribe to our beliefs/theories as long as we can accept the earth didn't just "happen" 10,000 years ago, that there is indisputable evidence it has existed for about 4 1/2 billion years.
And science pegs the Universe at 12-15 Billion years old. But the nutjobs would have you "believe" its ( and the Earth) only been around for 6000 years....................................
