Abiogenesis

[renniks]

So you're a flat earther, at well?

Nope.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't matter if they make the claim or not, it's the logical conclusion of their claims.

No, it is the illogical conclusion. If it was logical you could support your claims.

 

[Speedwell]

Which moves them closer to the Biblical text than when they believed the universe had no beginning.

Not really, since there is no reason to suppose that the energy which drove the 'big bang' expansion was created at that point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm talking about what Atheists and agnostics have told me. Or do a two-second search on your computer and you will find plenty of articles with claims like:
"The Big Bang is a theory describing the expansion of our Universe from a point of origin roughly 13.8 billion years ago.

This hypothetical starting point of everything was an infinite concentration of energy referred to as a singularity. If you find this hard to picture, don't worry. You're not alone. Physical laws don't deal well with infinite numbers, meaning concepts such as space, time, and a bunch of different forces don't mean a great deal in this tiny 'egg' from which the Universe hatched.

An infinite concentration is not anywhere near the same thing as an infinite amount. If you can do basic math it is easy to see that one can from a thought experiment where only 1 gram is infinitely concentrated.

And it does not even have to be that. It only has to form a singularity, an area where none of the current laws of physics apply. The concentration would be what most people call "infinitely large, but in that context it only means a very very very high concentration of energy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Odin was a bit too manipulative for my taste, but then I've only seen the movies...it's interesting how the myths come so close in some respects. I mean, who can't see Lucifer in Loki?

Odin was too manipulative? I take it you have never read the Old Testament. The book of Job, then Genesis, and Exodus should change your mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, I know there supposedly was not an actual bang.

A bang was a description for lay people. It was space itself that spread out very very rapidly. Matter and energy was carried along with that expansion.

 

[HitchSlap]

Nope.

Why not? Flat earth gets you closer to the biblical text.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, what came first, the energy or the bang? And how do you get energy with no energy source? All you can do is run in circles unless you have a first cause explanation.

There is both positive and negative energy in physics. As long as they balance out there is no violation. There are several YouTube videos on this concept, it is not going to be explained in a short post here. Would you like to see one?

 

[HARK!]

concept
noun

con·cept | \ ˈkän-ˌsept \
Definition of concept
(Entry 1 of 2)

1 : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances the basic concepts of psychology the concept of gravity

 

[Speedwell]

concept
noun

con·cept | \ ˈkän-ˌsept \
Definition of concept
(Entry 1 of 2)

1 : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances the basic concepts of psychology the concept of gravity

Right. And once you grasp the concept you will be in a better position to understand the evidence for it.

 

[HARK!]

Right. And once you grasp the concept you will be in a better position to understand the evidence for it.

I understand the concept of Nessie; and I've seen some evidence; but until someone can produce a body; I'm not buying it.

 

[Strathos]

Why not? Flat earth gets you closer to the biblical text.

No it doesn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand the concept of Nessie; and I've seen some evidence; but until someone can produce a body; I'm not buying it.

That is a very informal version of evidence. The scientific version is a bit more precise. It also puts a burden of proof upon those that receive it. Though creationists do not seem to understand this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it doesn't.

The writers of the Old Testament likely believed in a Flat Earth. That of course does not make it fact, but it does explain why the Bible only refers to the Earth in Flat Earth terms and not spherical ones. Of course the Bible is not a science book and that does not affect the main point of the Bible.

 

[Strathos]

The writers of the Old Testament likely believed in a Flat Earth. That of course does not make it fact, but it does explain why the Bible only refers to the Earth in Flat Earth terms and not spherical ones. Of course the Bible is not a science book and that does not affect the main point of the Bible.

It doesn't refer to it in 'flat' terms at all. People just read what they want into it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't refer to it in 'flat' terms at all. People just read what they want into it.

Actually it does. The time Satan took Jesus up on a high mountain only makes sense in a Flat Earth. A globe makes that obviously pointless. The same with the tree in Daniel. It was a dream, but the dream showed a belief in a Flat Earth. The "circle of the Earth" is another example. There was a term that could have been used but the actual term used was that of an inscribed circle in Hebrew, making it even "flatter". Find an actual "the Earth is a sphere" verse, direct or implied.

 

[Larniavc]

Evidence for design is everywhere. Anyone that can look at the universe and the human body and not see the design is simply being dishonest. When you start to understand how complex one single strand of DNA is, to say it developed without a creator is about a billion times more absurd than saying the computer you are typing on made itself from nothing.

How do you tell if one thing is designed or not designed?

 

[HARK!]

That is a very informal version of evidence. The scientific version is a bit more precise. It also puts a burden of proof upon those that receive it. Though creationists do not seem to understand this.

Proof?

The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"...most theories, soon after conception. --Albert Einstein

 

[Strathos]

Actually it does. The time Satan took Jesus up on a high mountain only makes sense in a Flat Earth. A globe makes that obviously pointless. The same with the tree in Daniel. It was a dream, but the dream showed a belief in a Flat Earth. The "circle of the Earth" is another example. There was a term that could have been used but the actual term used was that of an inscribed circle in Hebrew, making it even "flatter". Find an actual "the Earth is a sphere" verse, direct or implied.

You're making the same mistake that flat earthers do of taking poetic language too literally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're making the same mistake that flat earthers do of taking poetic language too literally.

No, I am recognizing a basic fact. That in the area and time that much of the Bible was written a belief in a Flat Earth was prevalent. That belief would have very likely have affected how the Bible was written. It does not make that belief true.