B
becon
Guest
Let's be honest here, how would YOU feel if you had been born into a creationist family? would you be bitter?
I know I would.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Let's be honest here, how would YOU feel if you had been born into a creationist family? would you be bitter?It really makes me wonder how much they loathe their own beliefs when they use religion as a derisive term.
Men wrote and preserved The Scriptures.Why is it, that when God so painstakingly wrote and preserved the Scriptures, and tells us to learn It and be students of it, etc., that the highest you guys expect us to treat It with is skepticism?
Okay with you guys if someone actually believes what It says?
You tell us, you think you have all the answers, not that you've given any to us....And people with no answers just continue posting in this thread because ___________________
I was born into a creationist family and I'm not bitter in the slightest. "Attitude toward evolution" ranks very far down my list of important things about family life.Let's be honest here, how would YOU feel if you had been born into a creationist family? would you be bitter?
I know I would.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.Men wrote and preserved The Scriptures.
Good point -- it's 'primeval atom', not 'primordial atom'.Except I don't know of anyone who believes that.
This brings up the point of the unchanging face of the Bible. It's more like, "How long has religion been battling against knowledge?" And that's been forever. Religionists used to claim the sun went around the earth. Until they just couldn't anymore... although there are still a few whackjobs out there with crazy convoluted "theories" about how the sun really DOES go around the earth. Socrates was murdered. Galileo was locked up. Copernicus didn't publish until he was on his deathbed. Darwin struggled with the implications of his theory all his life.How long has creationism been battling against evolution?
It's 'primeval' -- not 'primordial'.Nope. Wasn't correcting your use of primeval or primordial.
Logic is accepting the evidence that the universe had a beginning in a singularity. Not an atom.It's 'primeval' -- not 'primordial'.
Logic is believing the universe came from a primeval atom, isn't it?
From Wikipedia -- on Georges Lemaître:Logic is accepting the evidence that the universe had a beginning in a singularity. Not an atom.
Lemaître was then invited to London in order to take part in a meeting of the British Association on the relation between the physical Universe and spirituality. There he proposed that the Universe expanded from an initial point, which he called the "Primeval Atom" and developed in a report published in Nature. Lemaître himself also described his theory as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation"; it became better known as the "Big Bang theory," a term coined by Fred Hoyle.
EIGHTY years ago.Wikipedia said:In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the Universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.
This is what has been going on over the past eighty years...Wikipedia said:After World War II, two distinct possibilities emerged. One was Fred Hoyle's steady state model, whereby new matter would be created as the Universe seemed to expand. In this model, the Universe is roughly the same at any point in time. The other was Lemaître's Big Bang theory, advocated and developed by George Gamow, who introduced big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) and whose associates, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). Ironically, it was Hoyle who coined the phrase that came to be applied to Lemaître's theory, referring to it as "this big bang idea" during a BBC Radio broadcast in March 1949. For a while, support was split between these two theories. Eventually, the observational evidence, most notably from radio source counts, began to favor Big Bang over Steady State. The discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964 secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Much of the current work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies form in the context of the Big Bang, understanding the physics of the Universe at earlier and earlier times, and reconciling observations with the basic theory.
Huge strides in Big Bang cosmology have been made since the late 1990s as a result of major advances in telescope technology as well as the analysis of copious data from satellites such as COBE, the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP. Cosmologists now have fairly precise and accurate measurements of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the Universe appears to be accelerating.
This is what I accept. Not your sematics and linguistic twisting in an attempt to make it look feeble.Wikipedia said:Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debatedcertainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang", but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself, which can be considered the "birth" of our Universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the Universe has a calculated age of 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years. The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the Universe.
Men wrote and translated those Words. I really don't want to get into circular reasoning.1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Yes, eighty years ago.EIGHTY years ago.
Because it's inaccurate. An atom is a bunch of protons and neutrons and electrons. That is NOT what our universe started as.Yes, eighty years ago.
What's wrong with putting a name to this singularity, anyway?
If nomenclature bothers you so much, why aren't you complaining about 'flying' squirrels?
I use the term 'primeval atom', because it gives a mental picture to other plebeians that is so much clearer than 'singularity'.
No, it's not 'inaccurate', chief.Because it's inaccurate.
It is inaccurate, "chief".No, it's not 'inaccurate', chief.
You might want to look up the definition of the word 'atom' -- I have a feeling you're in for a surprise.
And for the record, after having looked up the definitions of both primeval and primordial, I'm changing it back to 'primordial atom'.
I'd hate to be mistaken for Georges Lemaître --
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?