Genesis Creation OR THIS?

[KWCrazy]

Inflation theory allows for the creation of energy without violating that law.

No, it doesn't. Care to try again?
According to inflation theory the early Universe expanded exponentially fast for a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. That has nothing whatever to do with the origination of matter.
Secondly, it's complete drivel. For the universe to expand at an enormous rate while maintaining the same basic current formation is an absolute absurdity. Such an expansion would create massive disorder, not order. It's more consistent with God creating the universe out of the singularity previously called "light" than with any natural phenomenon. In other words, Big Bang cosmology supports the Biblical account of creation but disagrees with the timeline. It does NOT account for the creation of matter.

Why should we use your interpretation of the bible?

If I tell you that tomorrow is Saturday, the 20th day of July, 2015, you can interpret that to mean a billion years from now if you want. The text requires no interpretation. It could not be more clear. That you reject it is on you.

 

[KWCrazy]

Very interesting. What it actually says is;

1. The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though itcan be changed from one form to another). Ask a Physicist Answers

If you had the slightest understanding you would know that both things state the same truth. One thing I've noticed among evolution proponents, other than they haven't updated their same repetitive arguments in a decade, is that each of them think by posting a different quote about the laws of thermodynamics that they can show a superior knowledge thereof. I'f actually gone back and used a person's previous definition just to watch him "correct" me. It demonstrates that you truly don't know what you're talking about. "But the earth is not a closed system," you reply. The universe, however, is. The origination of the universe was not limited to a section of Philadelphia. If matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system then matter/energy cannot be created period. Since matter and energy are convertible, one need not specify both for the statement to be correct. Neither can be created. Origination is impossible. If the total energy never changes and you start with zero energy, there will ALWAYS be zero energy.

So what caused the Big Bang? Because after that we had the matter/Energy needed.

You're talking about an event on the fourth day of creation. What created it? God. How? God is limitless energy. God speaks, things come into existence. It's not altogether a foreign concept for the conversion of energy into matter. What is different is how time is being measured.

What we do know with no logical sense of contradiction is Genesis is wrong

What we know is that no force of nature could have created the universe; only God. We know that by definition God could create the world in 6 days but he could not lie about it, because lying would be the antithesis of His will. We know that science is the study of the physical world. It cannot study the supernatural. Using science to try to prove or disprove God is like calling on your knowledge of dog breeding to perform brain surgery.

 

[Givemeareason]

.
It's more like your version of science VS real science. Real science doesn't put agenda above an understanding of natural law.

Your version of creation. It's interesting that you use that word, though, because creation requires a creator. Nice admission on your part. The universe is truly an amazing testament to the glory of the Creator.

I should remind you that the goat herders were illiterate. The Bible was written for the rabbis and teachers to educate the goat herders. It was held in the possession of the educated, not the ignorant. The early Catholic church in fact considered it a sin for laymen to read the Scriptures. They wanted to control the message, in part because some of the things they teach are not found in the King James Bible.

Now you are even trying to start an argument where there is none. Science by virtue of the fact that it acknowledges a beginning does in no means deny a Creator. The problem is always when people get tangled up trying to say who us right or wrong and prove one point over another. Science is science and religion is religion and they can be very complimentary to each other. But they are not to be confused. Rabbis, goat herders, whatever were all ignorant by today's standards. And most of us need something more than a simple story as written in Genesis.

 

[Davian]

No, it doesn't. Care to try again?
According to inflation theory the early Universe expanded exponentially fast for a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. That has nothing whatever to do with the origination of matter.
Secondly, it's complete drivel. For the universe to expand at an enormous rate while maintaining the same basic current formation is an absolute absurdity. Such an expansion would create massive disorder, not order. It's more consistent with God creating the universe out of the singularity previously called "light" than with any natural phenomenon. In other words, Big Bang cosmology supports the Biblical account of creation but disagrees with the timeline. It does NOT account for the creation of matter.

"The point is that the raw material doesn't really have to come from anywhere. When you have strong gravitational fields, they can create matter. It may be that there aren't really any quantities which are constant in time in the universe. The quantity of matter is not constant, because matter can be created or destroyed. But we might say that the energy of the universe would be constant, because when you create matter, you need to use energy. And in a sense the energy of the universe is constant; it is a constant whose value is zero. The positive energy of the matter is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field. So the universe can start off with zero energy and still create matter. Obviously, the universe starts off at a certain time. Now you can ask: what sets the universe off. There doesn't really have to be any beginning to the universe. It might be that space and time together are like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time." -- Stephen Hawking

Are you more qualified in astrophysics than Stephen Hawking? No?

If I tell you that tomorrow is Saturday, the 20th day of July, 2015, you can interpret that to mean a billion years from now if you want. The text requires no interpretation. It could not be more clear. That you reject it is on you.

I reject your interpretation of it.

 

[Givemeareason]

.
It's more like your version of science VS real science. Real science doesn't put agenda above an understanding of natural law.

Your version of creation. It's interesting that you use that word, though, because creation requires a creator. Nice admission on your part. The universe is truly an amazing testament to the glory of the Creator.

I should remind you that the goat herders were illiterate. The Bible was written for the rabbis and teachers to educate the goat herders. It was held in the possession of the educated, not the ignorant. The early Catholic church in fact considered it a sin for laymen to read the Scriptures. They wanted to control the message, in part because some of the things they teach are not found in the King James Bible.

Okay, biological evolution is conclusive and has been so for a very long time. It delves into origins of life and how different forms of life evolved from other forms again over a very long period of time. However evolution is still being studied and new questions arise all the time. So when a new question arises that does not hardly mean that evolution is wrong. It is just another question. On the other hand there are many contentious people having a literal view of the bible that want to claim that it does and then jump at the opportunity to try and punch holes in evolution because they simply refuse to accept it. Because it explains things in very natural terms without having to resort to supernatural claims. Doesn't answer everything and that's why we have theistic evolution in which the motivating force behind evolution is creation itself. Now from a rational point of view if you have to choose between a perfectly natural and well observed explanation or an explanation that immediately jumps into supernatural claims and starts pulling out ancient texts of unknown origins.... which choice appears to be the better choice?

 

[AllanV]

There must be something incorrect with the dating of artifacts.

 

[KWCrazy]

"The point is that the raw material doesn't really have to come from anywhere.

Obvious lie.

When you have strong gravitational fields, they can create matter.

Strong gravitational fields from WHAT??????? Nobody denies that energy and matter are convertible, but strong gravitational fields do not create themselves. Without energy you have nothing, and before energy existed it did not exist. Where did it come from? That's like claiming to be able to create a puzzle by simply putting the pre-formed pieces into place.

So the universe can start off with zero energy and still create matter

.

I've heard uniform theory described before. It's desperation, not science. It's certainly not provable. It can't be reproduced. The third law of thermodynamics holds that the entropy of a system at absolute zero is a well-defined constant because it's already at its ground state. So then beginning with zero energy nothing happens.... ever. Even uniform theory requires external causation.

Are you more qualified in astrophysics than Stephen Hawking?

Is he more qualified than God?
Even if the issue of first cause could be solved; that some scenario could be constructed to show how something could, in fact, come from nothing, it would only demonstrate one possibility. It can never prove conclusively that it did. Of course, that will never happen, so we're safe.

Multi-verse, anyone?

 

[KWCrazy]

Now from a rational point of view if you have to choose between a perfectly natural and well observed explanation or an explanation that immediately jumps into supernatural claims and starts pulling out ancient texts of unknown origins.... which choice appears to be the better choice?

That depends on your experience. If you know people who experienced supernatural events and you have personally experienced supernatural events, then you know that the claim we live in a purely physical world is nothing but clap trap. If you KNOW that science is wrong about the presupposition that every cause is natural and every effect reproducible, then you know there is more to our existence than many wish to believe.

There are more people visiting this forum who have experienced the supernatural than those who deny it. Just read some of the personal testimonies.

 

[Givemeareason]

There must be something incorrect with the dating of artifacts.

I am sure science is looking into that. In the meantime which choice are you going to make?

 

[Givemeareason]

That depends on your experience. If you know people who experienced supernatural events and you have personally experienced supernatural events, then you know that the claim we live in a purely physical world is nothing but clap trap. If you KNOW that science is wrong about the presupposition that every cause is natural and every effect reproducible, then you know there is more to our existence than many wish to believe.

There are more people visiting this forum who have experienced the supernatural than those who deny it. Just read some of the personal testimonies.

You must have not experienced much of the supernatural based on that. The supernatural and the testimonies of those who claim to have experienced it fly all over the the place. There is no consistency in any of it. Science can even explain that. In the meantime evolution and science keep moving in consistent ways.

 

[AllanV]

 

[AllanV]

The Earth in Time and Space

 

[Givemeareason]

The Earth in Time and Space

It doesn't seem to play? Is it just me?

 

[AllanV]

It doesn't seem to play? Is it just me?

 

[Davian]

Obvious lie.

Strong gravitational fields from WHAT??????? Nobody denies that energy and matter are convertible, but strong gravitational fields do not create themselves. Without energy you have nothing, and before energy existed it did not exist. Where did it come from? That's like claiming to be able to create a puzzle by simply putting the pre-formed pieces into place.

I've heard uniform theory described before. It's desperation, not science. It's certainly not provable. It can't be reproduced. The third law of thermodynamics holds that the entropy of a system at absolute zero is a well-defined constant because it's already at its ground state. So then beginning with zero energy nothing happens.... ever. Even uniform theory requires external causation.

You write that email to Stephen, and if he responds, tell us what he thinks of your opinion.

Is he more qualified than God?

At this point in our discussion, "God" is only a fictional character in a book, so, yes, he is more qualified.

 

[KWCrazy]

You write that email to Stephen, and if he responds, tell us what he thinks of your opinion.

Once there were two brothers. The first was brilliant; graduated college at 19, studied at the finest universities and went on to make remarkable discoveries in the field of astrophysics. The other had no mind for studying and preferred poetry or day dreaming. The first was celebrated worldwide for his amazing intellect and sound reasoning. The second found Jesus, turned his life over to the Lord and lived a quiet, selfless existence of service to others. Upon their deaths, both men encountered God. For the first it was a horrifying revelation to discover that there was, in fact, a God who he had rejected, scorned and taught against. For his rejection of salvation he was cast into the lake of fire. For the other it was a moment of explainable joy as he had found His Creator to whom he had prayed these many years. He was welcomed into the kingdom of Heaven and rewarded handsomely for his steadfast faith.

Now then. Which of these two was the fool?

 

[Givemeareason]

Once there were two brothers. The first was brilliant; graduated college at 19, studied at the finest universities and went on to make remarkable discoveries in the field of astrophysics. The other had no mind for studying and preferred poetry or day dreaming. The first was celebrated worldwide for his amazing intellect and sound reasoning. The second found Jesus, turned his life over to the Lord and lived a quiet, selfless existence of service to others. Upon their deaths, both men encountered God. For the first it was a horrifying revelation to discover that there was, in fact, a God who he had rejected, scorned and taught against. For his rejection of salvation he was cast into the lake of fire. For the other it was a moment of explainable joy as he had found His Creator to whom he had prayed these many years. He was welcomed into the kingdom of Heaven and rewarded handsomely for his steadfast faith.

Now then. Which of these two was the fool?

Why would you make such a foolish characterization?

 

[Davian]

Once there were two brothers. The first was brilliant; graduated college at 19, studied at the finest universities and went on to make remarkable discoveries in the field of astrophysics. The other had no mind for studying and preferred poetry or day dreaming. The first was celebrated worldwide for his amazing intellect and sound reasoning. The second found Jesus, turned his life over to the Lord and lived a quiet, selfless existence of service to others. Upon their deaths, <snip>

Upon their deaths, they would be dead. Or is this a hypothetical?

 

[Givemeareason]

Once there were two brothers. The first was brilliant; graduated college at 19, studied at the finest universities and went on to make remarkable discoveries in the field of astrophysics. The other had no mind for studying and preferred poetry or day dreaming. The first was celebrated worldwide for his amazing intellect and sound reasoning. The second found Jesus, turned his life over to the Lord and lived a quiet, selfless existence of service to others. Upon their deaths, both men encountered God. For the first it was a horrifying revelation to discover that there was, in fact, a God who he had rejected, scorned and taught against. For his rejection of salvation he was cast into the lake of fire. For the other it was a moment of explainable joy as he had found His Creator to whom he had prayed these many years. He was welcomed into the kingdom of Heaven and rewarded handsomely for his steadfast faith.

Now then. Which of these two was the fool?

You are suggesting a brilliant astrophysicist who made remarkable discoveries in astrophysics and was world reknown for his sound reasoning would stoop to the level of rejecting, scorning and teaching against God. Must have become pretty bored with astrophysics for that to be the case. People who make large contributions to science don't generally stoop to such behavior. People who have credentials might but that's probably because they have become figureheads in the ant-theistic debate. You are making a stereotype in which you are claiming that all high minded people of intellectual pursuit but who are not Christian and probably couldn't care less are all doomed for hell. You are equating people of intelligence being hell-bound and raising suspicions against intelligent people.

Did you get this story from some loud mouth preacher or something?

 

[paulm50]

.
It's more like your version of science VS real science. Real science doesn't put agenda above an understanding of natural law.

Because everything above natural law isn't science. It's magic.
[/QUOTE]Your version of creation. It's interesting that you use that word, though, because creation requires a creator. Nice admission on your part. The universe is truly an amazing testament to the glory of the Creator.[/QUOTE]
Research what the original Hebrew said, it will open your eyes.
[/QUOTE]I should remind you that the goat herders were illiterate. The Bible was written for the rabbis and teachers to educate the goat herders. It was held in the possession of the educated, not the ignorant. The early Catholic church in fact considered it a sin for laymen to read the Scriptures. They wanted to control the message, in part because some of the things they teach are not found in the King James Bible.[/QUOTE]
True, church's don't like the people to know the real truth. It removes the magic element.
And as you point out the written word is down to the writer, or they're boss to control. Nothing to do with god.

What we do know for the truth is. While Hebrews were goat herders, around them were Nations who were far in advance. Who would kick the Hebrews around at will, and have done until 1960s. So as god's chosen people, he couldn't of picked a worse bunch. Now god may of been punishing the Hebrews for not doing as they were told, truth is they were always insignificant so god must of been rewarding those who wanted nothing to do with this god, they had their own. Hebrew's god even used these other people, who wanted nothing to do with the Hebrew god, to kick the Hebrews around. He rewarded the other Nations, by allowing them to capture Hebrews and enslave them.

The lesson we learn is, err a tiny bit from the path and god will get you're ass kicked. Avoid the path altogether and god will reward you.

And some insist their god is like this.