No, we are not the same person and your attitude is beginning to be an annoyance, sir. Deal with the issues and not with personalities, please.
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.
Are you two the same person? All posts within 10 minutes and these last two are in response to the post of mine.
You gave references to some papers. What's in those papers that I should be reading?
philadiddle said:Google it. You may learn something.
"Google it?" Seriously? I gave you two scientific papers defining nothing and instead I'm supposed to "Google it" to learn about it? Wow...
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Science doesn't claim to know everything. Are you denying that they exist just because we can't explain what they are?Then tell the readers what those 'virtual' blips are before you say another thing about them.
Hawkings radiation is a way it can last. It doesn't violate the first law because the net energy of the universe is still the same. The positive and negative halves of the "blip" add a total of zero new energy to the universe. (Interestingly the word "nothing" was equated with the word "zero" earlier, yet here we have an example of how zero can still be something.)So? You're saying the 1st Law is wrong after all? Name one of those 'virtual particles' that lasts and helps to make up the physical, material world we live in and we can measure with lasting certainty. Take the mystery out of it and explain how it does not violate the 1st law.
Maybe God set things in motion and maybe He designed the laws to function the way they do so that the universe would create itself. We don't know, but we have faith that that He is involved. Science just explains to us how He did it. After all, did He create you or were you born of natural processes? Either way, He still created you but in the case of birth it just means He set up a system that would bring you about.Are you saying that nature can create itself after all and the Creator God is not needed? Are you saying that His plainly revealed Word is in error?
Yes He created 'all' things. That includes you, although I'm sure you agree that you were brought about by natural means. That's HOW He did it.Do you understand what the word, 'all' means?
I'm not denying that. I have faith that God kickstarted the big bang and designed the results to eventually produce us.I have given you both scripture and scientific law that tells us that (1) God is the Creator and the only One who can create,
I see no purpose in trying to explain the physics to you. So maybe we can both appeal to a miracle then. If God started the big bang couldn't He have created the material as space expanded?(2) natural law that tells us that nature cannot create.
I never rejected God creating things, I rejected that process that you think He used to create things.But you have rejected both.
That's because it's not a science book. The bible also talks a lot about healing but failed to mention how to make penicillin. Does that make penicillin evil? No, of course not. Does that make the bible wrong? No, of course not, it's not a book about modern medicine or the science of our origins, it's a book about theology, which can be explained using imagery familiar to ANE audiences (such as creation stories they are familiar with), poetry (such as the psalms), and actual history (such as the resurrection of Jesus).You are one who believes that Darwinian evolution is the reason for our existence and that God used evolution despite the fact that none of the authors of the inspired text even mentions such a theory.
Your black and white thinking of me having to think that the apostles are "wrong" is misguided. At this point I'm not sure it would be worth explaining to you. Let me know if you are interested in learning what other Christains have understood the bible to mean. I'm not going to ask you to agree with me, but I hope you would be willing to at least try to understand another perspective.Why should any Christian believe you & those of your persuasion and not them?
That document is a travesty. It is full of so many falsehoods and lies that anyone promoting it is either clueless or fraudulent.Actually, the book Science Vs Evolution is a great resource. Heres a "reader's digest" version (lol):
CREATION-EVOLUTION ENCYCLOPEDIA
It's quite fascinating reading and uses science and scientific principles to show how things such as the big bang are impossible. I've found that most people have a preconceived notion that our solar system, and even the milky way are stationary, yet its obvious that everything is spinning.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Science doesn't claim to know everything. Are you denying that they exist just because we can't explain what they are?
Hawkings radiation is a way it can last. It doesn't violate the first law because the net energy of the universe is still the same. The positive and negative halves of the "blip" add a total of zero new energy to the universe. (Interestingly the word "nothing" was equated with the word "zero" earlier, yet here we have an example of how zero can still be something.)
Maybe God set things in motion and maybe He designed the laws to function the way they do so that the universe would create itself. We don't know, but we have faith that that He is involved. Science just explains to us how He did it. After all, did He create you or were you born of natural processes? Either way, He still created you but in the case of birth it just means He set up a system that would bring you about.
Yes He created 'all' things. That includes you, although I'm sure you agree that you were brought about by natural means. That's HOW He did it.
I'm not denying that. I have faith that God kickstarted the big bang and designed the results to eventually produce us.
I see no purpose in trying to explain the physics to you. So maybe we can both appeal to a miracle then. If God started the big bang couldn't He have created the material as space expanded?
I never rejected God creating things, I rejected that process that you think He used to create things.
That's because it's not a science book. The bible also talks a lot about healing but failed to mention how to make penicillin. Does that make penicillin evil? No, of course not. Does that make the bible wrong? No, of course not, it's not a book about modern medicine or the science of our origins, it's a book about theology, which can be explained using imagery familiar to ANE audiences (such as creation stories they are familiar with), poetry (such as the psalms), and actual history (such as the resurrection of Jesus).
Your black and white thinking of me having to think that the apostles are "wrong" is misguided. At this point I'm not sure it would be worth explaining to you.
NGC 6712 said:That document is a travesty. It is full of so many falsehoods and lies that anyone promoting it is either clueless or fraudulent.
Clueless is not the same as stupid. You may not be at all stupid. But if you think that document presents an accurate understanding of the Big Bang (which is what the little bit I just looked at was about), then you are indeed clueless about the science involved. Look, some things are just flat out incorrect, and that document is grossly incorrect about what the Big Bang theory states.So you're saying I'm either stupid or a liar...
sfs said:Clueless is not the same as stupid. You may not be at all stupid. But if you think that document presents an accurate understanding of the Big Bang (which is what the little bit I just looked at was about), then you are indeed clueless about the science involved. Look, some things are just flat out incorrect, and that document is grossly incorrect about what the Big Bang theory states.
It may be only 6 years old but most of the so called errors are based upon either decades old material or just plain made up. And there is almost no substance anyway, it seems like a list of throwaway lines.If it is so grossly incorrect, please feel free to refute it, keeping in mind it is 6 years old, and new information may be available. However, something being out of date does not make it fraudulent.
Ok. You've said this twice now, I'm asking you to be more specific.
11 - Only hydrogen and helium have been found in the outflowing gas from supernova explosions.
We have measured emission of He I λ5876, [O I] λ6300, [N II] λ6583, [S II] λ6731,
[Ar III] λ7136, [Ni II] λ7378, [S III] λ9069, [S III] λ9531, and [C I] λ9850 at many locations within the Crab Nebula. The different line intensities (or subsets thereof) were plotted
against each other in efforts to investigate correlations and improve our understanding of the
range of nuclear processing in the gas, as well as the causes of exceptionally strong emission
from [Ni II], [C I], and He I. We identified gas where nucleosynthesis has not progressed significantly beyond the CNO-cycle, gas in which some helium-burning and nitrogen depletion
have taken place, and regions where oxygen-burning has occurred. The anomalously strong
observed [Ni II] emission may have two sources, in one case resulting from high temperature
and subsequent cooling in gas enriched with products of oxygen-burning, while in the other
case possibly representing the release of nuclei from the neutron star surface. Line correlations indicate that very strong [C I] emission arises in low-ionization H+→Ho
transition
regions. On the other hand, exceptionally strong He I λ5876 does not show similar evidence
of a low-ionization zone origin; and it does not appear to correlate with different levels of
nuclear processing as represented by [N II] emission. Therefore, the apparent high-helium
torus around the pulsar may be a distinct component of the nebula.
First, are you sure this was peer reviewed? I've seen a few papers from there that were not, nor were they going to be. Also doesn't this assume stars burn by nuclear processes?
Second, something I'm more interested in is how a free floating gas in a vacuum can compress in contradiction to Boyle's gas law to become a star? What mechanism is strong enough to overcome this problem?
You skipped the first definition there: "Lacking understanding or knowledge."From the online dictionary:
clueless ['klu:l?s] adj Slang helpless; stupid
That's a terrible definition, written by someone who doesn't understand the theory. The Big Bang was not an explosion of any sort.big bang theory n. A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature.
Start with its first statement: "It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together". The Big Bang theory says that the visible universe was in a very dense, very hot state billions of years ago. It says nothing at all about how or why the universe got into that state. The author is attacking the theory for something it doesn't say.If it is so grossly incorrect, please feel free to refute it, keeping in mind it is 6 years old, and new information may be available. However, something being out of date does not make it fraudulent.
You skipped the first definition there: "Lacking understanding or knowledge."
That's a terrible definition, written by someone who doesn't understand the theory.The Big Bang was not an explosion of any sort.
Start with its first statement: "It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together". The Big Bang theory says that the visible universe was in a very dense, very hot state billions of years ago. It says nothing at all about how or why the universe got into that state. The author is attacking the theory for something it doesn't say.
Then the author gets wrong who named the theory (it was Hoyle, not Gamow). After that comes a whole series of statements that reveal complete ignorance of physics. Statements like "The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever." Apparently he is unaware of the existence of gravity. Why would anyone go on at this length without knowing any of the science involved? And of course, what the author never does do is address any of the evidence for the Big Bang.
Just how stupid do you think most physicists are? Do you really think they would almost all embrace a theory that was this dumb, and obviously violated laws of physics?
And what do you think "explosion" means in this context in contrast with setting off dynamite in a junk yard?Quote: "The cosmic explosion that marked the origin of the universe according to the big bang theory." (The Free Dictionary)
Quote: "a theory that deduces a cataclysmic birth of the universe (big bang) from the observed expansion of the universe." Dictionaryreference.com.
Quote: "The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe between 12 and 20 billion years ago. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Quote: "the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe according to the big bang theory" Mirriam Webster.
Quote: " The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe" Scienceyourdictionary.com
Quote: "Model of the origin of the universe, which holds that it emerged from a state of extremely high temperature and density in an explosive expansion 10 billion15 billion years ago. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994-2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
And from the Capitol of evolution in the world, Oxford University: "The cosmological theory that all the matter and energy in the universe originated from a state of enormous density and temperature that exploded at a finite moment in the past." The Oxford Dictionary of Physics, 5th edition, 2005.
I think you owe Metal Minister an apology.
And what do you think "explosion" means in this context in contrast with setting off dynamite in a junk yard?
Why does focusing on the word "explosion" even matter so much to you? Using the word "explosion" as if that makes the whole theory untenable is merely a way of not having to address the actual process and the actual evidence for the big bang.
Well even though you didn't directly try to answer my question you actually did. I asked if you knew the difference between an explosion like dynamite in a junk yard and an "explosion" like the big bang. You responded by saying it is a "violent expansion of gas".Well, fellow readers here we go again:
First we are told 'nothing' is really 'something' and now we are informed...
an 'explosion' is not a cataclysmic reaction with production of heat and violent expansion of gas. (Mirriam Webster on 'explode').
So we should ignore the dictionary and encyclopedic defintions and believe the 'experts' here on Christian Forums.
Well, I don't.
They don't really care what the definitions are or were. They make things up as they go.
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?