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.
If the universe is <10,000 old....
- Thread starter philadiddle
- Start date
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.
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
philadiddle said:
"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
Upvote
0
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. 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.
Upvote
0
That document is a travesty. It is full of so many falsehoods and lies that anyone promoting it is either clueless or fraudulent.
Upvote
0
No, but I am honest enough to admit that we do not know for certain what they are. You seem to feel that nature CAN create even though God's Word makes it clear that He is the only Creator. That wonderful law (1st law of Thermodynamics) He established is a firm rebuke to atheism...but you agree with them!
Really? Draw a picture of 'nothing'. Fax it to me.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." That's what I think of atheistic evolutionists. Why do you agree with their ideas that are clearly counter to both natural law and revealed truth in scripture?
Those 'virtual' particles are probably the temporary connection between the physical and spirit world in answer to God's Word:
Who(Christ) being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power.." Hebrews 1:3.
Understand that every single photon or 'virtual' particle was created by the Lord Jesus Christ and His Spirit is in every one of them, for He is omnipresent. The fact that light behaves as if it has intelligence is therefore no surprise to us. Whatever the particles are they are in connection to Him...not independent of Him.
He did it in the way he said he did it in Genesis and He doesn't need the approval of modern skeptics in the matter. It is His Word that is final and not their opinions nor their theories.
No, God did not 'kickstart' anything. What cheap thinking. He created all things and empowered it directly to bring forth life...which is only generated from the source of life: Himself. Nature does only what it is pre-programmed to do by the One who programmed it. He coded it and it will not go beyond the limitations He set upon it. Evolution is a lie. It can never be the truth for it violates both scripture and science.
God didn't use a 'big bang' to create anything. Everything the Lord does is done decently and in perfect order. It is all 'good and very good', not chaotic. It's why the angels sang together at the creation...not for some giant, chaotic explosion. The only reason there is disorder in the universe/world now is because of human sin and rebellion.(Romans 8:22)
I don't believe you. You, sir, are in agreement with the enemies of the Christian faith as it concerns the creation. The Christians in Bible times did not believe evolution. But there were plenty of pagans who believed in early versions of it.
So you believe in a literal resurrection but not a literal creation...even though Paul and the other writers of scripture treated BOTH with the same language and in a literal, historical nature. How terrible.
Find a single quotation by the prophets in the O.T., or the authors of the N.T. or even the Lord Jesus Christ that does not treat the events and occurrences in Genesis as literal and historical.
Then don't. I will move on.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
NGC 6712 said:
So you're saying I'm either stupid or a liar...
May God Richly Bless You! MM
________________________________________
*addendum*
Proverbs 12:18
There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.
Ephesians 4:29
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
I think we could both learn from these verses...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,832
- 7,852
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
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.
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
sfs said:
From the online dictionary:
clueless ['klu:l?s] adj Slang helpless; stupid
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.
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.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
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.
It's an utter disgrace and the person(s) who put it together are not only scientifically inept they are incompetent at putting a document together.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
Ok. You've said this twice now, I'm asking you to be more specific.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
Ok just taking one point in the document. I can do this sort of thing for every astronomical point I have seen in that rubbish.
The point is made that:
The following is a summary from "A Spectroscopic Study of Nuclear Processing and Production of Anomalously Strong Lines in the Crab Nebula" a 2006 paper that is listed as astro-ph/0609803 on arxiv.org
That paper is about spectroscopic signatures of CNO processed elements, alpha capture elements all the way to nickel that are in the crab nebula the ejecta from the 1054 Type II supernova.
And though this is a somewhat recent paper (6 years old) these signatures have been seen for decades. There are references in that paper that are almost 40 years old detailing the composition of the ejected material from the supernova.
Now - does it look like the statement H and He only is correct?
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
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?
May God Richly Bless You! MM
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
Also, can you suggest any writings on electricity? I've long been a student of Nikola Tesla and electricity, energy, magnetic fields, etc., all fascinate me.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
That paper became published in The Astronomical Journal, Volume 133, Issue 1, pp. 81-88
Stay on point here. I picked at random a clear astronomical point in that document that I knew instantly was rubbish. It clearly said only H and He from supernovae has been found in supernova outflow. There are literally dozens upon dozens (in fact it will be in the hundreds over the last few decades) of papers on the spectroscopic analysis of supernovae remnants and the elemental abundances of the outflowing gas. The constituents of this gas were predicted by stellar theory and their presence detected.
Observations by spectroscopy assume nothing about the stellar processes prior to the supernova - though of course it backs it up as expected.
That document you linked to blatantly stated a falsehood that a few seconds research (or a modicum of knowledge) would falsify. Ergo - it's a nonsense document. I can do this for everything I read in that entire astronomy section.
Is this a joke question? Boyle's law applies to a closed system of gas held at constant temperature. It's just a special case of the Ideal Gas Law.
The mechanism for collapse is gravity of course. This is really basic physics. You think we forgot about basic physics when we got our PhD's in it and then have worked for 30 years in the area?
Upvote
0
sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,832
- 7,852
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
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?
Upvote
0
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 billion–15 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.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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".
Thank you for clarifying that you don't know the difference.
FYI, when space/time started to expand it was filled with "plasma", not gas. So there's at least one difference you don't understand.
Other differences that you are probably unaware of is that when space itself expands it is quite different then when gas and heat expand "within space".
Yes, the word explosion is used to describe the big bang. All we are trying to say is that it's not an explosion like you read in the dictionary. The dictionary definition suites the explosions we observe in the universe, whereas the explosion of the big bang is a different thing altogether.
For whatever reason you want to get an understanding of how the big bang works by reading the definition of "exlposion" in a dictionary. I think you're in over your head here.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
