the origin of the universe - a short exercise

Gene2memE · Sep 30, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
I really don’t have much faith in seminaries. There are seminaries for every denomination who disagree on biblical doctrine which indicates that the majority of them have to be wrong. I have listened to a seminar posted from YouTube by someone here in CF. It was almost 2 hours long and I ended up writing a very long refutation pointing out the mistakes the professor made. The two biggest problems with his explanation were the origin of the creation account in Genesis and how the Israelites would’ve understood it. He insisted that the story originated from Mesopotamia which means that the story came from the imagination of man and not from God and how the Israelites would’ve interpreted it is irrelevant to the truth that it is saying. Jesus was constantly correcting the Jews on their interpretation of scripture which means that how they would’ve interpreted it has no impact at all on what it’s actually teaching. So many people just want to hear what they want to hear so they look around for the first source they can find that promotes their position and they’re content with that. As long as someone with a degree agrees with them then they don’t question it. If the creation account in Genesis is the result of a rewriting of ancient Mesopotamian pagan theology then it’s a serious discredit to the validity of the Bible because it means that Genesis 1 and 2 are nothing more than stories conjured up by the imagination of pagan men and has no more truth to it than the made up pagan gods that were created by men. So I’ve leaned that just because someone has a college degree doesn’t automatically mean that everything they teach is accurate.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Do you see what you're arguing? You are claiming that any evidence provided that goes against your interpretation of scripture is wrong, because you don't like the conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence.

The Biblical creation narrative can't be drawn from earlier Mesopotamian narratives. Why? Because that would mean that the Bible didn't come from God.

It doesn't matter that the idea that the Genesis account being based on earlier Mesopotamian creation stories is a well supported hypothesis and entirely uncontroversial in academic circles. It probably doesn't matter that the Genesis account is also based on earlier Judaic polytheistic accounts, and the framing in the Bible is a retelling to align with the Jewish shift to monotheism.

None of the facts matter.

As with the physical science, like radiometric dating, you will just reject any evidence that would require you revising certain beliefs. It's the same presuppositionalism I see with anti-vaxxers, flat earthers and other conspiracy theorists.

I wonder though, do you take this approach to anything else in your life? If your mechanic tells you your exhaust system is cracking do you ignore him because you believe the stock exhaust can never fail?

sjastro · Sep 30, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
Again you’re talking about natural process and I’m talking about divine intervention. They’re not going to be the same, they’re not supposed to be the same. What would normally take millions of years to create by natural process only took a day for God to create by divine intervention. And Genesis 1 specifically says that God made the lights in the sky to be signs for the seasons, it wouldn’t make much sense for Him to make them for that purpose but not make them visible for a few billion years.

So why in your previous post did you make the case of ¹⁴C being more abundant due to the burning of fossil fuels, this is an example of a physical process and not divine intervention.
Similarly is the case of physical constants being different in the early universe, scientists have investigated this possibility on the basis of evidence and not on divine intervention.

One such example is the fine structure constant α = e²/4πεₒhc ≈ 1/137 which defines the strength of the electromagnetic interaction.
If it varied in the early universe, the speed of light c would also vary but the evidence ranging from quasar spectra, to the Oklo natural nuclear reactor in Gabon which has been active for around 2 billion years, and laboratory experiments using extremely sensitive atomic clocks indicate the upper limit is so ridiculously small it would not change a 14 billion year old universe into a 6000 year old one.

Scientists are led by the evidence, YEC sites such as AIG engage in pure deception by claiming changing physical constants is a problem in science by ignoring the very evidence supplied by scientists physical constants haven’t changed.

BNR32FAN said:

This sounds like a very obscure viewpoint that was likely held by an extremely minute percentage of Christians. I happen to know a whole lot of people who aren’t Christians who didn’t receive the vaccination because they didn’t think it had undergone a long enough period of testing for them to trust it. I also know a lot of Christians who did receive it. So this stereotype doesn’t hold any water.

The data paints a very different picture.
Why is it white evangelical Christians, the very group which are have the most literal interpretation of the Bible and therefore acceptance of YEC are not in the majority when comes to accepting climate science and COVID countermeasures compared to other groups.

Astrid · Sep 30, 2024

sjastro said:
So why in your previous post did you make the case of ¹⁴C being more abundant due to the burning of fossil fuels, this is an example of a physical process and not divine intervention.
Similarly is the case of physical constants being different in the early universe, scientists have investigated this possibility on the basis of evidence and not on divine intervention.

One such example is the fine structure constant α = e²/4πεₒhc ≈ 1/137 which defines the strength of the electromagnetic interaction.
If it varied in the early universe, the speed of light c would also vary but the evidence ranging from quasar spectra, to the Oklo natural nuclear reactor in Gabon which has been active for around 2 billion years, and laboratory experiments using extremely sensitive atomic clocks indicate the upper limit is so ridiculously small it would not change a 14 billion year old universe into a 6000 year old one.

Scientists are led by the evidence, YEC sites such as AIG engage in pure deception by claiming changing physical constants is a problem in science by ignoring the very evidence supplied by scientists physical constants haven’t changed.

The data paints a very different picture.
Why is it white evangelical Christians, the very group which are have the most literal interpretation of the Bible and therefore acceptance of YEC are not in the majority when comes to accepting climate science and COVID countermeasures compared to other groups.

View attachment 355243

Now put up a chart of religions by yesrs of
education / socio- economic level.

AV1611VET · Sep 30, 2024

Astrid said:
Now put up a chart of religions by yesrs of education / socio- economic level.

QV please:

In terms of university professors, one study concluded that in the US, the majority of professors, even at "elite" universities, were religious.

SOURCE

You might want to chase a different rabbit with this.

BNR32FAN · Sep 30, 2024

sjastro said:
So why in your previous post did you make the case of ¹⁴C being more abundant due to the burning of fossil fuels, this is an example of a physical process and not divine intervention.

I was referring to the creation of fossil fuels not c12.

sjastro said:
Why is it white evangelical Christians, the very group which are have the most literal interpretation of the Bible and therefore acceptance of YEC are not in the majority when comes to accepting climate science and COVID countermeasures compared to other groups.

I guess it just depends on which survey you want to use in your quote. The first two that I found said that blacks, Hispanics, and Asians were the highest percentage to refuse the vaccine. As for white evangelical Protestants, even tho I’m not part of that particular demographic, I’d still say that it sounds like typical run of the mill anti Christian propaganda. And by that I mean the entire post not just the portion about the climate science and Covid vaccines.

BNR32FAN · Sep 30, 2024

Gene2memE said:
Now we're getting somewhere.

Do you see what you're arguing? You are claiming that any evidence provided that goes against your interpretation of scripture is wrong, because you don't like the conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence.

No it’s not that it goes against my interpretation it’s just unbiblical. If it directly contradicts what is written then that constitutes as being unbiblical.

Gene2memE said:
The Biblical creation narrative can't be drawn from earlier Mesopotamian narratives. Why? Because that would mean that the Bible didn't come from God.

Yes, and not to mention that the Mesopotamian creation stories don’t even remotely resemble the creation account in Genesis. People try to say the same things about the Egyptian creation stories which are again absolutely in no way similar to the creation account in Genesis. If you disagree we can discuss the differences if you like.

Gene2memE said:
It doesn't matter that the idea that the Genesis account being based on earlier Mesopotamian creation stories is a well supported hypothesis and entirely uncontroversial in academic circles. It probably doesn't matter that the Genesis account is based on earlier Judaic polytheistic accounts, and the framing in the Bible is a retelling to align with the Jewish shift to monotheism.

None of the facts matter.

See this right here is precisely what I’m talking about. You’re calling this idea that the creation account in Genesis came from Mesopotamia a fact when even historians don’t say that. I’m betting that you probably heard someone say they’re similar and probably have no idea what the Mesopotamians actually believed but you’ll call it a fact anyways just because somebody with a degree said that they’re similar. And even if they were similar, which they’re not even close to being similar, it still doesn’t suggest that one came from the other. So you obviously don’t know the definition of the word fact and don’t know how to properly use it.

Gene2memE said:
As with the physical science, like radiometric dating, you will just reject any evidence that would require you revising certain beliefs. It's the same presuppositionalism I see with anti-vaxxers, flat earthers and other conspiracy theorists.

Why would I revise my beliefs about Genesis based on pagan creation stories that are so far off from the creation account in Genesis that they’re not even remotely similar? This is a Christian website not a pagan website so why would I as a Christian who believes the Bible believe any pagan theology when it is constantly refuted throughout the Bible?

Are you a Christian who believes in pagan theology?

Astrid · Sep 30, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
I was referring to the creation of fossil fuels not c12.

I guess it just depends on which survey you want to use in your quote. The first two that I found said that blacks, Hispanics, and Asians were the highest percentage to refuse the vaccine. As for white evangelical Protestants, even tho I’m not part of that particular demographic, I’d still say that it sounds like typical run of the mill anti Christian propaganda. And by that I mean the entire post not just the portion about the climate science and Covid vaccines.

Best not confuse commentary on the attitudes
of certain denominations of Christian with a blanket
condemnation (“anti christian propaganda”).

Catholics for exsample do not try to force their
religious beliefs into public classrooms.

Opposition to ’ID” being taught as science
is not “ anti Christian”.

Claiming it is, is adding calumny to falsehood.

Which may not be good behaviour for anyone.

AV1611VET · Sep 30, 2024

Astrid said:
Catholics for example do not try to force their religious beliefs into public classrooms.

They're not allowed to.

David Lamb · Oct 1, 2024

AV1611VET said:
They're not allowed to.

Not in your country, but there are countries in the world where they are not only allowed, but encouraged to do so.

sjastro · Oct 1, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
I was referring to the creation of fossil fuels not c12.

Stop trying to shift the goalposts.
You were not referring to the creation of fossil fuels but implying their combustion which you erroneously attributed to adding ¹⁴C to the atmosphere instead of ¹²C.

BNR32FAN said:
I guess it just depends on which survey you want to use in your quote. The first two that I found said that blacks, Hispanics, and Asians were the highest percentage to refuse the vaccine. As for white evangelical Protestants, even tho I’m not part of that particular demographic, I’d still say that it sounds like typical run of the mill anti Christian propaganda. And by that I mean the entire post not just the portion about the climate science and Covid vaccines.

For your information the table is a compilation by GPT-4o of various surveys conducted which explored religious faith versus acceptance of climate science and actions taken to control the COVID virus.
Here it provides the references.

PRRI-PRRI - The Faith Factor in Climate Change: How Religion Impacts American Attitudes on Climate and Environmental Policy.
prri.org

Pew Research Centre – Religious groups on climate change | Pre Research Center.
pewresearch.org

ASU News- Study examines relationship between concern of COVID-19 and belief in science and faith.
news.asu.edu

Biomed Central – Religious belongings and COVID-19 vaccination |BMC Public Health| Full Text |
bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral

PRRI-PRRI - Religious Identities and the Race Against the Virus: Engaging Faith Communities on COVID-19 Vaccination: (Wave 1: March 2021)
prri.org

If you believe AI is engaging in anti-Christian propaganda or I have prompted it to do so then I’m afraid your comments belong in the conspiracy section.

As far as your more general insinuation my post is anti-Christian, the reality is I am addressing your posts which are anti-science as you are clearly influenced by creationist sites that actively lie about the science for the reasons I have mentioned in previous posts.

I should also mention yet again I am a Christian and as a scientist I know all too well science and religion doesn’t mix and neither does atheism and science.
Do you seriously believe a Christian who accepts the science instead of a literal view of the Bible is spouting anti-Christian propaganda and therefore cannot be a Christian?
Not only does this effectively eliminate the majority of Christians but is also against forum rules to spout such ideas.

Astrid · Oct 1, 2024

David Lamb said:
Not in your country, but there are countries in the world where they are not only allowed, but encouraged to do so.

Way to miss the point And add to the claim
that complaint against any chridtian based behaviour is an sttack
on all of Christianity.

Are you sure you want to join in with that?

David Lamb · Oct 1, 2024

Astrid said:
Way to miss the point And add to the claim
that complaint against any chridtian based behaviour is an sttack
on all of Christianity.

Are you sure you want to join in with that?

Sorry but I think you have read far more into my post than I intended - possibly I didn't word it sufficiently clearly. All I was saying was that in some countries in the world (those where Roman Catholicism is particularly strong) the schools would be encouraged to spread Roman Catholicism. I didn't say that I wanted to join with such a situation - I certainly wouldn't.

Astrid · Oct 1, 2024

Astrid said:
Now put up a chart of religions by yesrs of
education / socio- economic level.

Here is the chart

The most and least educated U.S. religious groups

The share of people completing a college education differs by religion, with members of some faith groups much more educated, on average, than others.

www.pewresearch.org

Astrid · Oct 1, 2024

David Lamb said:
Sorry but I think you have read far more into my post than I intended - possibly I didn't word it sufficiently clearly. All I was saying was that in some countries in the world (those where Roman Catholicism is particularly strong) the schools would be encouraged to spread Roman Catholicism. I didn't say that I wanted to join with such a situation - I certainly wouldn't.

Fair enough. But you didn’t look at the context.

AdB · Oct 2, 2024

partinobodycular said:
So unless someone can come up with an argument as to why that field needs to be conscious, it's much simpler to just assume that like time, and space, and matter... consciousness is an emergent property of that 'uncaused cause', but not a property of the uncaused cause itself.

Whichever unconscious mechanism you envision as the cause of the universe would just do that what it would do by default, namely create the universe... But with the uncaused cause being eternally self-existent, it would have created the universe an eternity ago, thereby running into the problems of an eternal universe.

Therefore the uncaused cause has to be conscious because only then it could decide to create the universe at any given time while itself being eternally self-existent.

Also if consciousness would be the result of mere chemical processes it would have no meaning. Our thoughts and feelings wouldn’t have any objective meaning, which would lead to the conclusion that nothing has any meaning.

I believe this conclusion is one of the causes of the existential crises we see many people struggling with nowadays because every human knows deep inside that our live do have an intrinsic purpose.

AdB · Oct 2, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
If the creation process had an abnormal affect on decay rates and the universe was created in 6 days, should we see a significant difference in these readings?

indeed, also if the early conditions in the universe were different from what they are nowadays....

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 2, 2024

AdB said:
indeed, also if the early conditions in the universe were different from what they are nowadays....

Which is a claim only and is not something that can be backed up actual evidence. We also have no reason to think nor assume that the conditions in the universe were as vastly different as BNR32FAN and others claim it to be.

BNR32FAN · Oct 2, 2024

AdB said:
indeed, also if the early conditions in the universe were different from what they are nowadays....

Yeah, who know when the laws of the universe were instituted. I see so many people who say that the Bible is not a science book but then they expect that God’s work in creation should coincide with science and the laws of the universe when in reality the Bible is a historical book of supernatural events. That’s literally what it is and anyone who can’t see that is ignoring 90% of what the Bible actually says.

AV1611VET · Oct 2, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
We also have no reason to think nor assume that the conditions in the universe were as vastly different as BNR32FAN and others claim it to be.

Science today has no clue what the universe was like prior to the Fall.

Not a clue.

Even entropy as it's known today didn't exist.

And the earth was one tropical paradise.

BNR32FAN · Oct 2, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Which is a claim only and is not something that can be backed up actual evidence. We also have no reason to think nor assume that the conditions in the universe were as vastly different as BNR32FAN and others claim it to be.

Yeah well the earth was still a sphere long before it was proven. Ignorance of truth doesn’t negate truth.

the origin of the universe - a short exercise

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Heb 11:1

Heb 11:1

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

He’s a Way of life

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency