thesometimesaint Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Please reconsider and understand that even very good scientists bring personal convictions to the investigation table. You may wish to read the following article and also do a search yourself on this topic. But understand that modern rocks provide every indication that many data conclusions offered by Uniformitarians and evolutionists are tainted by a belief that the universe could never have been created --- much less in 6 days some 6 thousand years ago. And the proof such misgivings are often very obvious. Please visit: http://creation.com/radio-dating-in-rubble-article-ignores-data Every scientist like every person on earth has their own personal convictions. But it is highly unlikely that your personal convictions are exactly the same as my personal convictions. What science does is provide tests to minimize the differences in our personal convictions to what can be independently verified by knowledgeable but disinterested third parties. IE; Peer review. Creationism starts with a claim about reality and then skews the evidence to fit the claim.SEE http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
thesometimesaint Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 From " Science Now " :If imagining the big bang makes your head ache, what happened an instant later might make it explode. Cosmologists think the just-born universe—a hot, dense soup of matter and energy—went through a burst of expansion faster than the speed of light. Like a magical balloon, the cosmos doubled its size 60 times in a span of 10–32 seconds. This phase, known as inflation, ended well before the universe was even a second old. - See more at: http://crev.info/2014/03/has-cosmic-inflation-been-discovered/#sthash.Euq1fNaJ.dpufAnd SOME scientists think belief in God is incredulous. If the Big Bang( no sound mind you) and the nano,pico femto second events thereafter don't sound like creation ex nihilo , I don't know what does. creation ex nihilo literally means creation from nothing. The Big Bang started from something, even if that something was very small.
Rob Osborn Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 creation ex nihilo literally means creation from nothing. The Big Bang started from something, even if that something was very small.I just read this from a site. Is this what you mean- This is the basic idea behind the Big Bang. All matter and energy existed in an infinitely small point of infinite density a long time ago, and has since been expanding as our universe. One important note here is that the Big Bang was not an explosion in the universe, but rather it is an explosion of the universe. Therefore, there is no "center" of the universe from where the Big Bang started.http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/cosmos_bigbang.htmlWow...all I can say is "wow". Tell me- how can matter (a whole universe of it), which must take up a finite amount of space, exist in an infintely small point having infinite density?
thesometimesaint Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 I just read this from a site. Is this what you mean- Wow...all I can say is "wow". Tell me- how can matter (a whole universe of it), which must take up a finite amount of space, exist in an infintely small point having infinite density? Gravity.
strappinglad Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 An infinitely small space is the size of an atom?, an electron? a quark? . NO even smaller. Infinity is an idea and a useful one in mathematics, but it very hard if not impossible to wrap the mind around physically. If 10 to the 100th power represents all the particles of matter in the universe, then 10 to the billionth power represents all the particles of matter in 10 million universes and yet 10 to the billionth power is not even close to infinity. The mind boggles!
thesometimesaint Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 An infinitely small space is the size of an atom?, an electron? a quark? . NO even smaller. Infinity is an idea and a useful one in mathematics, but it very hard if not impossible to wrap the mind around physically. If 10 to the 100th power represents all the particles of matter in the universe, then 10 to the billionth power represents all the particles of matter in 10 million universes and yet 10 to the billionth power is not even close to infinity. The mind boggles! From what I understand it was a singularityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity Infinitely small is a hard to get our minds around as infinitely large. So we break it down into more understandable concepts like the scale of the universe.http://scaleofuniverse.com/
strappinglad Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Thanks TSS for the link to these . I used to think that the solar system was like an atom on the belt buckle of a policeman in another space. Seems I wasn't all that far out.
Rob Osborn Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Gravity.What? Gravity doesn't nor can't explain how matter of finite distances can exist in a space infintintesibly small. Thats like saying we are going to take an infinite sized needle and queeze it through an infinitly small hole. Its an oxymoron. Edited March 25, 2014 by Rob Osborn
LittleNipper Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Jesus walked on water, calmed the storm, walked through walls, and brought the dead back to life. God created everything according to the Bible, and without Him nothing that exists would exist. This is according to Christian doctrine. God is not bound by nature. Nature is bound by God. And yes, I believe that gravity exists through God. God is not bound by gravity --- that's sound doctrine.
thesometimesaint Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 What? Gravity doesn't nor can't explain how matter of finite distances can exist in a space infintintesibly small. Thats like saying we are going to take an infinite sized needle and queeze it through an infinitly small hole. Its an oxymoron. To put it kindly you don't know what the heck you are talking about. Gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects. It never really goes away. That is why in some billions of years our galaxy will collide with the Andromeda Galaxy becoming a single galaxy. That is also why our universe is still expanding. What is unknown at this point is the mechanism by which it is gaining speed in that expansion.
Rob Osborn Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 To put it kindly you don't know what the heck you are talking about. Gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects. It never really goes away. That is why in some billions of years our galaxy will collide with the Andromeda Galaxy becoming a single galaxy. That is also why our universe is still expanding. What is unknown at this point is the mechanism by which it is gaining speed in that expansion.To put it back to you kindly you keep sidestepping the issue- HOW DOES something of basically infinite mass (as far as we can assume) fit into a space of basically infinitely small space?
Brian 2.0 Posted March 26, 2014 Author Posted March 26, 2014 Please reconsider and understand that even very good scientists bring personal convictions to the investigation table. You may wish to read the following article and also do a search yourself on this topic. But understand that modern rocks provide every indication that many data conclusions offered by Uniformitarians and evolutionists are tainted by a belief that the universe could never have been created --- much less in 6 days some 6 thousand years ago. And the proof such misgivings are often very obvious. Please visit: http://creation.com/radio-dating-in-rubble-article-ignores-data If the evidence for this is so obvious can you point me to any scientist that back that statement up that aren't also Biblical literalists? The fact that you have to point me to a ministry website to show your evidence is troubling. Again... if the evidence against an old earth are so obvious from a scientific perspective, it shouldn't be hard for you to find ONE scientist who agrees with you who also does NOT believe in the Bible. Unless you beleive that ALL scientists that don't believe in the Bible are blinded and unable to look at the scientific data correctly.
LittleNipper Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 If the evidence from for your perspective is so obvious can you point me to scientists that back you up who are not evolutionists? The fact is that evolution and uniformitarianism is promoted by secularists. If the evidence for an old world/universe is so absolute, then show me scientists who are expounding on both Creationism and Uniformitarianism. The reality is that Creationism and Intelligent Design theory are excluded from most if not ALL public institutions for purely "Constitutional" reasons. Whereas, evolution and Uniformitarianism can be taught and explained most anywhere. This in and of itself creates a hostile environment for someone daring to contemplate a "religious" consideration of data. Such will certainly not find a job in a secular institution. This I would term a monopoly at best.
Nofear Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 To put it back to you kindly you keep sidestepping the issue- HOW DOES something of basically infinite mass (as far as we can assume) fit into a space of basically infinitely small space? The idea of a singular point is really a misconception. The Big Bang Theory doesn't technically require us to go back to a singularity ... we just don't know when or how to unrewind the movie past a certain point. Anyway, while our currently visible universe started from a really, really small volume we cannot and should not say the universe as a whole was ever a singular point. As far as we know it was always and ever will be infinitely expansive (but we don't know).This explains the misconception a bit: 1
Rob Osborn Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 The idea of a singular point is really a misconception. The Big Bang Theory doesn't technically require us to go back to a singularity ... we just don't know when or how to unrewind the movie past a certain point. Anyway, while our currently visible universe started from a really, really small volume we cannot and should not say the universe as a whole was ever a singular point. As far as we know it was always and ever will be infinitely expansive (but we don't know).This explains the misconception a bit:I find it interesting that science can pretty much throw out any wild idea and people accept it as science, even as truth when in fact its just an idea thrown out there.
thesometimesaint Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 To put it back to you kindly you keep sidestepping the issue- HOW DOES something of basically infinite mass (as far as we can assume) fit into a space of basically infinitely small space? The answer is still the same, gravity. Gravity held it all together until the instant of the Big Bang. Then it didn't anymore. We're some 14 billion years into a process that will continue for some 100,000 Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion years.
thesometimesaint Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 I find it interesting that science can pretty much throw out any wild idea and people accept it as science, even as truth when in fact its just an idea thrown out there. Oh your idea that Adam and Eve rode around on coconut eating dinosaurs is so much better.
Nofear Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 I find it interesting that science can pretty much throw out any wild idea and people accept it as science, even as truth when in fact its just an idea thrown out there. Since this comment betrays a gross ignorance of the scientific method (coupled with past comments (mostly to others)) I feel quite comfortable with an ad hominem dismissal of most of your comments.
Rob Osborn Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 The answer is still the same, gravity. Gravity held it all together until the instant of the Big Bang. Then it didn't anymore. We're some 14 billion years into a process that will continue for some 100,000 Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion Trillion years.Yeah, whatever.
Rob Osborn Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Oh your idea that Adam and Eve rode around on coconut eating dinosaurs is so much better. At least we have actual evidence of dinosaurs and man together.
thesometimesaint Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 At least we have actual evidence of dinosaurs and man together. No you don't. You have a Bronze Age story by a small tribal culture written many millions of years after the dinosaurs existed. We have more "evidence" for Santa Claus riding all around the world on Christmas Eve with tiny flying reindeer than that.
Rob Osborn Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 No you don't. You have a Bronze Age story by a small tribal culture written many millions of years after the dinosaurs existed. We have more "evidence" for Santa Claus riding all around the world on Christmas Eve with tiny flying reindeer than that.We have historical texts, historical stories, paintings, carvings, drawings, textiles, etc from all over showing dinosaurs.
thesometimesaint Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 We have historical texts, historical stories, paintings, carvings, drawings, textiles, etc from all over showing dinosaurs. No you don't. The last of the dinosaurs died out some 65 million years before man ever showed up. Their only living descendents are birds. What you do have is people with overactive imaginations telling stories to be later interpreted by a Bronze Age culture codified into a religious text reinterpreted to satisfy a very human need for someone or something greater than their feeble selves. I'm not dissing God, religion, or prophets. But it is not science.The Church can tell me how to go to Heaven, but not how the heavens go.Galileo the Theist.
danielwoods Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Rob Osborn, on 26 Mar 2014 - 3:59 PM, said: We have historical texts, historical stories, paintings, carvings, drawings, textiles, etc from all over showing dinosaurs.No you don't. The last of the dinosaurs died out some 65 million years before man ever showed up. Their only living descendents are birds. What you do have is people with overactive imaginations telling stories to be later interpreted by a Bronze Age culture codified into a religious text reinterpreted to satisfy a very human need for someone or something greater than their feeble selves. I'm not dissing God, religion, or prophets. But it is not science. The Church can tell me how to go to Heaven, but not how the heavens go. Galileo the Theist. Yes everything that Rob mentioned is called evidence or data. You disagree with his interpretation of said data, but that doesn't discount that the evidence/data exists.
Rob Osborn Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 No you don't. The last of the dinosaurs died out some 65 million years before man ever showed up. Their only living descendents are birds. What you do have is people with overactive imaginations telling stories to be later interpreted by a Bronze Age culture codified into a religious text reinterpreted to satisfy a very human need for someone or something greater than their feeble selves. I'm not dissing God, religion, or prophets. But it is not science. The Church can tell me how to go to Heaven, but not how the heavens go. Galileo the Theist. The evidence does exist- it is indisputable that the ancient civilizations depicted and wrote about living breathing dinosaurs. Now you are completely free to draw up your own conclusions but the evidence really does exist. It is only a "theory" that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago- that is not a fact. I can say that dinosaurs died out a few hundred years ago and guess what? We are in the same theoretical boat- both theories are an attempt to state when the dinosaurs went extinct.
Recommended Posts