Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Good points you've got there. Got nothing to combat those. Suppose that's why it's still a faith right?

If you guys haven't yet, I would encourage you to go see Religulous, the Bill Maher film that critiques religion in general. Pretty funny too. I wanted to show the movie to my high school church kids, but thought it might be frowned upon by their parents.

You mean in school or church?

You show that in school I could almost guarantee you would be fired for violating their 1st Amendment rights.

Depends on where he lives.

Church. I would prefer not to lose my job for the sake of pushing independent thought.

youngblood wrote:
Complete side note for discussion: The Bible is said to be one of the oldest and most historically reliable books to date.

Not really considering that we don't really know who wrote them. . . For example we do know that the gospels were all written well after the death of Jesus and by several different people who had never met Jesus. This alone should disqualify them as historically accurate documents.

rubiksnoob wrote:For example we do know that the gospels were all written well after the death of Jesus and by several different people who had never met Jesus. This alone should disqualify them as historically accurate documents.

Said like someone spewing out what they've heard secondhand and not looked for themselves. The authorship issues with the gospels are mostly resolved, the only one of them who never met Jesus was Luke. While they were written after Jesus's death, even the most liberal estimates put them within 50 years of his death. Try to pick out real issues instead of the BS one of your friends told you.

dogma wrote:Depends on where he lives.

No its doesn't. Stare decisis is brilliantly clear that that would violate the First Amendment. Its what the amendment was made for.

Not really considering that we don't really know who wrote them. . . For example we do know that the gospels were all written well after the death of Jesus and by several different people who had never met Jesus. This alone should disqualify them as historically accurate documents.

I think he meant the Old testament/Torah section which indeed dates back a fair piece (is it dated?)

Frazzled wrote:
I think he meant the Old testament/Torah section which indeed dates back a fair piece (is it dated?)

I hope so. I'll accept the OT argument. There was a fair point made earlier saying that the Bible is a collection of letters really and should be viewed as such. The OT (really the torah) was a historical document that was oral until 2nd century CE when it was put down as the Mishnah.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This has turned into a rather heated discussion about christianity. Let's cool it off a wee. If you were going to be any religion (other than the one you are, if you are religious) what would you be?

I would definitely be Buddhist. I've always enjoyed studying Buddhism, been to temple a few times and it makes me happy.

Hey look another religion thread...rather stealthy I might add.

I perused the previous posts but am not going to attempt to respond to all of them.

There have been many attempts by sceptics to "disprove" the Bible by claiming errors or inacuracies, redactors, saying the Bible has been changed many times over the years. The problem is that most/all of these attempts have not been proven succesfull, although they sure have made life hard on Bible scholars who have to spend time writing books to refute the sceptics. Just read up on the dead sea scrolls to see proof that the old testament has not changed, in 2,000 years. If it hasn't changed in the last 2,000 years why should I believe that it was changed before that?

The current speed of light does not prove that the universe is old, because we don't know if the speed of light has always remained constant. There has been some study as to whether or not there has been "c" decay of the speed of light from creation. Admittedly, this "c" decay theory has not been adequately scientifically proven yet, but the possibilty remains. The bottom line is that it is an assumption by science that the speed of light has always remained constant.

Big bang theory and red shift shows that our galaxy is at the center of the universe and that all other galaxys are moving away from us. Hubble and Hawkins both admitted this observation, but refused to believe it because it didn't/doesn't fit into their secular scientific world view. http://www.orionfdn.org/index.htm http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm

Radioisotope dating methods use the same assumptions, in that they assume that radioactive decay has always been constant and has never accelerated. The decay rate of uranium 238 is 4.5 billion yrs, and that is where they get the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Robert Gentry proved and published in leading scientific journals,(unrefuted by the way) by observing polonium halo formations, that the granites formed during creation where formed suddenly(polonium 214 has a decay rate of .000164 seconds or 164 microseconds). http://www.halos.com/

Macro evolution is fundamentaly flawed, in that it makes assumptions much like the rest of science does, and assumes that they have found transisitonal forms like archeopteryx and possibly others. The bottom line is that the fossil record shows animals fully formed and funtional, no real transistional form has ever been found.

Look at DNA and tell me that there wasn't intelligent design at work there. DNA has a genetic code and that code cannot happen by random chance, it has to be designed.

I could go on and on, but we've done this before and usually get nowhere. I advise that you educate yourselves with the many resources that are out there, books and websites before stating things as though they were fact when they are really opinions and conjecture.

GG

p.s. I saw religulous, and it was exactly what I expected it to be. Bill Mahrer choosing a bunch of easy targets. I would like to see him go up against some real Bible scholars, but you'll never see that.

I would be a evolutionist.
Hey, you get to use science as a religion. I like science!
yaaaay!

generalgrog wrote:
Big bang theory and red shift shows that our galaxy is at the center of the universe and that all other galaxys are moving away from us. Hubble and Hawkins both admitted this observation, but refused to believe it because it didn't/doesn't fit into their secular scientific world view. http://www.orionfdn.org/index.htm http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm

Not neccesarily true. Just because everything is moving away from us does not mean we're at the center. We also have no way of measuring the center of the universe, so even if we were, we would never know it. Also no everything is moving away. The andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with thee Milky way.

spartanghost wrote: Also no everything is moving away. The andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with thee Milky way.

Your right, I shouldn't of said ALL galaxies. But Andromeda is the nearest big spiral galaxy to us. The point was that the galaxies that are moving away(the majority of galaxies are moving away) are spread out from the milky way. I.E. the milky way is the center.

GG

Cheese, if you're genuinely confused about which way you're heading, and you find solace in the bible, then good for you. But you sound as if when you apply logic to it, you're not too sure of what you see.

I was born Jewish, raised half heartedly in that way for my younger life, and attended a Jesuit Catholic school for 5 years. I've done my own research into the occult, and other minor religions, and I occasionally practice Buddhist meditation. I also studied philosophy at college. And in all that time, through all these experiences, I have never found the answer you are searching for. I doubt you will either.

At the end of the day, everyone needs to believe in something. A lot of people believe in reason and science, other believe in a man with a big beard in the sky. I personally, choose to believe in myself.
That was the answer I found after much contemplation, and many experiences.

I think there is something out there science has yet to grasp. ESP, miracles, psychics, ghosts, and all the rest of it. I believe it is the one and same thing. Yet I also believe that science WILL someday, break these things down to their core principles.

What you choose to believe is up to you. But I would advise against completely discounting everything to do with religion and and the occult, just because a bunch of hardcore atheists advise it. They have faith in logic and reason much the same way that christians have faith in God. They're the same type of people who used to insist that the earth was flat because, 'otherwise all the water would fall off the bottom', or some other 'logical' reason. Logic, reason and science change from period to period. Don't blindly accept what 'other people say'.

generalgrog wrote:

spartanghost wrote: Also no everything is moving away. The andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with thee Milky way.

Your right, I shouldn't of said ALL galaxies. But Andromeda is the nearest big spiral galaxy to us. The point was that the galaxies that are moving away(the majority of galaxies are moving away) are spread out from the milky way. I.E. the milky way is the center.

GG

From our point of view, yes. And thats because that''s the only point of view we have. We can't jump in a space ship and go outside the universe to see where it's expanding from. so of course everything *looks* like it's expanding away from the milky way. (note: by everything i mean the general trend of galaxies and whatnot). Everything iss also moving away from everything else as well. That's because the universe as a whole is expanding. If you put a bucnh of dots on a deflated balloon and blew it up, all the parts would seem to move away from another as well. if you were standing on one single point it would seem like all the other dots are moving from you because it certainly looks that way. The problem here is scope. We currently have no accurate way of determining where anything is in an absolute frame of reference. The universe is just too big and light is just too slow. Also, I'f we're the center of the universe then why arent we in the middle of the Milky Way? If we're important enough to be this close to the center of the universe, why aren't we at the exact center? Maybe there's other sentient life form in the galaxy and ours was chosen/ has the best conditions for sentient life. or maybe the Milky way isn't the most suitable for sentient life. If thats the case, why can't it just be conicidence that we evolved here (if we evolved that is)

Also, something about the lack of transitional fossils. I don't really know much about macroevolution, but if everything was created as-is, why can we trace obvious descendant trees, illustrating evolution. Maybe it happens in jumps? maybe "transitional" species don't really exist and evolution is a continuous process, not having discreet boundaries between species. If all species are created as is an one never evolves into another does that mean whomever is creating them makes changes? Does that mean it gets it wrong from time to time? That would mean it's not omnipotent, and therefor not a god. which to be honest I'm cool with. I like that idea actually. I just don't think we're special enough to have our own god and be at the centeer of the universe and everything.

A new thing to debate: What happens when (and i believe it is a when, not an if) we meet other sentient life in the galaxy? What if they think the universe was made solely for them and their god (which in all seriousness could be the same as our god, if such a being exists) is there for only them. What if they arent willing to reconsider? Does it turn into a huge holy war? Did god intend for this to happen? Is this how the Imperium of Man got started? Do we WANT to be th Imperium of man?

Just some things to think about :-)

generalgrog wrote:Hey look another religion thread...rather stealthy I might add.

I perused the previous posts but am not going to attempt to respond to all of them.

There have been many attempts by sceptics to "disprove" the Bible by claiming errors or inacuracies, redactors, saying the Bible has been changed many times over the years. The problem is that most/all of these attempts have not been proven succesfull, although they sure have made life hard on Bible scholars who have to spend time writing books to refute the sceptics.

Yes, it is frustrating and a waste of resources to have to produce constant rebuttals of politically motivated attacks from people who aren’t in the field. Especially when the focus of the field is on philosophical and spiritual truths, and not the minutiae of minor facts.

I have absolute sympathy for biblical scholars who have to deal with such. Of course, there are many more resources wasted on rebutting politically motivated attacks on scientific fields (particularly evolution but few escape the intelligent design spam machine). And it just as frustrating, because just as so many who spam ‘errors’ in the bible are not biblical scholars, most of the intelligent design proponents have no serious scientific background.

I only hope you can extend the same sympathy to the scientific community that you grant to biblical scholars.

Oh, and all the stuff you posted after that is either wrong or has no scientific relevance. Why can suppose that the speed of light has gotten faster, slower and faster again, but until you demonstrate such in an experiment or even give a reason it might be true other than ‘because it makes the Bible work’ then it has no place in scientific discussion. Other galaxies are moving away from us because everything is expanding, and all universes are moving away from each other (spartanghost’s ballon analogy was an excellent way of describing this). Your insistence on ‘transitional forms’ is the great scam of intelligent design, because there has never been a decent definition given of these ‘transitional forms’ – when you ask where the link between animal 7 and animal 8 is, and then 7.5 is shown, you ask for animal 7.75. When animal 7.75 is shown, you ask for 7.875, and the merry dance continues. Arguing that DNA can’t happen by random chance isn’t an argument at all.

I could go on and on, but we've done this before and usually get nowhere. I advise that you educate yourselves with the many resources that are out there, books and websites before stating things as though they were fact when they are really opinions and conjecture.

Indeed.

GG, I’m curious why it is so important to you that the universe can’t be very old, and where animals and eventually man evolved on a small planet on the spiral arm of one reasonably big galaxy. It doesn’t invalidate the truths of the Bible, doesn’t make your faith any less.

It’s odd that you declare Hubble’s secular agenda (because he was somehow ignoring a proof that the Earth was at the centre of the galaxy), because I’m pretty sure he was a Christian. Lot’s of Christians have no problem reconciling an ancient universe with the truths of the Bible.

Frazzled wrote:
No its doesn't. Stare decisis is brilliantly clear that that would violate the First Amendment. Its what the amendment was made for.

Yes, it is does. We're not discussing Stare Decisis, we're discussing the conduct of an individual school board. I went to public school, we studied various religions in world history. We also saw some satirical material. None of my teachers were fired, and no one complained that their rights had been violated. They could have, but they didn't.

generalgrog wrote:
There have been many attempts by sceptics to "disprove" the Bible by claiming errors or inacuracies, redactors, saying the Bible has been changed many times over the years. The problem is that most/all of these attempts have not been proven succesfull, although they sure have made life hard on Bible scholars who have to spend time writing books to refute the sceptics. Just read up on the dead sea scrolls to see proof that the old testament has not changed, in 2,000 years. If it hasn't changed in the last 2,000 years why should I believe that it was changed before that?

I've read an awful lot on the matter, and have come to the exact opposite conclusion that you have. The Dead Sea Scrolls are not perfect matches to the OT, and in many instances deviate markedly when variance of context is considered. That doesn't even get into the problems that come from variances in canonization.

generalgrog wrote:
The current speed of light does not prove that the universe is old, because we don't know if the speed of light has always remained constant.

We have no reason to assume otherwise.

generalgrog wrote:
There has been some study as to whether or not there has been "c" decay of the speed of light from creation. Admittedly, this "c" decay theory has not been adequately scientifically proven yet, but the possibilty remains. The bottom line is that it is an assumption by science that the speed of light has always remained constant.

Again, we have no reason to assume it would be otherwise. There is a difference between assuming the existence of something which has never been observed, and assuming that something which has been observed has always been as it is.

generalgrog wrote:
Big bang theory and red shift shows that our galaxy is at the center of the universe and that all other galaxys are moving away from us. Hubble and Hawkins both admitted this observation, but refused to believe it because it didn't/doesn't fit into their secular scientific world view. http://www.orionfdn.org/index.htm http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm

Not all other galaxies are moving away from us, only the most distant ones are. Those in our local cluster are moving in a pattern which is more consistently random. Either way, the fact that all galaxies are moving away from us is irrelevant given the equivalence of all spatial points in the absence of a universal reference.

generalgrog wrote:
Radioisotope dating methods use the same assumptions, in that they assume that radioactive decay has always been constant and has never accelerated. The decay rate of uranium 238 is 4.5 billion yrs, and that is where they get the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Robert Gentry proved and published in leading scientific journals,(unrefuted by the way) by observing polonium halo formations, that the granites formed during creation where formed suddenly(polonium 214 has a decay rate of .000164 seconds or 164 microseconds). http://www.halos.com/

He assumed that creation occurred, that makes his point unfalsifiable. Which isn't inherently problematic if you are willing to accept that fact that the process being postulated is impossible to subject to experimentation. Not to mention that he is postulating an event which defies the normal laws of physics without any reasonable cause.

generalgrog wrote:
Macro evolution is fundamentaly flawed, in that it makes assumptions much like the rest of science does, and assumes that they have found transisitonal forms like archeopteryx and possibly others. The bottom line is that the fossil record shows animals fully formed and funtional, no real transistional form has ever been found.

A transitional animal would be fully formed, and functional. Otherwise it would not have survived to contribute its genetic code to the evolutionary process.

generalgrog wrote:
Look at DNA and tell me that there wasn't intelligent design at work there. DNA has a genetic code and that code cannot happen by random chance, it has to be designed.

Design and chance are indistinguishable at levels of mass abstraction. The only difference is in the level of anthropomorphic bias, which can itself be accounted for by removing design from human affairs (not problematic if you're a determinist).

The problem you're having is that you continue to postulate that science and religion are competing paradigms. They aren't. Science allows us to understand, and predict the 'mechanical' processes of the universe. Religion allows us to cope with the emotional stress inherent in daily life.

for dogma. You just described my views better than i ever could. however while there is no reason to assume the variance in accepted constants is possible, the idea does have some interesting implications. I personally doubt it's the case but if it was... well let's just say that'll make quantum physics look like single digit addition.

spartanghost wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

spartanghost wrote: Also no everything is moving away. The andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with thee Milky way.

Your right, I shouldn't of said ALL galaxies. But Andromeda is the nearest big spiral galaxy to us. The point was that the galaxies that are moving away(the majority of galaxies are moving away) are spread out from the milky way. I.E. the milky way is the center.

GG

From our point of view, yes. And thats because that''s the only point of view we have. We can't jump in a space ship and go outside the universe to see where it's expanding from. so of course everything *looks* like it's expanding away from the milky way. (note: by everything i mean the general trend of galaxies and whatnot). Everything iss also moving away from everything else as well. That's because the universe as a whole is expanding. If you put a bucnh of dots on a deflated balloon and blew it up, all the parts would seem to move away from another as well. if you were standing on one single point it would seem like all the other dots are moving from you because it certainly looks that way.

The balloon expanding illustration has been used before. The problem with it is, it's a complete fabrication because Hubble could not make himself believe what he was seeing, and that was, when he looked through his telescope it appeared that our galaxy was at the center. So he(and others I think) created this alternate "expanding" universe theory. Yet another unprovable assumption made by scientists. To say that "if we could travel to another galaxy it would appear that that galaxy was at the center", is more speculation and unprovable.

You should read some of Gentrys work or watch one of his videos. I don't necesarily agree with all of his points but the majority of his points especially with regards to the issue of the Big Bang and how Hubble and Hawkins get it wrong. http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm

GG

GG

Yes, it is does. We're not discussing Stare Decisis, we're discussing the conduct of an individual school board. I went to public school, we studied various religions in world history. We also saw some satirical material. None of my teachers were fired, and no one complained that their rights had been violated. They could have, but they didn't.

That film was not a study of religion but an attack on religion. Showing that film would be brilliantly unconstitutional.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
There have been many attempts by sceptics to "disprove" the Bible by claiming errors or inacuracies, redactors, saying the Bible has been changed many times over the years. The problem is that most/all of these attempts have not been proven succesfull, although they sure have made life hard on Bible scholars who have to spend time writing books to refute the sceptics. Just read up on the dead sea scrolls to see proof that the old testament has not changed, in 2,000 years. If it hasn't changed in the last 2,000 years why should I believe that it was changed before that?

dogma wrote:
I've read an awful lot on the matter, and have come to the exact opposite conclusion that you have. The Dead Sea Scrolls are not perfect matches to the OT, and in many instances deviate markedly when variance of context is considered. That doesn't even get into the problems that come from variances in canonization.

Dogma my friend, can you point out to me these marked deviations.

generalgrog wrote:
The current speed of light does not prove that the universe is old, because we don't know if the speed of light has always remained constant.

dogma wrote:
We have no reason to assume otherwise.

Except the Word of God you mean.

generalgrog wrote:
There has been some study as to whether or not there has been "c" decay of the speed of light from creation. Admittedly, this "c" decay theory has not been adequately scientifically proven yet, but the possibilty remains. The bottom line is that it is an assumption by science that the speed of light has always remained constant.

dogma wrote:
There is a difference between assuming the existence of something which has never been observed, and assuming that something which has been observed has always been as it is.

I agree with you here. But the fact still remains that assumptions are both being made. Just from different contexts.

generalgrog wrote:
Big bang theory and red shift shows that our galaxy is at the center of the universe and that all other galaxys are moving away from us. Hubble and Hawkins both admitted this observation, but refused to believe it because it didn't/doesn't fit into their secular scientific world view. http://www.orionfdn.org/index.htm http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm

dogma wrote:
Not all other galaxies are moving away from us, only the most distant ones are. Those in our local cluster are moving in a pattern which is more consistently random. Either way, the fact that all galaxies are moving away from us is irrelevant given the equivalence of all spatial points in the absence of a universal reference.

See my responce to spartan above. Check out http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm If you have done a lot of study on dead sea scrolls you shouldn't have a problem watching another view of Big Bang.

generalgrog wrote:
Radioisotope dating methods use the same assumptions, in that they assume that radioactive decay has always been constant and has never accelerated. The decay rate of uranium 238 is 4.5 billion yrs, and that is where they get the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Robert Gentry proved and published in leading scientific journals,(unrefuted by the way) by observing polonium halo formations, that the granites formed during creation where formed suddenly(polonium 214 has a decay rate of .000164 seconds or 164 microseconds). http://www.halos.com/

dogma wrote:
He assumed that creation occurred, that makes his point unfalsifiable. Which isn't inherently problematic if you are willing to accept that fact that the process being postulated is impossible to subject to experimentation. Not to mention that he is postulating an event which defies the normal laws of physics without any reasonable cause.

Again his conclusions were published in leading scientific journals and have not been refuted in any scientific journals. The fact remians that polonium halos were formed very rapidly ( from a few days to micro seconds) in granite, that main stream science promotes to have taken millions if not billions of years to form. If the millions/billions of years theory was true polonium halos would not be there because they would have escaped capture before the hardening of the granite.

generalgrog wrote:
Macro evolution is fundamentaly flawed, in that it makes assumptions much like the rest of science does, and assumes that they have found transisitonal forms like archeopteryx and possibly others. The bottom line is that the fossil record shows animals fully formed and funtional, no real transistional form has ever been found.

dogma wrote:
A transitional animal would be fully formed, and functional. Otherwise it would not have survived to contribute its genetic code to the evolutionary process.

yes the fossils we find are fully formed animals, we don't find any whale/cows (evolutionists believe whales evolved from cows!). Think about that for a minute. if whales evolved from cows wher are all the cows that started evolving flippers? Or for that matter how in the world would a cow survive the ocean long enough to evolve. The answer is throw in a bunch of time and some faith and you have whales evolving from cows.

generalgrog wrote:
Look at DNA and tell me that there wasn't intelligent design at work there. DNA has a genetic code and that code cannot happen by random chance, it has to be designed.

Design and chance are indistinguishable at levels of mass abstraction. The only difference is in the level of anthropomorphic bias, which can itself be accounted for by removing design from human affairs (not problematic if you're a determinist).

The problem you're having is that you continue to postulate that science and religion are competing paradigms. They aren't. Science allows us to understand, and predict the 'mechanical' processes of the universe. Religion allows us to cope with the emotional stress inherent in daily life.

I got to run.....



GG

generalgrog wrote:The balloon expanding illustration has been used before. The problem with it is, it's a complete fabrication because Hubble could not make himself believe what he was seeing, and that was, when he looked through his telescope it appeared that our galaxy was at the center. So he(and others I think) created this alternate "expanding" universe theory. Yet another unprovable assumption made by scientists. To say that "if we could travel to another galaxy it would appear that that galaxy was at the center", is more speculation and unprovable.

This is absolute nonsense. Redshift was already understood, observed and had some acceptance before Hubble's seminal work. Hubble's achievement was to take an extensive number of measurements and use those to make a calculation of the rate of expansion.

Your source is likely borrowing a little from another famous astronomy story about fudging the universe. When Einstein's theory of relatively established that the universe wouldn't be stable but must be expanding or contracting, he added a fudge variable to produce a constant universe. Of course, Einstein was fudging to pretend the universe was constant, largely because it fit with own religious views.

These people you keep linking to, who I assume are the primary source for all the 'facts' you're posting here? Those people are lying to you.

generalgrog wrote:
The balloon expanding illustration has been used before. The problem with it is, it's a complete fabrication because Hubble could not make himself believe what he was seeing, and that was, when he looked through his telescope it appeared that our galaxy was at the center. So he(and others I think) created this alternate "expanding" universe theory. Yet another unprovable assumption made by scientists. To say that "if we could travel to another galaxy it would appear that that galaxy was at the center", is more speculation and unprovable.

Hubble couldn't believe what he was seeing because it directly contradicted Einstein's balanced equation for general relativity. At least until we decided that the cosmological constant was necessary given the presence of hidden mass within the universe. The notion that he was shocked by the appearance of our galaxy at the center is simply nonsense. That was a well established prediction of general relativity.

generalgrog wrote:
I got to run.....



GG

nice.... rebuttal...

Sebster your a scientist? You can prove that expanding universe is true and not theory? Did you even read the scientific white papers Dr. Gentry wrote about red shift and a different way to interpret red shift in cosmology.

Hubble and Hawkins admit that they they could not except the idea of our galaxy being the center of the universe, so they had to come up with an expanding universe theory . Hubble caled it a "unique position". He also wrote that the hypothesis that our galaxy is at the center of the universe"cannot be disproved but IT IS UNWELCOME (emphasis mine)and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena", Hubble. "The Observational Approach to Cosmology" pg 50.

He also wrote that "another proposition...that all observers, regardless of their location will see the same general picture of the universe. The second principle is SHEER ASSUMPTION (emphassis mine)..Nevertheless, it leads to a rather remarkable consequence, for it demands that, if we see the nebulae all receding from our position in space, then every other observer, no matter where they be located will see the nebulae receding from his position. However the ASSUMPTION IS ADOPTED (emphasis mine)...there must be no favored location in the universe, no center, no boundary; all must see the universe alike. And in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist POSTULATES (emphasis mine) spatial isotropy spatial homogenity" Hubble. "The Observational Approach to Cosmology" pg 54

So right there Hubble admits to adopting another explanation based on assumptions, because he cannot accept a center of the universe.

It's easy to say "nany nany boo boo, that's nonsense" without backing it up. I could sit here and say "that's nonsense, that's nonsense" all day.

I will admit that I'm not a scientist either, and I still have a lot to learn myself on the subject, but to just outright call someone a liar like you are doing without knowing all the facts is a bit of a knee jerk reaction don't you think?

[sebster wrote]
GG, I’m curious why it is so important to you that the universe can’t be very old, and where animals and eventually man evolved on a small planet on the spiral arm of one reasonably big galaxy. It doesn’t invalidate the truths of the Bible, doesn’t make your faith any less. [end quote]

The problem I have with macroevolution and the idea of accepting a 20 billion year old universe and or a 4.5 billion year old Earth, are many. A few of the main problems are
1) If you believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and we evolved from a primordial soup than you are really saying that the Bible is not a literal narative as explained in the genesis acount of creation. The Bible then becomes no longer the infallible unerring Word of God, but some compilation of myths and legends designed to represent truth. Once you have gone down that road you open your self up to believing all kinds of other nonbiblical teachings. So I prefer to believe the word of God, which states a literal 6 day 24 hr day creation.
2) Many athiests use Macro evolution and an old age of the earth to attack Christianity and the Bible, the Bible asks us to defend the faith.
3) Macro Evolution and age of the earth becomes a stumbling block to people interested in coming to the faith, so it's my job to learn as much as I can to be able to answer questions and remove stumbling blocks that may prevent people from coming the faith.

GG




Automatically Appended Next Post:

spartanghost wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
I got to run.....



GG

nice.... rebuttal...

I can't tell if your being serious or sarcastic. Canadian humor and all. :-)


GG

generalgrog wrote:
Dogma my friend, can you point out to me these marked deviations.

This isn't a dissertation and it won't be published, so I'm not going to get into the details. But I will quote a well annotated article from Wikipedia.

Publication of the scrolls has taken many decades, and the delay has been a source of academic controversy. As of 2007 two volumes remain to be completed, with the whole series, Discoveries in the Judean Desert, running to thirty-nine volumes in total. Many of the scrolls are now housed in the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem. According to The Oxford Companion to Archeology, "The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around 100 AD."[5]

From this page.

generalgrog wrote:
Except the Word of God you mean.

The Bible indicates that light moved at a different speed than it currently does? I must have missed that.

generalgrog wrote:
I agree with you here. But the fact still remains that assumptions are both being made. Just from different contexts.

That fact is irrelevant. We make assumption every day, they are necessary for life. For example, when you stand up you assume your legs will function properly. What we are debating is the relative merit of certain assumptions.

generalgrog wrote:
See my responce to spartan above. Check out http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm If you have done a lot of study on dead sea scrolls you shouldn't have a problem watching another view of Big Bang.

Saw it. Their level of disregard for the fundamental laws of physics is ridiculous. They may as well have said 'its different because we want it to be'.

generalgrog wrote:
Again his conclusions were published in leading scientific journals and have not been refuted in any scientific journals. The fact remians that polonium halos were formed very rapidly ( from a few days to micro seconds) in granite, that main stream science promotes to have taken millions if not billions of years to form. If the millions/billions of years theory was true polonium halos would not be there because they would have escaped capture before the hardening of the granite.

Which reputable scientific journals?

Also, he has been refuted, repeatedly. This came up as the third entry in a google search.

The key points are:
1) The rocks that Gentry claimed as 'primordial' are nothing of the sort.

2) Polonium is part of the decay chain for Uranium, and the halos exist primarily in areas of high uranium concentration. Meaning that it makes perfect sense to assume that the presence of Polonium halos was the natural ramification of Uranium decay in a dynamic geological system.

generalgrog wrote:
yes the fossils we find are fully formed animals, we don't find any whale/cows (evolutionists believe whales evolved from cows!). Think about that for a minute. if whales evolved from cows wher are all the cows that started evolving flippers? Or for that matter how in the world would a cow survive the ocean long enough to evolve. The answer is throw in a bunch of time and some faith and you have whales evolving from cows.

Biology doesn't work via digital addition. There will never be a cow with flippers instead of feet, just as there will never be a human with tentacles instead of arms. Changing something so large as an appendage fundamentally alters the appearance of a creature in ways which are not limited to the appendage itself.

Incidentally, the closest living land-based relative to a whale is not a cow, but a hippo.

The problem I have with macroevolution and the idea of accepting a 20 billion year old universe and or a 4.5 billion year old Earth, are many. A few of the main problems are
1) If you believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and we evolved from a primordial soup than you are really saying that the Bible is not a literal narative as explained in the genesis acount of creation. The Bible then becomes no longer the infallible unerring Word of God, but some compilation of myths and legends designed to represent truth. Once you have gone down that road you open your self up to believing all kinds of other nonbiblical teachings. So I prefer to believe the word of God, which states a literal 6 day 24 hr day creation.
***Why?
A. God says I did this you monkey. “Initially I started out by creating the law of thermo-hey quit picking the fleas out of your armpits and pay atten I SAID STOP IT! Never mind, ok as I said I started with the la of hey leave the dog alone! Forget it I just made the earth in 6 days now get out.”
B. Our presumption that we know the conceptions of God’s mind and Time are at best ignorant, at worst an insult to God (not to mention our breath).
2) Many athiests use Macro evolution and an old age of the earth to attack Christianity and the Bible, the Bible asks us to defend the faith.
***They are stupid. There is no conflict.
3) Macro Evolution and age of the earth becomes a stumbling block to people interested in coming to the faith, so it's my job to learn as much as I can to be able to answer questions and remove stumbling blocks that may prevent people from coming the faith
***Again, personally there is no conflict at all. Age, evolution, the laws of physics, these are all just the tools used to make and govern the Universe.

generalgrog wrote:Sebster your a scientist? You can prove that expanding universe is true and not theory? Did you even read the scientific white papers Dr. Gentry wrote about red shift and a different way to interpret red shift in cosmology.

Yes, we can prove the expanding universe is true because Gentry's red shift theory is preposterous. Link

generalgrog wrote:
Hubble and Hawkins admit that they they could not except the idea of our galaxy being the center of the universe, so they had to come up with an expanding universe theory . Hubble caled it a "unique position". He also wrote that the hypothesis that our galaxy is at the center of the universe"cannot be disproved but IT IS UNWELCOME (emphasis mine)and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena", Hubble. "The Observational Approach to Cosmology" pg 50.

Obviously, since science is based on the assumption that we can deduce the function of the universe from immediate observation because we live in a place functioning according to typical laws. Its also worth noting that there are ways to assume we live in a special place in the universe without invalidating the idea of being observationally neutral. The cosmic void theory is the most popular one at the moment.

generalgrog wrote:
He also wrote that "another proposition...that all observers, regardless of their location will see the same general picture of the universe. The second principle is SHEER ASSUMPTION (emphassis mine)..Nevertheless, it leads to a rather remarkable consequence, for it demands that, if we see the nebulae all receding from our position in space, then every other observer, no matter where they be located will see the nebulae receding from his position. However the ASSUMPTION IS ADOPTED (emphasis mine)...there must be no favored location in the universe, no center, no boundary; all must see the universe alike. And in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist POSTULATES (emphasis mine) spatial isotropy spatial homogenity" Hubble. "The Observational Approach to Cosmology" pg 54

You're making the same mistake Hubble did. Spatial homogeneity, and spatial isotropy only require that the universe appear as such at the largest possible scales. Its also worth noting that Hubble's cosmological work has fallen out of favor since Hawking began publishing on black body radiation, and its consequences with respect to an expanding universe.

generalgrog wrote:
So right there Hubble admits to adopting another explanation based on assumptions, because he cannot accept a center of the universe.

Because accepting a center of the universe based on a singular point of observation is fundamentally useless.

generalgrog wrote:
The problem I have with macroevolution and the idea of accepting a 20 billion year old universe and or a 4.5 billion year old Earth, are many. A few of the main problems are
1) If you believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and we evolved from a primordial soup than you are really saying that the Bible is not a literal narative as explained in the genesis acount of creation. The Bible then becomes no longer the infallible unerring Word of God, but some compilation of myths and legends designed to represent truth. Once you have gone down that road you open your self up to believing all kinds of other nonbiblical teachings. So I prefer to believe the word of God, which states a literal 6 day 24 hr day creation.

Something can be infallible without being literal. Its also worth noting that the Bible never claims to be the Word of God, nor were any of its authors thought to be privy to it.

generalgrog wrote:
2) Many athiests use Macro evolution and an old age of the earth to attack Christianity and the Bible, the Bible asks us to defend the faith.

No, they simply attack a literal interpretation of the Bible. Many, many Christians do the same.

generalgrog wrote:
3) Macro Evolution and age of the earth becomes a stumbling block to people interested in coming to the faith, so it's my job to learn as much as I can to be able to answer questions and remove stumbling blocks that may prevent people from coming the faith.

Again, most Christians do not believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

2) Many athiests use Macro evolution and an old age of the earth to attack Christianity and the Bible, the Bible asks us to defend the faith.

And many religious people use religious tracts to attack science.

The Bible asks you to do many things. I assume you only eat Kosher food, never borrow or lend money etc etc too.

incidentally, where in the Bible does it tell you to follow it literally ?

Page 4, 675 Duh! right after instructiosn for use of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

"thou shalt throw the hand grenade and not the pin, or thou shalt snuff it."

Sorry couldn't resist.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Dogma my friend, can you point out to me these marked deviations.

This isn't a dissertation and it won't be published, so I'm not going to get into the details. But I will quote a well annotated article from Wikipedia.

Publication of the scrolls has taken many decades, and the delay has been a source of academic controversy. As of 2007 two volumes remain to be completed, with the whole series, Discoveries in the Judean Desert, running to thirty-nine volumes in total. Many of the scrolls are now housed in the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem. According to The Oxford Companion to Archeology, "The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around 100 AD."[5]

From this page.

generalgrog wrote:
Except the Word of God you mean.

The Bible indicates that light moved at a different speed than it currently does? I must have missed that.

generalgrog wrote:
I agree with you here. But the fact still remains that assumptions are both being made. Just from different contexts.

That fact is irrelevant. We make assumption every day, they are necessary for life. For example, when you stand up you assume your legs will function properly. What we are debating is the relative merit of certain assumptions.

generalgrog wrote:
See my responce to spartan above. Check out http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm If you have done a lot of study on dead sea scrolls you shouldn't have a problem watching another view of Big Bang.

Saw it. Their level of disregard for the fundamental laws of physics is ridiculous. They may as well have said 'its different because we want it to be'.

generalgrog wrote:
Again his conclusions were published in leading scientific journals and have not been refuted in any scientific journals. The fact remians that polonium halos were formed very rapidly ( from a few days to micro seconds) in granite, that main stream science promotes to have taken millions if not billions of years to form. If the millions/billions of years theory was true polonium halos would not be there because they would have escaped capture before the hardening of the granite.

Which reputable scientific journals?

Also, he has been refuted, repeatedly. This came up as the third entry in a google search.

The key points are:
1) The rocks that Gentry claimed as 'primordial' are nothing of the sort.

2) Polonium is part of the decay chain for Uranium, and the halos exist primarily in areas of high uranium concentration. Meaning that it makes perfect sense to assume that the presence of Polonium halos was the natural ramification of Uranium decay in a dynamic geological system.

generalgrog wrote:
yes the fossils we find are fully formed animals, we don't find any whale/cows (evolutionists believe whales evolved from cows!). Think about that for a minute. if whales evolved from cows wher are all the cows that started evolving flippers? Or for that matter how in the world would a cow survive the ocean long enough to evolve. The answer is throw in a bunch of time and some faith and you have whales evolving from cows.

Biology doesn't work via digital addition. There will never be a cow with flippers instead of feet, just as there will never be a human with tentacles instead of arms. Changing something so large as an appendage fundamentally alters the appearance of a creature in ways which are not limited to the appendage itself.

Incidentally, the closest living land-based relative to a whale is not a cow, but a hippo.

This was becoming a quotefest so I'll start over.

1)Thanks for the info on dead sea scrolls, I will read up on that when I get home. Looks interesting.
2) The Word of God says the universe was created in 6 days not 20 billion years.
3) So you agree with me that assumptions are being made and adhered to, thanks.
4) How are they disregarding fundamental laws of phsyics? If you had really watched the videos, they point out the laws of physics that Big Bang cosmology violates. Namely the conservation of energy.
5) If I remember correctly, Science and Nature were two of the journals he published in. If you read his book "creations tiny miracles" he explains which journals he was published in. Also he hasn't been refuted in any scientific journals. I am well aware of talk origins attempts to refute him, and have read(not entirely I admit) some of the refutation attempts even the ones you quote from, and I am not buying there refutation. The bottom line is, if they were truly able to refute him they would have published their refutations in scientific literature instead of on some proevolution website. It seems that you rely on talk orgins for a lot of your info, and that's ok, but keep in mind that that website is highly biased and you need to be careful. (And so do I when visiting creationist websites :-))
7) I know that the Macro evolution theory doesn't work where one day a cow has a hoof and the next day it has a flipper. But if macroevolution is true we should see the intermediate forms between the cow and the whale. The fact is we don't. If the earth is billons of years old we should see thousands of these transitional forms, again we don't.
8) 15 years ago they thought the whale evolved from a cow, maybe they have changed their minds? I'll have to double check, it's been a while since I studied the whale/cow thing.


This is exhausting .. LOL
GG