OldRegular
Well-Known Member
"Scientists"? So do you expect to soon see reputable sources abandoning the Big Bang, too? </font>[/QUOTE]They already are!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Errors in Science!
- Thread starter OldRegular
- Start date
Some scientific naturalists say that to avoid the obvious implication of the Big Bang, which is creation out of nothing requiring an eternal, omnipotent Creator!
Amazing how you discard the Big Bang theory because of the a priori presumptions of naturalists who cannot admit the truth of what they have discovered!
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. And why do you let naturalists define the debate in the first place.
You can easily beat them into submission when you persist in the truth of what the Big Bang implies! Why give up that advantage just because the naturalists what to be disingenious?
You know the naturalists aren't telling the truth because if they did they would have to admit what they presumptively deny.
You should be pointing out that their definition of "infinite density" is ALSO an error of science!
Amazing how you discard the Big Bang theory because of the a priori presumptions of naturalists who cannot admit the truth of what they have discovered!
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. And why do you let naturalists define the debate in the first place.
You can easily beat them into submission when you persist in the truth of what the Big Bang implies! Why give up that advantage just because the naturalists what to be disingenious?
You know the naturalists aren't telling the truth because if they did they would have to admit what they presumptively deny.
You should be pointing out that their definition of "infinite density" is ALSO an error of science!
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
Even Answers in Genesis is honest enough to admit that a singularity has no dimensions. Their reference is from Stephen Hawking's A Brief History in Time
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
Not at all. Just because God didn't choose to create in 6 24hr periods doesn't mean he couldn't.</font>[/QUOTE] You assume your conclusion. There is no direct evidence that God didn't do it in 6 24hr periods... and any contention to the contrary assumes that either God didn't do it because He couldn't or else that He could but didn't then chose to say that He had.
Those folks didn't have a distinction between literal being "true" and allegorical being "false". </font>[/QUOTE] That is pure eisogesis. You are simply reading a theory into the text to make it agree with your view. There is no evidence that they considered it allegorical and if the allegorical is stated and believed as if literal then it is a LIE.
God knew how to tell the truth, literally, before the Greeks came up with any philosophical viewpoint.
I am quite certain that people of all times have understood the difference between literal accounts and mythological allegories. If they couldn't then they couldn't have functioned as a society.
They are credible sources for affirming the resurrection because they witnessed it.</font>[/QUOTE] Christ witnessed creation... and never saw fit to explain to any of the Apostles that it was only an allegorical story.
Based on what? They never treated any of the characters nor events as if the didn't literally happen. In fact, 2 Peter very much treats the flood as a literal event in comparison with a coming future judgment.
I am sorry because this will seem offensive but you do not believe it is true. Allegories are not true unless the reader understands that the story was not intended to be taken literally.
You have yet to post any indication from any part of scripture that any inspired writer thought it was an allegory. Again, if an allegory was sold as a literal account for several thousand years then that makes a LIE.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
ScottJ, you keep missing my point.
I'm not saying that Genesis is an allegory or that NT writers thought it was.
I'm trying to say that allegory vs literal and then the idea of allegory=false and literal=true did not exist in that culture. It is a distinction that our culture makes because of our cultural values.
BTW, I do believe allegories are true. There are allegories in the bible and they are 100% true.
I'm not saying that Genesis is an allegory or that NT writers thought it was.
I'm trying to say that allegory vs literal and then the idea of allegory=false and literal=true did not exist in that culture. It is a distinction that our culture makes because of our cultural values.
BTW, I do believe allegories are true. There are allegories in the bible and they are 100% true.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
You haven't been reading Paul33's posts very carefully because he has been anything but reverent of Hoyle.
It is thrilling to communicate with someone who can dismiss so-called experts so easily.
Do you have a reference that proves a singularity has no dimensions?
Thermodynamicist Roy E. Peacock in his A Brief History of Eternity defines a singularity as "a point at which all known laws no longer apply; they break down." If that is true we really can't say much about a singularity can we? </font>[/QUOTE]A singularity is by definition a singular point. That is where the name comes from. By definition, a point has no length nor width nor height.
That the knows laws break down at such a point is a clue to the incomplete description of the universe and the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics. The latest theory, string theory, avois such a problem by postulating a minimum size, the length of the fundemental strings making up the universe, which is most likely the Planck length.
ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY was an error accepted by evolutionists. They may or may not have been scientists depending on your bias. </font>[/QUOTE]There were scientists who accepted it. It was proven to be wrong by science as they collected more data. For it to be an error in science, you must pick a mistake from today. You cannot go down an endless hole chasing all the things that all the people mistakenly thought in the past.
Now, as shown above in areas such as evo/devo and developmental vestiges, ontogeny has a valid scientific use today. One that points squarely to evolution. Do you have somments on that?
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
You assume your conclusion.</font>[/QUOTE]I will rephrase:
Just because I believe God didn't choose to create in 6 24hr periods doesn't mean I believe he couldn't.
A third possiblity is that He could create in 6 24hr periods but chose not to and chose to say something about creation in the bible where the length of time or the how and when wasn't the focus.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY was an error accepted by evolutionists. They may or may not have been scientists depending on your bias. </font>[/QUOTE]There were scientists who accepted it. It was proven to be wrong by science as they collected more data. For it to be an error in science, you must pick a mistake from today. You cannot go down an endless hole chasing all the things that all the people mistakenly thought in the past.
Now, as shown above in areas such as evo/devo and developmental vestiges, ontogeny has a valid scientific use today. One that points squarely to evolution. Do you have somments on that? </font>[/QUOTE]I will restate for you the intent of this thread:
I was watching tv last night and caught Simon Singh discussing his latest book, Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe. His discussed the theory, and Sir Fred Hoyle's disdain for it in favor of the "steady state" theory. After his comments were concluded he opened the forum to questions. One man asked, regarding the fact that about 75% of matter in the universe is hydrogen, and about 25% is helium, which Singh says is what would be expected if the big bang were true, "If 25% of the hydrogen present at the big bang fused into helium within seconds of the big bang, where did the hydrogen come from a second before the big bang?"
Singh spent about 10 minutes talking about seconds after, a millionth of a second after, a millionth of a millionth of a second after, and finally admitted that, at the exact moment of the big bang, the theory breaks down and becomes a virtual impossibility. He then spent another 10 minutes explaining how other scientific theories had suggested things were impossible (he mentioned a respected scientist of the 19th century who dogmatically stated it was impossible for stars to be made of hydrogen) which were later proven to be true.
But, finally, after about 20 minutes of beating around the bush, he admitted nobody knew. I looked at my wife and said, "I know."
Singh spent about 10 minutes talking about seconds after, a millionth of a second after, a millionth of a millionth of a second after, and finally admitted that, at the exact moment of the big bang, the theory breaks down and becomes a virtual impossibility. He then spent another 10 minutes explaining how other scientific theories had suggested things were impossible (he mentioned a respected scientist of the 19th century who dogmatically stated it was impossible for stars to be made of hydrogen) which were later proven to be true.
But, finally, after about 20 minutes of beating around the bush, he admitted nobody knew. I looked at my wife and said, "I know."
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
</font>[/QUOTE]And I will restate my response. All scientific statments in the past and present are possibly in error and open to correction in light of new evidence. This is the way science is supposed to function.
So the correct response is to list every scientific statement ever made in the history of mankind.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
It is thrilling to communicate with someone who can dismiss so-called experts so easily.
Do you have a reference that proves a singularity has no dimensions?
Thermodynamicist Roy E. Peacock in his A Brief History of Eternity defines a singularity as "a point at which all known laws no longer apply; they break down." If that is true we really can't say much about a singularity can we? </font>[/QUOTE]A singularity is by definition a singular point. That is where the name comes from. By definition, a point has no length nor width nor height.
That the knows laws break down at such a point is a clue to the incomplete description of the universe and the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics. The latest theory, string theory, avois such a problem by postulating a minimum size, the length of the fundemental strings making up the universe, which is most likely the Planck length. </font>[/QUOTE]You are redefining Singularity saying it is by definition a singular point. My ball point pin has a singular point; my ball point pin is not a singularity. A singularity occurs when the known laws no longer apply.
Steve Nelson, Grad student, nuclear astrophysics Ph.D. program, Nuclear Lab, Duke University, whom I quoted earlier states:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Finally, a little sanity added to the discussion.Originally posted by TCassidy:
I was watching tv last night and caught Simon Singh discussing his latest book, Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe. His discussed the theory, and Sir Fred Hoyle's disdain for it in favor of the "steady state" theory. After his comments were concluded he opened the forum to questions. One man asked, regarding the fact that about 75% of matter in the universe is hydrogen, and about 25% is helium, which Singh says is what would be expected if the big bang were true, "If 25% of the hydrogen present at the big bang fused into helium within seconds of the big bang, where did the hydrogen come from a second before the big bang?"
Singh spent about 10 minutes talking about seconds after, a millionth of a second after, a millionth of a millionth of a second after, and finally admitted that, at the exact moment of the big bang, the theory breaks down and becomes a virtual impossibility. He then spent another 10 minutes explaining how other scientific theories had suggested things were impossible (he mentioned a respected scientist of the 19th century who dogmatically stated it was impossible for stars to be made of hydrogen) which were later proven to be true.
But, finally, after about 20 minutes of beating around the bush, he admitted nobody knew. I looked at my wife and said, "I know."
Scott J,
How did the ancients read Genesis 1?
YEC think they read it by understanding that God created the universe in six literal 24 hour days beginning with:
A formless earth in empty space.
The creation of light for this earth without first creating the sun, moon, and stars.
The creation of the sky.
The creation of land and seas.
And then, finally, the creation of the sun in which the earth finally starts to revolve.
I would like to suggest that the YEC interpretation is probably not the interpretation of the ancients, but I, like you, have no way of proving that.
However, the OT and NT repeatedly speaks of God stretching out the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth, something that comports very nicely with Genesis 1:1 being understood to be the creation of the universe in toto, including the sun, moon, stars, galaxies, solar sytems, planets, etc. The age of this fully functioning universe is not defined in Scripture. The foundation of the earth is described, however, in verse two of Genesis 1. The Holy Spirit hovered over the face of the earth, but we don't know for how long.
Then God said let there be light and the clouds around the earth thinned and the light from the previously created sun filtered through to the earth's surface.
On day four, God didn't create the sun, he appointed the sun and moon, and stars, to be lights for the seasons, and to govern the day and the night. This is a perfectly normal understanding of "asa" in the Hebrew.
So perhaps, our little Hebrew boys and girls understood Genesis 1 in a completely different way than YEC. And their understanding would have been literal and consistant with inerrancy.
How did the ancients read Genesis 1?
YEC think they read it by understanding that God created the universe in six literal 24 hour days beginning with:
A formless earth in empty space.
The creation of light for this earth without first creating the sun, moon, and stars.
The creation of the sky.
The creation of land and seas.
And then, finally, the creation of the sun in which the earth finally starts to revolve.
I would like to suggest that the YEC interpretation is probably not the interpretation of the ancients, but I, like you, have no way of proving that.
However, the OT and NT repeatedly speaks of God stretching out the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth, something that comports very nicely with Genesis 1:1 being understood to be the creation of the universe in toto, including the sun, moon, stars, galaxies, solar sytems, planets, etc. The age of this fully functioning universe is not defined in Scripture. The foundation of the earth is described, however, in verse two of Genesis 1. The Holy Spirit hovered over the face of the earth, but we don't know for how long.
Then God said let there be light and the clouds around the earth thinned and the light from the previously created sun filtered through to the earth's surface.
On day four, God didn't create the sun, he appointed the sun and moon, and stars, to be lights for the seasons, and to govern the day and the night. This is a perfectly normal understanding of "asa" in the Hebrew.
So perhaps, our little Hebrew boys and girls understood Genesis 1 in a completely different way than YEC. And their understanding would have been literal and consistant with inerrancy.
Interesting theory, except for one minor point. The Rabbis don't mention this theory.
In the Chumash, in the introduction to the commentary on Genesis, the Rabbis say, "the Torah relates the story of the six days of Creation ex nihilo to establish that God is the sole Creator and to refute the theories of those who claim that the universe is timeless or that it came into being through some massive coincidence or accident."
