10 Nov 08
Originally posted by sonhouseI believe in science period, it doesn't mean that I have to accept or
You believe in SOME science, I think you should admit. Tell us the science you believe in and the science you don't believe in, if there is anything outside of evolution and the age of the earth in science you actually believe in, tell us so we won't have to guess.
reject any one part of any of it in saying that.
Kelly
10 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayBut isn’t it an amazing coincidence that you appear to ONLY reject those parts of science that are logically inconsistent with you religious beliefs and not any of the other parts that don’t?
I believe in science period, it doesn't mean that I have to accept or
reject any one part of any of it in saying that.
Kelly
You don’t have a problem with, say, the scientific fact that the world is round and not flat? Or, say, the scientific fact that atoms exist? But you do have a problem of excepting the scientific fact that the Earth is many millions of yours old or that we evolved etc. -sorry, that is too much of a coincidence -you selectively do not accept those parts of science when it goes against your religious beliefs.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasKelly Jay has said he does not speak for anyone except himself. What is so hard about accepting that and moving on? Get over it, already!
What you basically say, is that Christians are mostly wrong. It is only extreme christians, like yourself, that have the Truth on their side. Well, the Truth is to be found in Science. Anti-science creationists cannot ever find the Truth, even if they have the Truth an inch from their noses.
I like the part where you say that you don't speak for Christians... 🙂
11 Nov 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydYou are making the exactly the same very common conceptual errors that others on these forums are making who don’t have a firm grasp on modern physics and which others that have a better grasp on physics keep repeatedly pointing out:
Causality, Scmausality. Yes, there had to be something before the big bang, even if that "something" was just time. It could have been a big black empty pile of steaming nothingness; it could have been a highly evolved bicycle. But time exosts always. 😏
…Causality, Scmausality. Yes, there had to be something before the big bang, even if that "something" was just time.
…
There is no scientific premise for the belief that everything has a “cause” and, according to both quantum mechanics and the main-stream big bang theory, there are some things that have no “cause”, thus “causality” doesn’t necessarily apply here.
(what is “Scmausality”?)
…It could have been a big black empty pile of steaming nothingness;. ...…
Even “nothingness” needs space and time to exist in else there is no “nothingness”!
(note that “nothingness” is NOT “vacuum” nor “void” -think about this; in order for there to exist a “void”, there has to be “space” that is “empty“! -this isn’t just playing with words -if “nothingness” “existed“ then exactly “where” and “when” did/does it exist?)
According to the main-stream big bang theory, there was no space nor time “before” the big bang because there was no such “before”.
11 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasAre xenophobic prejudices science?
BigBang is science. + You don't believe in BigBang. = You don't believe in science.
Thread 103297
11 Nov 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI reject a lot of things and I accept others, each one stands are falls
But isn’t it an amazing coincidence that you appear to ONLY reject those parts of science that are logically inconsistent with you religious beliefs and not any of the other parts that don’t?
You don’t have a problem with, say, the scientific fact that the world is round and not flat? Or, say, the scientific fact that atoms exist? But you do have ...[text shortened]... ou selectively do not accept those parts of science when it goes against your religious beliefs.
on its own merit, and if you question me about any of those things
I accept or reject you will get reasons for that, and none of them
will be because the Scriptures say so.
Kelly
11 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIf that is true than can you explain why you appear to ONLY reject those parts of science that are logically inconsistent with you religious beliefs and not any of the other parts that don’t? -I you say that is all just a massive coincidence?
I reject a lot of things and I accept others, each one stands are falls
on its own merit, and if you question me about any of those things
I accept or reject you will get reasons for that, and none of them
will be because the Scriptures say so.
Kelly
-If not, then it would appear that you criteria that you use to judge the “merit” of each theory is whether or not it is logically inconsistent with you religious beliefs.
13 Nov 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI reject that, if you wish to make the claim I only reject those things
If that is true than can you explain why you appear to ONLY reject those parts of science that are logically inconsistent with you religious beliefs and not any of the other parts that don’t? -I you say that is all just a massive coincidence?
-If not, then it would appear that you criteria that you use to judge the “merit” of each theory is whether or not it is logically inconsistent with you religious beliefs.
that go against my religious beliefs I suggest you present both the
science and my religiious beliefs and we can examine that claim.
Kelly
13 Nov 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydIt basically boils do the singularity, was the singularity always in a
If this statement is true, then I do not accept the main-stream big bang theory.
state of Big Bang or at one point in time was there 'something' that
wasn't in a state of Big Bang. If there was a 'something' I always
thought science called it the singularity that went from one state into
another with the other being the Big Bang, than without a doubt what
he said was false. Having the singularity exist before the Big Bang
means time was taking place before the Big Bang, because that
singularity was under going some change. Either an outside force was
acting upon the singularity, or the singularity had some process of
changes taking place within it that promoted the Big Bang to occur.
Kelly
13 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJayThere is no such thing as "a point in time".
It basically boils do the singularity, was the singularity always in a
state of Big Bang or at one point in time was there 'something' that
wasn't in a state of Big Bang. If there was a 'something' I always
thought science called it the singularity that went from one state into
another with the other being the Big Bang, than without a doubt what
he sai ...[text shortened]... some process of
changes taking place within it that promoted the Big Bang to occur.
Kelly
13 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…It basically boils do the singularity, was the singularity always in a
It basically boils do the singularity, was the singularity always in a
state of Big Bang or at one point in time was there 'something' that
wasn't in a state of Big Bang. If there was a 'something' I always
thought science called it the singularity that went from one state into
another with the other being the Big Bang, than without a doubt what
he sai ...[text shortened]... some process of
changes taking place within it that promoted the Big Bang to occur.
Kelly
state of Big Bang or at one point in time was there 'something' that
wasn't in a state of Big Bang.
. …
It is my understanding that the Singularity that was the first thing that existed according to the main stream big bang theory is, technically speaking, part of the “big bang”.
I got this comment from:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=2&t=261&m=1
“Even the Big Bang does not suggest that there was a point "before" the Universe existed - only that IT EXISTED AS the Singularity at the beginning of the expansion we now see.” (my emphasis)
Therefore, according to the main stream big bang theory, there is no “before” the big bang because there was no “before” the singularity.
But even if you are technically correct in saying that the singularity is not part of the big bang -ok, that would mean there was a “before” the big bang “ but that would have lasted for less than a billionth of a second and the fact would remain there would be no “before” the singularity -so what would your argument be now?
…Either an outside force was
acting upon the singularity, or the singularity had some process of
changes taking place within it that promoted the Big Bang to occur.
...…
-no, not to “promote” the “big bang” but to promote the expansion. The singularity was part of the big bang.
Why would an “outside force” be necessary for it to expand?
What is stopping it expanding by space being stretched within it due to violent quantum fluctuations due to the immense energy density involved?
15 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou really think if we say meet me at Dec 12, 2008 3pm PST that we
There is no such thing as "a point in time".
are not referring to a point in time? You must be one of those straight
line circular people who believe you can credit something with being a
designer yet does it without intent.
Kelly
15 Nov 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou really have to twist you brain to come up with that and say there
[b]…It basically boils do the singularity, was the singularity always in a
state of Big Bang or at one point in time was there 'something' that
wasn't in a state of Big Bang.
. …
It is my understanding that the Singularity that was the first thing that existed according to the main stream big bang theory is, technically speaking, part of ...[text shortened]... d within it due to violent quantum fluctuations due to the immense energy density involved?[/b]
was nothing before the Big Bang and call the Singularity part of the
Big Bang, Is a lite fire cracker part of the exposion that is soon to
follow?
Kelly