Page 11 of 33 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 321

Thread: Evidence to disprove the Big Bang Theory

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    20,686
    Thanks
    3,157
    Thanked 3,739 Times in 3,091 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19

    Default

    Maybe we can make something out of this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    Dottie, you say I don't know what I'm talking about when I suggest that the God of the Bible isn't a very nice "person".
    Who killed any number of King David's subjects because David had dared count them? Who drowned the world in a fit of peak?
    Need I go on?
    I would take too long to address each of these but each of these I can address. In general, you leave out pertinent details so as to make your case sound like what you want it to sound like.
    I suggested that God punishing people by killing them with hurricanes and such is indiscriminate, to which you replied "You do not know so you are accussing Him of something you have not proven to be true."
    He doesn't. Can you prove God did? You say He is punishing people and I say he has nothing to do with it all.
    That wasn't the point. It was you, Dottie, who told us "no one thinks God is behind all of them".
    So there are people who think he is behind some of them?
    Well, you for one.
    Do you think he is behind some of them?
    Nope. I do not falsely accuse anyone, not even God.
    I told you I wasn't "pushing against what (I'd) been taught" when I read the Bible and came to the conclusion it describes a frightful god, and you replied "then you are just another unbeliever"Did you not understand what I was saying? When I started reading the Bible, I was not "just another unbeliever". I thought I'd made that clear.Is it clear now?
    I think you were once. Or maybe you were the plant with no root and when the troubles of life came up, you withered and died in your faith. Hard to say. The OSASers would say you never were one. I would say you fell away.
    On the subject of God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, you say "First you complain that he is doing something and now you complain he is not." No. I am not complaining about anything (why would I? These stories are all myths and fables) I'm simply making an observation.
    Na, you were complaining. But you are backpedaling real fast now. "First he does X and then he does Y" is a complaint.
    " Well, you do not know him and your accusations are incorrect."
    True.
    Lots of people think they "know" God. But they all seem to "know" a different God (he is very ambiguous. If he weren't, we wouldn't see the 1,000s of Christian sects which we do to day, each of the believing their leaders "know" God. And then of course there are the Jewish sects, which "know God", and the Sunnis and the Shi'ite Muslims).
    No they do not. Ask believers you know if they can say that know God. If they say yes, ask them to explain his actions in something you do not understand and disapprove of. If they cannot, they do not. If you know someone, you can explain their actions.
    So I'll be frank. I do not know God. But that doesn't make my comment incorrect. Unless, of course, your own statement, which I was commenting on, is incorrect.
    You assume all believers claim to know God. Few do and just about none are nonChristians. But do not take my word for it, ask.
    n, then, to the Flood. You say, Dottie, that the world was "evil beyond what you can imagine". Well, clearly, since I can't imagine how evil a rabbit might be.Can you?
    The rabbits were not the evil ones in the senerios. You need to stick to the story as written. Men were evil.
    You ask "There is no point of just action for you is there?"Well yes, there is. Fighting the Nazis was just. Punishing Anders Behring Breivik will be just.
    OK, good start.
    You think that because I consider the Flood story casts your God in a poor light, on account of his drowning billions of animals, that I am an animal advocate. And well, "two of each were saved" Big deal, Dottie. But you might want to check up on the numbers. Might it have been seven pairs of animals?
    Yes I know but does that make a difference? Now, do you think the US is bad for starting wars where innocent animals are killed? What about all those German animals who died from their barns being bombed in WWII?
    I asked what it was it about the survivors of the Flood that made them better than their relatives which were all dead" and somewhat myusteriously you told me "Remember they were righteous." I say "mysterious" since I am at a loss as to how a rabbit can be righteous. I was hoping you would explain.
    I thought you meant the people. THe animals cannot be either evil nor righteous. They are what we call collateral damager today. I did not make up that odious term.
    And then I asked "why, so soon after the Flood, was knowledge of Noah and the God that caused it and why it happened, and what the significance of a rainbow is - limited to a small Middle Eastern tribe - everyone else by then worshipping and sacrificing to any number of other gods? Where do you get this idea? to which you repolied "The flood story is found all over the world in various cultures."But that wasn't my question, was it?
    You asked why it was isolated and I said it wasn't. That is one of the questions. The knowledge of Noah was not limited. You ask "why" for something that is not so.
    (And little surprise there are flood stories all over the world, since devastating floods happen all over the world at pretty regular intervals).I take it you can't answer my question. But don't be disheartened. No-one else has been able to either.
    Amazing that they all have 8 people in a boat and animals are brought on board too. Do you know of anyone who builds a big boat years before a flood and gets on board just in time with all the animals? Is this a regular rescue manover? I never heard of it.
    On, and ever onward then... I asked "What are the foundations on which the work that lead up to them (discoveries made in the West) are built?"To which you replied "I do not know what you want."OK, Let's leave that. (I don't think I can be any clearer, without embarking on a lengthy discourse about the foundations upon which discoveries made in the West are built).
    Then how do you expect me to answer in a limited post what you cannot? I am not that good.
    The odd thing about many of your responses, Dottie, is the way you bring in something that is - frankly - irrelevant.
    They are completely relevant and cause you to see the matter from a bit farther back.
    Like here: I said I doubted it is written that God appoints his priests, adding "But many priests, have, through the ages, believed they were appointed by God. Popes do for a start"To which you added "Well, dictators too. There are lots of people who claim this. Does not make it so".
    The point is PEOPLE in all positions of power have claimed divine right to be there. Priests are no different.
    Dottie, have you not gathered yet that I do not believe in God?
    Of course. But that does not affect my wanting to answer you.
    What makes you think I meant you to think that because Popes say they are appointed by God, they really are appionted by God?
    That is not the point. The point is MEN claim divine right in all manner of positions of power. So priests doing so are same old same old.
    I'm impressed you never read a horoscope. I suppose that makes you one in a million. Perhaps one in many millions.
    No, in S. America where that survey was done, I would be one of 70%.
    And of those millions, what percentage, would you say, take the horoscopes in their daily papers, or monthly mags, seriously?
    Good question. I have no idea. But it is a good question. Some for sure.
    I know lots of people who do occasionally read their horoscope - I've read mine from time to time. I don't know one who thought it was anything other than silliness.
    Good for you. It is. But you do not believe in anything of the spiritual world so that is natural that you doubt all such things.
    I asked if you can tell us of a single theory that has been proved, to which you replied " You get in a plane in your life. Did you think the principles of aerodynamics that day were followed by luck or by knowledge that was proven to be true as the plane did not mysteriously fall out of the sky?"
    But Dottie - that is not proof. It shows that principles we believed we understand, and which have so far come up to expectation, continued to do so.
    There is a philosophy of science that insists that proof require impossible conditions and therefore never occur. But the reality is, and I am a very practical person, if you make decisions assuming that is the case in the natural world, it is proven. You believe it is true and act upon that belief without doubt or thought. But you do not have that philosophy of science so we can move on. Just know that there is more than one philosophy of science. Do not let some bamboozle you into thinking there is only one way of thinking of science.
    Proofs only exist in mathematics. Did you not know that?
    Not so. There are proofs in law as well. What are they? Evidence that shows something to be true or false in tantamount undeniable terms and sometimes undeniable. It depends. A case is proven by proofs (called evidence but same thing.)
    At at last: "What would it (a theory) be if it were (proved). (Not a "theory", obviously).(Please don't tell us a law)." (Me)
    Why not a law? It was once a theory.
    To which you replied: "Why not? 'Laws' or 'theorie'' are just words used to describe what we know or think happens in the natural world. It was a theory and tested and shown to be a law. This happened in time and so a theory was proven."Dottie, you poo-poo Taikoo for being just a housewife, yet you are capable of making such a statement as that.
    Well, I think of science as did the greats of centuries ago, not like modern men. I happened to think they loved science and not fame and money either but that is besides the point. That is how they thought. But it is rare today as men are taught nothing is proven but act as though it is.
    Amazing!
    Here. Let me help you with this link
    http://priuschat.com/threads/differe...fic-law.36377/
    OK, what is the history of Kepler's law? We can at the get go assume it was not a law before Kepler lived right? Or is it that we did not know about it? DId it spring forth as he left the womb? Doubtful. It must have occured in the minds of men as a THEORY because surely no one was so arrogant to assume that the thing popped into their understanding as a law without a doubt as it first coursed throught their neurons. So it was decided at some point to be a law but was not introduced at the first inkling as a law and that was that. See where I am going? You start at the end and saw it is a law. But I look at the start of the thing. Of course for your case you want to start AFTER it is established as that supports your case but you have to ignore the real history of the understanding.

    Whew, well now we did it. I actually enjoyed it. You are somewhat different than a lot of posters here. I hope you stick around for a while. We sure could use your kind of gentleness and thinking here. Quite refreshing.
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,754
    Thanks
    718
    Thanked 698 Times in 490 Posts

    Default

    Collateral damage?
    Bit clumsy for an all mighty God; a can-do-anything-I-want God (and that includes making day and night before bothering to make a star to give the light of day, and a planet, spinning on its axis, to experience that light and the darkness of night that follows. Oh yes, and the Flood itself - gathering enough water, from somewhere, to drown that spinning planet bar a man and his family and a boatfull of animals miraculously gathered together from all over that planet to a spot in the MiddleEast, was it?).
    This omnipotent god, creator of all things - and what was it? Collateral damage? Just a little bit of something unpleasant which involved millions of creatures swimming for their lives, becoming exhausted and then drowning.

    Why would I believe any of that?
    Oh - I know. It's in the Bible.
    And if it's in the Bible it must be true.
    Why's that?
    'Coz it's in the Bible, stoopid!

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    20,686
    Thanks
    3,157
    Thanked 3,739 Times in 3,091 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    Collateral damage?
    Bit clumsy for an all mighty God; a can-do-anything-I-want God
    That is not something the Bible says God does. He never works outside of his principles.

    As to animals, do you eat any kind of animal at all? If you run over an animal do you turn yourself in for man slaughter?
    (and that includes making day and night before bothering to make a star to give the light of day, and a planet, spinning on its axis, to experience that light and the darkness of night that follows.
    You think all light comes from the stars? Did you know in Heaven it will be light but no sun?
    Oh yes, and the Flood itself - gathering enough water, from somewhere, to drown that spinning planet bar a man and his family and a boatfull of animals miraculously gathered together from all over that planet to a spot in the MiddleEast, was it?).
    You do not know the story. Water was released from a large source that had been underground before. It is not mysterious.
    This omnipotent god, creator of all things - and what was it? Collateral damage? Just a little bit of something unpleasant which involved millions of creatures swimming for their lives, becoming exhausted and then drowning.
    Well, not all drowned, you know. And again, how far do you go in your reverence for animals? Animals are animals. They breed rapidly and there are usually enough under normal hunting and other circumstances-
    Why would I believe any of that?
    You? No reason.-
    Oh - I know. It's in the Bible.
    What is that to you? You do not know it or believe it. That is no argument for you.
    And if it's in the Bible it must be true.
    For those of us who understand who wrote it and what it means, this is so. But for you, what is that to you?
    Why's that?'Coz it's in the Bible, stoopid!
    You are not talking to me in that as I know a circular argument when I read one. What the Bible says is true because it matches real life where we can match it up. But this is a long and different discussion. I believe the Bible to contain truth because it explains those two most important elements i the world, man and God. It gives a perfect answer as to why men are the way we are and what God does and why. And what the Book says MATCHES real life. I do not force real life to match. It already does same as my anatomy book shows the structures of the human body and I do not have force what it says to match real bodies. But i do not expect you to believe this. I just wanted you to know what I thought. How can you know if you disagree with me if you do not know what I think?
    Last edited by Dottie; 07-07-2012 at 12:52 PM.
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    20,686
    Thanks
    3,157
    Thanked 3,739 Times in 3,091 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    Dottie - to speak of scientific theories being "proved" and proven theories becoming "laws" is...er...how can I put this without being offensive..?
    I can't, so I'll try another approach.
    If I were to assert that free divers have lungs that work like gills, allowing them to go to great depths and remain under water for a great deal longer than the normal person can hold her breath, what would you conclude about my level of knowledge?
    But physical developments in a human body are limited and lung capacity is one. One can increase this but not to that point. One can train muscles to run longer, faster, and so on but one cannot run like a cheetah no matter what. You need to try an example that deals with UNDERSTANDING of information. That is what we are talking about here. The philosophy of science is how we think about proving/establishing/confirming/etc. It is a way of THINKING ABOUT information, not the information itself. But is it your contention that the first recognition of natural laws was instantly known as a law with no intermediary phases of thinking if this particular phenomena is a law and attempting to measure it? It was instantly known as a "law" and was never anything less?
    You will know, from your studies of Chaos Theory, that a great many of the systems that operate on and inside this planet, and on and inide the sun, and inside the solar system, and the Universe as a whole, are subject to non-linear differential equations, making them random (within certain parameters) and, to a degree, unpredictable. We see this well enough in our relatively short-lived terrestrial weather systems.
    Well, Chaos Theory is only a theory and not a law. "Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos." WIki The initial conditions determine the outcome. How do you know that the problem is not chaos in the making but a lack of understanding of those initial conditions?
    For a bug, of course, whose entire life in encompassed by a couple of hours, the weather would appear completely stable and predictable: it was sunny half a second ago, it's sunny now, and it'll for sure be sunny in the next half second.
    I am thinking not of limited perspective which is not helpful. The fact is that weather might be perfectly predictable if we KNEW all the factors involved. It is a lack of knowledge, not that the thing itself is unable to be predicted. Satelite imagery has helped greatly in predicting hurricanes and that was just a matter of knowledge.
    In terms of the universe - you do realise, don't you? - we are not so much bugs as the smallest imaginable living entities, a hundred generations coming and going in a couple of seconds.
    Well, I guess one can see it this way. But I never heard anyone say their life was seconds long.
    The teeny span of time we, as individuals, experience can tell us nothing about the birth and death of stars. let alone gallaxies.
    True.
    The idea that because today was like yesterday, tomorrow will be like today, is illusuary when "yesterday" was 10 million years ago and "tomorrow" lies ten million years in the future.
    But we occupy a span of time and that occupation is real and not illusionary. Only when we are beyond this life will we think that our life here was very short....short and sweet for those who end up in hell and short and a challenge for those who end up in Heaven.

    But of course, as a scientist you know this.
    This does not deal with science but with epistomology and philosophy. How we think and see things is not science but how we THINK of science. Can you see the difference?
    I think you may have had difficulty getting it across to us because you labour under the handicap of English not being your first language.
    It isn't, is it?
    Well, my English has suffered greatly due to becoming bilingual. Those who did not grow up bilingual but acquired a second language as an adult find that the mother tongue suffers. Not to mention I make a fair number of typing mistakes. Sometimes I write in English but with German word order. I hate it when that happens but being bilingual has its price. Still, even so handicapped, my English is better than some.

    Sometimes I suppose I make the mistake of getting on line when I cannot sleep and it is 3 in the am. The next day I read what I wrote or read and think....geesh! I sometimes erase those embarssing ones. So that is also a factor. I sometimes get on line and my brain is still sleeping. Sorry about those times.
    Last edited by Dottie; 07-07-2012 at 12:23 AM.
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    895
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 201 Times in 146 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chrevbel
    Then if not his content, what about his context?
    It would be the same as bringing God in. It is not pertinent to the real research done to find out what is really happening.
    But this is exactly the context of Hovind's beliefs that I'm referring to. That's what I'm asking about; I wasn't really asking specifically about evolution. I'm more generally asking about the view that some scientific truths are revealed through divine revelation.

    In your work, have you ever said anything along the lines of "I know what the data say, but there could be another explanation; I think we should attempt to discern spiritual guidance before we conclude what the data mean"?
    I need not understand a thing to conclude that it has no bearing. - A. Creo

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    20,686
    Thanks
    3,157
    Thanked 3,739 Times in 3,091 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrevbel View Post
    But this is exactly the context of Hovind's beliefs that I'm referring to. That's what I'm asking about; I wasn't really asking specifically about evolution. I'm more generally asking about the view that some scientific truths are revealed through divine revelation.
    Did he really say that? Really? Sounds like Back to the Future and revelation coming through falling off of the toilet. If it happened, it would only be one idea in a sea of ideas (theories) to be tested. But I will give you one thing. We were starting on our project and my boss asked me what I thought the chances of success were. I said very good. He though very poor. I thought very good because I asked God how it was going to turn out and He said it would work. It did. We published. The second project I asked God and He said we would not be successful at all. We were not. Not even close. There are some competiting antigens or aggregates or something that is preventing specificity in our ELISA. But of course, I did not tell him all of this. What for? Is that what you are going for?
    In your work, have you ever said anything along the lines of "I know what the data say, but there could be another explanation; I think we should attempt to discern spiritual guidance before we conclude what the data mean"?
    That makes no sense to me. What the data says shows is what is happening (baring errors or technical problems) and there is no way around that. God has told me before when experiments were going to work and not to lose heart and also told me when they were not going to work so brace yourself through my college days when I bothered to ask HIm. These kinds of things always helped me personally but only the results are what shows what is happening.

    PS: I never told anyone this stuff. Why? It would not comfort them in any case and that was the goal...to encourage me personally.
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Oceanside, Oregon
    Posts
    4,177
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 762 Times in 554 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    But I will give you one thing. We were starting on our project and my boss asked me what I thought the chances of success were. I said very good. He though very poor. I thought very good because I asked God how it was going to turn out and He said it would work. It did. We published. The second project I asked God and He said we would not be successful at all. We were not. Not even close.
    Humans are hard-wired to believe that what happens to us is somehow special and unique. We think about a long-lost friend, and later that day if we see that friend we think "wow, that was meant to be". The same thing applies to prayers. Those who pray to a creator remember much more vividly those times when their prayers apparently came true, but conveniently forget the vastly larger number of times when their prayers had no result. Even when steady praying produces results opposite to those desired, the faithful justify the outcome by saying that God is testing their resolve by holding back his intervention.
    "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
    ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,080
    Thanks
    124
    Thanked 1,227 Times in 984 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    We were starting on our project and my boss asked me what I thought the chances of success were. I said very good. He though very poor. I thought very good because I asked God how it was going to turn out and He said it would work. It did. We published. The second project I asked God and He said we would not be successful at all. We were not. Not even close.
    You should keep a record of this phenomenon.
    "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be."

    nihil supernum

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    20,686
    Thanks
    3,157
    Thanked 3,739 Times in 3,091 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFT View Post
    You should keep a record of this phenomenon.
    FFT, when God speaks, one never forgets it. I recall each one as if it were yesterday but I do not often ask about the outcome of experiments. God is not a crystal ball. It was always when there was some unusual challenge involved. The more interesting part is I asked him how to solve the problem with the failed experiments and I think the answer is that the procedure involves aparatus or steps or something that we do not have and would not be feasible to do. Our sample volume is too small to allow that much preparation, I think. We moved on to other projects but not because of what I thought. We tried this and that and nothing worked.
    Last edited by Dottie; 07-07-2012 at 04:09 PM.
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    20,686
    Thanks
    3,157
    Thanked 3,739 Times in 3,091 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousPete View Post
    Humans are hard-wired to believe that what happens to us is somehow special and unique. We think about a long-lost friend, and later that day if we see that friend we think "wow, that was meant to be". The same thing applies to prayers. Those who pray to a creator remember much more vividly those times when their prayers apparently came true, but conveniently forget the vastly larger number of times when their prayers had no result. Even when steady praying produces results opposite to those desired, the faithful justify the outcome by saying that God is testing their resolve by holding back his intervention.
    Except I remember the time he said no as well. He was not testing my resolve, He just said no. I gave up asking and moved on. CP, you do not believe in God and so this is a good explanation for you and for others speaking words into the atmosphere. But I know there is a person listening as I am addressing Him and sometimes it is yes and sometimes it is no and sometimes it is something else. People have more than one response to a request and God does too. Your answer is just a bit too simple for those really talking to God, but it is a good answer otherwise.
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

Page 11 of 33 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •