|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/5/2008 7:32:16 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Well, there you go folks. Nothing more to see here You really don't understand Matthew 12:30, do you, Method?
Only the Sith speak in absolutes!!! It does remind me of the line used in Episode III.
What I was commenting on is the fact that no evidence, no matter how obvious, would ever sway unclemonk. Creationism has never been about evidence. At least some are honest enough to admit it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/5/2008 9:59:15 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 903
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: Methodquote:
What I was commenting on is the fact that no evidence, no matter how obvious, would ever sway unclemonk.
You say that like it is a bad thing. I disagree. It is interpretation, not evidence that contradicts Scripture. The evidence can be interpreted from a Biblical perspective. What I reject are the interpretations that contradict Scripture.
I accept the authority of Scripture over the wisdom of this world.
“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” – Ephesians 4:14
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:” – 1st Timothy 6:20
quote:
Creationism has never been about evidence. At least some are honest enough to admit it.
Your accusation of my dishonesty is unfounded.
Until I investigated evolution I assumed it was a viable option. It wasn’t until AFTER I realized that evolution was scientifically bankrupt that I studied it from a Scriptural perspective and developed my young earth standpoint.
Evolution and its related old age philosophy has never been about evidence, but rather a worldview that puts a higher value on the wisdom of this world, i.e. man's ability to reason, than Scripture.
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." - Proverbs 3:5
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/5/2008 10:52:32 PM
|
|
|
draexo
Posts: 504
Joined: 1/26/2007
From: Saratoga County, New York
Status: offline
|
quote:
Your accusation of my dishonesty is unfounded.
Until I investigated evolution I assumed it was a viable option. It wasn’t until AFTER I realized that evolution was scientifically bankrupt that I studied it from a Scriptural perspective and developed my young earth standpoint.
Evolution and its related old age philosophy has never been about evidence, but rather a worldview that puts a higher value on the wisdom of this world, i.e. man's ability to reason, than Scripture.
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." - Proverbs 3:5
Not much else to say here, eh? I think Proverbs 3:5 sums it up pretty well... or should we continue this debate about man's wisdom and scientific evidence?
_____________________________
The truth will set you free!
TRUTH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/5/2008 11:06:47 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
You say that like it is a bad thing. I disagree. It is interpretation, not evidence that contradicts Scripture. The evidence can be interpreted from a Biblical perspective. What I reject are the interpretations that contradict Scripture.
I accept the authority of Scripture over the wisdom of this world.
Yes it is a bad thing. Its one of the most intellectually vapid things one could possibly do.
quote:
“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” – Ephesians 4:14
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:” – 1st Timothy 6:20
quote:
Creationism has never been about evidence. At least some are honest enough to admit it.
Your accusation of my dishonesty is unfounded.
Until I investigated evolution I assumed it was a viable option. It wasn’t until AFTER I realized that evolution was scientifically bankrupt that I studied it from a Scriptural perspective and developed my young earth standpoint.
Evolution and its related old age philosophy has never been about evidence, but rather a worldview that puts a higher value on the wisdom of this world, i.e. man's ability to reason, than Scripture.
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." - Proverbs 3:5
I just really have to repeat Augustine's quote again, because you just don't seem to get it. You and drmark love to invoke him when its convenient, but how in the world do you reconcile this?
"...For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. (pp. 42-43) "
That is you, with nearly every post. You quote scripture like you have it memorized but fail to comprehend every single passage. Ludicrous.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 6/5/2008 11:22:40 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/5/2008 11:37:12 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
The evidence can be interpreted from a Biblical perspective.
It wasn’t until AFTER I realized that evolution was scientifically bankrupt
So show us what makes evolution scientifically bankrupt and how the evidence can be interpreted from a "Biblical" (i.e. your "biblical") perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/6/2008 1:59:30 AM
|
|
|
ChristopherJ
Posts: 228
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Canada (The True North Strong and Free!)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
The evidence can be interpreted from a Biblical perspective.
It wasn’t until AFTER I realized that evolution was scientifically bankrupt
So show us what makes evolution scientifically bankrupt and how the evidence can be interpreted from a "Biblical" (i.e. your "biblical") perspective.
What makes evolution scientifically bankrupt? Simple. Neither evolution nor the Big Bang theory are very scientific! Let’s take a look at the dictionary definition of science, shall we? Science is defined as, “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” Since the Big Bang refers to an event that supposedly took place billions of years ago, there is no way to systematically study or observe what happened back then. Therefore, the Big Bang is not science, but can more be accurately described as a theory. A theory is defined as, “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge.” The Big Bang – and evolution – cannot be classified as science. They are theories – assumptions based on limited information or knowledge. (quote from "Rebuilding the Foundations in Genesis" at http://player.sermoncentral.com/c/chrisjordan/pdf/68981_3793.pdf).
_____________________________
Chris Jordan
www.beausejourchurch.ca
http://thelandofpromise.blogspot.com/
(visit our website for free MP3 audio sermons, sermon notes, articles, devotionals and more).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/6/2008 5:47:14 AM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
A theory is defined as, “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge.” The Big Bang – and evolution – cannot be classified as science. They are theories – assumptions based on limited information or knowledge. (quote from "Rebuilding the Foundations in Genesis" at http://player.sermoncentral.com/c/chrisjordan/pdf/68981_3793.pdf).
Luckily, scientists don't rely on Pastor Chris Jordan to define the word theory for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.[1]
Jhud can tutor you on this topic in more detail and introduce Karl Popper's more restrictive definition of a theory.
"just a theory" is actually a back-handed compliment. A theory is a stronger statement than either set of facts or a hypothesis.
< Message edited by swan42 -- 6/6/2008 5:58:01 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/6/2008 7:35:18 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ChristopherJ
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
The evidence can be interpreted from a Biblical perspective.
It wasn’t until AFTER I realized that evolution was scientifically bankrupt
So show us what makes evolution scientifically bankrupt and how the evidence can be interpreted from a "Biblical" (i.e. your "biblical") perspective.
What makes evolution scientifically bankrupt? Simple. Neither evolution nor the Big Bang theory are very scientific! Let’s take a look at the dictionary definition of science, shall we? Science is defined as, “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” Since the Big Bang refers to an event that supposedly took place billions of years ago, there is no way to systematically study or observe what happened back then. Therefore, the Big Bang is not science, but can more be accurately described as a theory. A theory is defined as, “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge.” The Big Bang – and evolution – cannot be classified as science. They are theories – assumptions based on limited information or knowledge. (quote from "Rebuilding the Foundations in Genesis" at http://player.sermoncentral.com/c/chrisjordan/pdf/68981_3793.pdf).
Well, Pastor Jordan is wrong again. It is possible to study the Big Bang and many historical events systematically. All forensic science is based on the systematic study of evidence of things one cannot observe directly. No one observed directly that the earth is a sphere until we sent people into space, yet we deduced the spherical shape of the earth nearly 2500 years ago. Applying Pastor Jordan's criteria to science, we should have been teaching a flat-earth cosmology until the late 20th century because it was only an assumption based on limited information that suggested it was spherical.
Also, the contention was that evolution is scientifically bankrupt and that the evidence for evolution can be interpreted from a (so-called) Biblical perspective.
The Big Bang is not evolution. So I am still waiting for a demonstration of the scientific bankruptcy of evolution and especially for the explanation of the evidence from a "biblical" perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/6/2008 8:42:53 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1958
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ChristopherJ
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
The evidence can be interpreted from a Biblical perspective.
It wasn’t until AFTER I realized that evolution was scientifically bankrupt
So show us what makes evolution scientifically bankrupt and how the evidence can be interpreted from a "Biblical" (i.e. your "biblical") perspective.
What makes evolution scientifically bankrupt? Simple. Neither evolution nor the Big Bang theory are very scientific! Let’s take a look at the dictionary definition of science, shall we? Science is defined as, “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” Since the Big Bang refers to an event that supposedly took place billions of years ago, there is no way to systematically study or observe what happened back then. Therefore, the Big Bang is not science, but can more be accurately described as a theory. A theory is defined as, “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge.” The Big Bang – and evolution – cannot be classified as science. They are theories – assumptions based on limited information or knowledge. (quote from "Rebuilding the Foundations in Genesis" at http://player.sermoncentral.com/c/chrisjordan/pdf/68981_3793.pdf).
You'd do well to not rely solely upon Ken Ham and (especially) Kent Hovind for your information. There are plenty of basic errors in your devotional, including mischaracterizations of the secular position and inaccurate descriptions of the evidence. The quote from Henry Morris' study Bible about the Flood arranging fossils in order of the elevation of the animals' habitats is particularly egregious. Also wrong (but a more common misconception) is the notion that the coalescing of planets and stars from a post-big-bang cloud represents a state of higher order or lower entropy. It doesn't. Lastly, I/we don't believe in an old universe because it's needed for us to believe in evolution. We believe the universe is old because the physical evidence points towards it being old.
-Dan.
< Message edited by iluvatar -- 6/6/2008 8:50:40 AM >
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/6/2008 10:36:52 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 903
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: drj11quote:
Yes it is a bad thing. Its one of the most intellectually vapid things one could possibly do.
If the wisdom of this world were superior to Scripture I would agree, however the wisdom of this world has the father of all lies for its source.
You seem to be rather strongly committed to your stance that it is a bad thing to be committed to the Truth.
quote:
I just really have to repeat Augustine's quote again, because you just don't seem to get it.
I get it all right. It is quite obvious though that you don’t. Augustine said that it is foolish to try to convince an unbeliever, i.e. one who rejects the validity of Scripture, that his perceptions of the physical world are wrong by quoting Scripture.
There are two MAJOR flaws in your reasoning.
First. you are calling gluadys an unbeliever, i.e. not a Christian.
Gluadys professes to be a Christian and that is not for me to judge. Therefore, when I quote Scripture to gluadys I am not “quoting Scripture to an unbeliever”.
Second, I quote Scripture to gluadys to convince him of his doctrinal error. That doesn’t fit Augustine’s quote that you are trying to hammer me with.
quote:
That is you, with nearly every post.
That’s a good one coming from someone who so obviously misunderstands the discussion.
Don’t you find keeping both feet in your mouth a bit uncomfortable?
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/6/2008 11:19:28 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 903
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
So show us what makes evolution scientifically bankrupt
Look HERE. If you read THIS THREAD it is obvious that my prediction was right on the mark.
quote:
and how the evidence can be interpreted from a "Biblical" (i.e. your "biblical") perspective.
HERE is one source and HERE is another.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/6/2008 2:51:42 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
You say that like it is a bad thing. I disagree. It is interpretation, not evidence that contradicts Scripture. The evidence can be interpreted from a Biblical perspective. What I reject are the interpretations that contradict Scripture.
I accept the authority of Scripture over the wisdom of this world.
When evidence is interpretted in a consistent and testable manner it contradicts a literal reading of Genesis. You reject this interpretation for no other reason than it's conflict with scripture.
Creationists claim that they reject the interpretation but not the evidence. This is bull. Stars billions of light years away are direct evidence of an ancient universe. Period. There is no consistent and testable interpretation that demonstrates that these stars are not evidence of an ancient universe. So what do creationists do? They invent mechanisms and insert magic in order to get rid of the evidence. They claim that God magically produced star light in transit.
You can not explain the evidence away without adding ad hoc mechanisms. That is not an interpretation, that is denial.
quote:
Your accusation of my dishonesty is unfounded.
Actually, I was saying that you were at least honest enough to admit that no evidence would ever sway you. Am I wrong?
What evidence, if found, would convince you that the Universe is billions of years old? Is there any?
quote:
Until I investigated evolution . . .
Whoa, Nelly. Hold on a sec. You have already admitted that you outright reject any evidence which supports evolution. How can you claim you have investigated evolution when you reject the evidence beforehand?
quote:
It wasn’t until AFTER I realized that evolution was scientifically bankrupt . . .
How can you judge a theory when you reject the evidence outright?
quote:
Evolution and its related old age philosophy has never been about evidence,
That's a lie.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/6/2008 3:28:20 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ChristopherJ
Let’s take a look at the dictionary definition of science, shall we? Science is defined as, “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” Since the Big Bang refers to an event that supposedly took place billions of years ago, there is no way to systematically study or observe what happened back then.
Um, yes there is. Events leave evidence which can survive to the present. By studying this evidence one can gain systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
The first set of data which led to the Big Bang model was Hubble's redshift data. He found that the farther away a star was the more it's light was redshifted. Hubble used Cepheid variables as his standard candle, and astronomers have since added other standard candles such as type Ia supernovae. All of the data shows the same redshift. Therefore, space is expanding everywhere in all directions.
The next question is if we run the clock backwards and compress all of the energy in the universe into a small area what will be the result? What will be the result of this energy expanding? The answer is the cosmic microwave background. These radio waves are coming from every part of the universe. They are the record of the moment when atoms first formed and light was allowed to travel freely throughout the universe. This happened 300,000 years after the initial expansion of the universe.
So as you can see, the Big Bang model is based on solid evidence and observation just as all other theories in science.
quote:
Therefore, the Big Bang is not science, but can more be accurately described as a theory. A theory is defined as, “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge.” The Big Bang – and evolution – cannot be classified as science. They are theories – assumptions based on limited information or knowledge. (quote from "Rebuilding the Foundations in Genesis" at http://player.sermoncentral.com/c/chrisjordan/pdf/68981_3793.pdf).
More importantly, theories are TESTABLE assumptions that are held TENTATIVELY. Also, theories are more important than facts because theories EXPLAIN the facts. Calling the Big Bang model and Evolution a theory is actually quite a compliment because this is the high as any idea in science can get.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/6/2008 4:50:13 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
So show us what makes evolution scientifically bankrupt
Look HERE. If you read THIS THREAD it is obvious that my prediction was right on the mark.
Only in your own eyes. Mostly on that thread I conversed with Betta who, it turned out, was incapable of identifying empirical evidence correctly. Perhaps that is your problem too.
quote:
quote:
and how the evidence can be interpreted from a "Biblical" (i.e. your "biblical") perspective.
HERE is one source and HERE is another.
OK. If you are familiar with these sites, I assume you can direct me to one article which provides a suitable alternate explanation of one example of evidence for evolution e.g. orthologous ERVs in the hominid family. Or any other evolution-related topic you prefer.
Even better, you could direct me to the published peer-reviewed articles in which they detail the research that upheld their alternate explanation of the evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/6/2008 5:58:08 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 903
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:methodquote:
When evidence is interpretted in a consistent and testable manner it contradicts a literal reading of Genesis.
Such as? Examples please.
quote:
You reject this interpretation for no other reason than it's conflict with scripture.
I accept God’s knowledge of origins as superior to man’s ability to conjecture the unobservable past.
quote:
Creationists claim that they reject the interpretation but not the evidence. This is bull.
WRONG!
quote:
Stars billions of light years away are direct evidence of an ancient universe. Period.
That argument against a young universe is as bogus as a three-dollar bill. Your ilk faces the same problem. It is known as the “horizon problem”.
How does your ilk solve the horizon problem? By putting faith in an unobservable and untestable physical process that defies physical laws. That process is known as ‘inflation’. The proof of ‘inflation’ is that if it didn’t happen then the BBT is fatally flawed and since the universe exists the BBT must be true. (Does anyone notice the circular reasoning?)
quote:
There is no consistent and testable interpretation that demonstrates that these stars are not evidence of an ancient universe.
There is no reason other than blind faith in materialism to accept ‘inflation’.
quote:
So what do creationists do?
What does your ilk do with the horizon problem?
quote:
They invent mechanisms and insert magic in order to get rid of the evidence.
Hmmmmm. Need I remind you of the “horizon problem”?
quote:
They claim that God magically produced star light in transit.
You need to bone up on mainstream creationist thought. That hypothesis was never widely accepted because of its flaws. We accept that God is capable of doing things beyond our finite ability to understand. Conversely, your ilk accepts that nature is capable of defying the laws that govern nature.
quote:
You can not explain the evidence away without adding ad hoc mechanisms. That is not an interpretation, that is denial.
Hmmmm. Sounds like you are talking about ‘inflation’.
Please explain how putting faith in an unobservable and untestable physical process capable of defying physical laws is superior to putting faith in a supernatural Creator capable of defying physical laws.
quote:
What evidence, if found, would convince you that the Universe is billions of years old?
Observable and testable evidence that God does not exist.
quote:
Is there any?
I have yet to see any.
quote:
quote:
Until I investigated evolution . . .
Whoa, Nelly. Hold on a sec. You have already admitted that you outright reject any evidence which supports evolution. How can you claim you have investigated evolution when you reject the evidence beforehand?
And after this total distortion of what I said you call me a liar?!? Can you say “hypocrite”?
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/6/2008 6:16:29 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Such as? Examples please.
Such as the distance to type Ia supernovae. The spectra of these supernovae show that they are obeying the same laws that atoms do here on earth, including laws tied to the speed of light.
quote:
I accept God’s knowledge of origins as superior to man’s ability to conjecture the unobservable past.
No, you accept the the biblical authors' knowledge of origins.
quote:
quote:
Stars billions of light years away are direct evidence of an ancient universe. Period.
That argument against a young universe is as bogus as a three-dollar bill. Your ilk faces the same problem. It is known as the “horizon problem”.
How does this affect the distance to these stars? Astronomers use relative luminosity to measure the distance to standard candles such as type Ia supernovae and cepheid variables.
quote:
How does your ilk solve the horizon problem? By putting faith in an unobservable and untestable physical process that defies physical laws. That process is known as ‘inflation’. The proof of ‘inflation’ is that if it didn’t happen then the BBT is fatally flawed and since the universe exists the BBT must be true. (Does anyone notice the circular reasoning?)
Inflation has nothing to do with measuring the distance to distant stars.
quote:
There is no reason other than blind faith in materialism to accept ‘inflation’.
Except for the redshift and CMB data.
quote:
Hmmmmm. Need I remind you of the “horizon problem”?
Hmmm. Do I need to remind you that inflation has nothing to do with measuring the distance to type Ia supernovae?
quote:
You need to bone up on mainstream creationist thought. That hypothesis was never widely accepted because of its flaws. We accept that God is capable of doing things beyond our finite ability to understand. Conversely, your ilk accepts that nature is capable of defying the laws that govern nature.
So if the evidence contradicts your interpretation of the Bible then God must have somehow fudged the data to make it look old. I'll remember that.
quote:
Observable and testable evidence that God does not exist.
And that would be . . . ?
quote:
I have yet to see any.
What would it look like?
quote:
And after this total distortion of what I said you call me a liar?!? Can you say “hypocrite”?
Yes, you are a liar.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/6/2008 7:06:59 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
quote:
Stars billions of light years away are direct evidence of an ancient universe. Period.
That argument against a young universe is as bogus as a three-dollar bill.
Without changing the subject, please explain why this argument is bogus.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/6/2008 7:23:28 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
How does your ilk solve the horizon problem? By putting faith in an unobservable and untestable physical process that defies physical laws. That process is known as ‘inflation’. The proof of ‘inflation’ is that if it didn’t happen then the BBT is fatally flawed and since the universe exists the BBT must be true. (Does anyone notice the circular reasoning?)
Wrong wrong wrong.
Science does not put faith in inflation. It has proposed inflation as a working hypothesis governing the early universe. So far, BB + inflation is the most successful theory out there. I think most cosmologists would agree that we don't know the full story yet, so the situation is hardly akin to the inflexible faith in a young earth you have demonstrated.
Inflation is not untestable. Inflation predicted that the cosmic background radiation will have fluctuations governed by a Harrison Zeldovich (scale-invariant) spectrum. This prediction was confirmed by the data from COBE.
Inflation does not defy physical laws, it proposes new physics that governs extreme situations, in the same way that special relativity 'defied' Newtonian mechanics and QM 'defied' classical mechanics.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/6/2008 11:03:04 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1958
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Inflation has nothing to do with measuring the distance to distant stars.
No, but the two problems are related in some aspects. Both BB's horizon problem and YEC's distant starlight problem involve light/heat/information getting from point A to point B faster than it "should" have been able to. In the case of the horizon problem, the background temperature of the universe is so uniform, that it appears that some heat exchange took place between opposite "sides" of the universe - "sides" that are so far apart that it would have otherwise taken light longer than the entire age of the universe to traverse the distance. In the case of YEC, they have to explain the visibility of anything beyond ~6K light years.
Though inflation may be the answer, the horizon problem is real. As usual, however, unclemonkey overstates his case and more-or-less presents the two problems as equally challenging (or equally damning), when, in fact, they aren't.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/7/2008 1:05:49 AM
|
|
|
ChristopherJ
Posts: 228
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Canada (The True North Strong and Free!)
Status: offline
|
quote:
SWAN42 SAID:
Luckily, scientists don't rely on Pastor Chris Jordan to define the word theory for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.[1]
You missed the point. By defining MY understanding of the word theory, I was explaining what I meant when I referred to both evolution and the big bang as theories, and not scientific fact, because there is no scientific evidence for them. Rather, the evidence of science supports the concept of intelligent design (whether you want to link that to the God of the Bible or Christianity or not). In all honesty, it takes WAY MORE FAITH to believe in evolution (fantastic, incredible, impossible) than it does to believe that an intelligent designer created the orderly universe that we live in...
_____________________________
Chris Jordan
www.beausejourchurch.ca
http://thelandofpromise.blogspot.com/
(visit our website for free MP3 audio sermons, sermon notes, articles, devotionals and more).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/7/2008 4:39:03 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ChristopherJ
You missed the point. By defining MY understanding of the word theory, I was explaining what I meant when I referred to both evolution and the big bang as theories, and not scientific fact, because there is no scientific evidence for them. Rather, the evidence of science supports the concept of intelligent design (whether you want to link that to the God of the Bible or Christianity or not). In all honesty, it takes WAY MORE FAITH to believe in evolution (fantastic, incredible, impossible) than it does to believe that an intelligent designer created the orderly universe that we live in...
You are also missing the point. Your definition of theory is not the one scientists work with. Language is meant to be inter-communicative. You can't play Humpty-Dumpty and decide for yourself what scientific terms mean. Scientific terms mean what they mean in the scientific community. Just as theological terms mean what they mean to theologians.
Does it take an impossible amount of faith to believe an intelligent creator made life to evolve? The theory of evolution does not exclude theism.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/7/2008 6:38:55 AM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ChristopherJ
You missed the point. By defining MY understanding of the word theory, I was explaining what I meant when I referred to both evolution and the big bang as theories, and not scientific fact, because there is no scientific evidence for them. Rather, the evidence of science supports the concept of intelligent design (whether you want to link that to the God of the Bible or Christianity or not). In all honesty, it takes WAY MORE FAITH to believe in evolution (fantastic, incredible, impossible) than it does to believe that an intelligent designer created the orderly universe that we live in...
and you mislead the reader by substituting alternate definitions of scientific terms to suit your purposes without even telegraphing the linguistic gymnastics.
< Message edited by swan42 -- 6/7/2008 6:49:17 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/7/2008 11:13:43 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1958
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ChristopherJ
I was explaining what I meant when I referred to both evolution and the big bang as theories, and not scientific fact, because there is no scientific evidence for them.
When you say that there is "no evidence" for the big bang theory, do you mean that every facet of it hasn't been 100% proven beyond a shadow of a doubt or do you mean that there is literally "no evidence" supporting it whatsoever, that the whole thing is made up - just pulled out of thin air?
If you mean that there is literally "no evidence," are you open to learning about what scientists put forward as evidence?
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/7/2008 6:26:03 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 903
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
quote:
Look HERE. If you read THIS THREAD it is obvious that my prediction was right on the mark.
Only in your own eyes.
Evolution is scientifically bankrupt BECAUSE it is void of ANY empirical support. I fail to see ANY empirical support for evolution presented in either of those threads. Please feel free to cite the empirical support for evolution presented in either of those threads that my eyes have overlooked.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/7/2008 6:28:45 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 903
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
