You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bible cant be true because of million year old fossils/carbon dating...right?
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
Quote from jem:
What thinking Christian rejects the big bang theory. We know it is just a theory but it sure is consistent with the idea of a Creator.
It's actually an hypothesis at this point, though i grant you it is often incorrectly referred to as a theory. The big bang hypothesis does not embrace the idea of something coming from nothing.
The idea of a Creator with a capital C is strictly a religious or philosophical concept. This has nothing to do with the big bang hypothesis.
It is a curious fact that even educated humans are capable of profoundly believing in the most absurd supernatural phenomena and will go to almost any length in attempting to rationalize the irrational.
For example, if they maintain the supernatural belief that a superior being of some sort, that they refer to as a "Creator" or "God", created the Universe, they will then often try to rationalize this supernatural belief by connecting it in some way to a scientific hypothesis or theory. Thus their thinking might be , for example, that the "Creator" was responsible for the big bang. In reality, however, these are mutually exclusive ideas, a belief in one in no way requiring a belief in the other.
What thinking Christian rejects the big bang theory. We know it is just a theory but it sure is consistent with the idea of a Creator.
It's actually an hypothesis at this point, though i grant you it is often incorrectly referred to as a theory. The big bang hypothesis does not embrace the idea of something coming from nothing.
The idea of a Creator with a capital C is strictly a religious or philosophical concept. This has nothing to do with the big bang hypothesis.
It is a curious fact that even educated humans are capable of profoundly believing in the most absurd supernatural phenomena and will go to almost any length in attempting to rationalize the irrational.
For example, if they maintain the supernatural belief that a superior being of some sort, that they refer to as a "Creator" or "God", created the Universe, they will then often try to rationalize this supernatural belief by connecting it in some way to a scientific hypothesis or theory. Thus their thinking might be , for example, that the "Creator" was responsible for the big bang. In reality, however, these are mutually exclusive ideas, a belief in one in no way requiring a belief in the other.
Quote from piezoe:
Quote from jem:
What thinking Christian rejects the big bang theory. We know it is just a theory but it sure is consistent with the idea of a Creator.
It's actually an hypothesis at this point, though i grant you it is often incorrectly referred to as a theory. The big bang hypothesis does not embrace the idea of something coming from nothing.
The idea of a Creator with a capital C is strictly a religious or philosophical concept. This has nothing to do with the big bang hypothesis.
It is a curious fact that even educated humans are capable of profoundly believing in the most absurd supernatural phenomena and will go to almost any length in attempting to rationalize the irrational.
For example, if they maintain the supernatural belief that a superior being of some sort, that they refer to as a "Creator" or "God", created the Universe, they will then often try to rationalize this supernatural belief by connecting it in some way to a scientific hypothesis or theory. Thus their thinking might be , for example, that the "Creator" was responsible for the big bang. In reality, however, these are mutually exclusive ideas, a belief in one in no way requiring a belief in the other.
You have got to be kidding me. So well written and yet so distorted.
We do not have to argue that the big bang means something which comes from nothing... although STU might.
To be consistent with a Creator all you have to do is argue that the big bang seems to support the idea there was a beginning.
Sure you can make the argument that the universe expands and then contracts with big bangs in a cycle.
But, I think it is ridiculous to discount the idea that the big bang hypothesis is consistent with a beginning.
Quote from vhehn:
so even you think guys like peilthetraveler and maxpi arent very deep thinkers?
I did not say that. I really enjoy reading the issues they spot with respect to the dating?
I know for years science was claiming they dated the shroud of turin back to middle ages. Now they realized that the shroud had pollen and fire marks on the area they dated.... so their dating was void.
Would have been nice if they had taken a non - contaminated sample don't you think. Could some of the scientists have had an agenda?
What I said is I see no reason to rule that the bible is inconsistent with the idea of evolution or an earth being older than 6000 years unless you think that God meant he created everything in 7 current earth days.
You can even be a fundamentalist on this issue if you allow for the fact that time is relative.
I believe that Bible believers who argue with science theory based on the calculations of a monk from the middle ages are doing a disservice to the bible.
well you said "What thinking Christian rejects the big bang theory". they both do. so?Quote from jem:
I did not say that.
you are doing a disservice to what you believe by letting the lunatic fringe set the agenda if you have any interest in coversing with thinking people.
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
[St. Augustine],
Quote from jem:
I know for years science was claiming they dated the shroud of turin back to middle ages. Now they realized that the shroud had pollen and fire marks on the area they dated.... so their dating was void.
Would have been nice if they had taken a non - contaminated sample don't you think. Could some of the scientists have had an agenda?
science would jump at the chance to study the shroud and redate it. it is the church that refuses to allow it. the church knows the result already.
a thinking person might ask themselves. if the church has a piece of evidence that could prove what they are selling why do they refuse to show it?
Quote from jem:
You have got to be kidding me. So well written and yet so distorted..
Then did it ever occur to you it may well be your own approach that is "so distorted".
Quite honestly it should have by now.
We do not have to argue that the big bang means something which comes from nothing... although STU might. .
I haven't though.
To be consistent with a Creator all you have to do is argue that the big bang seems to support the idea there was a beginning. .
You may well argue that, but it isn't scientific. But then you don't argue science when it doesn't go with want you want your religion to say.
You use what you think is science or what sounds like science when you want to say scientific things like Big Bang , Nobel Prize Physicists and string theory, yet you can't even seem to grasp any of most basic fundamentals in Big Bang or singularity science.
Science wonât make your religion sound smart. It'll never work. Religion is just too stupid.
You have got to be kidding me. So well written and yet so distorted..
Then did it ever occur to you it may well be your own approach that is "so distorted".
Quite honestly it should have by now.
We do not have to argue that the big bang means something which comes from nothing... although STU might. .
I haven't though.
To be consistent with a Creator all you have to do is argue that the big bang seems to support the idea there was a beginning. .
You may well argue that, but it isn't scientific. But then you don't argue science when it doesn't go with want you want your religion to say.
You use what you think is science or what sounds like science when you want to say scientific things like Big Bang , Nobel Prize Physicists and string theory, yet you can't even seem to grasp any of most basic fundamentals in Big Bang or singularity science.
Science wonât make your religion sound smart. It'll never work. Religion is just too stupid.
Quote from vhehn:
science would jump at the chance to study the shroud and redate it. it is the church that refuses to allow it. the church knows the result already.
a thinking person might ask themselves. if the church has a piece of evidence that could prove what they are selling why do they refuse to show it?
I agree - I can't argue with the logic.
Sort of like the birther issue don't you think.
Quote from stu:
Quote from jem:
You have got to be kidding me. So well written and yet so distorted..
Then did it ever occur to you it may well be your own approach that is "so distorted".
Quite honestly it should have by now.
We do not have to argue that the big bang means something which comes from nothing... although STU might. .
I haven't though.
To be consistent with a Creator all you have to do is argue that the big bang seems to support the idea there was a beginning. .
You may well argue that, but it isn't scientific. But then you don't argue science when it doesn't go with want you want your religion to say.
You use what you think is science or what sounds like science when you want to say scientific things like Big Bang , Nobel Prize Physicists and string theory, yet you can't even seem to grasp any of most basic fundamentals in Big Bang or singularity science.
Science wonât make your religion sound smart. It'll never work. Religion is just too stupid.
Stu - you are a crack pot.
On a similar thread you were arguing that virtual particles come from where? How?
And then you were implicitly arguing the big bang could be like a virtual particle. You tried to suck me in to your little construct.
--
How do you wish for me to disabuse you of your ignorant beliefs?
shall I quote Hawking, Hoyle, cosmologists, physicists. Nobel Prize winners - for the 50th time?
I argue that science (at this point in time) can not tell us what caused the big bang. Therefore, science can not rule out the Creator. Its such a simple statement. No real scientist with a degree even thinks science has a dog in the Creator argument.
Every thinking person on the planet agrees - accept you.
You are the zealous atheist. I know my belief in God is based on faith. You think your disbelief is based on science.
You are the ignorant man of faith. And your faith is atheism.