Originally posted by NorrinRadd
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
YEC argues FOR dark matter
Collapse
X
-
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View PostI was pleasantly surprised to see that leading YEC astronomer Danny Faulkner is arguing FOR the existence of dark matter.
https://answersingenesis.org/astrono...r-dark-matter/
As Faulkner says in his conclusion:
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostI am really curious as to the significance of your question. The fact that dark matter is used to explain what is clearly happening does not in any way alter my belief in God, nor my faith in Jesus Christ.
Even an idiot Atheist like Richard Dawkins at age 16 understood that simple principle yet you people can't in your ripe old age? Boggles the mind!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostGeesh - one would think that an old geezer like yourself would have learned about a little thing called logical implications. If the Big Bang model - including its billions of years - is correct then Genesis cannot possibly be right/accurate. We may then toss God's Special Revelation into the shredder - why not? Heck, I'll supply the shredder!
Even an idiot Atheist like Richard Dawkins at age 16 understood that simple principle yet you people can't in your ripe old age? Boggles the mind!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA
JorgeIf it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostGeesh - one would think that an old geezer like yourself would have learned about a little thing called logical implications. If the Big Bang model - including its billions of years - is correct then Genesis cannot possibly be right/accurate. We may then toss God's Special Revelation into the shredder - why not? Heck, I'll supply the shredder!
Even an idiot Atheist like Richard Dawkins at age 16 understood that simple principle yet you people can't in your ripe old age? Boggles the mind!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA
JorgeMicah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostGeesh - one would think that an old geezer like yourself would have learned about a little thing called logical implications. If the Big Bang model - including its billions of years - is correct then Genesis cannot possibly be right/accurate. We may then toss God's Special Revelation into the shredder - why not? Heck, I'll supply the shredder!
Even an idiot Atheist like Richard Dawkins at age 16 understood that simple principle yet you people can't in your ripe old age? Boggles the mind!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA
Jorge
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostGeesh - one would think that an old geezer like yourself would have learned about a little thing called logical implications. If the Big Bang model - including its billions of years - is correct then Genesis cannot possibly be right/accurate. We may then toss God's Special Revelation into the shredder - why not? Heck, I'll supply the shredder!
Even an idiot Atheist like Richard Dawkins at age 16 understood that simple principle yet you people can't in your ripe old age? Boggles the mind!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA
Jorge
One of the many reasons for this was the person who proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe (which he called a "Cosmic Egg" and his "hypothesis of the primeval atom"), was a Belgian priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, wrote that it confirmed his belief that the universe had begun in light "as Genesis suggested it."[1]
The head of the Catholic Church, Pope Pius XII, interpreted the Big Bang as de facto proof of the Biblical creation account, pronouncing that it bore witness "to that primordial 'Fiat lux' uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation. ... Hence, creation took place in time, therefore there is a creator, therefore God exists!"
Lemaître was actually horrified by Pius XII’s enthusiastic backing because he thought that it would make his science less acceptable by skeptics. He even wrote the pope and asked him to stop saying that the Big Bang is a scientific theory that makes predictions you can test while our beliefs are independent of those predictions.
And considering the response by some critics he was correct to worry.
Prior to the formulation of the Big Bang most scientists thought the universe had no beginning. Most scientists then accepted that the universe was expanding, but they resisted the implication that the universe had a beginning. They were used to the idea that time had gone on forever:
Fred Hoyle said that the idea that the universe had a beginning was a pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms."
The eminent Sir Arthur Eddington, wrote, "The notion of a beginning is repugnant to me ... I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang. ... The expanding Universe is preposterous ... incredible ... it leaves me cold."
And as I said some atheists, such as those at Is the Big-Bang a Religious Hoax? made it clear that their opposition to the Big Bang theory was based in a belief that it as merely “just a disguised version of the Bible creation, when Jehovah said ‘Fiat Lux’, and the universe was created”
Paul Marmet, aside from disliking quantum mechanics, often railed against the Big Bang complaining that, “The Big Bang is a creationist theory and differs only from another creationist model (for example, the one that claims that creation took place about 4000 years BC) by the number of years since creation. From the Big Bang model, creation happened about 15 billion years ago.”
Geoffrey Ronald Burbidge, who proposed what he called, a "quasi-steady state theory," complained that his "peers in physics and astronomy are rushing off to join the 'First Church of Christ of the Big Bang'." Supposedly (unconfirmed) he contemptuously remarked that "The Big Bang equals Jesus Christ. If you prove the Big Bang Theory, you prove Jesus Christ."
Even if the latter quote is apocryphal such an account still serves to illustrate the resistance to the Big Bang some had because of its theological implications.
In articles like THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE you read complaints like: "The 'Big Bang' coincided nicely with religious doctrine and just as had been the case with epicycles (and despite the embarrassment thereof) religious institutions sought to encourage this new model of the universe over all others, including the then prevalent 'steady state' theory."
An editorial from August 10, 1989 called “Down With the Big Bang” by John Maddox the self-professed atheist physics editor for "Nature" declared that “Creationists and those of similar persuasions seeking support for their opinions have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang.”
Plasma cosmology advocate Anthony Peratt had similar complaints when he notes that, "My complaint that fundamentalist creationism is inspired by big bang creationism" in the April 1983 issue of "Physics Today."
"Some younger scientists were so upset by these theological trends that they resolved simply to block their cosmological source," commented the German astronomer Otto Heckmann, a prominent investigator of cosmic expansion.
Moreover, apparently, even Einstein “found it suspect, because, according to him, it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation."
As the 2010 The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion put it "One reason for initial resistance to the Big Bang theory was that, unlike the rival Steady-State hypothesis, it proposed that the universe has a beginning – a proposition that for some had unwelcome religious implications"
As an aside, many Marxists also opposed the concept of a Big Bang[2]. Aside from their dislike of its religious implications, the new theory contradicted their belief in the infinity and eternity of matter -- one of the axioms of Lenin's dialectical materialism -- and was accordingly dismissed as "idealistic."
The Marxist physicist David Bohm rebuked the developers of the theory as "scientists who effectively turn traitor to science, and discard scientific facts to reach conclusions that are convenient to the Catholic Church."
1 According to the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion: "The Big Bang Theory brought to an end the idea of a static universe and made respectable again discussions of the beginning and possible creation of the universe." And as George Smoot, astrophysicist, cosmologist and Nobel laureate, observed: "There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang as an event and the Christian notion of a creation. In fact, the Big Bang theory describes a creation event that defies atheism and pantheism, and harmonises with the Bible."
2. Helge S. Kragh, the Danish historian of science, wrote in his Entropic Creation that, "Andrei Zhdanov, Stalin's notorious chief ideologue, said in a speech of 1947 that Lemaître and his kindred spirits were 'Falsifiers of science [who] wanted to revive the fairy tale of the origin of the world from nothing ... Another failure of the 'theory' in question consists in the fact that it brings us to the idealistic attitude of assuming the world to be finite.'"Last edited by rogue06; 04-25-2017, 09:16 PM.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostIt indeed can be if it's intended purpose is different from your assumptions about it. You place your own contention the text must be about describing the scientific terms of how God created above the truth of scripture and so your pride forces you in this absolutely untenable position of conflict between the text and scientific discovery.
Jim
I've never once said or even implied that "...the text is about describing the scientific terms of how God created" . That's just you once again employing your deceptive-dishonest Strawman strategy. It's all downhill after that.
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostRidiculous and misrepresenting --- good to see you retain your historic M.O., Jim.
I've never once said or even implied that "...the text is about describing the scientific terms of how God created" . That's just you once again employing your deceptive-dishonest Strawman strategy. It's all downhill after that.
Jorge
And yes, you have implied, over and over again, that the text is about describing the scientfic terms of how God created. If you didn't believe that to be true, you would have no reason whatsoever to be YEC. That is what YEC IS Jorge! The belief that one can use the timeframe spelled out in Genesis to define in scientific terms the timeframe for the Universe itself.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by eider, 04-14-2024, 03:22 AM
|
20 responses
71 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Today, 01:18 AM
|
||
Started by Ronson, 04-08-2024, 09:05 PM
|
41 responses
163 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
04-12-2024, 09:08 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
140 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
Comment