Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Am i "Bending the Bible"To Modern Science?

EmpiricalFact
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 8:55:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I Believe in both the biblical and BigBang Theory accounts for the creation of the Universe.I think that they do not contradict eachother in any way.I know that this will cause some "disconfort" to some Young Earth creationist and Atheist but i don't mind.I got to this conclusion based on the work of Gerald Shroeder an Israeli Physicist and after analizing his theory for days,somehow i got convinced.To me it makes perfect sense.If you guys haven't heard of him and/or his work search him before posting a comment but im sure you've all heard of him,i think.He also has some videos on youtube.So what do you guys think?Am i just bending the bible to fit modern science ?'What do you guy's think about his work/theories?(Please search and analize his work before critizicing it to see if it makes sense to you. :)
BTW i am a Christian wich apparently is sopposed to be contradicting.lol
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 9:05:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 8:55:54 AM, EmpiricalFact wrote:
I Believe in both the biblical and BigBang Theory accounts for the creation of the Universe.I think that they do not contradict eachother in any way.I know that this will cause some "disconfort" to some Young Earth creationist and Atheist but i don't mind.I got to this conclusion based on the work of Gerald Shroeder an Israeli Physicist and after analizing his theory for days,somehow i got convinced.To me it makes perfect sense.If you guys haven't heard of him and/or his work search him before posting a comment but im sure you've all heard of him,i think.He also has some videos on youtube.So what do you guys think?Am i just bending the bible to fit modern science ?'What do you guy's think about his work/theories?(Please search and analize his work before critizicing it to see if it makes sense to you. :)
BTW i am a Christian wich apparently is sopposed to be contradicting.lol

Yes, you are contradicting yourself. The bible is clear about the Adam and Eve story and 7 day creation. It was written as a literal translation and just because it was wrong does not mean you can insult the authors and make it not literal.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 9:13:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 8:55:54 AM, EmpiricalFact wrote:
I Believe in both the biblical and BigBang Theory accounts for the creation of the Universe.I think that they do not contradict eachother in any way.I know that this will cause some "disconfort" to some Young Earth creationist and Atheist but i don't mind.I got to this conclusion based on the work of Gerald Shroeder an Israeli Physicist and after analizing his theory for days,somehow i got convinced.To me it makes perfect sense.If you guys haven't heard of him and/or his work search him before posting a comment but im sure you've all heard of him,i think.He also has some videos on youtube.So what do you guys think?Am i just bending the bible to fit modern science ?'What do you guy's think about his work/theories?(Please search and analize his work before critizicing it to see if it makes sense to you. :)
BTW i am a Christian wich apparently is sopposed to be contradicting.lol

First, no scientific theory. I repeat, NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY, porports that the universe was "created."

The current model references a "Big Bang" event, yes. But this event is a reference point only. Any attempts to actually describe the universe at this hypothetical point in time fail, because the models needed to do so (general relativity and quantum mechanics) break down and produce nonsensical information.

However, using the Big Bang event as a reference point at some hypothetical time = 0 seconds is extremely useful. The time line of the Early universe is described in x-many seconds after the Big Bang. If we remove the Big Bang from the equation, then we have to describe it as x-many seconds before now. But: 1) now is always moving, so our description of the early universe would always be moving; 2) the time periods involved are extremely small and require a great deal of accuracy; and 3) we don't have that kind of accuracy when describing how long ago those events happen from the present.

So to have any sort of workable description of the early universe, we need to use the Big Bang event as a reference point. But the Big Bang event only exists on paper, as an extrapolation of equations of general relativity. Prior to 10^-43 seconds after this hypothetical event, science says precisely nothing about the universe. This includes: what the universe was like (what it consisted of and how it behaved), how long it had actually been existing up to that point (since we know our theories are, at best, incomplete, a revision could alter the time line of the early universe), and, especially, whether or not the universe was actually the product of some creation event.

I know the issue gets confused when the topic is couched in colloquial terms to be understood by lay people, but let's be clear: science does not say the universe was created.

That aside, they are incompatible in the sense of order. The order of events in Genesis is bizarre, even when it is talking about scientific comprehensible things. For example, it definitively places the existence of dry land before the existence of the sun and moon. This is just one simple example, but you only need one to show it false.

So, maybe, just maybe, you could invent convoluted intepretations of the more ambiguous parts of Genesis that, at least, don't contradict with established science but you really can't escape the fact that the more explicit parts do contradict established science and the fact that established science is blank on the subject of whether or not the universe was created at all.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 9:26:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yeah, i think schroeder is jumping through hoops and it's clear that genesis has scientifically inaccurate facts in there. I also don't think the beginning of genesis was meant to record literal history in any case which is abundantly clear from the amount of symbolism and literary structure rife in the book. For instance, second temple judaic imagery saturates it. It also seems to be a polemic against other ancient near eastern creation stories.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 12:16:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 9:13:33 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/10/2011 8:55:54 AM, EmpiricalFact wrote:
I Believe in both the biblical and BigBang Theory accounts for the creation of the Universe.I think that they do not contradict eachother in any way.I know that this will cause some "disconfort" to some Young Earth creationist and Atheist but i don't mind.I got to this conclusion based on the work of Gerald Shroeder an Israeli Physicist and after analizing his theory for days,somehow i got convinced.To me it makes perfect sense.If you guys haven't heard of him and/or his work search him before posting a comment but im sure you've all heard of him,i think.He also has some videos on youtube.So what do you guys think?Am i just bending the bible to fit modern science ?'What do you guy's think about his work/theories?(Please search and analize his work before critizicing it to see if it makes sense to you. :)
BTW i am a Christian wich apparently is sopposed to be contradicting.lol

First, no scientific theory. I repeat, NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY, porports that the universe was "created."

This is patently false.
http://web.uvic.ca...
Here is a work from the University of Victoria's library.

These are just a few of the top.
We even have scientific models that detail out whether this metaphysical "creator" was an arbitrary force of person from logical argumentation and philosophy.

Philosophy is the base of science itself as philosophy is the parent of science.
Additionally, we can use empirical evidence and testimony from transcendent beings to determine the nature of existence prior to the natural.

These are revealed within religious claims by theologians that are in direct communication with the Creator person.


The current model references a "Big Bang" event, yes. But this event is a reference point only. Any attempts to actually describe the universe at this hypothetical point in time fail, because the models needed to do so (general relativity and quantum mechanics) break down and produce nonsensical information.

We use scientific reasoning and logic to determine what generated the universe.


However, using the Big Bang event as a reference point at some hypothetical time = 0 seconds is extremely useful. The time line of the Early universe is described in x-many seconds after the Big Bang. If we remove the Big Bang from the equation, then we have to describe it as x-many seconds before now. But: 1) now is always moving, so our description of the early universe would always be moving; 2) the time periods involved are extremely small and require a great deal of accuracy; and 3) we don't have that kind of accuracy when describing how long ago those events happen from the present.

This is dramatically innaccurate.
An accurate representation is that the known universe is expanding from one "central" point outward. We can track the timeline of seconds back to that point based on the constant of time currently attributed to the universe.


So to have any sort of workable description of the early universe, we need to use the Big Bang event as a reference point. But the Big Bang event only exists on paper, as an extrapolation of equations of general relativity. Prior to 10^-43 seconds after this hypothetical event, science says precisely nothing about the universe. This includes: what the universe was like (what it consisted of and how it behaved), how long it had actually been existing up to that point (since we know our theories are, at best, incomplete, a revision could alter the time line of the early universe), and, especially, whether or not the universe was actually the product of some creation event.

First the Big Bang has clear evidence as everything is expanding from a central point. It is increasing in speed even as we speak.
Second the latent heat of the universe discovered by Jastro, is near undeniable evidence as to the nature of the event as an explosion.

Logic dictates that something generated everything into that singular explosion. (Logic also avoides infinite regression)
Logic also dictates what caused that something to start then also stop generating "stuff" was outside the first physical event and was not a physical event itself.

This points to either a transcendent force or person that is metaphysical in nature.


I know the issue gets confused when the topic is couched in colloquial terms to be understood by lay people, but let's be clear: science does not say the universe was created.

Again False. We can use empircism, logic, philosophy to ascertain the nature of the creation of the universe and existence prior to it.
We also use evidence and testimonies.


That aside, they are incompatible in the sense of order. The order of events in Genesis is bizarre, even when it is talking about scientific comprehensible things. For example, it definitively places the existence of dry land before the existence of the sun and moon. This is just one simple example, but you only need one to show it false.

If this was a valid argument then Christianity and Judaism would have been destroyed long ago.
I challenge you to read the accounts for yourself, even use the amplified Bible if you are unaware of the correct interpretitve process of Literature and Hebraisms.

The light prior to the sun is easily explained by extra-dimensional lighting etc.
When all scientific understanding including theoretical mathematics are taken into the account it becomes easily understood from a scientific standpoint.


So, maybe, just maybe, you could invent convoluted intepretations of the more ambiguous parts of Genesis that, at least, don't contradict with established science but you really can't escape the fact that the more explicit parts do contradict established science and the fact that established science is blank on the subject of whether or not the universe was created at all.

First - science is ever changing.
Second - our understanding of reality is ever changing.
Third - I personally find, with many other theologians, no contradiction that is explicit.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 12:35:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 12:16:23 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/10/2011 9:13:33 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/10/2011 8:55:54 AM, EmpiricalFact wrote:
I Believe in both the biblical and BigBang Theory accounts for the creation of the Universe.I think that they do not contradict eachother in any way.I know that this will cause some "disconfort" to some Young Earth creationist and Atheist but i don't mind.I got to this conclusion based on the work of Gerald Shroeder an Israeli Physicist and after analizing his theory for days,somehow i got convinced.To me it makes perfect sense.If you guys haven't heard of him and/or his work search him before posting a comment but im sure you've all heard of him,i think.He also has some videos on youtube.So what do you guys think?Am i just bending the bible to fit modern science ?'What do you guy's think about his work/theories?(Please search and analize his work before critizicing it to see if it makes sense to you. :)
BTW i am a Christian wich apparently is sopposed to be contradicting.lol

First, no scientific theory. I repeat, NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY, porports that the universe was "created."

This is patently false.
http://web.uvic.ca...
Here is a work from the University of Victoria's library.

None of those are theories in the sense of an accepted scientific model. In scientific terminology, they'd be hypotheses. Just calling something a theory doesn't make it a scientific theory.


These are just a few of the top.
We even have scientific models that detail out whether this metaphysical "creator" was an arbitrary force of person from logical argumentation and philosophy.

Philosophy is the base of science itself as philosophy is the parent of science.
Additionally, we can use empirical evidence and testimony from transcendent beings to determine the nature of existence prior to the natural.

These are revealed within religious claims by theologians that are in direct communication with the Creator person.


The current model references a "Big Bang" event, yes. But this event is a reference point only. Any attempts to actually describe the universe at this hypothetical point in time fail, because the models needed to do so (general relativity and quantum mechanics) break down and produce nonsensical information.

We use scientific reasoning and logic to determine what generated the universe.


However, using the Big Bang event as a reference point at some hypothetical time = 0 seconds is extremely useful. The time line of the Early universe is described in x-many seconds after the Big Bang. If we remove the Big Bang from the equation, then we have to describe it as x-many seconds before now. But: 1) now is always moving, so our description of the early universe would always be moving; 2) the time periods involved are extremely small and require a great deal of accuracy; and 3) we don't have that kind of accuracy when describing how long ago those events happen from the present.

This is dramatically innaccurate.
An accurate representation is that the known universe is expanding from one "central" point outward. We can track the timeline of seconds back to that point based on the constant of time currently attributed to the universe.

A "central" point that exists in an area that is a complete unknown because the existing accepted models (general relativity and quantum mechanics) break down.



So to have any sort of workable description of the early universe, we need to use the Big Bang event as a reference point. But the Big Bang event only exists on paper, as an extrapolation of equations of general relativity. Prior to 10^-43 seconds after this hypothetical event, science says precisely nothing about the universe. This includes: what the universe was like (what it consisted of and how it behaved), how long it had actually been existing up to that point (since we know our theories are, at best, incomplete, a revision could alter the time line of the early universe), and, especially, whether or not the universe was actually the product of some creation event.

First the Big Bang has clear evidence as everything is expanding from a central point. It is increasing in speed even as we speak.
Second the latent heat of the universe discovered by Jastro, is near undeniable evidence as to the nature of the event as an explosion.

Logic dictates that something generated everything into that singular explosion. (Logic also avoides infinite regression)
Logic also dictates what caused that something to start then also stop generating "stuff" was outside the first physical event and was not a physical event itself.

This points to either a transcendent force or person that is metaphysical in nature.


I know the issue gets confused when the topic is couched in colloquial terms to be understood by lay people, but let's be clear: science does not say the universe was created.

Again False. We can use empircism, logic, philosophy to ascertain the nature of the creation of the universe and existence prior to it.
We also use evidence and testimonies.


That aside, they are incompatible in the sense of order. The order of events in Genesis is bizarre, even when it is talking about scientific comprehensible things. For example, it definitively places the existence of dry land before the existence of the sun and moon. This is just one simple example, but you only need one to show it false.

If this was a valid argument then Christianity and Judaism would have been destroyed long ago.
I challenge you to read the accounts for yourself, even use the amplified Bible if you are unaware of the correct interpretitve process of Literature and Hebraisms.

I have read the accounts. It's what my post is based on. Maybe you need to read them.


The light prior to the sun is easily explained by extra-dimensional lighting etc.
When all scientific understanding including theoretical mathematics are taken into the account it becomes easily understood from a scientific standpoint.

I didn't talk about light prior to the sun. Obviously light existed prior to the sun. However, dry land did not exist prior to the sun.




So, maybe, just maybe, you could invent convoluted intepretations of the more ambiguous parts of Genesis that, at least, don't contradict with established science but you really can't escape the fact that the more explicit parts do contradict established science and the fact that established science is blank on the subject of whether or not the universe was created at all.

First - science is ever changing.
Second - our understanding of reality is ever changing.
Third - I personally find, with many other theologians, no contradiction that is explicit.

Here is some science that you need to read:

"[O]ur standard picture of inflation followed by the big bang says nothing about the Universe at those very early times (which would precede inflation)."
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...

"What this means is that we may never be able to calculate with any certainty exactly what the history of the universe was like before 10-43 second. "
http://www.astronomycafe.net...

"Events before before the Planck time are undefined in our current science and, in particular, we have no solid understanding of the origin of the Universe (i.e. what started or `caused' the Big Bang). "
http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 1:11:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@ Drafterman
First, no scientific theory. I repeat, NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY, porports that the universe was "created."

This is patently false.
http://web.uvic.ca...
Here is a work from the University of Victoria's library.

None of those are theories in the sense of an accepted scientific model. In scientific terminology, they'd be hypotheses. Just calling something a theory doesn't make it a scientific theory.

I am certain you can relay your definitional concern to the scientific community at large. I am certain hawking will relent at your behest.



These are just a few of the top.
We even have scientific models that detail out whether this metaphysical "creator" was an arbitrary force of person from logical argumentation and philosophy.

Philosophy is the base of science itself as philosophy is the parent of science.
Additionally, we can use empirical evidence and testimony from transcendent beings to determine the nature of existence prior to the natural.

These are revealed within religious claims by theologians that are in direct communication with the Creator person.


The current model references a "Big Bang" event, yes. But this event is a reference point only. Any attempts to actually describe the universe at this hypothetical point in time fail, because the models needed to do so (general relativity and quantum mechanics) break down and produce nonsensical information.

We use scientific reasoning and logic to determine what generated the universe.


However, using the Big Bang event as a reference point at some hypothetical time = 0 seconds is extremely useful. The time line of the Early universe is described in x-many seconds after the Big Bang. If we remove the Big Bang from the equation, then we have to describe it as x-many seconds before now. But: 1) now is always moving, so our description of the early universe would always be moving; 2) the time periods involved are extremely small and require a great deal of accuracy; and 3) we don't have that kind of accuracy when describing how long ago those events happen from the present.

This is dramatically innaccurate.
An accurate representation is that the known universe is expanding from one "central" point outward. We can track the timeline of seconds back to that point based on the constant of time currently attributed to the universe.

A "central" point that exists in an area that is a complete unknown because the existing accepted models (general relativity and quantum mechanics) break down.

It is speculated they break down.
The fact they are incalcuable does not result in the conclusion that they do not exist.



So to have any sort of workable description of the early universe, we need to use the Big Bang event as a reference point. But the Big Bang event only exists on paper, as an extrapolation of equations of general relativity. Prior to 10^-43 seconds after this hypothetical event, science says precisely nothing about the universe. This includes: what the universe was like (what it consisted of and how it behaved), how long it had actually been existing up to that point (since we know our theories are, at best, incomplete, a revision could alter the time line of the early universe), and, especially, whether or not the universe was actually the product of some creation event.

First the Big Bang has clear evidence as everything is expanding from a central point. It is increasing in speed even as we speak.
Second the latent heat of the universe discovered by Jastro, is near undeniable evidence as to the nature of the event as an explosion.

Logic dictates that something generated everything into that singular explosion. (Logic also avoides infinite regression)
Logic also dictates what caused that something to start then also stop generating "stuff" was outside the first physical event and was not a physical event itself.

This points to either a transcendent force or person that is metaphysical in nature.


I know the issue gets confused when the topic is couched in colloquial terms to be understood by lay people, but let's be clear: science does not say the universe was created.

Again False. We can use empircism, logic, philosophy to ascertain the nature of the creation of the universe and existence prior to it.
We also use evidence and testimonies.


That aside, they are incompatible in the sense of order. The order of events in Genesis is bizarre, even when it is talking about scientific comprehensible things. For example, it definitively places the existence of dry land before the existence of the sun and moon. This is just one simple example, but you only need one to show it false.

If this was a valid argument then Christianity and Judaism would have been destroyed long ago.
I challenge you to read the accounts for yourself, even use the amplified Bible if you are unaware of the correct interpretitve process of Literature and Hebraisms.

I have read the accounts. It's what my post is based on. Maybe you need to read them.

Obviously as a Theologian with a BA in Th. we can assume I have done more than merely read them.
I am not asking you to reread them in the sense of putting your eyeballs on them. I am not insulting you.
I am asking that you reread them in a light whereby everything is possible and you go to God and directly ask him for interpretation guidance and scientific guidance.



The light prior to the sun is easily explained by extra-dimensional lighting etc.
When all scientific understanding including theoretical mathematics are taken into the account it becomes easily understood from a scientific standpoint.

I didn't talk about light prior to the sun. Obviously light existed prior to the sun. However, dry land did not exist prior to the sun.

I have no idea what you are claiming at this statement. Please expand.
My point was problems with scientific are only apparent rather than inherent to the text.


So, maybe, just maybe, you could invent convoluted intepretations of the more ambiguous parts of Genesis that, at least, don't contradict with established science but you really can't escape the fact that the more explicit parts do contradict established science and the fact that established science is blank on the subject of whether or not the universe was created at all.

First - science is ever changing.
Second - our understanding of reality is ever changing.
Third - I personally find, with many other theologians, no contradiction that is explicit.

Here is some science that you need to read:

"[O]ur standard picture of inflation followed by the big bang says nothing about the Universe at those very early times (which would precede inflation)."
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...

"What this means is that we may never be able to calculate with any certainty exactly what the history of the universe was like before 10-43 second. "
http://www.astronomycafe.net...

"Events before before the Planck time are undefined in our current science and, in particular, we have no solid understanding of the origin of the Universe (i.e. what started or `caused' the Big Bang). "

Correct.
Science is limited merely explaining the physical universe.
We use logic and philosophy (which rests within our metaphysical mind) to understand metaphysics and anything that transcends the physical universe.

Hence the teleological argument. Which is an action of philosophy.

Also theology which works to understand the direct interaction of God with us.
TeenageApologist
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 6:28:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 8:55:54 AM, EmpiricalFact wrote:
I Believe in both the biblical and BigBang Theory accounts for the creation of the Universe.I think that they do not contradict eachother in any way.I know that this will cause some "disconfort" to some Young Earth creationist and Atheist but i don't mind.I got to this conclusion based on the work of Gerald Shroeder an Israeli Physicist and after analizing his theory for days,somehow i got convinced.To me it makes perfect sense.If you guys haven't heard of him and/or his work search him before posting a comment but im sure you've all heard of him,i think.He also has some videos on youtube.So what do you guys think?Am i just bending the bible to fit modern science ?'What do you guy's think about his work/theories?(Please search and analize his work before critizicing it to see if it makes sense to you. :)
BTW i am a Christian wich apparently is sopposed to be contradicting.lol

The Big Bang Theory does contradict Genesis. However, believing in an older Earth is something many Christians believe in. The word translated into day can actually mean an unspecified period of time or a day with morning and night. The context seems to indicate a Young Earth but that position is not definitive.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 6:59:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 1:11:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:

A "central" point that exists in an area that is a complete unknown because the existing accepted models (general relativity and quantum mechanics) break down.

It is speculated they break down.
The fact they are incalcuable does not result in the conclusion that they do not exist.

No. They actually break down. Combining general relativity and quantum mechanics produces nonsensical answers.




So to have any sort of workable description of the early universe, we need to use the Big Bang event as a reference point. But the Big Bang event only exists on paper, as an extrapolation of equations of general relativity. Prior to 10^-43 seconds after this hypothetical event, science says precisely nothing about the universe. This includes: what the universe was like (what it consisted of and how it behaved), how long it had actually been existing up to that point (since we know our theories are, at best, incomplete, a revision could alter the time line of the early universe), and, especially, whether or not the universe was actually the product of some creation event.

First the Big Bang has clear evidence as everything is expanding from a central point. It is increasing in speed even as we speak.
Second the latent heat of the universe discovered by Jastro, is near undeniable evidence as to the nature of the event as an explosion.

Logic dictates that something generated everything into that singular explosion. (Logic also avoides infinite regression)
Logic also dictates what caused that something to start then also stop generating "stuff" was outside the first physical event and was not a physical event itself.

This points to either a transcendent force or person that is metaphysical in nature.


I know the issue gets confused when the topic is couched in colloquial terms to be understood by lay people, but let's be clear: science does not say the universe was created.

Again False. We can use empircism, logic, philosophy to ascertain the nature of the creation of the universe and existence prior to it.
We also use evidence and testimonies.


That aside, they are incompatible in the sense of order. The order of events in Genesis is bizarre, even when it is talking about scientific comprehensible things. For example, it definitively places the existence of dry land before the existence of the sun and moon. This is just one simple example, but you only need one to show it false.

If this was a valid argument then Christianity and Judaism would have been destroyed long ago.
I challenge you to read the accounts for yourself, even use the amplified Bible if you are unaware of the correct interpretitve process of Literature and Hebraisms.

I have read the accounts. It's what my post is based on. Maybe you need to read them.

Obviously as a Theologian with a BA in Th. we can assume I have done more than merely read them.
I am not asking you to reread them in the sense of putting your eyeballs on them. I am not insulting you.
I am asking that you reread them in a light whereby everything is possible and you go to God and directly ask him for interpretation guidance and scientific guidance.

No thank you. First, they are limited by the words used to describe the account. I am not going to read them in the light that anything is possible, because that's stupid. I also can't go to God directly because he doesn't exist.




The light prior to the sun is easily explained by extra-dimensional lighting etc.
When all scientific understanding including theoretical mathematics are taken into the account it becomes easily understood from a scientific standpoint.

I didn't talk about light prior to the sun. Obviously light existed prior to the sun. However, dry land did not exist prior to the sun.

I have no idea what you are claiming at this statement. Please expand.
My point was problems with scientific are only apparent rather than inherent to the text.

I am claiming that dry land on Earth came after the existence of light. Genesis posits the opposite. Hence, a contradiction.



So, maybe, just maybe, you could invent convoluted intepretations of the more ambiguous parts of Genesis that, at least, don't contradict with established science but you really can't escape the fact that the more explicit parts do contradict established science and the fact that established science is blank on the subject of whether or not the universe was created at all.

First - science is ever changing.
Second - our understanding of reality is ever changing.
Third - I personally find, with many other theologians, no contradiction that is explicit.

Here is some science that you need to read:

"[O]ur standard picture of inflation followed by the big bang says nothing about the Universe at those very early times (which would precede inflation)."
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...

"What this means is that we may never be able to calculate with any certainty exactly what the history of the universe was like before 10-43 second. "
http://www.astronomycafe.net...

"Events before before the Planck time are undefined in our current science and, in particular, we have no solid understanding of the origin of the Universe (i.e. what started or `caused' the Big Bang). "

Correct.
Science is limited merely explaining the physical universe.

That's what this entire thread is about, whether SCIENCE is compatible with Genesis. It isn't. If you want to claim that science + gobbledegook makes it compatible, fine, but that's not what this discussion is about.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 10:24:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 6:59:10 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/11/2011 1:11:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:

A "central" point that exists in an area that is a complete unknown because the existing accepted models (general relativity and quantum mechanics) break down.

It is speculated they break down.
The fact they are incalcuable does not result in the conclusion that they do not exist.

No. They actually break down. Combining general relativity and quantum mechanics produces nonsensical answers.

That is a math issue not a practical issue.




So to have any sort of workable description of the early universe, we need to use the Big Bang event as a reference point. But the Big Bang event only exists on paper, as an extrapolation of equations of general relativity. Prior to 10^-43 seconds after this hypothetical event, science says precisely nothing about the universe. This includes: what the universe was like (what it consisted of and how it behaved), how long it had actually been existing up to that point (since we know our theories are, at best, incomplete, a revision could alter the time line of the early universe), and, especially, whether or not the universe was actually the product of some creation event.

First the Big Bang has clear evidence as everything is expanding from a central point. It is increasing in speed even as we speak.
Second the latent heat of the universe discovered by Jastro, is near undeniable evidence as to the nature of the event as an explosion.

Logic dictates that something generated everything into that singular explosion. (Logic also avoides infinite regression)
Logic also dictates what caused that something to start then also stop generating "stuff" was outside the first physical event and was not a physical event itself.

This points to either a transcendent force or person that is metaphysical in nature.


I know the issue gets confused when the topic is couched in colloquial terms to be understood by lay people, but let's be clear: science does not say the universe was created.

Again False. We can use empircism, logic, philosophy to ascertain the nature of the creation of the universe and existence prior to it.
We also use evidence and testimonies.


That aside, they are incompatible in the sense of order. The order of events in Genesis is bizarre, even when it is talking about scientific comprehensible things. For example, it definitively places the existence of dry land before the existence of the sun and moon. This is just one simple example, but you only need one to show it false.

If this was a valid argument then Christianity and Judaism would have been destroyed long ago.
I challenge you to read the accounts for yourself, even use the amplified Bible if you are unaware of the correct interpretitve process of Literature and Hebraisms.

I have read the accounts. It's what my post is based on. Maybe you need to read them.

Obviously as a Theologian with a BA in Th. we can assume I have done more than merely read them.
I am not asking you to reread them in the sense of putting your eyeballs on them. I am not insulting you.
I am asking that you reread them in a light whereby everything is possible and you go to God and directly ask him for interpretation guidance and scientific guidance.

No thank you. First, they are limited by the words used to describe the account. I am not going to read them in the light that anything is possible, because that's stupid. I also can't go to God directly because he doesn't exist.

Lol, have you never heard the statement "He believes in you?".
I assure you. Just try and go to Him.




The light prior to the sun is easily explained by extra-dimensional lighting etc.
When all scientific understanding including theoretical mathematics are taken into the account it becomes easily understood from a scientific standpoint.

I didn't talk about light prior to the sun. Obviously light existed prior to the sun. However, dry land did not exist prior to the sun.

I have no idea what you are claiming at this statement. Please expand.
My point was problems with scientific are only apparent rather than inherent to the text.

I am claiming that dry land on Earth came after the existence of light. Genesis posits the opposite. Hence, a contradiction.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Did you read the Bible the first time or just claiming?




So, maybe, just maybe, you could invent convoluted intepretations of the more ambiguous parts of Genesis that, at least, don't contradict with established science but you really can't escape the fact that the more explicit parts do contradict established science and the fact that established science is blank on the subject of whether or not the universe was created at all.

First - science is ever changing.
Second - our understanding of reality is ever changing.
Third - I personally find, with many other theologians, no contradiction that is explicit.

Here is some science that you need to read:

"[O]ur standard picture of inflation followed by the big bang says nothing about the Universe at those very early times (which would precede inflation)."
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...

"What this means is that we may never be able to calculate with any certainty exactly what the history of the universe was like before 10-43 second. "
http://www.astronomycafe.net...

"Events before before the Planck time are undefined in our current science and, in particular, we have no solid understanding of the origin of the Universe (i.e. what started or `caused' the Big Bang). "

Correct.
Science is limited merely explaining the physical universe.

That's what this entire thread is about, whether SCIENCE is compatible with Genesis. It isn't. If you want to claim that science + gobbledegook makes it compatible, fine, but that's not what this discussion is about.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 5:39:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 10:24:21 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 6:59:10 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/11/2011 1:11:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:

A "central" point that exists in an area that is a complete unknown because the existing accepted models (general relativity and quantum mechanics) break down.

It is speculated they break down.
The fact they are incalcuable does not result in the conclusion that they do not exist.

No. They actually break down. Combining general relativity and quantum mechanics produces nonsensical answers.

That is a math issue not a practical issue.

Uhm, yeah, since we can't actually go back and see what happen, all we have to deduce what happened then (From a scientific standpoint) is the math.





So to have any sort of workable description of the early universe, we need to use the Big Bang event as a reference point. But the Big Bang event only exists on paper, as an extrapolation of equations of general relativity. Prior to 10^-43 seconds after this hypothetical event, science says precisely nothing about the universe. This includes: what the universe was like (what it consisted of and how it behaved), how long it had actually been existing up to that point (since we know our theories are, at best, incomplete, a revision could alter the time line of the early universe), and, especially, whether or not the universe was actually the product of some creation event.

First the Big Bang has clear evidence as everything is expanding from a central point. It is increasing in speed even as we speak.
Second the latent heat of the universe discovered by Jastro, is near undeniable evidence as to the nature of the event as an explosion.

Logic dictates that something generated everything into that singular explosion. (Logic also avoides infinite regression)
Logic also dictates what caused that something to start then also stop generating "stuff" was outside the first physical event and was not a physical event itself.

This points to either a transcendent force or person that is metaphysical in nature.


I know the issue gets confused when the topic is couched in colloquial terms to be understood by lay people, but let's be clear: science does not say the universe was created.

Again False. We can use empircism, logic, philosophy to ascertain the nature of the creation of the universe and existence prior to it.
We also use evidence and testimonies.


That aside, they are incompatible in the sense of order. The order of events in Genesis is bizarre, even when it is talking about scientific comprehensible things. For example, it definitively places the existence of dry land before the existence of the sun and moon. This is just one simple example, but you only need one to show it false.

If this was a valid argument then Christianity and Judaism would have been destroyed long ago.
I challenge you to read the accounts for yourself, even use the amplified Bible if you are unaware of the correct interpretitve process of Literature and Hebraisms.

I have read the accounts. It's what my post is based on. Maybe you need to read them.

Obviously as a Theologian with a BA in Th. we can assume I have done more than merely read them.
I am not asking you to reread them in the sense of putting your eyeballs on them. I am not insulting you.
I am asking that you reread them in a light whereby everything is possible and you go to God and directly ask him for interpretation guidance and scientific guidance.

No thank you. First, they are limited by the words used to describe the account. I am not going to read them in the light that anything is possible, because that's stupid. I also can't go to God directly because he doesn't exist.

Lol, have you never heard the statement "He believes in you?".

Sure. Now, let me say... "Zeus believes in you." What response does that evoke in you?

I assure you. Just try and go to Him.

Where? How?





The light prior to the sun is easily explained by extra-dimensional lighting etc.
When all scientific understanding including theoretical mathematics are taken into the account it becomes easily understood from a scientific standpoint.

I didn't talk about light prior to the sun. Obviously light existed prior to the sun. However, dry land did not exist prior to the sun.

I have no idea what you are claiming at this statement. Please expand.
My point was problems with scientific are only apparent rather than inherent to the text.

I am claiming that dry land on Earth came after the existence of light. Genesis posits the opposite. Hence, a contradiction.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Did you read the Bible the first time or just claiming?

Well, I subsequently changed, but you just proved my point. In this sequence of events, the Earth comes in 1, light comes in 3. This is not how it happened in reality. Hence a contradiction.





So, maybe, just maybe, you could invent convoluted intepretations of the more ambiguous parts of Genesis that, at least, don't contradict with established science but you really can't escape the fact that the more explicit parts do contradict established science and the fact that established science is blank on the subject of whether or not the universe was created at all.

First - science is ever changing.
Second - our understanding of reality is ever changing.
Third - I personally find, with many other theologians, no contradiction that is explicit.

Here is some science that you need to read:

"[O]ur standard picture of inflation followed by the big bang says nothing about the Universe at those very early times (which would precede inflation)."
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...

"What this means is that we may never be able to calculate with any certainty exactly what the history of the universe was like before 10-43 second. "
http://www.astronomycafe.net...

"Events before before the Planck time are undefined in our current science and, in particular, we have no solid understanding of the origin of the Universe (i.e. what started or `caused' the Big Bang). "

Correct.
Science is limited merely explaining the physical universe.

That's what this entire thread is about, whether SCIENCE is compatible with Genesis. It isn't. If you want to claim that science + gobbledegook makes it compatible, fine, but that's not what this discussion is about.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 6:16:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The bible is not a source. It is those who "pick and choose" from the anthology who bend. But hey, talking serpents, polytheists and women as property all seems OK to many.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 11:36:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 5:39:51 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/11/2011 10:24:21 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/11/2011 6:59:10 PM, drafterman wrote:

No. They actually break down. Combining general relativity and quantum mechanics produces nonsensical answers.

That is a math issue not a practical issue.

Uhm, yeah, since we can't actually go back and see what happen, all we have to deduce what happened then (From a scientific standpoint) is the math.

Most of astrophysics is deduction without warrant. A bit of it has warrant and I applaud that bit.
It is mere speculation to state that the laws of physics breaks down.
Every physicist will warrant that does not mean they do not function in at least a primordial way.
They simply cannot mathematically show how they functioned out of the baseline in such a state.

No thank you. First, they are limited by the words used to describe the account. I am not going to read them in the light that anything is possible, because that's stupid. I also can't go to God directly because he doesn't exist.

Lol, have you never heard the statement "He believes in you?".

Sure. Now, let me say... "Zeus believes in you." What response does that evoke in you?

I believe Zeus does exist. Any of the preexistent "religious" gods are real and still exist today. They go by many different names.
We call the heads of these pantheons Satan. He very much knows you exist. He simply does not care about you.

When we state "God believes in you" we mean it wholistically. He cares and desires for you to reach out to Him.


I assure you. Just try and go to Him.

Where? How?

Pray.

I am claiming that dry land on Earth came after the existence of light. Genesis posits the opposite. Hence, a contradiction.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Did you read the Bible the first time or just claiming?

Well, I subsequently changed, but you just proved my point. In this sequence of events, the Earth comes in 1, light comes in 3. This is not how it happened in reality. Hence a contradiction.

Ah you were backward on the order.
How is this a contradiction?
Within the scientific framework the earth easily could have been generated as a wandering planet with no light source in the astroid field and slowly grew without light.

Why on "earth" is this a contradiction?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 11:46:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 8:55:54 AM, EmpiricalFact wrote:
I Believe in both the biblical and BigBang Theory accounts for the creation of the Universe.I think that they do not contradict eachother in any way.I know that this will cause some "disconfort" to some Young Earth creationist and Atheist but i don't mind.I got to this conclusion based on the work of Gerald Shroeder an Israeli Physicist and after analizing his theory for days,somehow i got convinced.To me it makes perfect sense.If you guys haven't heard of him and/or his work search him before posting a comment but im sure you've all heard of him,i think.He also has some videos on youtube.So what do you guys think?Am i just bending the bible to fit modern science ?'What do you guy's think about his work/theories?(Please search and analize his work before critizicing it to see if it makes sense to you. :)
BTW i am a Christian wich apparently is sopposed to be contradicting.lol:

The brevity of the Genesis account is reason enough to know and understand that the bible was never intended to pass as a scientific textbook. There's no reason to assume it was intended to be interpreted literally.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)