• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A new theory for the creation of the universe.

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Another case of

'LA LA LA LA. I CAN'T HEAR YOU!'

Yes, you get to ignore the evidence. But don't expect anyone else to take you seriously if you do.

I don't ignore evidence. I reject your interpretation of it. I prefer the interpretation of Christian scientists.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
What you want to ignore is that the scientists of the late 1700's and early 1800's originally believed that the Bible was accurate. Then they looked at the evidence and found that they could not reconcile the Bible and what they actually saw.

And there are more modern cases like this. Such as the geologist that was trained as a creationist and started working for an oil firm. He found that the creationist interpretation simply didn't account for the facts in the ground. In order to actually find oil, he needed to use the non-creationist models.

Perhaps you need to read something other than your ancient text and learn something new?

No. What they actually did was decide they didn't like the idea of God or living according to His will so they came up with an alternate reality to exclude God and filled it with abiogenesis, macroevolution, big bang, etc. And people like you bought it hook, line and sinker.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Christian scientists.

So you believe in the words of hypothetical entities?

How does that work?

I know i'm breaking my own rule, but i do have another one: When he's being funny enough, then i might make more fun of him.

That's fallacious since it is obviously true.

You do realize that you sound way less smart and way less old than you imagine yourself to be with parrotings like this?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
No. What they actually did was decide they didn't like the idea of God or living according to His will so they came up with an alternate reality to exclude God and filled it with abiogenesis, macroevolution, big bang, etc. And people like you bought it hook, line and sinker.


Keep telling yourself that lie. You can believe it, but it is still a lie.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't ignore evidence. I reject your interpretation of it. I prefer the interpretation of Christian scientists.

The problem is that the creationists also ignore the evidence.

Actual scientists who are Christian understand that Genesis isn't literally true.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Easy peasy. Gen 1 and 2 both state the truth. Anything other than God's word is poppycock.
Genesis has god as a figure in a creation story. Most cultures, possibly all, have a creation tale of some kind.

And the Tanakh makes no claim to being infallible.

Creationists just made the inerrancy nonsense up. I wonder if Freud would have attributed that to some deep insecurity?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Well, that leaves no doubt of an absolute. There are different views on the subject of time, would you agree?

"
The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality.

By “big things,” Rovelli means anything that exists much above the mysterious Planck scale. As of now there is no physical theory that completely describes what the universe is like below the Planck scale. One possibility is that if physicists ever manage to unify quantum theory and general relativity, space and time will be described by some modified version of quantum mechanics."
Yep no room for theories that are illogical, even by scientists. To say that x happened and to claim time does not exist is wrong.
 

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
And the Tanakh makes no claim to being infallible.
True, but the NT does.

to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” (Acts 1:3, NKJV)
 

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
Yep no room for theories that are illogical, even by scientists.

Got it, only the scientists that you agree with have valid theories, that is par for the course.

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Einstien
 

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
I would say this can be seen quite often in posts in this group. A good reason for ignoring and they even ignore the mathematical reason.

"The main resolution to this among modern physicists is to invoke the concept of decoherence, but decoherence does not actually resolve the measurement problem either, it just gives you a mathematical reason for ignoring the measurement problem and moving ahead with the calculations (see: Decoherence and the Measurement Problem)."

On the order of, have no idea of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and, in what sequence so just move ahead and forget about that little problem.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Got it, only the scientists that you agree with have valid theories, that is par for the course.

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Einstien
I would suggest that you misunderstand the quote. It does not say that time does not exist but only that time is relative.

Incoherent theories are just that. It doesn't matter if they are spoken by a scientist, a theologian, a school teacher, or a sailor.

if you are going to contradict logic, you first need to employ an alternative system with which to contradict it. It is not simply that I do not agree with them, it is that it is impossible to agree with them.
 

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
but only that time is relative.

Are you saying that "illusion" is synonymous with "relative", do I understand you correctly? That must be from a science dictionary as it does not seem to be so with MW English. Or, is it just the old trick of changing a word to convey an idea that was not in the original?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I would say this can be seen quite often in posts in this group. A good reason for ignoring and they even ignore the mathematical reason.

"The main resolution to this among modern physicists is to invoke the concept of decoherence, but decoherence does not actually resolve the measurement problem either, it just gives you a mathematical reason for ignoring the measurement problem and moving ahead with the calculations (see: Decoherence and the Measurement Problem)."

On the order of, have no idea of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and, in what sequence so just move ahead and forget about that little problem.


Um, no. That says nothing at all about space, time, energy, or matter. At most, it says something about how quantum measurements are done and how they are modeled.

/E: In particular, and relevant to what you were asking about, whether two events happen 'at the same time' depends on the motions of those observing the two events. So, two things that appear to be simultaneous to you will not appear to be simultaneous to someone moving past you at half the speed of light.
 
Last edited:

Curious George

Veteran Member
Are you saying that "illusion" is synonymous with "relative", do I understand you correctly? That must be from a science dictionary as it does not seem to be so with MW English. Or, is it just the old trick of changing a word to convey an idea that was not in the original?
No it is suggesting illusion does not mean non-existant. And relative falls under something that may be wrongly percieved.

To conclude as you have is mistaken.
 

Ted Evans

Active Member
Premium Member
To conclude as you have is mistaken.

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Einstien

Using everyday, common meaning of the words, it says that those who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. I suppose one can read into that statement most anything they want it to say.

Still no answer that I have seen to the questions,

"micro seconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, light years" What is required to be in place before those can be measured? IF, there is no intelligence to measure it, is it really there and if so, how can you prove it? Can you provide a link(s) that explains about "time" when it is not in the context of measuring it or explaining how to measure it?
 
Top