Different Opinions....Who is right?

[savagewind]

2 Timothy 2:23-24 ESV / 605 helpful votes
Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil
2 Timothy 2:24 ESV / 411 helpful votes
And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently
Philippians 2:14 ESV / 269 helpful votes
Do all things without grumbling or questioning,
Proverbs 26:4 ESV / 188 helpful votes
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
Proverbs 3:30 ESV / 164 helpful votes
Do not contend with a man for no reason, when he has done you no harm.
Proverbs 29:11 ESV / 128 helpful votes
A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back.
Titus 3:9 ESV / 89 helpful votes
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
2 Timothy 2:14 ESV / 71 helpful votes
Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.
John 18:36 ESV / 61 helpful votes
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

What Does the Bible Say About Arguing?

 

[gnostic]

I am not sure why cosmology popped up, but it is not uncommon for creationists to try and confuse discussions of evolution by throwing in irrelevant references to cosmology.

What is your source for your definition of theory? Either you know nothing about the meaning of a scientific theory or you are creating a straw man argument with this incorrect and inaccurate definition. Your definition of a theory is possible applicable to the colloquial meaning of theory, but it is not the definition of a scientific theory.

Scientific theories are based on evidence and accepted or rejected on that basis and they are not a belief that is followed as religious declarations are followed. There are not as many of them as there are religious beliefs and not everything a scientist says is a theory. Scientists have personal opinions too. They can exercise forays into conjecture.

What I read was your conjecture, largely based on erroneous ideas and misinformation regarding science.

It is clear to me that The Anointed doesn’t understand the difference between stellar blackholes and supernovas.

When a star explode as supernova, there are not enough masses left to turn a star into a blackhole.

Only very massive stars will collapse into blackholes.

If there is any large object left behind after supernova it would be star’s core, and this object is known as White Dwarf, not a blackhole.

Sometimes, supernovas will even destroy the star’s core, so that only debris are left behind. Again, even in this scenario supernova don’t turn into a blackhole.

Until The Anointed understand the differences, he will continue to be erroneous in understanding the cosmology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is clear to me that The Anointed doesn’t understand the difference between stellar blackholes and supernovas.

When a star explode as supernova, there are not enough masses left to turn a star into a blackhole.

Only very massive stars will collapse into blackholes.

If there is any large object left behind after supernova it would be star’s core, and this object is known as White Dwarf, not a blackhole.

Sometimes, supernovas will even destroy the star’s core, so that only debris are left behind. Again, even in this scenario supernova don’t turn into a blackhole.

Until The Anointed understand the differences, he will continue to be erroneous in understanding the cosmology.

I was not familiar with Niayesh Afshordi or any theory he has postulated about cosmology either. I think @The Anointed is referring to actual science even though it appears from your review, he does not understand what he is referring to. It is not my area of expertise, but I found this and it may be the factual basis behind the attempt to falsely view science as a belief system. Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?

It is clear that he believes that scientific theories are some sort of religious belief and not explanations based on evidence. Or at least it appears the attempt is to reduce them down to that level.

Thanks for your efforts to clarify the creationist straw.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Dan, I thought it would be best to post my response to you, on this thread (my reply has nothing to do w/ abiogenesis, but it’s more about this thread on different opinions).......

Apparently, God decided to leave evidence of his existence, presence and action out of the natural world so that there is nothing of it for anyone to observe. Why do you try to blame that on honest people?

There are all types of designs that one can see! And the interactions & fine-tuning between these tangible and intangible designs, cycles, processes, etc. reveal a Mind.
“Explanatory Deficits”? Yeah, big time....all across the board!

Regarding God’s absence from most human activities, requires a theological explanation: a deep analysis of Genesis 3 reveals a reason for it. God’s sovereignty was questioned....and the issue / accusation that man doesn’t need his Creator’s guidance, required settlement of the issue in the best and surest way possible... God mostly staying away from human affairs and allowing mankind to rule themselves,
The “results” are pretty much in....man can’t successfully rule himself without Jehovah, his Creator.

Understanding the Scriptures to be mostly allegorical, just makes them ambiguous and for the most part, meaningless.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dan, I thought it would be best to post my response to you, on this thread (my reply has nothing to do w/ abiogenesis, but it’s more about this thread on different opinions).......


There are all types of designs that one can see! And the interactions & fine-tuning between these tangible and intangible designs, cycles, processes, etc. reveal a Mind.
“Explanatory Deficits”? Yeah, big time....all across the board!

This is all claim and no evidence. It is what you believe. Not what others see and not what you can demonstrate to others.

Regarding God’s absence from most human activities, requires a theological explanation: a deep analysis of Genesis 3 reveals a reason for it. God’s sovereignty was questioned....and the issue / accusation that man doesn’t need his Creator’s guidance, required settlement of the issue in the best and surest way possible... God mostly staying away from human affairs and allowing mankind to rule themselves,
The “results” are pretty much in....man can’t successfully rule himself without Jehovah, his Creator.

Understanding the Scriptures to be mostly allegorical, just makes them ambiguous and for the most part, meaningless.

I disagree. Allegory does not make them meaningless. It emphasizes the meaning that is there. Claiming to have the correct interpretation of the scriptures is dangerous and arrogant. A theological explanation has no merit in science. That is why intelligent design has no place in science. It is theological.

 

[gnostic]

Understanding the Scriptures to be mostly allegorical, just makes them ambiguous and for the most part, meaningless.

I disagree.

And I don't believe you would say something like that.

Tell me, Hockeycowboy: Would you say Jesus' parables meaningless?

Because it just sound like you have discredited all of Jesus' teachings. Jesus frequently used parables to teach his disciples and public audience. His allegories were teach them morals.

The whole stories in Genesis from Adam and Eve, to Cain and Abel, to Noah and the Flood, to Tower of Babel, from Abraham to Jacob and Joseph - are all filled with allegories with moral messages and moral meanings.

Allegory are useful for religious and spiritual teachings on far more personal level.

To treat the scriptures as historical records or science treatises would only put the book under scrutiny that would fail in the face of reality, cold hard fact.

It is not just that Genesis Creation and Flood that have repeatedly failed to meet scientific requirements (observable physical evidence). Try to compare Genesis 10 about Egypt and Nimrod supposedly found Babylonian and Assyrian cities to that of archaeology. So the Table of Nations would fail in historicity department.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are all types of designs that one can see! And the interactions & fine-tuning between these tangible and intangible designs, cycles, processes, etc. reveal a Mind.

How, exactly, do you think it reveals such?

The “results” are pretty much in....man can’t successfully rule himself without Jehovah, his Creator.

Just another assertion that you merely require to be true.
Try showing it is true, for once.

Understanding the Scriptures to be mostly allegorical, just makes them ambiguous and for the most part, meaningless.

And if you read them literally, they fly in the face of reality.
Go figure.


Sorry, that was to easy....

Even as an atheist, I have no problem at all with seeing the moral and social lessons in allegorical reading of religious scriptures - be it the quran, the bible or the greek mythology tales.

This is how ancient cultures used to get by. We modern folks do methodological study and write up very technical reports for review by peers and do those things according to a strict format with high qualtity standards. Even when it concerns social studies, human psychology, etc/

Back in the day, they rather packaged up their wisdom in storytelling.
Clearly this is something people did back then. And still do to an extent, in fact.

We tell our kids stories with a moral / social point at the end all the time.

Like the story of the turtle and the bunny race. I'm sure you know it. The turtle being focused and determined on his path, while the bunny was distracted and showing off and then lost the race because of that behaviour? That single sentence contains at least 3 moral / psychological life lessons about the danger of pride and vanity, narcisism, the importance of focus and dedication,...

Human history is filled with such storytelling as a means to impart wisdom and insight.
The bible is no different.

 

[gnostic]

I was not familiar with Niayesh Afshordi or any theory he has postulated about cosmology either. I think @The Anointed is referring to actual science even though it appears from your review, he does not understand what he is referring to. It is not my area of expertise, but I found this and it may be the factual basis behind the attempt to falsely view science as a belief system. Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?

It is clear that he believes that scientific theories are some sort of religious belief and not explanations based on evidence. Or at least it appears the attempt is to reduce them down to that level.

Thanks for your efforts to clarify the creationist straw.

I wouldn't call what Afshordi is proposing as "actual science".

The "bulk universe" or the Brane cosmology is still very theoretical alternative model; nothing regarding to either being tested.

The Brane cosmology is subset to string theory, M-theory and superstring theory, and these are too untested theoretical models.

So the Brane cosmology isn't a tested "scientific theory".

The only place where Brane universe or bulk universe is accepted is sci-fi novels, comic books and film industries, where they used the term "hyperspace" as substitute to "bulk space".

 

[ecco]

The humans who were around at the time said the gods built them.

Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?

 

[cladking]

Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?

I would refer you to this thread;

Ancient Reality

The Pyramid Texts refers to the gods building the pyramids many times with the most overt being;

"Tefnut makes the earth high under the sky by means of her arms". We choose to interpret all the literal meaning out of what they said.

 

[cladking]

Do you know of any examples of something that was designed and the evidence indicates that it was not of human design? Remember, you have no evidence for design in the biological world, all you have is your unsupported claims, so do not persist in falling back on those claims in your answer.

How about a bee hive?

I am not sure why cosmology popped up, but it is not uncommon for creationists to try and confuse discussions of evolution by throwing in irrelevant references to cosmology.

This is just one of the problems with reductionism; we take things apart to study and then forget that in the real world nothing happens in isolation. We believe in both our favorite versions of "evolution" and "cosmology" and forget that reality is a single event with all of its causes and effects.

Scientific theories are based on evidence and accepted or rejected on that basis and they are not a belief that is followed as religious declarations are followed.

Scientific theories are held as models by each individual. As such they are as much a belief as that Enoch wandered with the angels for 130 years.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wouldn't call what Afshordi is proposing as "actual science".

The "bulk universe" or the Brane cosmology is still very theoretical alternative model; nothing regarding to either being tested.

The Brane cosmology is subset to string theory, M-theory and superstring theory, and these are too untested theoretical models.

So the Brane cosmology isn't a tested "scientific theory".

The only place where Brane universe or bulk universe is accepted is sci-fi novels, comic books and film industries, where they used the term "hyperspace" as substitute to "bulk space".

I would call it hypothesizing, but the level is science and not religious declaration that forms the basis of what we saw being attempted. No one is believing the hypothesis on faith alone and it is not expected to be accepted on that basis. It is more attempts to tear science down by making it out to be a religion, because they have no valid arguments against the theories and valid explanations for the evidence.

 

[gnostic]

So the Pyramids built themselves?

Humans built them. That humans built things is evidence of human design and human creation. Nothing else.

Maybe, maybe not.

The humans who were around at the time said the gods built them.

I would refer you to this thread;

Ancient Reality

The Pyramid Texts refers to the gods building the pyramids many times with the most overt being;

"Tefnut makes the earth high under the sky by means of her arms". We choose to interpret all the literal meaning out of what they said.

Except, that we have physical evidence that were pyramid builders living in humble quarters of the worker’s village, just outside of the pyramid complex at Giza (west of Khafre’s pyramid).

Builders and other workers lived there, and they lived a short distance to some of the quarries found south of the complex.

No Egyptian gods built any structures in Egypt any more than gods of Sumer being builders of temples, palaces, cities, canals and irrigation. They are myths, not manuals or treatises of building monuments.

 

[cladking]

Except, that we have physical evidence that were pyramid builders living in humble quarters of the worker’s village, just outside of the pyramid complex at Giza (west of Khafre’s pyramid).

The "humble building quarters" are too tiny to hold even a small fraction of the stone draggers that would have been needed and no evidence exists any stone was ever dragged onto any great pyramid. When I pointed out that it was far too small orthodoxy changed to saying this was merely a port that received the stones. When I pointed out that no roads are known into or out of this "port" they changed it to the stones were dragged on wet sand.

No Egyptian gods built any structures in Egypt any more than gods of Sumer being builders of temples, palaces, cities, canals and irrigation.

The builders repeatedly and consistently said the "neters" built the pyramids. Egyptologists are the ones who translate "neters" as "Gods". Maybe they are wrong.

The point is that we don't really know who, when, why, or how the pyramids were built so ascribing it to science or religion is nonsense. They were built in the context of the 4th dynasty but we may not even know what the 4th dynasty is. It's all assumption and belief just like "evolution" and most modern cosmology. The biggest assumption being that reality obeys the laws of science and we know what these laws are.

 

[The Anointed]

.

I would call it hypothesizing, but the level is science and not religious declaration that forms the basis of what we saw being attempted. No one is believing the hypothesis on faith alone and it is not expected to be accepted on that basis. It is more attempts to tear science down by making it out to be a religion, because they have no valid arguments against the theories and valid explanations for the evidence.

Cosmological theories are formulated by scientists, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists, who are prone to change their minds, leaving those who believed by faith alone, the original theory of those particular scientists, standing out on a shaky limb. When a theory is eventually proven beyond all doubt to be factual, it is no longer just a theory.

There are as many, if not more, scientific theories as to the origin of our universe, as there are differing religious bodies, such as Christianity, Hindu, Abrahamic, Muslim, Buddhismt, etc.

Which of the many different unproven scientific theories do you accept on faith alone, as to the origin of this universe, for there is no way in this God's world that you can prove anyone of them to be beyond all doubt factual.

Do you realise how much information needed to solve the question, that our scientists cannot even as yet even begin to comprehend, is out there in this boundless cosmos?

From where do you believe, came the electromagnetic energy, which has neither beginning or end, from which this universe was created?

 

[The Anointed]

Continued from post #855.
Another universe may have preceded ours, study finds. May 14th, 2006. Courtesy Penn State University and World Science staff.

Three physicists say they have done calculations suggesting that before the birth of our universe, which is expanding, there was an earlier universe that was shrinking. To arrive at their pre-existing universe finding, Ashtekar’s group used loop quantum gravity, a theory that seeks to reconcile General relativity with quantum physics.

These two seemingly fundamental theories are otherwise contradictory in some ways. Loop quantum gravity, which was pioneered at Ashtekar’s institute, proposes that spacetime has a discrete “atomic” structure, as opposed to being a continuous sheet, as Einstein, along with most us, assumed. In loop quantum gravity, space is thought of as woven from one-dimensional “threads.” The continuum picture remains mostly valid as an approximation. But near the Big Bang, this fabric is violently torn so that it’s discrete, or quantum, nature becomes important. One outcome of this is that gravity becomes repulsive instead of attractive, Ashetkar argued; the result is the Big Bounce.

Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, a cosmologist who has explored some related concepts, wrote in an email that the new research “Supports, in a general way, the idea that the Big Bang need not be the beginning of space and time.” The universe “may have undergone one or more bangs in its past history,” he added. Steinhardt and colleagues have also proposed a bounce of sorts, but it’s different. It could turn out that the two scenarios are equivalent at some deep level, but that’s not known, he added. Steinhardt‘s scenario makes use of string theory, another attempt to reconcile General Relativity with quantum physics. Some versions of string theory portray our visible universe as a three -dimensional space embedded in an invisible space having more dimensions.

Our zone, called a braneworld [the word comes from its similarity to a sort of membrane] could periodically bounce into another, parallel braneworld. Such an event might look to us, stuck in a few dimensions as we are, as a Big Bang. “I don’t know if Ashetkar’s case translates into a bounce between braneworlds like we are describing,” Steinhardt wrote. But by his estimate, this cataclysm won’t take place for another roughly 300 billion years—so there is hopefully plenty of time to answer the question.

Just as the Big Bang theory has been evolving over the years and is continuing to evolve as new data becomes available, these big Crunch theories that are just beginning to emerge are still in their infancy.

Because three-dimensional time as we know it, does not exist prior to the Big Bang: from the return of the universe to the 'SUPPOSEDLY' infinitely hot, infinitely dense and infinitesimally small singularity of origin to the next Big Bang when three dimensional space and time would begin, it would appear that no time had elapsed, thus [As I believe] the erroneous Big Bounce theory.

I would rather a theory which states that there are many galactic clusters [universes] out there within the eternal and boundless cosmos, each cluster=universe in its own position in Space-time, consisting of billions of Galaxies falling inward toward a Great Abyss, Black Hole, or Bottomless Pit, (The Great Gatherer) where it is torn to pieces Molecule by molecule, atom by atom, sub-atomic particle by sub-atomic particle, and reconverted into the electromagnetic energy from which they were created and accelerated along the dark worm hole, or Einstein Rosen bridge to speeds far, far in excess of the speed of light, where that liquid like Electromagnetic energy is spewed out in the trillions of degrees, somewhere far beyond the visible horizon of the eternal and boundless cosmos, where, from the cooling quantum of that electromagnetic energy a new universe is created, or rather, the old universe is resurrected, to continue on in its eternal process of evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is just one of the problems with reductionism; we take things apart to study and then forget that in the real world nothing happens in isolation.

Nobody says that in the real world stuff happens in isolation.

But that doesn't stop us to isolate certain processes into controled conditions to study said specific process and by controlling the conditions, figuring out what happens under which circumstances, and then try to predict what will happen under certain circumstances.

Why would that be a problem?

Fires in the real world happen in a wide variety of conditions and not in controlled rooms. But by studying how fire behaves in those controlled rooms, we can better understand how the fire will behave in the wild - and use that knowledge to our advantage in all kinds of ways.

We believe in both our favorite versions of "evolution" and "cosmology" and forget that reality is a single event with all of its causes and effects.

Just because you think that what one likes is a legitemate factor in trying to figure out what's most likely true, doesn't mean the rest of us do also.

I for one don't. And i'm pretty sure that @Dan From Smithville won't either - certainly not when it comes to scientific subjects.

There are no "favorites" in science. There is only the evidence.

Scientific theories are held as models by each individual. As such they are as much a belief as that Enoch wandered with the angels for 130 years.

Absurd nonsense.
Scientific models are testable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

.



Cosmological theories are formulated by scientists, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists, who are prone to change their minds, leaving those who believed by faith alone, the original theory of those particular scientists, standing out on a shaky limb. When a theory is eventually proven beyond all doubt to be factual, it is no longer just a theory.

Rather than answer the questions I've asked, you just repeat your previous errors. Since you do not appear to listen, I'll direct this to other posters and lurkers here.

With the exception of theories being formulated by scientists, the entire paragraph is completely bogus and has no basis in fact. Either you are as ignorant of science as you appear or you are asserting a straw man out of desire to falsely reduce science to the level of religion and personal opinion.

Scientific theories are not by your definition. They are a explanations of natural phenomena based on experimentation and evidence. They are not opinion, supposition, conjecture or untested hypotheses at the whim and caprice of scientists.

No scientific theory that has ever been formulated is intended to be proven beyond all doubt and none has been. Scientific theories are contingent on the possibility that data might develop that would refute some or all of the theory.

There are as many, if not more, scientific theories as to the origin of our universe, as there are differing religious bodies, such as Christianity, Hindu, Abrahamic, Muslim, Buddhismt, etc.

Again, no answer from you regarding the source of this or evidence to uphold it. This is your opinion and there is no reason to consider it. I count about 12 major religions recognized in the world. Are there more than 12 theories of the origin of the universe? There are 4300 recognized religions in the world? Are there more than 4300 recognized scientific theories for the origin of the universe?

Your entire paragraph is erroneous hyperbole with no value to the discussion and appears intended to further the cause of devaluing science for emotional, personal or doctrinal reasons. Unless you can come up with 4301 scientific theories for the origin of the universe, your claim can be disregarded.

Which of the many different unproven scientific theories do you accept on faith alone, as to the origin of this universe, for there is no way in this God's world that you can prove anyone of them to be beyond all doubt factual.

I accept no scientific theory on faith. Alone or in part. Again, no scientific theory will ever be proven.

Do you realise how much information needed to solve the question, that our scientists cannot even as yet even begin to comprehend, is out there in this boundless cosmos?

No. I do not. Neither do you. Your statement is an argument from incredulity. You find it incredible, therefore we cannot know something or learn something. It's all just too big, better run away is not going to be the default for honest intellectual pursuit.

Do you realize how much information was needed for all the previous discoveries that we use and practically take for granted now? With your attitude, we would learn nothing.

From where do you believe, came the electromagnetic energy, which has neither beginning or end, from which this universe was created?

Irrelevant. What I believe has no bearing on science. What you believe has no bearing on science. Our beliefs do not bar us or others from learning and discovering things that we personally may not fully understand. This is more of your argument from incredulity. You cannot understand it, so it must not be knowable.

 

[ecco]

Do you have any evidence to support that [gods built them] assertion?

I would refer you to this thread;

Ancient Reality

So now you consider thread posts as evidence.

OK.

I AM GOD.

I posted that in this thread therefore it is evidence that I am God - right?

The Pyramid Texts refers to the gods building the pyramids many times with the most overt being;

"Tefnut makes the earth high under the sky by means of her arms". We choose to interpret all the literal meaning out of what they said.

Your quote does not support your allegation. More likely the quote (if even verifiable) refers to a god making big mountains, not comparatively little pyramids.

 

[cladking]

Nobody says that in the real world stuff happens in isolation.

It doesn't matter if anyone says it or not. We can only understand it in isolation for the main part. Sure some people will know more equations that apply to an event than others or get closer approximations by applying and computing all the factors correctly but this doesn't mean their understanding is complete, merely that the event is simple enough some individuals can model it closely. It doesn't mean they'd have been
able to predict the event or to predict its results.

But that doesn't stop us to isolate certain processes into controled conditions to study said specific process and by controlling the conditions, figuring out what happens under which circumstances, and then try to predict what will happen under certain circumstances.

Yes! This is the definition of "experiment". I like experiment and I like science based on experiment. This is what I call "real" science and not the claptrap based on applying existing models to the unknown which I call "Look and See Science". Now days there us far more of the latter than the former.

The biggest problem has always been that people think they know far more than what anyone can.

Just because you think that what one likes is a legitemate factor in trying to figure out what's most likely true, doesn't mean the rest of us do also.

No! I am proposing this is what everyone does all the time. We pick our beliefs and then we see all of reality in terms of those beliefs. Eventually we become our beliefs. This is the very nature of "Homo Omnisciencis". We can not live in reality like animals because our thinking separates us from nature (and reality). We live in a world of abstractions, definitions, and thought rather than a world of eat or be eaten. Our behavior is caused not by our genes and knowledge but by our learning and beliefs.

There are no "favorites" in science. There is only the evidence.

We each pick our favorite hypotheses...

Absurd nonsense.
Scientific models are testable.

...And we each build our own unique models of experiment. Why do you think each scientist gets different calculations for complex events? Even when considering simple questions like whether a plane could take off from a conveyor belt many get it wrong. The more complex the question the more wrong answers and the greater the variety of wrong answers.