Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
We know for a fact the universe is billions of years old. We have the math to back it up.
-
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!
Atheists Physicists Discover God. Turn To Science Of The Gaps.
- Thread starter james bond
- Start date
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
God was the sweetest childhood dream I had but than I read the Catholic bible, oh boy a manual for life, and it turned out to be psychobabble, with insane ramblings and incoherent rants about damnation eternal. it left me questioning everything alive.
here I am a new creature and I had to sweat that out.
God died for me that night, but I never got over intelligent design convictions.
The evidence war will rage on for as long as humanity exists. but no one knows til that fateful moment of death. and that will never change no matter how many certainties about reality we manage to dig up.
we all have to reckon ceasing to exist. and some of us wonder like I, isn't there something more?
this reality is one heck of a veil though if there is an after world.
so I myself am stuck in the middle, cease to be, or ever onward. both equally possible.
here I am a new creature and I had to sweat that out.
God died for me that night, but I never got over intelligent design convictions.
The evidence war will rage on for as long as humanity exists. but no one knows til that fateful moment of death. and that will never change no matter how many certainties about reality we manage to dig up.
we all have to reckon ceasing to exist. and some of us wonder like I, isn't there something more?
this reality is one heck of a veil though if there is an after world.
so I myself am stuck in the middle, cease to be, or ever onward. both equally possible.
Look at the publication date for ABHOT. We have learned a bit since it came out.
Links?
Obviously not. The scientists you mentioned would laugh at that notion. Anyone with something not bigger than a seed of scientific literacy would do the same.
So, you seem you filter what they say. If they sort of confirm your Book, they are right, if they don't (with an error of several orders of magnitude), they are wrong.
Is that correct?
I don't know you, by if I had 1 mil. Dollars in the bank but my banker believes I have only one dollar, i would not take seriously anything else he says.
Ciao
- viole
james bond
Well-Known Member
james bond
Well-Known Member
It started with the Big Bang didn't it? We're still discussing whether it could have happened. I think your calculations are based on the BBT happened.
That said, if you still want to explain, please do so. We can all learn how it's done.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Well, we discussed Olbers' Paradox.
We discussed the beginning. Do you think it was when space, time and matter started like creation? Or do you go with Hawking and that energy caused matter? Or that special matter caused matter? How did this energy special come to be or was it always there? Do you think it started in a very,very, very, very tiny single point?
Moreover, we found that a black hole was caused by a dying star that collapses and depending on its size it becomes a singularity or a black hole. So, what caused the first black hole?
>>I don't know you, by if I had 1 mil. Dollars in the bank but my banker believes I have only one dollar, i would not take seriously anything else he says.<<
Where is million dollars in the above argument?
As for if they confirm if my Bible is right or not, I have to go by the days of Genesis and what happened in detail each day. I have some general ideas as I have mentioned, but I do not think there is an overall general theory that science has explained. What we have is still the creation scientists leaning towards GR and not primoridal black holes.
EDIT: Here's what I got from one of creation.com's creation scientists. I got it for free a few days ago. Didn't have to pay even $1. We can go over if you like.
Genesis Verse by Verse - creation.com
2nd EDIT: Here is the table of contents of Hawking's ABHOT:
Chapter 1
- Our Picture of the Universe
Chapter 2
- Space and Time
Chapter 3
- The Expanding Universe
Chapter 4
- The Uncertainty Principle
Chapter 5
- Elementary Particles and the Forces of Nature
Chapter 6
- Black Holes
Chapter 7
- Black Holes Ain't So Black
Chapter 8
- The Origin and Fate of the Universe
Chapter 9
- The Arrow of Time
Chapter 10
- Wormholes and Time Travel
Chapter 11
- The Unification of Physics
Chapter 12
- Conclusion
Glossary
Acknowledgments & About The Author
We can go over any chapter or topic if you like.
Last edited:
Wow. That 'white hole cosmology' is so full of garbage I don't even know where to start. Clearly, it was done by someone who has *no* understanding of physics whatsoever.
Just one howler: being inside a black hole and heating enough to start fusion.
Does anyone really take this seriously? It is fully delusional.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Your comments aren't very scientific and are very judgmental of Dr. Humphreys. He's not backing the guy who believes in multiverses and building a time machine. Talk about a nut jobber.
Yes, I consider Humphreys to be a kook. Your lack of understanding of Hawking doesn't say much against him.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Yet, your lack of understanding of God means your spiritually perfect body gets destroyed like that of the core of a death star. I already demonstrated the evidence that "all that there is and all that there will be" is inside your brain/mind.
I have no idea what you are even attempting to say here. We were talking about a specific proposal for cosmology and its merits.
What Humphreys says shows a *complete* lack of understanding of even the basics of what he is writing about. The quote I gave above is only one of a host of whoppers.
I'll give one trivial thing that Humphreys completely ignores but has given us an incredible amount of information about the universe: the cosmic background radiation.
How does the 'white hole' theory predict the existence of this radiation? How does it predict an almost perfect Planck black body radiation? How does it account for the (incredibly small) variations of that background radiation from the black body radiation? How does it account for the specific power spectrum of those variations?
Instead, what is proposed is a completely ad hoc model with no actual physical basis and no comparison to actual data. it fails in so many ways it is difficult to know where to start. Better to reject the whole mess and start over. Or, better, to use a description that *does* account for the current best evidence: the lambda-CDM model.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I am saying you accuse me of not understanding Hawking when I do. It's you who do not understand neither black hole nor white hole cosmologies. I showed that when I explained black hole cosmology, that it still has not been peer-reviewed. Yet, you mistakenly believed all of it is real. The same with the BBT. All of what we are talking about is theoretical. That is why I say cosmology is philosophy despite all the math and scientific jargon being bandied about. I can show that you are a THEORETICAL HYPOCRITE, LIAR AND DECEIVER in front of all the posters here. If you do not believe in white hole cosmology and believe in black hole cosmology, then how do you explain this from Mr. Hawking's theory?
Hawking's wormhole has a black hole on one side. What the heck do you think is on the other side? Chopped liver? It's a white hole
.
Creationwiki??? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ha ha ha ho ha he he ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ha ha ha ho ha he he ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ha ha ha ho ha he he ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ha ha ha ho ha he he ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ha ha ha ho ha he he ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ha ha ha ho ha he he ha you get your cosmological, astronomical and scientific data from creationwiki ha ha ha ha ho ha ha ha ho ha he he ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ha ha ha ho ha he he ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ha ha ha ho ha he he ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ha ha ha ho ha he he ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ha ha ha ho ha he he ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ha ha ha oh please stop it
james bond
Well-Known Member
ChristineM, creationwiki is a valid website for creation science.
Iif it's laughter that you want, then I would laugh at Wikipedia. What a pathetic website that is. It's no wonder that mentally ill liberals and atheists who trust that website go bonkers when they are faced with the truth.
Also, the one who laughs last, laughs best. Thus, if I'm right that the material world is an illusion of the mind/brain, then it means the statement, "this is all that there is and all that there will be" is wrong. Atheists are usually wrong. Thus, theoretically, the existence of God, the Bible and afterlife is valid.
If the atheists hear the following in their moment of darkness, it would be james bond.
But creation science is not valid, but rather un peer reviewed stories written to fit in to minds already set.
And i do not consider Wikipedia a valid source either, its biggest problem is that it can be anonymously edited. However it does at least provide references that can be checked
Your final waffle is pretty much irrelevant so ignored
james bond
Well-Known Member
Creation science is peer-reviewed by other creation scientists. I think eventually the science world will see that it can be peer-reviewed when it realizes it is not based on the supernatural, but on dualism and unseen forces. The theory of a bounded universe has been peer-reviewed. Slowly, they're coming up with a creation theory of Genesis and baraminology to explain biology of plants and animals.
Ahh right so its peer reviewed by creationist who all want the same thing. That's not peer review, that's back slapping.