Evolutionist contradict themselves and debunked-Story of Creation is Biblical Fact

[Walter Russell]

Both books are more pseudoscience philosophy than science, WR.

You can't debunk it and the so called "real" scientist had no issues with Russells "pseudoscience" when they used his periodic table to locate elements they themselves could not find and Russell already had mspped out with a clear understanding of what they were and how they could be used.

They ok though, Nikola Tesla told Russell you weren't mature enough to understand the depth of Russell's knowledge. Your just proving Tesla's point.

Both these men were equal to or greater than Newton or Einstein in their understanding of how the universe works and its laws.

 

[Walter Russell]

Both books are more pseudoscience philosophy than science, WR.

His science is legit science and he marries it with spiritual wisdom that compliments science.
He shows workable experiments that relate effect back to cause without contradiction. So man can understand that which he can't see.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Lemaitre didn't put forward any creation event. In his own words:

"We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations."
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

exactly, Lemaitre separated his faith from his science, because he could, he acknowledged he had such a thing. He even told the Pope to quite gloating about the discovery

It was the atheists who explicitly complained of the unsettling implications of a theistic creation event. They were the ones mixing their personal beliefs with science.

But in their defense, it's tricky to separate a belief you don't even acknowledge as such

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It was the atheists who explicitly complained of the unsettling implications of a theistic creation event. They were the ones mixing their personal beliefs with science.

You are really good at making claims without citing a source. Please give us a source that the "atheists explicity complained of the unsettling implications of a theistic creation event" based on Lamtre's theorum. If you can not provide a source, then the reasonable assumption on my part is that you are pullling something out of your hind end.

For me, personally, I fail to see how the Big Bang or infinite universe or any status of the universe denotes a creator deity. A creator deity of he power the theist assumes exists can do whatever he wants; he does not have to create a universe with a "big bang"; he can merely speak it into existance.

Oh ... Do you know what would really indicate to me a Creator?

If all the stellar bodies were the same age. That would indicate that they all popped into existence as if spontaneously. Now THAT would be something that would turn the world's view of cosmology and existence of deity on its head.

But back to the main point:

You are really good at making claims without citing a source. Please give us a source that the "atheists explicity complained of the unsettling implications of a theistic creation event" based on Lamtre's theorum. If you can not provide a source, then the reasonable assumption on my part is that you are pullling something out of your hind end.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are really good at making claims without citing a source. Please give us a source that the "atheists explicity complained of the unsettling implications of a theistic creation event" based on Lamtre's theorum. If you can not provide a source, then the reasonable assumption on my part is that you are pullling something out of your hind end.

For me, personally, I fail to see how the Big Bang or infinite universe or any status of the universe denotes a creator deity. A creator deity of he power the theist assumes exists can do whatever he wants; he does not have to create a universe with a "big bang"; he can merely speak it into existance.

Oh ... Do you know what would really indicate to me a Creator?

If all the stellar bodies were the same age. That would indicate that they all popped into existence as if spontaneously. Now THAT would be something that would turn the world's view of cosmology and existence of deity on its head.

But back to the main point:

You are really good at making claims without citing a source. Please give us a source that the "atheists explicity complained of the unsettling implications of a theistic creation event" based on Lamtre's theorum. If you can not provide a source, then the reasonable assumption on my part is that you are pullling something out of your hind end.

I don't cite sources for the earth orbiting the sun either, it's hardly controversial, but here you go

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[48] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[49]

(Hoyle who coined 'Big Bang' as a pejorative) found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms

(Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle


on the age of stars;

Many of the elements necessary for complex life were created, through fusion reactions, in stars and then dispersed by dying stars (supernovas)

many things used to be declared 'bad design'- why would God make that? until we understood them better scientifically.

There will always be shadows the light of science has not illuminated, where we can point and declare bad design, we call that atheism of the gaps!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Ah, there it is, thank you for that.

As I stated elsewhere in another thread and posted this very research (as you have proven me wrong by being willing to substantiate your claims ... I stand corrected ... ), Hoyle is not the spokesperson for the entirety of the atheist community. In my opinion, he errored in stipulating the existence or nonexistence of a creator based on the state of the universe; as I have stated elsewhere, if a creator deity can create an expanding universe; that same deity can create a static universe. I fail to follow Hoyle's logic in determining that the state of an expanding universe, in any way, validates or invalidates a creator deity or a creation event.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ah, there it is, thank you for that.

I fail to follow Hoyle's logic in determining that the state of an expanding universe, in any way, validates or invalidates a creator deity or a creation event.

It was about a beginning v no beginning, here it is again

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator


Hoyle's 'Steady State' accepted an expanding universe, but not a beginning, just as with other atheist eternal & cyclical models like Big Crunch. The whole point was avoiding the uncomfortable implications of a unique specific creation event. Their arguments, not mine.

And again, in stark contrast, the priest Lemaitre went out of his way to disassociate the implications either way, and just follow the evidence where it lead, that's how science should work.

This wasn't about science v religion, it was about science v atheism, method v academic preference.

 

[Walter Russell]

I don't cite sources for the earth orbiting the sun either, it's hardly controversial, but here you go

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[48] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[49]

(Hoyle who coined 'Big Bang' as a pejorative) found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms

(Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle


on the age of stars;

Many of the elements necessary for complex life were created, through fusion reactions, in stars and then dispersed by dying stars (supernovas)

many things used to be declared 'bad design'- why would God make that? until we understood them better scientifically.

There will always be shadows the light of science has not illuminated, where we can point and declare bad design, we call that atheism of the gaps!

I'm not an atheist but I would be suspect of ANY scientific theories put forth by the Roman Catholic Church. :/

 

[Demonslayer]

It was about a beginning v no beginning, here it is again

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator

Egads man you're laser focused on this one single 1920s science story, it's your only line of reasoning. There was still some medical use of leeches in 1920, and at that time people thought smoking cigarettes was a healthy way to lose weight.

If you think that somehow shows the weakness of science, you've got it backwards. The ability to adapt, learn, and re-postulate is science's great advantage over religion, which favors the unchangeable model where the final answer may never be discarded or revised, no matter how much contrary evidence stacks up against it. Talk about steady state!

 

[Demonslayer]

I'm not an atheist but I would be suspect of ANY scientific theories put forth by the Roman Catholic Church. :/

What about the theory that Cardinal Bernard Law deserves a cushy job as a Vatican official in a beautiful Italian basilica, instead of a red hot poker up his arse?

 

[Walter Russell]

What about the theory that Cardinal Bernard Law deserves a cushy job as a Vatican official in a beautiful Italian basilica, instead of a red hot poker up his arse?

The latter sounds more deserving

 

[gnostic]

The Bible mentions a fig tree too. Should we credit the Bible for predicting fig trees?

Every single religion has a creation story. The Bible is no different in this regard than literally thousands and thousand of other vague (at best) and absurd (at worst) tales of how the universe "got here."



LOL @ "atheist scientists" Do you know the scientists were atheists?

Static universe theories were largely thrown out (though not completely debunked) after observation of expansion of redshift/doppler shift, etc.. So what? That's what science does, it observes, postulates theories, observes again, refines theories based on new data, and flat out throws stuff out the window if contrary evidence is found.

You might as well criticize science for it's initial postulation that cigarettes were good for your health. The whole point of science is to keep searching for the real answer yet.

We don't have it. We don't have the full answer yet. Only religious people enjoy pretending that we do.

The idiocy is to think that all atheists are followers of Hoyle's debunked theory.

Threepwood keeps associating atheism and ALL atheists with Steady State model.

Threepwood's is historically impaired and narrow-minded. If he did a bit more research, threepwood would know that Georges Lemaître wasn't the first person who thought of the idea of expanding universe model.

Alexander Friedmann, a Russian physicist and Friedmann was an atheist, who came up with idea 5 years (1922) before Lemaître (1927), when he addressed it before a number of scientists, including Albert Einstein was in attendance.

I keep bring up Friedmann up repeatedly to Threepwood, but he completely ignored my post about Friedmann.

I am not denying Lemaître's valuable contribution to the expanding universe theory, just that he wasn't the earliest one to do so, nor was Lemaître the last to contribute this theory.

George Gamow in the late 1940s, another Russian and atheist, added something major to the Big Bang model, which Lemaître couldn't figure out: the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. Now, everyone normally always associated the Big Bang with Lemaître, but the modern theory of the Big Bang cosmology actually falls more align with Gamow's theory than Lemaître's.

Now, Albert Einstein wasn't an early supporter of the expanding universe model, because he had his own hypothesis on cosmology. But the frameworks of both Friedmann's theory and Lemaître's theory were based on Einstein's General Relativity. So in essence, the BB actually owe its acceptance, through the work of Einstein.

So a number of people actually contribute to the theory. I see both Friedmann and Lemaître as the two pioneers of the expanding universe model (later known as the Big Bang theory).

 

[gnostic]

Agree....The reason religions appeal to so many is because it gives them some hope for an after life.

The problem with this is the "hope" is illusionary.

This hope is like like a carrot in front of the horse-drawn wagon or cart, in which a driver dangle a carrot in front of the horse, to keep the wagon moving forward.

If one get so obsessed with the afterlife, then one is not really living his life, because he is too focus on the promise of everlasting life. That's not living.

The afterlife is false hope, which there are no evidences for.

Being a realist, I would prefer to remove this carrot from my face, and live my life without this illusionary or false hope.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

If one get so obsessed with the afterlife, then one is not really living his life, because he is too focus on the promise of everlasting life. That's not living.

Well said, sir. Well said.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Egads man you're laser focused on this one single 1920s science story, it's your only line of reasoning. There was still some medical use of leeches in 1920, and at that time people thought smoking cigarettes was a healthy way to lose weight.

If you think that somehow shows the weakness of science, you've got it backwards. The ability to adapt, learn, and re-postulate is science's great advantage over religion, which favors the unchangeable model where the final answer may never be discarded or revised, no matter how much contrary evidence stacks up against it. Talk about steady state!

As scientific discoveries go, the BB is a pretty big one, arguably the greatest of all time, yet many atheists who claim to speak for science, are completely unaware of it's controversial history, the ideological resistance to it from atheists, it's something you rarely hear mentioned in pop science. So unfortunately this needs pointed out a lot more than I wish I had to!

Other big examples in the same vein as steady state are classical physics and Darwinism

It shows the strength of science v the weakness of atheism. When we discard atheist pre-conclusions, we free ourselves to be willing to look deeper, instead of always trying to close the case at the simplest 'God refuting' explanation

 

[ArtieE]

As scientific discoveries go, the BB is a pretty big one, arguably the greatest of all time, yet many atheists who claim to speak for science, are completely unaware of it's controversial history, the ideological resistance to it from atheists, it's something you rarely hear mentioned in pop science.

Of course it's rarely mentioned. Only you seems to be pathologically obsessed with what some atheists in the previous century thought.

It shows the strength of science v the weakness of atheism. When we discard atheist pre-conclusions, we free ourselves to be willing to look deeper, instead of always trying to close the case at the simplest 'God refuting' explanation

What "atheist explanations" refutes God Guy? Are you saying that your God couldn't have made a "steady state" universe or any kind of universe?

 

[Demonslayer]

As scientific discoveries go, the BB is a pretty big one, arguably the greatest of all time, yet many atheists who claim to speak for science, are completely unaware of it's controversial history, the ideological resistance to it from atheists, it's something you rarely hear mentioned in pop science. So unfortunately this needs pointed out a lot more than I wish I had to!

It's just that, it doesn't matter. I'm sure there are things we think we know now that additional scientific exploration will amend later on.

I don't see how it matters. We used to use leeches to address blood diseases. There once were scientists who postulated a steady state universe. We used to think the stars were holes to heaven. Who cares?

When we discard atheist pre-conclusions

Scientists don't necessarily have "atheist pre-conclusions." A valid scientific study is agnostic about religion. It is based on pure observation. If God pops up during a scientific study, scientists will write that into their conclusions.

In the same way scientists don't start with a non-God conclusion, they darn sure aren't going to start with a maybe-God conclusion either. No one is looking for the answer to be "God" because so far God has never been the scientific explanation for anything. I wouldn't expect people to start building "maybe-God" into their hypothesis any time soon. The scientists who came out with steady state model didn't, nor did the scientists who revised the theory to reflect the expansion we have observed.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Of course it's rarely mentioned. Only you seems to be pathologically obsessed with what some atheists in the previous century thought.What "atheist explanations" refutes God Guy? Are you saying that your God couldn't have made a "steady state" universe or any kind of universe?

The Bible depicted a beginning
atheists called the whole concept of a beginning religious pseudoscience, and preferred no beginning

one was validated, one was debunked.

However long ago, it is still the greatest cosmogenic, arguably scientific, discovery ever made. Hardly an insignificant anecdote!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's just that, it doesn't matter. I'm sure there are things we think we know now that additional scientific exploration will amend later on.

I don't see how it matters. We used to use leeches to address blood diseases. There once were scientists who postulated a steady state universe. We used to think the stars were holes to heaven. Who cares?

Anyone who cares about scientific progress

atheist beliefs clearly stood in the way of progress here, and in many other big questions- they still do

Scientists don't necessarily have "atheist pre-conclusions." A valid scientific study is agnostic about religion. It is based on pure observation. If God pops up during a scientific study, scientists will write that into their conclusions.

Not all scientists have atheist pre-conclusions no, Lemaitre didn't, which was exactly why he was able, free to make arguably the greatest scientific breakthrough of all time. But Hoyle and several others absolutely did explicitly by their own words, so did Hawking when he declared the 'Big Crunch' made God redundant.

In the same way scientists don't start with a non-God conclusion, they darn sure aren't going to start with a maybe-God conclusion either. No one is looking for the answer to be "God" because so far God has never been the scientific explanation for anything. I wouldn't expect people to start building "maybe-God" into their hypothesis any time soon. The scientists who came out with steady state model didn't, nor did the scientists who revised the theory to reflect the expansion we have observed.

Again some do some don't, I'm saying we should not begin with any pre-conclusion,

It was not Lemaitre's faith in God that allowed him to further science, but his skepticism of atheism.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Not all scientists have atheist pre-conclusions no, Lemaitre didn't, which was exactly why he was able, free to make arguably the greatest scientific breakthrough of all time.

You totally ignore and forget that Lemaitre picked up where Friedmann left off. Typical hyper-religious cherry-picking of the details.

Again some do some don't, I'm saying we should not begin with any pre-conclusion,

Science doesn't start with a conclusion. It starts with a question. You understand that, don't you?
I'd like to point out that religion starts with a conclusion ...

It was not Lemaitre's faith in God that allowed him to further science, but his skepticism of atheism.

And I suppose you have evidence that Lemaitre had atheism and Hoyle on his mind while he formulated his theory?