Scientists and Religion

[Subduction Zone]

Just because I am bored I did a bit of @Regiomontanus 's homework for him. Of course he was wrong. Penrose has his own version of the Big Band Theory and appears to oppose endless inflation and instead proposes a cyclic universe:

https://futurism.com/sir-roger-penrose-alternate-theory-of-the-big-bang-2/

Too many theists appear to have a strawman version of the theory and if someone opposes their strawman they claim that they are "against the Big Bang."

 

[gnostic]

Wow!

There are lots of ignorant and deluded posts here.

Wow!

 

[WalterTrull]

Wow!
There are lots of ignorant and deluded posts here.
Wow!

Pwease, pwease Mr. Gnosis Man. Would you tewl us va twoof?

 

[gnostic]

Hello. That is not quite true. While the BBT is dominant, there are serious, reputable scientists working on alternative cosmological theories. Search arxiv.org to see.

Yes, there are other physicists and cosmologists looking at alternative cosmological models, but to date, none of the other models have any evidence.

They are all “mathematical”, meaning lots of equations, but there are no evidences, so they are extremely “theoretical”.

While there are maths in the Big Bang theory too, it also has a number of evidences that backed it up. That’s what make the BB cosmology a “scientific theory”.

The cyclical model isn’t a scientific theory, because there are no evidences.

The multiverse model isn’t a scientific theory, because there are no evidences.

Both the cyclical model and multiverse model are “theoretical physics”, not accepted science, because there are yet to be empirical and verifiable evidences to support either.

Theoretical physics are only proposals, sort of like hypothesis, that have not been tested and accepted, so no one have to agree with it.

It is “evidences”, not the maths, that make it science.

 

[gnostic]

Hello. Think what you want. I just needed to correct your silly (and uninformed, clearly) statements.

As for Penrose, do your homework. You can then apologize to me if you want but you won't - I know a forum bully when I see one (so to speak). Hence you are the first person to make my ignore list.

Subduction Zone don’t needs to apologise you, because you are the one who is seriously mistaken.

What Penrose have proposed, its merely like a draft paper, like hypothesis. The cyclical model is only falls under the category of theoretical model, where he can only provide mathematical solutions (eg equations, formulas or constants). Theoretical models are not accepted science, or “scientific theory”, because it hasn’t been “tested”, as in evidences, experiments, as indicated by the scientific method.

Real science needs to meet the requirements of Scientific Method, which is all statements (that include any explanation, any prediction, any equation, etc), required to be tested. And attests can only be carry out through finding the evidences or by performing repeated experiments.

The evidences have to be detectable (or observable), measurable, quantifiable and testable.

Such tests would either refute (or debunk) a hypothesis as false or it will verify (and validate) a hypothesis to be true.

The more evidences you have “for” the hypothesis, the more probable the hypothesis.

But the more evidences you have against the hypothesis, the less probable it is. In that case, the hypothesis has been debunked and should be discarded.

If you were really scientist or astronomer, you should actually know all this the fundamental basic about science, the scientific method, testings, scientific evidence, and the differences between theoretical physics and experimental physics.

If Penrose wants to validate his cyclical model, he needs to have evidences thatthe universe has underwent a series of Bang and Crunch, which Penrose was never able to demonstrably show.

 

[gnostic]

Pwease, pwease Mr. Gnosis Man. Would you tewl us va twoof?

For the last hour or so, I have been trying to translate what you are saying in this post.

I’ve finally got it. LOL!

Perhaps you can dial down on your Elmer Fudd’s impression...

 

[Audie]

LOL!!! Many reputable scientists are now slowly backing away from a Big Bang. No one is disbuting the size and distances of stars and galaxies. But, how we came into being is changing based on new information.
But, once again, that information is “interpreted” based on the belief the universe is old. While a creationist can interpret what is seen and known differently and theorize differently too. The fact is, no one really knows for sure. Except God

I am entertained by the expression that
"the only thing I know for a fact is that god is real"

That is one thing, that nobody knows.

Yours there is what we call a fact not in evidence.

Re interpretation. There are a couple of things there-
one is that to interpret evidence based on preconceived ideas
like that (your personal interpretation of) the bible is
"true" is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.
Self deception. Worthless research.

Equivalent to research paid for by RJ Reynolds
to show that tobacco does not cause cancer.

Another point-
I could interpret anything I like in any way I like.
So can you, so can the man behind the tree.

To be of any value, an interpretation must be fully consistent
with the data.

That is where creationist interpretations always fail.
The only way they can make them work is try to discredit
essentially everything in all the hard sciences, from radioactive
dating to recession of the moon.

Creationists have no "theory". T hey can try to "theorize"
but they-have-no-theory. ( a theory has to be fully
consistent with all relevant data )


To date, we see no recognition going to a "creation scientist"
for disproving anything, let alone a Nobel for disproving
evolution.

 

[Audie]

There has been lots of scientists that have become creation scientist proving the Bible, especially Genesis is factual. It's pretty interesting if you have any curiosity and aren't easily shamed.

When you say "proving the Bible", do you mean
ALL of it, literally true just as per common usage of
English?

Exactly true, or just approximate?

Are you saying that some one or more scientists have
proved that there was a 6 day poof, and a world wide flood?

 

[Polymath257]

LOL!!! Many reputable scientists are now slowly backing away from a Big Bang. No one is disbuting the size and distances of stars and galaxies. But, how we came into being is changing based on new information.
But, once again, that information is “interpreted” based on the belief the universe is old. While a creationist can interpret what is seen and known differently and theorize differently too. The fact is, no one really knows for sure. Except God

No, that information is part of the *evidence* that the universe is old. You don't have to *assume* an old universe: observation and testing *demonstrate* the age of the universe.

The only way out is to assume the universe was made to *look* old. But that is the equivalent of Last Thursdayism.

 

[Polymath257]

Almost fell off my chair laughing about you wanting prominent named scientists as if you know any. Also, you would only accept those who believe as you do. But, I can refer you to sites you could actually look up yourself that has work from PhD’s from renowned universities. Try doing some balanced investigation yourself. I have.

I actually know a number of prominent cosmologists and have worked with them. What is relevant isn't *assumptions* of age, but rather the abounding evidence of age. We know the universe is expanding. We know the laws of physics governing that expansion. We know what those laws have to say about the age given what we see.

In fact, over the last two decades we have entered into the era of precision cosmology. Where there was a LOT of uncertainty in the age of the universe 30 years ago, that uncertainty has diminsihed greatly because of precision measurements of the background radiation (for example).

You have been lied to by those who want your money and your devotion to their cause. No reputable scientists believes the universe or the Earth to be young (less than billions of years old) at this point. The evidence of age is just too overwhelming. Only those who go into the investigation by assuming an answer (i.e, dogma) are still debating this. no scientists are.

 

[gnostic]

When you say "proving the Bible", do you mean
ALL of it, literally true just as per common usage of
English?

Exactly true, or just approximate?

Are you saying that some one or more scientists have
proved that there was a 6 day poof, and a world wide flood?

Most Christians today, as well as most Jews have interpreted that Genesis Creation and Flood didn’t happen the way Genesis narrated the stories, but are allegories with symbols and moral meanings, behind the stories, just like when Jesus use parables as teaching methods to his disciples and his wider audience.

To these Christians, the stories are not meant to be taken literally as if they are history.

It is the theme and teachings that are important, not literal interpretations as if they were history or scientific events.

So the moral meanings in Eden episode is about listening to and obeying God, and no one else, and the consequences of disobeying God, which is a sin. So there are no real Eden and the Tree of Knowledge, no real Adam and Eve, and no talking serpent.

And in the Flood episode, the teaching is that the Flood was brought about because of wicked mankind, and the only people who were saved was because of Noah’ piety, so once again are about sins and their consequences. So no real “Flood”, no real Noah, no real Ark.

Of course, there are the Christians, who believed in the literal interpretations of these stories, and they are referred to as Creationists, or the Young Earth Creationists (YEC), and believed them to be historical and scientific events.

The YEC can be divided into two groups, the ones who believe in the literal 6-day creation, therefore creation is about 6000 years old, or the ones who believe that each creation day is equaled to 1000 years, because of 2 Peter 3:8, meaning the Earth is 12,000 years old (or 13,000 years if they include the 7th day being 1000-year period).

Either ways, it is a matter of interpretations.

But with the increasing evidences that Earth, the Solar System, the Universe and life on Earth, are far older than calculated chronology of the bible than approximately 6000 or 12,000 years, it is becoming clear that creationists are deluded.

 

[Audie]

Most Christians today, as well as most Jews have interpreted that Genesis Creation and Flood didn’t happen the way Genesis narrated the stories, but are allegories with symbols and moral meanings, behind the stories, just like when Jesus use parables as teaching methods to his disciples and his wider audience.

To these Christians, the stories are not meant to be taken literally as if they are history.

It is the theme and teachings that are important, not literal interpretations as if they were history or scientific events.

So the moral meanings in Eden episode is about listening to and obeying God, and no one else, and the consequences of disobeying God, which is a sin. So there are no real Eden and the Tree of Knowledge, no real Adam and Eve, and no talking serpent.

And in the Flood episode, the teaching is that the Flood was brought about because of wicked mankind, and the only people who were saved was because of Noah’ piety, so once again are about sins and their consequences. So no real “Flood”, no real Noah, no real Ark.

Of course, there are the Christians, who believed in the literal interpretations of these stories, and they are referred to as Creationists, or the Young Earth Creationists (YEC), and believed them to be historical and scientific events.

The YEC can be divided into two groups, the ones who believe in the literal 6-day creation, therefore creation is about 6000 years old, or the ones who believe that each creation day is equaled to 1000 years, because of 2 Peter 3:8, meaning the Earth is 12,000 years old (or 13,000 years if they include the 7th day being 1000-year period).

Either ways, it is a matter of interpretations.

But with the increasing evidences that Earth, the Solar System, the Universe and life on Earth, are far older than calculated chronology of the bible than approximately 6000 or 12,000 years, it is becoming clear that creationists are deluded.

Well, yes, I know all of that-
Did kinda want to know what
"prove the bible" meant in that
case to that person.

Re interpretation, I kinda think
a lot of the popularity of the bible
has to do with its flexibility, one
can find /interpret pretty much
anything you want in there.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, but this part in red:

Scientists and believers have to begin looking at the physical evidence from their own beginning points of understanding. It's easily possible to prove Genesis true if you start from the belief in God and that the Bible is true. Scientists have to take geological evidence and assume the Big Bang is a true theory. They have to assume that the universe and earth are billions of years old. When they do, they have to guess on much of the time line. And, they have to make other assumptions about human beings not being made in the likeness of our Father in Heaven.

Are you saying the universe and Earth are the same age?

And no geologists know the age of the universe with any geological evidences.

The Big Bang theory is a theory in astrophysics and physical cosmology, not a theory in geology. Geology isn’t a field in astronomy or in astrophysics.

So really, what in the nine hells are you talking about, Cougarbear?

 

[gnostic]

Cougarbear:

Back then, when Genesis was composed in the 1st millennium BCE, no one had telescopes, so they in the night sky, they can only view stars and some planets (only Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn could be seen), with the naked eye.

No one, particularly ancient Israelites back then, knew just how many stars were out there, and thought what they could see, were countless.

The person who wrote Genesis, certainly didn’t know the precise numbers that could be seen in our sky, and certainly didn’t know there were lot more that couldn’t be seen.

15:5, 22:17, 26:4

Several times when god spoke to the patriarchs (twice to Abraham - 15:5 & 22:17, and once to Isaac in 26:4) god compared the numbers of their descendants to the numbers of stars that could be seen in the night sky.

For example, 15:5:

5 He brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”

God said to Abraham, to count the stars in the sky if he can. God wasn’t telling Abraham to count all the stars that he couldn’t see, but the ones that he could see.

But just how many stars can be counted, without any aid of telescope?

Well modern star gazers and astronomers can only see and count them without the telescopes and they come up with only 2000 stars.

There are actually about 4500 stars (in total, meaning if you count the number of stars in both the northern and southern hemispheres) that can be without telescope, but only around 2000 stars in a specific location, for example, Abraham in Hebron, would only see around 2000 stars.

If that’s the number of Abraham’s descendants, then that’s not much at all. Because according to Numbers 1, the numbers of men that can fight in Moses’ days, numbered over 603,000 (not counting the elderly, women and children).

If god was “all-knowing”, then he should know that observable 2000 stars are not much.

Among the stars and planets that can be seen in the sky (without any telescope), two objects are galaxies - the Andromeda Galaxy and the Triangulum Galaxy.

Everyone thought these galaxies were just stars. Even with telescopes, people before Edwin Hubble in 1919, astronomers thought Andromeda and Triangulum were nebulae inside the Milky Way, not galaxies. The telescopes before Hubble’s time (before 1919) weren’t all that powerful.

In 1919, when Hubble looked from a newly built Hooker Telescope, he discovered that Andromeda and Triangulum were separate galaxies, not nebulae.

The reasons why I am giving you history lesson about Edwin Hubble and these galaxies, Andromeda and Triangulum are our nearest spiral galaxies, respectively at about 2 million and 3 million light years away from our Sun. And are tens of billions of galaxies out there.

But more importantly, is that light take time to travel the distance in space.

So if we look at Andromeda Galaxy tonight, what we really seeing is not Andromeda today, but what Andromeda looks like 2 million years ago.

Now if Genesis 1say god created the stars on the 4th day of creation (Genesis 1:16) -

16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.

- and that earth and universe are only 6000 years old (12,000 years old according to the other group of Young Earth creationists), then we should not be able to see Andromeda Galaxy.

And there are billions of more galaxies that we cannot see without the telescope.

That Andromeda Galaxy is about 2 million light years away, tell us that universe is even larger than we originally assumed and anticipated.

 

[England my lionheart]

That study is already outdated. I believe with the insurgence of the LGBTQWXYZ the amount of those believing in God has diminished. Not only has the reprobate minds of the LGBTQWXYZ affected their own, but also the general public and the scientific world as well. Weak believers have been shamed into denouncing God by the secularists who have stated the homosexual acts are sin. People don't want to be known as homophobic.
There has been lots of scientists that have become creation scientist proving the Bible, especially Genesis is factual. It's pretty interesting if you have any curiosity and aren't easily shamed.

Please expand on that, how many creation scientists are there?.

 

[gnostic]

Please expand on that, how many creation scientists are there?.

To date, Cougarbear have evaded in naming names of these “creationist scientists”, no matter people ask him.

 

[England my lionheart]

To date, Cougarbear have evaded in naming names of these “creationist scientists”, no matter people ask him.

There's a good reason for that

 

[England my lionheart]

There's a good reason for that

We'll not a good reason but you know whati mean

 

[Dell]

Its amazing, creationist must think that all colleges and scientist around the world are in this great conspiracy, all marching to the same drum.

Plotting to destroy the faith!!! Brewhahahaha...

Reality is todays scientists focus is to prove themselves wrong. The topic of God isn't on their radars, never... it small minority that want to capitalize on the publics desire of debate, sell lots of books and do speaking engagements.

Another reality is that if we did have a true science vs Christianity court showdown where the loser is declared a public fraud, the Christian side would lose big. No conspiracy required...

 

[Audie]

Its amazing, creationist must think that all colleges and scientist around the world are in this great conspiracy, all marching to the same drum.

Plotting to destroy the faith!!! Brewhahahaha...

Reality is todays scientists focus is to prove themselves wrong. The topic of God isn't on their radars, never... it small minority that want to capitalize on the publics desire of debate, sell lots of books and do speaking engagements.

Another reality is that if we did have a true science vs Christianity court showdown where the loser is declared a public fraud, the Christian side would lose big. No conspiracy required...

You would be referring to the rather well known
and often referred to WWCOSSTSTTOG

( world wide conspiracy of satanic scientists to
suppress the truth of god)