Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Richard,

    It's rather telling that creationist can't support their beliefs with logic and facts. Instead, they choose to attack the legitimacy of science that contradicts their beliefs. Even if they "could" disprove evolution, that doesn't automatically prove creation. Also, it appears to me creationists never come up with their own "theory". It seems they just hitch their wagon to science and cram god into whatever gap he will fit. If god really does exist, then why does it seem he emulate the explanations humans have come up with for our existence? I know the obvious answer, but why can't creationists realize this? How can anyone ever get through to these people? I swear religiosity should be classified as a mental health condition. I have never witnessed a sect of people so resistant to learning as Christians are.

    I'm so glad I shook that dark cloud over my head and I found this forum. This forum is invaluable. Thanks for being the happy host.

    Take care.
    Hey there L67!

    I can't tell you how much I appreciate your many valuable contributions to this forum. You've taken up the slack a number of times when I didn't have the time (or stomach) to refute some of the creationist crap.

    Why do creationists reject truth so vehemently? The most obvious reason is because they've been brainwashed with utterly wicked doctrine that they will suffer eternal death (either annihilation or conscious torment in hell) if they don't believe the Bible. This makes THINKING the most dangerous thing they could do. THINKING threatens their salvation! It threatens them with death. Such doctrines are "mind killers" based on the ultimate mind-killer, fear. Here is how Frank Herbert expressed it in his Dune trilogy:

    “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

    Rose and I discovered the door to freedom back in the winter of 2009-2010 when we began having long talks around a campfire. The door began to open when we asked ourselves "Why should we care what other people think of us?" As we explored this question, we began to break free from the religious social structures that keep minds trapped through fear. The question kept coming, and with each question we became more confident to think for ourselves. The rest is "history" as they say. We've never been happier and cannot imagine "looking back." We were in bondage to religious dogmas and now we are free.

    Great chatting!



    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there L67!

    I can't tell you how much I appreciate your many valuable contributions to this forum. You've taken up the slack a number of times when I didn't have the time (or stomach) to refute some of the creationist crap.

    Why do creationists reject truth so vehemently? The most obvious reason is because they've been brainwashed with utterly wicked doctrine that they will suffer eternal death (either annihilation or conscious torment in hell) if they don't believe the Bible. This makes THINKING the most dangerous thing they could do. THINKING threatens their salvation! It threatens them with death. Such doctrines are "mind killers" based on the ultimate mind-killer, fear. Here is how Frank Herbert expressed it in his Dune trilogy:

    “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

    Rose and I discovered the door to freedom back in the winter of 2009-2010 when we began having long talks around a campfire. The door began to open when we asked ourselves "Why should we care what other people think of us?" As we explored this question, we began to break free from the religious social structures that keep minds trapped through fear. The question kept coming, and with each question we became more confident to think for ourselves. The rest is "history" as they say. We've never been happier and cannot imagine "looking back." We were in bondage to religious dogmas and now we are free.

    Great chatting!



    Richard
    Once again, another off topic interlude in the thread. Maybe we should have a section devoted to patting each other on the back and having a group hug

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there David,

    I have no doubt that seeing the word "swindle" used in relation to science is to you like raw meat to a lion. With every post, you demonstrate that you don't care about actually understanding the science. You are cherry picking bits and pieces out of context looking for anything to cast doubt on science.

    Case in point: You didn't explain why, or even if, the "Jeans swindle" is relevant to our discussion. The simple truth is that it is not. The fact that you posted it demonstrates you did not understand what you were posting. The article does not say that Jean's mass is flawed. It says his original analysis was flawed. And what was the flaw? I highlighted it red for you: "Jeans assumed that the collapsing region of the cloud was surrounded by an infinite, static medium." Jeans made assumptions to make the calculations easier. This does not cast any doubt on the results that I have posted.

    If you really want to understand the science, you can read this paper:

    MATHEMATICAL VINDICATIONS OF THE “JEANS SWINDLE”
    Michael K.-H. Kiessling
    Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University
    110 Frelinghuysen Rd., Piscataway, N.J. 08854

    The paper begins:

    In 1902, J.H. Jeans [1] derived his celebrated dispersion relation

    ω2 = |k|2c2s − 4πGρ0


    governing the evolution of infinitesimal disturbances of a fictitious infinitely extended,
    homogeneous and isotropic, static fluid of mass density ρ0 that is coupled to Newtonian
    gravity.
    Richard has given me (us) an update to the facts presented in Wikipedia. Maybe someone should add a comment, or update the entry in Wikipedia.

    Now we have presented a mathematical "fix" for the "Jeans Swindle". Are there any takers to argue that the mathematical models produced are not supported (proved) by experiment, or observable evidence of a stars formation?

    A star we are told takes millions of years to form. From the moment a gas cloud begins to collapse, what is the length of time (typically) for say that gas cloud to reach 1% of its original size? Has a timeline been produced showing the typical duration in time of the stages in the formation of a star? Can someone present in this thread a timeline to a star's formation?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Richard has given me (us) an update to the facts presented in Wikipedia. Maybe someone should add a comment, or update the entry in Wikipedia.

    Now we have presented a mathematical "fix" for the "Jeans Swindle". Are there any takers to argue that the mathematical models produced are not supported (proved) by experiment, or observable evidence of a stars formation?

    A star we are told takes millions of years to form. From the moment a gas cloud begins to collapse, what is the length of time (typically) for say that gas cloud to reach 1% of its original size? Has a timeline been produced showing the typical duration in time of the stages in the formation of a star? Can someone present in this thread a timeline to a star's formation?
    Hey there David,

    Why are you depending on us for all the answers? Why are you not doing any research and presenting the answers to us in this thread? I've given you many answers that you could have found yourself in a matter of minutes. I get the impression you are not actually interested in learning the science at all, but rather are on a "fishing trip" hoping to find some random fact you can use to cast doubt on science to make room for you otherwise unjustifiable "faith" (i.e. blind belief) in the Bible.

    It also is obvious you don't understand the most basic elements of science. There was never any problem with "Jeans swindle" - you grabbed on to that for the same reasons creationists constantly harp on hoaxes like the Piltdown man. You saw the word "swindle" and thought AHA! Scientists are part of a vast conspiracy to deny God! SWINDLE SWINDLE SWINDLE! You can't trust scientists! You can't believe a word the astrophysicists are saying! There is no evidence for star formation! God made them all just six thousand years ago!

    Can you justify your assertion that "Jeans mass is flawed" based on the "Jeans swindle"? Nope. And why not? Because "Jeans swindle" is irrelevant to modern theories of star formation. The "swindle" was only in the "original calculations" which involved assumptions of an infinite uniform gas cloud to make calculations easier. This shows, yet again, that you are ignorant of the science and that you are not even interested in learning the science but rather are constantly trolling through science looking for random words like "swindle" that can be taken out of context and abused to imply that that there is a VAST SCIENTIFIC CONSPIRACY to hide the truth of your little gawd. Nothing could be more obvious. Nothing could be more absurd.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there David,

    Why are you depending on us for all the answers?
    I am not depending on you for "all the answers, but you must be able to explain what it is you believe in. I have to give an explanation for the hope that is in me, I expect you to be able to explain and give answers to questions I have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Why are you not doing any research and presenting the answers to us in this thread? I've given you many answers that you could have found yourself in a matter of minutes. I get the impression you are not actually interested in learning the science at all, but rather are on a "fishing trip" hoping to find some random fact you can use to cast doubt on science to make room for you otherwise unjustifiable "faith" (i.e. blind belief) in the Bible.
    Of course your surmizings are wrong as ever, and you do not know that I have looked for answers in the places you suggest, but I have not found satisfactory answers. That is why I am still asking the question and to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It also is obvious you don't understand the most basic elements of science. There was never any problem with "Jeans swindle" - you grabbed on to that for the same reasons creationists constantly harp on hoaxes like the Piltdown man. You saw the word "swindle" and thought AHA! Scientists are part of a vast conspiracy to deny God! SWINDLE SWINDLE SWINDLE! You can't trust scientists! You can't believe a word the astrophysicists are saying! There is no evidence for star formation! God made them all just six thousand years ago!
    It is obvious you make a false assumption by saying; "you don't understand the most basic elements of science". Comments like that are both hackle raising and arrogant and it is about time you dropped such phrases from your vocabulary and stuck to the facts.
    I quoted Wikipedia and as I have said, you or someone should update that Wikipedia article if the conclusion is not correct and there is a sequel to it. At the time, it was regarded as a "swindle" by Jeans and others had to come in and added what Jeans left out. Fortunate that what Jeans left out, made no difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Can you justify your assertion that "Jeans mass is flawed" based on the "Jeans swindle"? Nope. And why not? Because "Jeans swindle" is irrelevant to modern theories of star formation. The "swindle" was only in the "original calculations" which involved assumptions of an infinite uniform gas cloud to make calculations easier. This shows, yet again, that you are ignorant of the science and that you are not even interested in learning the science but rather are constantly trolling through science looking for random words like "swindle" that can be taken out of context and abused to imply that that there is a VAST SCIENTIFIC CONSPIRACY to hide the truth of your little gawd. Nothing could be more obvious. Nothing could be more absurd.
    There you go again, trying to belittle me by saying I am ignorant of the science. If ignorance is "not all-knowing" then all of us are ignorant to some extend and I can claim you are ignorant of the Bible. I am learning and adding to my scientific knowledge the same as you are.
    I am finding articles in which there is apparent disagreement amongst scientists. You produced evidence that overcame the "Jeans swindle" and that has been acknowledged by me.
    The basis of all this is mathematics and that mathematics is also having to rely on initial conditions that cannot be proven to be possible. We still do not know whether the mathematical equations are accurate enough to model the universe and the laws of nature, or whether those equations can be modified a stage further. As I have said to you in another post in another thread, you have to be able to explain complex mathematical equations in terms the layman can understand, otherwise you are proving things in a foreign language in which your audience cannot understand.

    On the subject of theories, because a theory exists, does not mean that theory is correct. The same goes for Evolution theory. It is work in progress with no definite proof that explains the whole spectrum of life. As evidence that theories can be not true, I found this for the definition of abiogenesis;
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis?s=t
    Abiogenesis
    noun, Biology
    1. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
    If you disagree with that statement about the theory, then you have to take it up with the authors of the website.

    All the best
    David

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416

    Star Formation, the Biblical Account

    The idea that stars are still forming is merely an assumption. Astronomers assume that new stars are being formed, and so they consider ways in which it must occur. It is not a scientific fact that new stars are being formed. The idea is so problematic that there is not even a sound theory of it.

    The Bible states that the stars were formed by God and the heavens were stretched out by him. In other words, stars did not form themselves, they were formed by someone.

    "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth." Isaiah 40:26
    So, what is happening in the heavens? Here is what is actually observed... Entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics at work in the winding down of the universe. We observe cataclysm, catastrophe, collisions and the debris of those collisions which are referred to as dust clouds. When star formation is mentioned, it is carefully qualified by stating that they observe "the places" where stars are forming. Note that stars forming are not observed, only that what they label as "stellar nurseries" are observed. The assumption is that this is the "place" that stars form. Read carefully the theories of men and you will find the "loopholes", or the quote mined "nuggets truth" which expose "the assumptions".

    The Bible confirms what we are observing:

    "Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed" (Psalm 102:25, 26 KJV)
    The universe is winding down, confirmed again here:

    "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." (Hebrews 1:10-12 KJV)
    The Bible, in no ambiguous way states that the heavens and the earth are finite and will come to an end. Perhaps the following verse suggests how it will end:

    "Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger." (Isaiah 13:13 KJV)
    "See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. (Hebrews 12:25, 26 KJV)
    The unfolding events we see manifested in the heavens may simply be a prelude to the eventual collapse (coming judgment) which may be far off or nearer than we know. There could be a forthcoming chain reaction of cataclysmic events which will culminate in a flaming destruction of the heavens and the earth.

    "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:3-7 KJV)
    "The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, (2 Peter 3:10-11 KJV)
    The current heavens which we now observe are destined to pass away. They will be folded up like an old worn out garment.

    Then what? How about this:

    "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful." (Revelation 21:1-5 KJV)
    The following verse confirms that there is a curse and that it will come to an end:

    "And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him" (Revelation 22:3 KJV)
    Not my words. The words of Him who spoke all things into existence, including the stars in the heavens.

    John

    Edited to modify "eventual collapse (coming judgment) which may be far off or nearer than we know".
    Last edited by jce; 09-07-2014 at 08:17 AM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    The Bible states that the stars were formed by God and the heavens were stretched out by him. In other words, stars did not form themselves, they were formed by someone.
    Good morning jce,

    I'm not sure your interpretation is warranted. The Bible says that God also causes the grass to grow:

    Psalm 104:14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;

    But we can see grass growing from seeds, so though they may not have "formed themselves" in the beginning (according to your view) they certainly "form themselves" now. We can watch it happen, just like we can watch stars form. And there is nothing in the actual process of grass growing that requires an appeal to any god to explain. It seems that Christians understand that the only place for God is in the distant unknowable past since that's where they always point when trying to prove his existence. He certainly is nowhere "near" in any observable phenomenon.

    Have you not considered that God could have designed the physical laws to cause the formation of stars? Is that not how he did everything that we can actually test in the laboratory? The laws of nature explain everything we can test empirically in the lab.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good morning jce,

    I'm not sure your interpretation is warranted. The Bible says that God also causes the grass to grow:

    Psalm 104:14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;

    Richard
    Good afternoon Richard

    I can accept your analogy, but only at the most fundamental level in that He created them both and provided the environment for them. After that, the differences are significant. Consider that He ordained the grass to bear within itself the seeds of reproduction after its kind, whereas there is no mention of this type of reproduction within the stars.

    Furthermore, He has given names to the stars and they are the same stars he made in the beginning for not one of them is missing. Needless to say, not so with grass, which is used as an analogy by God to describe the brevity of our existence here.

    Have you not considered that God could have designed the physical laws to cause the formation of stars? Is that not how he did everything that we can actually test in the laboratory? The laws of nature explain everything we can test empirically in the lab.
    If that is the standard, then yes, there are limitations, however, the God of the Bible is not your standard scientist who works in a lab conducting experiments in an effort to understand how things work. He commanded the elements (the things which are not seen) to materialize into the substances we are familiar with.

    These laws of nature are subject to Him and not vise-versa. He is not subject to scientific reductionism. On the contrary, He is a very capable and powerful Creator as can be observed in the vastness of the heavens and the miniscule of the sub-atomic realm at the other end of the spectrum.

    Must run now, but will return later, Lord willing, to respond to a few other posts.

    John

    Edited to correct "you" to "your".

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Good afternoon Richard

    I can accept your analogy, but only at the most fundamental level in that He created them both and provided the environment for them. After that, the differences are significant. Consider that He ordained the grass to bear within itself the seeds of reproduction after its kind, whereas there is no mention of this type of reproduction within the stars.

    Furthermore, He has given names to the stars and they are the same stars he made in the beginning for not one of them is missing. Needless to say, not so with grass, which is used as an analogy by God to describe the brevity of our existence here.

    Hello John,

    If as you say, god has named all the stars and not one of them is missing ... how do you account for all the stars that have exploded, or are in the process of exploding into galactic dust?

    Kind regards,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hello John,

    If as you say, god has named all the stars and not one of them is missing ... how do you account for all the stars that have exploded, or are in the process of exploding into galactic dust?

    Kind regards,
    Rose
    Good question.

    John simply denies all science. He asserts, without any evidence of any kind, that "It is not a scientific fact that new stars are being formed. The idea is so problematic that there is not even a sound theory of it." The truth is exactly the opposite. The overall pattern of the life cycle of stars is very well known and scientifically established upon mountains of observational data. Here's a snippet from a publication called Stellar Evolution by Tufts University:

    Stars live for a very long time compared to human lifetimes. Even though stellar life-spans are enormous, we know how stars are born, live, and die. All stars follow the same basic series of steps in their lives: Gas Cloud -> Proto star -> Main Sequence star -> Red Giant and/or Supergiant -> Horizontal Branch star (only if it has a low mass) -> Variable Star (RR Lyra, Cepheid or WVirgins) -> Red Giant and/or Supergiant -> Planetary Nebula (low mass) or Supernova (high mass star) -> Stellar Remnant (white Dwarf, Neutron Star, or Black Hole).
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •