Was There Ever Really a Beginning?
Robert
Was there ever really a beginning? Or did everything just always
exist forever?
Scientists have observed the visible universe and traced backward from
the present expansion (or inflation) of the universe to a time when
all matter in the universe was a single point.
Well, actually, they have not.
What they have done is to trace back to an extremely tiny fraction of
a second after the proposed Big Bang. This may seem like a
distinction without a difference, but there is indeed a critical
difference.
One might divide the age of the universe into three eras. The third
era, the one in which we are now living, is the one in which our
mathematical analysis of observations produce coherent results.
Footnote: Except for a few perplexing annoyances (such as
renormalization of division by zero, and the 1/137 ((approx)) problem
of the fine structure constant), we can work out the formulae for just
about anything that we need to. (Maybe not for the three body
problem, the spinning top problem and so forth.) End footnote.
The second era is the tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, in
which our mathematics seem to be utterly useless. I do not really
understand how it can even be measured in terms of time, since during
that ephemerally brief “moment,” there may not have been any such
thing as calculable time. I could be wrong.
Finally, the first era, albeit these may be somewhat arbitrary
divisions, is the era before the Big Bang. Nothing coherent can
really be said about space, energy, time or mass before the Big Bang
occurs. M theory seems to suggest that the primordial point particle
may not even have existed at all, at least not as a separate entity,
but rather, have resulted from the interaction of other, pre-existing
entities called membranes.
So then, while the Big Bang Theory seems to say that there was a
beginning, M Theory seems to say that there was not a beginning, just
a reaction, just a continuation, of something that already existed
beforehand.
Have we returned to a form of the Steady State Theory?
Using the word, “time,” for lack of a better description of a mega-
universe (an ultimate framework which itself cannot be contained in
any other framework) in which “time” as we know it does not apply---
can we say that there was a time when nothing existed, and that there
was a beginning point to existence?
Or did existence always exist?
Was there any origin at all?
Ernest Major
<9505cf1c-bc02-4602...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Robert <Rober...@msn.com> writes
did.
If you wanted to review the alternatives, you should also have mentioned
Hawking's No Boundary proposal.
--
alias Ernest Major
Kalkidas
"Robert" <Rober...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9505cf1c-bc02-4602...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> In The Beginning…
>
> Was there ever really a beginning? Or did everything just always
> exist forever?
There is an infinite number of beginnings, middles, and endings, and
everything has existed forever.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Desertphile
<Rober...@msn.com> wrote:
> In The Beginning
You are getting boring and annoying.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Erwin Moller
Well, thanks for lesson.
I prefer reading other sources when I want to learn more about this
enormously fascination subject.
You, Robert, are clearly biased, and I don't have the impression you
really care what the good people in here have to say or think.
Give it up. You won't win souls in here, believe me. ;-)
May I suggest children who haven't enjoyed a lot of education yet?
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
johnbee
"Robert" <Rober...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9505cf1c-bc02-4602...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Was there ever really a beginning? Or did everything just always
> exist forever?
>
I am not sure whether you are being rhetorical or actually would like an
answer. However I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
First: something existed 'for ever' as long as you realise that 'for ever'
means 'for all the time that there has ever been'.
Second, you are wrong about something. There is not a time zero. The
earliest possible time (i.e. 'the beginning' in your words) was at the
point of the youngest possible age which is one Planck length of time. I
realise that you might think that you can go on chopping it in half for
ever, but you can't. A piece of string that is of zero length does not
exist. The shortest piece of string is one Planck length. (OK I realise
that is daft but I am talking concepts here). Time at time zero does not
exist, there is no such thing.
Now, if you are a person who thinks that a year before you were born, you
still existed as something else, and after you die you will still live on
because you always existed and will exist because something of you is
eternal, give up thinking about what I wrote above, because you wont get it.
el cid
wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:50:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert
>
That implies a difference in the beginning and I see no
evidence of such.
Rusty Sites
> In The Beginning…
>
> Was there ever really a beginning? Or did everything just always
> exist forever?
>
>
> a second after the proposed Big Bang.
[...]
> One might divide the age of the universe into three eras.
Era implies a time line.
[...]
> I do not really
> understand how it can even be measured in terms of time, since during
> that ephemerally brief “moment,” there may not have been any such
> thing as calculable time. I could be wrong.
Your aren't even making sense.
>
> Finally, the first era, albeit these may be somewhat arbitrary
> divisions, is the era before the Big Bang.
And there we have it. Before the Big Bang. You have already said that
there might not have been any such thing as time shortly *after* the big
bang and now you are talking about time *before* the big bang. If you
want to talk about something outside the universe which was produced by
the big bang then you have to give up on a time line. Whatever might be
outside the big bang product is not subject to our time which isn't even
universal within our universe. If your god exists outside our universe
then he is also outside our time so he would not experience the passing
of time as we do.
Suzanne
> In The Beginning…
>
> Was there ever really a beginning? Or did everything just always
> exist forever?
>
God said "Let there be light," and then the Bible says "And there was
light," that's about the size of it. God created the entire EMC
Spectrum
(Of Light) at that point in time. Once all the energies (light) were
created, then everything else was
>
Here's a clue for you. When Jesus turned water into wine at the
wedding
at Cana, the Bible says that he made it anew, but it was vintage when
he
made it. The matre'd didn't know what had taken place, so he thought
that
the best wine had been held back, to serve last. When the Lord made
the
earth and the universe, he created something vintage that was new.
>
Suzanne
Robert
> you are wrong about something. There is not a time zero.
I agree, and I openly struggled with the terminology in my opening
post. Let me re-word what I said:
When reading of the Big Bang, the literature mention a tiny fraction
of a second AFTER the Big Bang. I questioned that concept. Big
Bang, interval, and then time.
That three events kicked off the known universe is often stated. One,
the Big Bang (timeless), Two a very tiny interval between the Big Bang
and the earliest calculable moment (also timeless, as far as I can
determine), and then finally, the present era, in which the "arrow" of
time is measurable.
That interval between the Big Bang and the beginning of time is
perhaps incomprehensible, but physicists refer to it in their
writings.
Time did not begin AT the Big Bang, but some dramatically brief moment
AFTER it. If time is granular, then the interval might be zero, but I
have read that time is not considered digital if you will, but rather,
analog. Maybe scientists have revised that description of time, so
then I could be wrong.
Robert
Again, I tried to acknowledge that my use of the word time was for
lack of a better term. Nevertheless, even in M Theory, there is a
concept analagous to time, in which membranes interact.
That events apparently occur outside the realm of time is not
something which can be easily spoken of except in terms that one can
relate to. So indeed, time in our universe does not apply to events
outside of it, but nevertheless, something roughly analgous to a
sequence of events is not an unreasonable way of putting it.
bpuharic
wrote:
>In The Beginning…
>
>Was there ever really a beginning? Or did everything just always
>exist forever?
the particular universe we inhabit had a beginning. existence itself??
who knows?
>
>Scientists have observed the visible universe and traced backward from
>the present expansion (or inflation) of the universe to a time when
>all matter in the universe was a single point.
>
>Well, actually, they have not.
>
>What they have done is to trace back to an extremely tiny fraction of
>a second after the proposed Big Bang. This may seem like a
>distinction without a difference, but there is indeed a critical
>difference.
and some, like lee smolin, have developed theories that allow
universes to bud off other universes. certainly this doesn't violate
natural law
unfortunately for 'robert', HIS view of religion has ALWAYS been wrong
when applied to the natural world
it was wrong when applied to disease
it was wrong when applied to earthquakes
it was wrong when applied to planetary motion
it was wrong...well...you get the idea
but now he's here to tell us that, after 2000 years of failure, he
finally got it right!!
>
>The second era is the tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, in
>which our mathematics seem to be utterly useless.
nope. this is the last era when our mathematics is USEFUL. cf the work
of alan guth on cosmic inflation.
of course creationists didnt even know what stars were, let alone how
the universe developed...or even that there was a universe
I do not really
>understand how it can even be measured in terms of time, since during
>that ephemerally brief “moment,” there may not have been any such
>thing as calculable time. I could be wrong.
we can calculate events as functions of temperature and expansion of
the universe. that gives us time and it gives us the properties of the
universe we see today. theory agrees very well with observation.
unlike creationism, which has always been wrong
>
>So then, while the Big Bang Theory seems to say that there was a
>beginning, M Theory seems to say that there was not a beginning, just
>a reaction, just a continuation, of something that already existed
>beforehand.
well, no. again you are confused. as i pointed out above, our CURRENT
universe had a beginning. the total universe may not have...we just
dont know
bpuharic
>
>"Robert" <Rober...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:9505cf1c-bc02-4602...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> In The Beginning…
>>
>> Was there ever really a beginning? Or did everything just always
>> exist forever?
>
>There is an infinite number of beginnings, middles, and endings, and
>everything has existed forever.
>
>
science has to prove its assertions
religion just gets to throw shit at the wall and keep what sticks
Kleuskes & Moos
Well, whoopdidoo...
All those physicists at CERN are trying to detect all kinds of arcane
particles, astronomers building ever more sophisticated telescopes,
cosmologists contemplating the inflation of the early universe and
string theorists string their theories together are wasting their
time...
They should have asked you, instead.
Darn fools! It's easy!
You just say "goddiddit", click your heels three times and you're back
in Kansas in time for sunday-school...
Why waste all that time time thinking? Suzanne (i.e. "Robert" in drag)
has the answer...
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert
<Rober...@msn.com>:
>In The Beginning…
>
>Was there ever really a beginning? Or did everything just always
>exist forever?
>
>Scientists have observed the visible universe and traced backward from
>the present expansion (or inflation) of the universe to a time when
>all matter in the universe was a single point.
>
>Well, actually, they have not.
>
>What they have done is to trace back to an extremely tiny fraction of
>a second after the proposed Big Bang. This may seem like a
>distinction without a difference, but there is indeed a critical
>difference.
>
>One might divide the age of the universe into three eras. The third
>era, the one in which we are now living, is the one in which our
>mathematical analysis of observations produce coherent results.
....and Middle Earth in the Third Age; don't forget Middle
Earth in the Third Age.
And Arwen! (Woo-Hoo! Also Woof!)
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Rusty Sites
Your are just bluffing. M-theory is an attempt to reconcile relativity
and quantum mechanics. It doesn't overturn relativity and at this point
it is highly speculative anyway. You can't establish an absolute order
of events even within our own galaxy and you are going outside our
galaxy. No way.
>
> That events apparently occur outside the realm of time is not
> something which can be easily spoken of except in terms that one can
> relate to.
Indeed, or even in a way such that you can know what you are talking about.
> So indeed, time in our universe does not apply to events
> outside of it, but nevertheless, something roughly analgous to a
> sequence of events is not an unreasonable way of putting it.
Actually it is completely unreasonable. What on earth are you seeking
to accomplish here?
Suzanne
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:06:25 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >news:9505cf1c-bc02-4602...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >> In The Beginning…
>
> >> Was there ever really a beginning? Or did everything just always
> >> exist forever?
>
> >There is an infinite number of beginnings, middles, and endings, and
> >everything has existed forever.
>
> science has to prove its assertions
>
>
> religion just gets to throw shit at the wall and keep what sticks
>
>
Genesis 1
1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light
from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And
the evening and the morning were the first day."
>
Suzanne
John S. Wilkins
In Hebrew, ex nihilo is a lot less clear. He *separated* the heaven and
the earth when he began. In my view ex nihilo is a much later doctrine
under Greek influence. Initially God merely divided the chaos into
heaven (sky, with a firmament to hold the waters/chaos back) and earth
(eretz, the land) which floats on the waters. All the
chaos/waters/tiamat existed when God began. In other words, he had
material to start with.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Suzanne
have
science. But some of you guys can't get it into your head that there
are
plenty of scientists who do believe in God.
>
> They should have asked you, instead.
>
>
>
> Darn fools! It's easy!
>
> You just say "goddiddit", click your heels three times and you're back
> in Kansas in time for sunday-school...
>
actually
I didn't say it; God is the one who tells us in his word that he
created
the Heavens and the earth. Moses wrote it down for him, though.
>
> Why waste all that time time thinking? Suzanne (i.e. "Robert" in drag)
>
It doesn't seem to me that you are thinking, You've turned into that
"Slowly I turned.,,,,Step by Step,,,.," mode. If you know that
routine.
A Christian shows up and it makes you go into low gear. Very low.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:50:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert <RobertAr...@msn.com>
And why are you saying that they don't know that there is
universe?
>
> I do not really
>
> >understand how it can even be measured in terms of time, since during
> >that ephemerally brief “moment,” there may not have been any such
> >thing as calculable time. I could be wrong.
>
> we can calculate events as functions of temperature and expansion of
> the universe. that gives us time and it gives us the properties of the
> universe we see today. theory agrees very well with observation.
>
> unlike creationism, which has always been wrong
>
you
know enough to say that a creationist is wrong.
>
>
> >So then, while the Big Bang Theory seems to say that there was a
> >beginning, M Theory seems to say that there was not a beginning, just
> >a reaction, just a continuation, of something that already existed
> >beforehand.
>
> well, no. again you are confused. as i pointed out above, our CURRENT
> universe had a beginning. the total universe may not have...we just
> dont know
>
you questioned that the universe we live in has a beginning.
You said...
"> the particular universe we inhabit had a beginning. existence
itself??
> who knows?"
universe we live in had a beginning. Which were you meaning?
>
>
Suzanne
Rusty Sites
>>
> Gee....the ruby slippers. All of us would love to have them. No,
> actually
> I didn't say it; God is the one who tells us in his word that he
> created
> the Heavens and the earth.
I know this is futile, but I would just like to point out to you that it
is you who is saying that it is god's word, not god.
cassandra
<snip for focus>
> It doesn't seem to me that you are thinking, You've turned into that
> "Slowly I turned.,,,,Step by Step,,,.," mode. If you know that
> routine.
> A Christian shows up and it makes you go into low gear. Very low.
In the spirit of your commentary, I can point out this is usually
necessary so the creationists don't get left behind.
cassandra
> On Jul 26, 4:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip for focus>
> > of course creationists didnt even know what stars were, let alone how
> > the universe developed...or even that there was a universe
>
> How could someone not know what a star is? Everyone does.
> And why are you saying that they don't know that there is
> universe?
Sincere question time. You say you know what stars are. How do you
know? Who told you? What did you read? What did you observe?
Ganesh J. Acharya
> "Robert" <RobertAr...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9505cf1c-bc02-4602...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > In The Beginning…
>
> > Was there ever really a beginning? Or did everything just always
> > exist forever?
>
> There is an infinite number of beginnings, middles, and endings, and
> everything has existed forever.
True
Erwin Moller
6 Then God created a wall, so all his followers could throw shit at it.
The shit that sticked was kept, the shit that fell off was reformed into
braintissue for his followers.
7 God saw it was good.
> Suzanne
Erwin Moller
And how do you know?
Read that somewhere in a Holy Book (c)?
bpuharic
<leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 26, 4:54 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:06:25 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>> >"Robert" <RobertAr...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> >news:9505cf1c-bc02-4602...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> In The Beginning…
>>
>> >> Was there ever really a beginning? Or did everything just always
>> >> exist forever?
>>
>> >There is an infinite number of beginnings, middles, and endings, and
>> >everything has existed forever.
>>
>> science has to prove its assertions
>>
>That's because it demands it, itself.
>>
>> religion just gets to throw shit at the wall and keep what sticks
>>
>You had to invent a wall. God started with nothing.
>>
>Genesis 1
>1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
he deosnt even start with himiself
bpuharic
<leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>It doesn't seem to me that you are thinking, You've turned into that
>"Slowly I turned.,,,,Step by Step,,,.," mode. If you know that
>routine.
the 3 stooges if i recall...
>A Christian shows up and it makes you go into low gear. Very low.
yeah. for 2000 it was in such low gear there was no progress at all.
>>
>Suzanne
bpuharic
<leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 26, 4:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:50:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert <RobertAr...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> of course creationists didnt even know what stars were, let alone how
>> the universe developed...or even that there was a universe
>>
>How could someone not know what a star is? Everyone does.
>And why are you saying that they don't know that there is
>universe?
they didn't know stars were balls of gas. they had no idea even of the
basics. after thousands of years creationism hadn't discovered the
nature of stars
and no, they didn't know there was a universe. they 'knew' there was
an earth and the other planets went around us. and that's pretty much
it.
they didn't know we lived in a galaxy. they didn't know there were
other galaxies...
creationism was...and is...an abject failure at explaining the
universe
>> we can calculate events as functions of temperature and expansion of
>> the universe. that gives us time and it gives us the properties of the
>> universe we see today. theory agrees very well with observation.
>>
>> unlike creationism, which has always been wrong
>>
>If you don't know how it all came into existence, I don't think that
>you
>know enough to say that a creationist is wrong.
this is god of the gaps. a typical creationist position is to say that
unless scientists know EVERYTHING we know NOTHING.
we know enough to know creationism is wrong. we know the universe is
13.7B years old. creationism had it at 6000 years.
and the METHODS of creationism are useless. creationism couldnt tell
us even the basics of nature...plate tectonics, the nature of disease,
etc.
>>
>If you don't mind me pointing it out, at the beginning of the post
>you questioned that the universe we live in has a beginning.
>You said...
>"> the particular universe we inhabit had a beginning. existence
>itself??
>> who knows?"
>But it seems that you are saying here something different, that the
>universe we live in had a beginning. Which were you meaning?
we may live in a universe that bubbled off from another universe via
the laws of quantum physics. thus OUR particular neighborhood,
pleasant though it is, had a beginning.
the 'universe' as being everything, including our neighborhood...well,
if it exists, we dont know if THAT had a beginning.
science led us here. creationism led us astray
>>
>>
>Suzanne
Frank J
> In The Beginning…
>
> Was there ever really a beginning?
Of course. It was last Thursday. ;-)
(snip)
gregwrld
Well, that was a whole lot of nothing.
You should meet Nashton and Ray-ray.
You could talks for days and convey
utterly no content and still think you
actually accomplished something.
gregwrld
gregwrld
Zero content. You may as well report your
dreams. They'll explain just as much.
gregwrld
Burkhard
Darn, and I missed it. Will there be a repeat?
James Beck
Of course. There's always a new beginning. I heard it in a song once,
so it must be true.
http://www.broadjam.com/artists/songs.php?artistID=18679&mediaID=493368
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Ganesh J. Acharya"
<ganeshj...@gmail.com>:
....for values of "truth" equal to "unsupported belief".
Kleuskes & Moos
That's a well known fact. Some of them are old regulars in this
newsgroup. Most of them have no trouble at all accepting ToE, given
the overwhelming amount of evidence.
> > They should have asked you, instead.
>
> They didn't have to. Many of them already did believe in God.
Ah? Care to name some of these scientists you are thinking of?
Inquiring minds want to know, as the saying goes.
> > Darn fools! It's easy!
>
> > You just say "goddiddit", click your heels three times and you're back
> > in Kansas in time for sunday-school...
>
> Gee....the ruby slippers. All of us would love to have them. No,
> actually
> I didn't say it; God is the one who tells us in his word that he
> created
> the Heavens and the earth. Moses wrote it down for him, though.
And it says so in the bible. If you really believe that "Gods Word As
You Interpret It" is a sound foundation for scientific inquiry, you
were born some 400 years too late. If not more.
> > Why waste all that time time thinking? Suzanne (i.e. "Robert" in drag)
> > has the answer...- Hide quoted text -
>
> It doesn't seem to me that you are thinking, You've turned into that
> "Slowly I turned.,,,,Step by Step,,,.," mode. If you know that
> routine.
Well, it's hard to recognize a thought if you've never had one, i'd
reckon... The example above was actually an example of "irony" verging
on the "sarcastic".
> A Christian shows up and it makes you go into low gear. Very low.
It's not your so-called "christianity" i responded to. It's the
evidence in your post of a mind not only shut to the outside world,
but actually shut down, locked in a safe and buried six feet under
that provoked my little digression.
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Jul 26, 11:57 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 26, 4:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> <snip for focus>
>
> > > of course creationists didnt even know what stars were, let alone how
> > > the universe developed...or even that there was a universe
>
> > How could someone not know what a star is? Everyone does.
> > And why are you saying that they don't know that there is
> > universe?
>
> know? Who told you? What did you read? What did you observe?
>
>
Suzanne
bpuharic
which bible? protestant? catholic? orthodox? jewish?
you guys cant even agree on which bible to use, yet it's the perfect
word of god...
>>
>Suzanne
>
Suzanne
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
>
> >It doesn't seem to me that you are thinking, You've turned into that
> >"Slowly I turned.,,,,Step by Step,,,.," mode. If you know that
> >routine.
>
> the 3 stooges if i recall...
>
> >A Christian shows up and it makes you go into low gear. Very low.
>
> yeah. for 2000 it was in such low gear there was no progress at all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Apparently several did this routine. I saw Abbott and Costello do this
one.
It sort of grows on you.
>
Suzanne
Rusty Sites
What can I say? That is truly astonishing even for you.
Rusty Sites
chris thompson
So was _The Three Musketeers_. Is that God's word? Can I fornicate
with my landlord's wife? (Not that I have a landlord now, mind you.
And even if I did, I would not fornicate with his wife.)
Chris
Suzanne
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:57:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
> >On Jul 26, 4:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:50:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert <RobertAr...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> of course creationists didnt even know what stars were, let alone how
> >> the universe developed...or even that there was a universe
>
> >How could someone not know what a star is? Everyone does.
> >And why are you saying that they don't know that there is
> >universe?
>
> they didn't know stars were balls of gas. they had no idea even of the
> basics. after thousands of years creationism hadn't discovered the
> nature of stars
>
>
> and no, they didn't know there was a universe. they 'knew' there was
> an earth and the other planets went around us. and that's pretty much
> it.
>
>
> they didn't know we lived in a galaxy. they didn't know there were
> other galaxies...
>
>
> creationism was...and is...an abject failure at explaining the
> universe
>
>
> >> we can calculate events as functions of temperature and expansion of
> >> the universe. that gives us time and it gives us the properties of the
> >> universe we see today. theory agrees very well with observation.
>
> >> unlike creationism, which has always been wrong
>
> >If you don't know how it all came into existence, I don't think that
> >you
> >know enough to say that a creationist is wrong.
>
> this is god of the gaps. a typical creationist position is to say that
> unless scientists know EVERYTHING we know NOTHING.
>
are
scientists who do not believe the creation account and there are
scientists who do believe the creation account. You spoke as though
all creationists have no scientists among them, and all scientists
have
no creationists among them. This is not true. Many scientists at NASA
are creationists.
>
> we know enough to know creationism is wrong. we know the universe is
> 13.7B years old. creationism had it at 6000 years.
>
you
don't understand what you are trying to refute. I do not believe that
you
understand the creation account.
>
The Bible says that "a day is with the Lord as a thousand years."
What does this mean? Does it mean that a day to us is a thousand
years to God? Does this mean that a thousand years to us is a day
to the Lord? How long was the first day of creation? The sun, moon,
stars were not created for several days. Where does the concept of
24 hours in a day come from? The 6,000 to 10,000 years that a
young-earth creationist speaks of is based on the length of age of
the people written in the genealogies. Sooooooo how long did the
creation take? What consitutes a single day of creation? I don't
think that you can explain any of this.
>
> and the METHODS of creationism are useless. creationism couldnt tell
> us even the basics of nature...plate tectonics, the nature of disease,
> etc.
>
found out that the membrane, called the periosteum, that is around a
rib, contains bone forming cells (osteoblasts) and bone smoothing
cells
(osteoclasts). Doctors learned that when a patient needed some of his
own bone material in case of an accident for reconstruction, they
could
borrow rib bone, so long as they sewed up the periosteum so that it
could regenerate the rib. But there it was all along in the Bible that
was written thousands and thousands of years ago. I said in the Hebrew
that God created Eve from a rib which the Lord took from Adam, and it
says that God "closed up the flesh thereof." when he closed out the
surgery. This phrase does not modify the entry wound in Adam's side.
It modifies only the membrane of the rib. Since the KJV translators
did
not want to tamper with this, even though they would not have
understood it, they translated it as is. So thousands and thousands of
years went by before this was understood, and only by modern
very modern times.
>
The plate tectonics? The Bible mentions that when God created the
earth the Lord separated the seas from the land and the dry land
(singular) appeared. (In Genesis long ago). The earth has gone
through several single land masses and several continental
separations. The single one closest to our time is Pangaea,
which separated into Eurasia and Gondwanaland. There was another
figurement before that one. Yet, plate tectonics did not exist until
recent years. As a matter of fact, the US gov't mapped the floor
of the oceans for sub problems, and it was classified for a long
time. Eventually they started studying it, but this is only a recent
science.
>
>
> >If you don't mind me pointing it out, at the beginning of the post
> >you questioned that the universe we live in has a beginning.
> >You said...
> >"> the particular universe we inhabit had a beginning. existence
> >itself??
> >> who knows?"
> >But it seems that you are saying here something different, that the
> >universe we live in had a beginning. Which were you meaning?
>
> we may live in a universe that bubbled off from another universe via
> the laws of quantum physics. thus OUR particular neighborhood,
> pleasant though it is, had a beginning.
>
> the 'universe' as being everything, including our neighborhood...well,
> if it exists, we dont know if THAT had a beginning.
>
> science led us here. creationism led us astray
>
things,
I don't think that you are being logical but only being on the
offense.
You demonstrate that you don't know some things, or you would not
have put "plate tectonics" in your list, previously in this post.
>
I did not mean any of this as an insult, but you have some flaws in
your arguments that are not very reasonable.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
If one can have a relaxing weekend, that is. : )
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
I know them.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
though. : D
(all together now...awwwwwwww)
>
Suzanne
cassandra
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
>
> >It doesn't seem to me that you are thinking, You've turned into that
> >"Slowly I turned.,,,,Step by Step,,,.," mode. If you know that
> >routine.
>
> the 3 stooges if i recall...
They did a version. Copied it from vaudeville, origins uncertain.
> >A Christian shows up and it makes you go into low gear. Very low.
>
> yeah. for 2000 it was in such low gear there was no progress at all.
>
>
>
>
>
cassandra
Slowly you read... word by word...
cassandra
> On Jul 27, 1:57 am, cassandra <cassandra99...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 26, 11:57 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 26, 4:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > <snip for focus>
>
> > > > of course creationists didnt even know what stars were, let alone how
> > > > the universe developed...or even that there was a universe
>
> > > How could someone not know what a star is? Everyone does.
> > > And why are you saying that they don't know that there is
> > > universe?
>
> > Sincere question time. You say you know what stars are. How do you
>
> How old are you?
Why do you ask?
cassandra
I think I know exactly what you mean.
cassandra
wrote:
Let's not be chauvinist. Ladies are be landlords too. And some of
them have wives.
cassandra
<snip for focus>
> Most NASA scientists are creationists. They knew.
and then Suzanne wrote:
> Many scientists at NASA are creationists.
Are you saying "many" = "most" ? On what do you base these
assertions?
Rusty Sites
First experience with Suzanne?
cassandra
You mean she escaped before?
Rusty Sites
She appears from time to time. Don't expect to get anywhere talking to her.
Ernest Major
<e1dfb0ef-2919-4046...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> writes
the Bible is older than you does not make the observation that it is you
who is saying that the Bible is God's word, not God, incorrect. (You
don't think that "The Origin of Species" is divinely inspired, do you?)
It strikes me that a proper Christian ought to place more weight on what
they are supposed to think is the work of God (the universe) than on the
words of men (the Bible, and in particular interpretations of the
Bible).
http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
>Most NASA scientists are creationists. They knew.
--
alias Ernest Major
bpuharic
<leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 27, 5:20 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:57:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>>
>>
>> they didn't know stars were balls of gas. they had no idea even of the
>> basics. after thousands of years creationism hadn't discovered the
>> nature of stars
>>
>Most NASA scientists are creationists. They knew.
first, you're wrong.
2nd, how did they show stars were made of gas using 'god did it'?
i'm a scientist. in my entire life i've never seen 'god did it' used
as an explanation
go ahead. tell me how that works
and tell me where i can find proof that most NASA scientists are
creationists
you guys typically, um, make stuff up.
>>
>> and no, they didn't know there was a universe. they 'knew' there was
>> an earth and the other planets went around us. and that's pretty much
>> it.
>>
>I don't know any creationists like you are describing.
>>
>> they didn't know we lived in a galaxy. they didn't know there were
>> other galaxies...
>>
>Do you know what galaxy the earth is from?
meaningless question
>>
>> creationism was...and is...an abject failure at explaining the
>> universe
>>
>Then you may not understand the creation account.
gee. you guys don't either. there are as many 'creation stories' as
there are creationists.
when you guys get your story straight, c'mon back
>>
>> >If you don't know how it all came into existence, I don't think that
>> >you
>> >know enough to say that a creationist is wrong.
>>
>> this is god of the gaps. a typical creationist position is to say that
>> unless scientists know EVERYTHING we know NOTHING.
>>
>In the first place, your opinion does not fit all scientists. There
>are
>scientists who do not believe the creation account
which is all of them, according to elaine ecklund of rice university.
she interviewed 1700 scientists in the last few years about a number
of things
none of them was a creationist
and there are
>scientists who do believe the creation account. You spoke as though
>all creationists have no scientists among them, and all scientists
>have
>no creationists among them. This is not true. Many scientists at NASA
>are creationists.
really? care to prove this?
and have you checked the religous beliefs of america's pre-eminent
science organziation, the NAS? guess what? almost 90% of them dont
even believe in god.
so you have a problem...
>>
>> we know enough to know creationism is wrong. we know the universe is
>> 13.7B years old. creationism had it at 6000 years.
>>
>You do not have enough information to refute the creation account, if
>you
>don't understand what you are trying to refute. I do not believe that
>you
>understand the creation account.
gee. i believe the same about you. you've obviously never read the
bible, so have no idea what it says. and literalism isnt biblical.
and 'belief in the bible'? that's a made man doctrine from the niagra
conference held in the 19th century.
and, yes, i have enough info to refute biblical literalism. sorry.
>>
>The Bible says that "a day is with the Lord as a thousand years."
>What does this mean?
hmmm...you guys dont know what it means.
Does it mean that a day to us is a thousand
>years to God? Does this mean that a thousand years to us is a day
>to the Lord? How long was the first day of creation? The sun, moon,
>stars were not created for several days. Where does the concept of
>24 hours in a day come from? The 6,000 to 10,000 years that a
>young-earth creationist speaks of is based on the length of age of
>the people written in the genealogies. Sooooooo how long did the
>creation take? What consitutes a single day of creation? I don't
>think that you can explain any of this.
well, as a matter of fact you just wrecked your own argument. because
a guy named bishop usscher ran the numbers and calculated the earth as
being 6000 years old
so, it seems, your argument is with creationists not with me.
seems you don't understand creationism well enough to defend it.
>>
>> and the METHODS of creationism are useless. creationism couldnt tell
>> us even the basics of nature...plate tectonics, the nature of disease,
>> etc.
>>
>You are assuming this. It has not been too many years that scientists
>found out that the membrane, called the periosteum, that is around a
>rib, contains bone forming cells (osteoblasts) and bone smoothing
>cells
gee. too bad creationismi wasn't involved. scientists were.
thanks. i already knew that.
>(osteoclasts). Doctors learned that when a patient needed some of his
>own bone material in case of an accident for reconstruction, they
>could
>borrow rib bone, so long as they sewed up the periosteum so that it
>could regenerate the rib. But there it was all along in the Bible that
>was written thousands and thousands of years ago.
really? i've read the bible many times. never saw a single reference
to 'cells' at all.
and you seem to think that if someone tells a story and it has ANY
reference to the world at all, that makes it true.
there is a story about little red riding hood and a wolf. wolves
exist. is little red riding hood true because there are wolves?
.. So thousands and thousands of
>years went by before this was understood, and only by modern
>very modern times.
IOW it was a piece of useless trivia that someone used to rationalize
the failure of creationism AFTER science found a fact about nature
yes, i'm aware creationists do this. if creationism was useful, they
would have told us BEFORE science discovered these things.
>>
>The plate tectonics? The Bible mentions that when God created the
>earth the Lord separated the seas from the land
gee. no mention of plate tectonics in the bible at all. no mention of
plates. and for thousands of years creationists told us that
earthquakes were god's punishments against people
pat robertson did so last year about haiti. and he's a creationist.
your idea is cute and quaint...but quite useless
and the dry land
>(singular) appeared. (In Genesis long ago). The earth has gone
>through several single land masses and several continental
>separations.
which was discovered by scientists...not creationism.
>>
>> we may live in a universe that bubbled off from another universe via
>> the laws of quantum physics. thus OUR particular neighborhood,
>> pleasant though it is, had a beginning.
>>
>> the 'universe' as being everything, including our neighborhood...well,
>> if it exists, we dont know if THAT had a beginning.
>>
>> science led us here. creationism led us astray
>>
>Since you don't seem to know what the Bible says about a lot of
>things,
gee. neither do you. your sleight of hand references that justify an
interpretation are hardly evidence that the bible is science.
>I don't think that you are being logical but only being on the
>offense.
and so are you.
>You demonstrate that you don't know some things, or you would not
>have put "plate tectonics" in your list, previously in this post.
tell it to pat robertson. that's proof that creationists thought god,
not plate tectonics, caused earthquakes.
and if you can find a reference to plate tectonics in creationist
literature, derived from the bible, before wegener be my guest!
>>
>I did not mean any of this as an insult, but you have some flaws in
>your arguments that are not very reasonable.
?? now let's see. you take the bible
wait til science discovers something
scour the texts until you can find some paragraph that can be twisted
to mean what you want it to mean
THEN declare you knew it all along.
gee. why am i unimpressed.
>>
>Suzanne
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
I think the long words like "necessary" are a problem for "some"
readers.
Incidentally, I do not know what "routine" we're talking about.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Suzanne wrote:
> On Jul 27, 12:15�am, Rusty Sites <SpamYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
> > On 7/26/2010 8:56 PM, Suzanne wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Gee....the ruby slippers. All of us would love to have them. No,
> > > actually
> > > I didn't say it; God is the one who tells us in his word that he
> > > created
> > > the Heavens and the earth.
> >
> > I know this is futile, but I would just like to point out to you that it
> > is you who is saying that it is god's word, not god.
> >
> That is incorrect. The Bible was written before I was ever born.
Then, how do you know?
Eric Root
Maybe many NASA scientists are Christians, but I'll bet very few of
them are creationists, which are a crackpot offshoot of Christianity.
Eric Root
Eric Root
She thinks Werner von Braun was a creationist.
Eric Root
gregwrld
> I know them.
>
> Suzanne
Not surprised.
gregwrld
gregwrld
Actually, I pointed out that using the
stories in the Bible gives us no more
relevant information than reporting your
dreams. All of your claims to seem to
rest on the notion that if it is in the Bible
it must be fact and apply to natural
history but there is no objective evidence
that that notion is true.
The writers of the Bible offer descriptions
of events that are unsupportable. Even
worse, they offer no explanations as to
how some poorly described entity can
accomplish any of these things.
You might as well be dreaming.
gregwrld
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Suzanne
<leil...@hotmail.com>:
>On Jul 27, 12:15 am, Rusty Sites <SpamYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>> On 7/26/2010 8:56 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Gee....the ruby slippers. All of us would love to have them. No,
>> > actually
>> > I didn't say it; God is the one who tells us in his word that he
>> > created
>> > the Heavens and the earth.
>>
>> I know this is futile, but I would just like to point out to you that it
>> is you who is saying that it is god's word, not god.
>That is incorrect. The Bible was written before I was ever born.
And *you* are saying that the Bible is God's word. The fact
that others have made the same claim doesn't change that
fact.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
>On Jul 27, 1:57 am, cassandra <cassandra99...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 11:57 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 26, 4:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip for focus>
>>
>> > > of course creationists didnt even know what stars were, let alone how
>> > > the universe developed...or even that there was a universe
>>
>> > How could someone not know what a star is? Everyone does.
>> > And why are you saying that they don't know that there is
>> > universe?
>>
>> Sincere question time. You say you know what stars are. How do youC
>> know? Who told you? What did you read? What did you observe?
>How old are you?
Can't answer the question? No surprise, since only science
has been able to determine what stars actually are. And
they're not little lights on the bowl of the heavens, or an
afterthought ("...and He made the stars also").
To address yours, I'd guess "old enough to know that you
accept the word of others regarding the nature of stars, and
that you've made no direct observations personally".
Bob Casanova
>On Jul 27, 4:43 am, Erwin Moller
><Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
>> Suzanne schreef:
>> > On Jul 26, 4:54 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:06:25 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >>> "Robert" <RobertAr...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> >>>news:9505cf1c-bc02-4602...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> >>>> In The Beginning…
>> >>>> Was there ever really a beginning? Or did everything just always
>> >>>> exist forever?
>> >>> There is an infinite number of beginnings, middles, and endings, and
>> >>> everything has existed forever.
>> >> science has to prove its assertions
>> > That's because it demands it, itself.
>> >> religion just gets to throw shit at the wall and keep what sticks
>> > You had to invent a wall. God started with nothing.
>> > Genesis 1
>> > 1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
>> > 2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
>> > the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
>> > waters.
>> > 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
>> > 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light
>> > from the darkness.
>> > 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And
>> > the evening and the morning were the first day."
>> 6 Then God created a wall, so all his followers could throw shit at it.
>> The shit that sticked was kept, the shit that fell off was reformed into
>> braintissue for his followers.
>> 7 God saw it was good.
>I did not say the above.
Having trouble following the attributions?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Eric Root
<er...@swva.net>:
Based on observation I doubt she actually "thinks" at all.
TomS
<20q056pig35m11ckc...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova stated..."
>
>On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:52:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Suzanne
><leil...@hotmail.com>:
>
>>On Jul 27, 12:15 am, Rusty Sites <SpamYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2010 8:56 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Gee....the ruby slippers. All of us would love to have them. No,
>>> > actually
>>> > I didn't say it; God is the one who tells us in his word that he
>>> > created
>>> > the Heavens and the earth.
>>>
>>> I know this is futile, but I would just like to point out to you that it
>>> is you who is saying that it is god's word, not god.
>
>>That is incorrect. The Bible was written before I was ever born.
>
>And *you* are saying that the Bible is God's word. The fact
>that others have made the same claim doesn't change that
>fact.
The opening words of the Bible are (in one English translation)
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Please
note that the Bible does *not* say that these words are God's.
It does not tell us who is saying these words. Tradition has it
that these words were written by Moses. We can all agree that they
are not original with any living human, but that does not put much
of a limit on who the author was.
--
---Tom S.
Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
It's my first experience hearing Cassandra.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
They don't lock me up in here, they LOVE me because I challenge your
brains. When you guys see what I have to say, you think
"Them's fightin' words!" And then you rise to meet
the challenge with "CHARGE!!"
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
Mmmm but of course. I was the one that no one was getting anywhere
with.
That's rich.
>
Suzanne
John Harshman
I've met a dozen or two NASA scientists, and not one of them was a
creationist. Was my sample that biased? I've told you my source of
information (personal encounter). What's yours?
Suzanne
> In message
> <e1dfb0ef-2919-4046-88cf-b55434354...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
>
> >On Jul 27, 12:15 am, Rusty Sites <SpamYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/26/2010 8:56 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>
> >> > Gee....the ruby slippers. All of us would love to have them. No,
> >> > actually
> >> > I didn't say it; God is the one who tells us in his word that he
> >> > created
> >> > the Heavens and the earth.
>
> >> I know this is futile, but I would just like to point out to you that it
> >> is you who is saying that it is god's word, not god.
>
> >That is incorrect. The Bible was written before I was ever born.
>
> >Suzanne
>
> On you past record, this is likely to be futile, but pointing out that
> the Bible is older than you does not make the observation that it is you
> who is saying that the Bible is God's word, not God, incorrect. (You
> don't think that "The Origin of Species" is divinely inspired, do you?)
>
creationist, brand him with "fundamentalist" and set him up. Maybe we
might show your record.
>
> It strikes me that a proper Christian ought to place more weight on what
> they are supposed to think is the work of God (the universe) than on the
> words of men (the Bible, and in particular interpretations of the
> Bible).
>
>
Suzanne
Rusty Sites
I guess this confirms that either this is your first encounter or both
of you have bad memories.
Suzanne
> > > > "Slowly I turned.,,,,Step by Step,,,.," mode. If you know that
> > > > routine.
> > > > A Christian shows up and it makes you go into low gear. Very low.
>
> > > In the spirit of your commentary, I can point out this is usually
> > > necessary so the creationists don't get left behind.
>
> > Slowly you typed....tap by tap.....
>
> I think the long words like "necessary" are a problem for "some"
> readers.
>
> Incidentally, I do not know what "routine" we're talking about.
>
a routine that has
apparently been done by lots of comedians, who themselves thought it
funny.
It's like this person has been hypnotized and when he hears certain
buzz words,
he goes into this zombie like state where he may do harm to someone,
but not
really. It's humor based not exactly on the ironic, or unexpected, but
strangely
on the expected. Usually, what is deemed as funny is what is contrary
to the
expected, according to people who analyze what constitutes humor. A
few of
the famous comedians have captured much laughter in capitalizing on
what
is expected, rather than in what is contrary to what is expected, such
as the
very famous act that Jack Benny did when he would react to something
as his
supposedly being stingy, or as he would claim (for years) that he was
only 39.
It was repetitious and people would howl with laughter, even though
they knew
what he was going to say before he even said it. Undoubtedly what also
figures
into a comedian's getting laughs by this method has to do with timing,
as well as
the very way in which the humor has been delivered. Jack Benny could
dead
pan into the camera, pause and then looking in an indignant manner
just fold
his arms and say "Welll!!!!!!" and people would fall out of their
chairs laughing.
He would prolong the laughter by not daring to crack a smile.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
Of the several things we have discussed, to which thing is your
question
addressing?
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
All I mean by it is someone that believes the creation account in the
Bible. That's not being a crackpot.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
the Bible. I've talked to you before.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
You are being predictable.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:52:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Suzanne
>
> >On Jul 27, 12:15 am, Rusty Sites <SpamYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/26/2010 8:56 PM, Suzanne wrote:
>
> >> > Gee....the ruby slippers. All of us would love to have them. No,
> >> > actually
> >> > I didn't say it; God is the one who tells us in his word that he
> >> > created
> >> > the Heavens and the earth.
>
> >> I know this is futile, but I would just like to point out to you that it
> >> is you who is saying that it is god's word, not god.
> >That is incorrect. The Bible was written before I was ever born.
>
> And *you* are saying that the Bible is God's word. The fact
> that others have made the same claim doesn't change that
> fact.
>
someone wants to know how I know that it is God's word, which is
the way this conversation has come about, and I say that the Bible
says it is God's word, then someone coming along, such as you
are doing, who tries to change what has been said, is not very
convincing. You just sound like someone trying to confuse things,
Mr. C,
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On Jul 27, 10:00 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 1:51 am, cassandra <cassandra99...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 26, 11:56 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip for focus>
>
> > > > "Slowly I turned.,,,,Step by Step,,,.," mode. If you know that
> > > > routine.
> > > > A Christian shows up and it makes you go into low gear. Very low.
>
> > > In the spirit of your commentary, I can point out this is usually
> > > necessary so the creationists don't get left behind.
>
> > Slowly you typed....tap by tap.....
>
>
Slowly you think.....synapse by synapse
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
into the middle of something that you didn't understand.
>
Suzanne
Mike Lyle
>>
>> It strikes me that a proper Christian ought to place more weight on
>> what they are supposed to think is the work of God (the universe)
>> than on the words of men (the Bible, and in particular
>> interpretations of the Bible).
>>
> The Bible is not called "God's word" for nothing, Ernest.
>>
You must, surely, know that's what you're being asked.
--
Mike.
Suzanne
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
> <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 27, 5:20 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:57:34 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
> >> they didn't know stars were balls of gas. they had no idea even of the
> >> basics. after thousands of years creationism hadn't discovered the
> >> nature of stars
>
> >Most NASA scientists are creationists. They knew.
>
>
No I'm not. My relatives work there. So do some of my friends.
>
> 2nd, how did they show stars were made of gas using 'god did it'?
>
Now you are jumping into Cassandra's words. I didn't even address
the scientific subject of the stars.
>
> i'm a scientist. in my entire life i've never seen 'god did it' used
> as an explanation
>
I'm happy for you that you are a scientist. That's great. What are you
addressing?
>
> go ahead. tell me how that works
>
How....what works? The fact that I said that I believe the Bible?
It's faith, you know?
>
> and tell me where i can find proof that most NASA scientists are
> creationists
>
> you guys typically, um, make stuff up.
>
I have cousins, aunts, uncles, and a few friends who either work at,
or have worked at NASA. There are a lot of people there that do
believe the Bible and the biblical account of creation. The creation
account was read, at least the first 12 lines of it, on Apollo 8, and
it
was read to the whole world of more than a billion people who were
tuned in. Maybe you didn't know this. I thought maybe Cassandra
might've been too young to know this either. She never answered
me.
>
>
> >> and no, they didn't know there was a universe. they 'knew' there was
> >> an earth and the other planets went around us. and that's pretty much
> >> it.
>
> >I don't know any creationists like you are describing.
>
> >> they didn't know we lived in a galaxy. they didn't know there were
> >> other galaxies...
>
> >Do you know what galaxy the earth is from?
>
> meaningless question
>
Actually not. It seems there is talk now that since we view the
Milky Way on edge that we may have come from another. This
is a new theory.
>
>
> >> creationism was...and is...an abject failure at explaining the
> >> universe
>
> >Then you may not understand the creation account.
>
> gee. you guys don't either. there are as many 'creation stories' as
> there are creationists.
>
No, you don't understand what I was saying. Earlier I had explained
that I don't think people give the creation account a fair shake, and
I listed some very common problems that people have with their
reading of it. For example, what constitutes a day of creation? I am
saying that it simply does not say it was a day of 24 hours anywhere.
I believe God could have done that in 24 hour days, but it is not said
there. What I said was that there is a verse that says "a day is with
the
Lord as a thousand years." And that addressed the concept of time,
which could be absolute, or it could be relative. The sun and moon]
and stars had not been created when the activities of the first day
were said to be "the first day."
>
when you guys get your story straight, c'mon back
>
My story is straight, I am not in cahoots with others. It's just me.
>
>
> >> >If you don't know how it all came into existence, I don't think that
> >> >you
> >> >know enough to say that a creationist is wrong.
>
> >> this is god of the gaps. a typical creationist position is to say that
> >> unless scientists know EVERYTHING we know NOTHING.
>
> >In the first place, your opinion does not fit all scientists. There
> >are
> >scientists who do not believe the creation account
>
> which is all of them, according to elaine ecklund of rice university.
> she interviewed 1700 scientists in the last few years about a number
> of things
>
And you believe that?
>
> none of them was a creationist
>
> and there are
>
> >scientists who do believe the creation account. You spoke as though
> >all creationists have no scientists among them, and all scientists
> >have
> >no creationists among them. This is not true. Many scientists at NASA
> >are creationists.
>
> really? care to prove this?
>
Why does everything have to be a challenge to a duel with some of
you? People have done this all over the place. How can you think
that only people who do not believe the biblical account are
scientists?
>
> and have you checked the religous beliefs of america's pre-eminent
> science organziation, the NAS? guess what? almost 90% of them dont
> even believe in god.
>
I have asked in person. I, personally, am satisfied that there are
many
people that are believers in the creation account who also are
scientists.
>
> so you have a problem...
>
No, you do if you think so narrowly.
>
>
> >> we know enough to know creationism is wrong. we know the universe is
> >> 13.7B years old. creationism had it at 6000 years.
>
> >You do not have enough information to refute the creation account, if
> >you
> >don't understand what you are trying to refute. I do not believe that
> >you
> >understand the creation account.
>
> gee. i believe the same about you. you've obviously never read the
> bible, so have no idea what it says. and literalism isnt biblical.
>
You are talking with an attitude. i was not. You are reading emotion
into
what I said that was not there.
>
> and 'belief in the bible'? that's a made man doctrine from the niagra
> conference held in the 19th century.
>
No it isn't from the nineteenth century. None of it is. Haven't you
ever
heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls?
>
> and, yes, i have enough info to refute biblical literalism. sorry.
>
More attitude. Let's just say you may have just enough information,
which is not accurate if you think the Bible was written in a late
century, to tell you the wrong things. But not enough information
to tell you the right things.
>
>
> >The Bible says that "a day is with the Lord as a thousand years."
> >What does this mean?
>
> hmmm...you guys dont know what it means.
>
> Does it mean that a day to us is a thousand
>
> >years to God? Does this mean that a thousand years to us is a day
> >to the Lord? How long was the first day of creation? The sun, moon,
> >stars were not created for several days. Where does the concept of
> >24 hours in a day come from? The 6,000 to 10,000 years that a
> >young-earth creationist speaks of is based on the length of age of
> >the people written in the genealogies. Sooooooo how long did the
> >creation take? What consitutes a single day of creation? I don't
> >think that you can explain any of this.
>
> well, as a matter of fact you just wrecked your own argument. because
> a guy named bishop usscher ran the numbers and calculated the earth as
> being 6000 years old
>
He was talking about the amount of time that he thought the
genealogies
addressed after Adam and Eve were out of the Garden of Eden, not
the creation on the first day, which is what I had addressed.
>
> so, it seems, your argument is with creationists not with me.
>
I don't have an argument with anyone. I was discussing what something
might
mean.
>
> seems you don't understand creationism well enough to defend it.
>
You are not hearing what is being said. You are supplying what you
think is being said. And I am not saying what you are thinking.
>
>
> >> and the METHODS of creationism are useless. creationism couldnt tell
> >> us even the basics of nature...plate tectonics, the nature of disease,
> >> etc.
>
> >You are assuming this. It has not been too many years that scientists
> >found out that the membrane, called the periosteum, that is around a
> >rib, contains bone forming cells (osteoblasts) and bone smoothing
> >cells
>
> gee. too bad creationismi wasn't involved. scientists were.
>
> thanks. i already knew that.
>
> >(osteoclasts). Doctors learned that when a patient needed some of his
> >own bone material in case of an accident for reconstruction, they
> >could
> >borrow rib bone, so long as they sewed up the periosteum so that it
> >could regenerate the rib. But there it was all along in the Bible that
> >was written thousands and thousands of years ago.
>
> really? i've read the bible many times. never saw a single reference
> to 'cells' at all.
>
I did not say that cells were in the Bible. The Bible says that the
rib
had flesh around it that God sewed up. We know today that the
periosteum membrane that surrounds ribs is a very fleshy kind of
membrane, and we know today that if there is an injury of a rib that
has broken off or has been removed for grafting bone, that if you
sew up the membrane (provided a portion of the base is intact) the
rib will grow again, due to the membrane called the periosteum. The
translators had no idea why the "flesh of the bone" had to be sewn
up. All they knew was that it didn't makle sense to them, but they
trusted that they should not change it, so they translated it as it
is.
>
>
> and you seem to think that if someone tells a story and it has ANY
> reference to the world at all, that makes it true.
>
I can see that you are not tuned into what is being said.
>
> there is a story about little red riding hood and a wolf. wolves
> exist. is little red riding hood true because there are wolves?
>
> .. So thousands and thousands of
>
> >years went by before this was understood, and only by modern
> >very modern times.
>
> IOW it was a piece of useless trivia that someone used to rationalize
> the failure of creationism AFTER science found a fact about nature
>
> yes, i'm aware creationists do this. if creationism was useful, they
> would have told us BEFORE science discovered these things.
>
And we, the readers, can see you are not with what is being said.
>
>
> >The plate tectonics? The Bible mentions that when God created the
> >earth the Lord separated the seas from the land
>
> gee. no mention of plate tectonics in the bible at all. no mention of
> plates. and for thousands of years creationists told us that
> earthquakes were god's punishments against people
>
The Bible tells of a single mass of land that emerged when God
separated
the seas from the land. If you know about plate tectonics there are
several times when the continents were together as one land mass. The
plates would have formed later than the creation account.
>
> pat robertson did so last year about haiti. and he's a creationist.
>
One person says something like he did and you assume that eveyone
agrees?
>
> your idea is cute and quaint...but quite useless
>
> and the dry land
>
> >(singular) appeared. (In Genesis long ago). The earth has gone
> >through several single land masses and several continental
> >separations.
>
> which was discovered by scientists...not creationism.
>
The Bible said it before there were plate tectonics, ......you are
not listening.....
>
>
> >> we may live in a universe that bubbled off from another universe via
> >> the laws of quantum physics. thus OUR particular neighborhood,
> >> pleasant though it is, had a beginning.
>
> >> the 'universe' as being everything, including our neighborhood...well,
> >> if it exists, we dont know if THAT had a beginning.
>
> >> science led us here. creationism led us astray
>
> >Since you don't seem to know what the Bible says about a lot of
> >things,
>
> gee. neither do you. your sleight of hand references that justify an
> interpretation are hardly evidence that the bible is science.
>
Some thinking! The Bible says something thousands of years
before science gets there, and if someone tells you that, you
call it "sleight of hand?"
>
> >I don't think that you are being logical but only being on the
> >offense.
>
> and so are you.
>
I was being very logical. All you havea shown is that you are not
hearing.
But that's all right. You are letting people see that you are not
really
listening to what has been said.
>
Suzanne
SkyEyes
If you say that it is God's word, then, and someone wants to know how
you know that it is God's word, which is the way this conversation has
come about, and you say that the Bible says it is God's word, THEN YOU
ARE RESORTING TO CIRCULAR REASONING.
And it wouldn't be the first time.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
SkyEyes
Suzanne, accepting a Bronze Age myth written by goat herders who
didn't know any better than to try to treat leprosy using pigeon's
blood *is* being a crackpot.
No matter how hard you try to twist facts and interpretations around,
you're never going to be able to prove your creation myth, because a
*myth* is all it is. It isn't even an original myth - it was nicked
from the Sumerians.
And the only people who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis
*are* crackpots.
SkyEyes
<Snippage>
> You are assuming this. It has not been too many years that scientists
> found out that the membrane, called the periosteum, that is around a
> rib, contains bone forming cells (osteoblasts) and bone smoothing
> cells
> (osteoclasts). Doctors learned that when a patient needed some of his
> own bone material in case of an accident for reconstruction, they
> could
> borrow rib bone, so long as they sewed up the periosteum so that it
> could regenerate the rib. But there it was all along in the Bible that
> was written thousands and thousands of years ago. I said in the Hebrew
> that God created Eve from a rib which the Lord took from Adam,
Suzanne, you can't create a female human from male human tissue.
Human females have XX chromosomes. Human males have XY chromosomes,
and the "Y" is a *broken X*. There's a whole bunch of genetic
information contained in that missing leg of the X chromosome that is
required to make a human female. Human males are Plan B - they're
what gets made if there's not enough information to make a female
human.
Therefore, Eve could not have been made from Adam's rib.
cassandra
Slowly you increase entropy... random change in quantum state by
random change in quantum state...
bpuharic
<leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 28, 5:26 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>>
>>
>> >Most NASA scientists are creationists. They knew.
>>
>> first, you're wrong.
>>
>No I'm not. My relatives work there. So do some of my friends.
same here. not proof. sorry.
>>
>> 2nd, how did they show stars were made of gas using 'god did it'?
>>
>Now you are jumping into Cassandra's words. I didn't even address
>the scientific subject of the stars
that's OK. i did. the question stands. why didn't creationists know
the stars were made of gas? why didnt they know PV=nRT?
>>
>> i'm a scientist. in my entire life i've never seen 'god did it' used
>> as an explanation
>>
>I'm happy for you that you are a scientist. That's great. What are you
>addressing?
why creationism is wrong. why it's a failure. why it's unable to tell
us anything at all about nature.
>>
>> and tell me where i can find proof that most NASA scientists are
>> creationists
>>
>> you guys typically, um, make stuff up.
>>
>I have cousins, aunts, uncles, and a few friends who either work at,
>or have worked at NASA. There are a lot of people there that do
>believe the Bible and the biblical account of creation. The creation
>account was read, at least the first 12 lines of it, on Apollo 8, and
>it
me too. i know alot of people at NASA. and MIT. and harvard...and
caltech
almost none is a christian, let alone a creationist
so your argument is wrong.
g.
>>
>> >> they didn't know we lived in a galaxy. they didn't know there were
>> >> other galaxies...
>>
>> >Do you know what galaxy the earth is from?
>>
>> meaningless question
>>
>Actually not. It seems there is talk now that since we view the
>Milky Way on edge that we may have come from another. This
>is a new theory.
which is more proof that creationism is useless. why didn't
creationists tell us this 2000 years ago?
in fact, creationism told us NOTHING about the unvierse. so far all
you've used as proof is that you have a bunch of cousins.
sorry. science isn't a family business.
>>
>>
>> >> creationism was...and is...an abject failure at explaining the
>> >> universe
>>
>> >Then you may not understand the creation account.
>>
>> gee. you guys don't either. there are as many 'creation stories' as
>> there are creationists.
>>
>No, you don't understand what I was saying. Earlier I had explained
>that I don't think people give the creation account a fair shake,
there isnt 'the' creation story. so you dont give it a fair shake
either
and
>I listed some very common problems that people have with their
>reading of it. For example, what constitutes a day of creation? I am
>saying that it simply does not say it was a day of 24 hours anywhere.
gee. you creationists talk alot. you say nothing. tell you what, you
go here:
once you've convinced your christian brothers of your sad tale you
c'mon back and tell us about it.
as i said there are as many creation stories as there are creationists
>I believe God could have done that in 24 hour days, but it is not said
>there.
i believe the moon is made of green cheese. to coin a phrase, beliefs
are like eyelids...everyone has 'em.
>>
>when you guys get your story straight, c'mon back
>>
>My story is straight, I am not in cahoots with others. It's just me.
is that why other creationists dont believe what you say?
>>
>> >In the first place, your opinion does not fit all scientists. There
>> >are
>> >scientists who do not believe the creation account
>>
>> which is all of them, according to elaine ecklund of rice university.
>> she interviewed 1700 scientists in the last few years about a number
>> of things
>>
>And you believe that?
unless you can prove she's a liar.
>>
>> >scientists who do believe the creation account. You spoke as though
>> >all creationists have no scientists among them, and all scientists
>> >have
>> >no creationists among them. This is not true. Many scientists at NASA
>> >are creationists.
>>
>> really? care to prove this?
>>
>Why does everything have to be a challenge to a duel with some of
>you?
because it's called 'evidence' for 2000 years creationists ASSERTED
their beliefs were true
they were wrong. so nowadays, merely asserting a belief is not proof
it's true.
>>
>> and have you checked the religous beliefs of america's pre-eminent
>> science organziation, the NAS? guess what? almost 90% of them dont
>> even believe in god.
>>
>I have asked in person. I, personally, am satisfied that there are
>many
>people that are believers in the creation account who also are
>scientists.
i've been in science for 35 years. i never even once, met somone in
the sciences who thought 'god did it' was science. not a single
person.
>>
>> so you have a problem...
>>
>No, you do if you think so narrowly.
no, you do if you're gullible
>>
>> and 'belief in the bible'? that's a made man doctrine from the niagra
>> conference held in the 19th century.
>>
>No it isn't from the nineteenth century. None of it is. Haven't you
>ever
>heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls?
tell you what.
you go find in the dead sea scrolls where it says someone has to
'believe' in the bible' and let me know.
me? unlike you, i know a bit about xtian history. NONE of the 3 great
christian creeds...athanasian, apostle's or nicene...NONE of them
requires belief 'in the bible' as a doctrine of christian belief
such a statement was first formulated at the niagra conference in the
mid 19th century.
>>
>> and, yes, i have enough info to refute biblical literalism. sorry.
>>
>More attitude. Let's just say you may have just enough information,
>which is not accurate if you think the Bible was written in a late
>century, to tell you the wrong things. But not enough information
>to tell you the right things.
sigh...more attitude. more assertions.
not a single shred of proof. none.
>>
>>
Where does the concept of
>> >24 hours in a day come from? The 6,000 to 10,000 years that a
>> >young-earth creationist speaks of is based on the length of age of
>> >the people written in the genealogies. Sooooooo how long did the
>> >creation take? What consitutes a single day of creation? I don't
>> >think that you can explain any of this.
>>
>> well, as a matter of fact you just wrecked your own argument. because
>> a guy named bishop usscher ran the numbers and calculated the earth as
>> being 6000 years old
>>
>He was talking about the amount of time that he thought the
>genealogies
>addressed after Adam and Eve were out of the Garden of Eden, not
>the creation on the first day, which is what I had addressed.
and on that basis he calculated the age of the earth as 6000 years. if
you disagree, by all means take it up with him
>>
>> so, it seems, your argument is with creationists not with me.
>>
>I don't have an argument with anyone. I was discussing what something
>might
>mean.
hmmm...yes...creationists seem to spend alot of time discussing what
things 'might' mean. it kind of reminds me about the joke about
economists....if you laid all the economists in the world end to end
they still wouldnt reach a conclusion....
>>
>> seems you don't understand creationism well enough to defend it.
>>
>You are not hearing what is being said. You are supplying what you
>think is being said. And I am not saying what you are thinking.
and the institute for creation research disagrees with you. they're
creationists you know.
>>
>>
>> >(osteoclasts). Doctors learned that when a patient needed some of his
>> >own bone material in case of an accident for reconstruction, they
>> >could
>> >borrow rib bone, so long as they sewed up the periosteum so that it
>> >could regenerate the rib. But there it was all along in the Bible that
>> >was written thousands and thousands of years ago.
>>
>> really? i've read the bible many times. never saw a single reference
>> to 'cells' at all.
>>
>I did not say that cells were in the Bible. The Bible says that the
>rib
>had flesh around it that God sewed up.
so you're saying that, 2500 years ago, they knew people had ribs?
is that the great discovery of god??
>>
>>
>> >years went by before this was understood, and only by modern
>> >very modern times.
>>
>> IOW it was a piece of useless trivia that someone used to rationalize
>> the failure of creationism AFTER science found a fact about nature
>>
>> yes, i'm aware creationists do this. if creationism was useful, they
>> would have told us BEFORE science discovered these things.
>>
>And we, the readers, can see you are not with what is being said
no one knows what the bible says. there isn't one 'bible'. there isn't
one 'translation'. god, it seems can't speak any language but ancient
hebrew and greek.
he's not much of a communicator
>>
>>
>> >The plate tectonics? The Bible mentions that when God created the
>> >earth the Lord separated the seas from the land
>>
>> gee. no mention of plate tectonics in the bible at all. no mention of
>> plates. and for thousands of years creationists told us that
>> earthquakes were god's punishments against people
>>
>The Bible tells of a single mass of land that emerged when God
>separated
>the seas from the land. If you know about plate tectonics there are
>several times when the continents were together as one land mass. The
>plates would have formed later than the creation account.
>>
gee it's too bad the great communicator god kinda forgot to mention
the plates. he had some stuff that creationists didnt know, by your
account, referred to plates. because NO ONE mentioned them for 2500
years.
golly. you'd think that, if your view was correct, 2500 years ago
SOMEONE would have mentioned plates. it's not as if no one read the
bible.
a more logical explanation is that science does the heavy lifting, and
creationists come along later and jury rig some explanation, due to
the infinite plasticity of the language of the bible
>> pat robertson did so last year about haiti. and he's a creationist.
>>
>One person says something like he did and you assume that eveyone
>agrees?
uh yeah. because that's what the polls show.
unlike you, i rely on evidence.
>>
>> >(singular) appeared. (In Genesis long ago). The earth has gone
>> >through several single land masses and several continental
>> >separations.
>>
>> which was discovered by scientists...not creationism.
>>
>The Bible said it before there were plate tectonics, ......you are
>not listening.....
tell you what. you go find the term 'plate tectonics' in the bible and
let me know.
otherwise you're engaging in guesswork
>> >> science led us here. creationism led us astray
>>
>> >Since you don't seem to know what the Bible says about a lot of
>> >things,
>>
>> gee. neither do you. your sleight of hand references that justify an
>> interpretation are hardly evidence that the bible is science.
>>
>Some thinking! The Bible says something thousands of years
>before science gets there, and if someone tells you that, you
>call it "sleight of hand?"
funny, isn't it. you say that the bible says something thousands of
years before science.
but no one who read the bible ever agreed with you. no one who read
the bible...NO ONE...mentioned plate tectonics until science
discovered it.
thousands of years of christians...billions of christians...read the
bible. and not a single one came to your conclusion
seems the entire history of xtianity agrees with me.
>>
>> >I don't think that you are being logical but only being on the
>> >offense.
>>
>> and so are you.
>>
>I was being very logical. All you havea shown is that you are not
>hearing.
>But that's all right. You are letting people see that you are not
>really
>listening to what has been said.
so you assert. and assert. and assert...
cassandra
<yet another futile snip for focus>
Not answering questions is more your style. To bpuharic's correct
statement that creationists didn't know what star are, you asserted
that "everyone" knows what stars are. I asked you how do you know
what stars are. You didn't answer, but instead asked the apparent non
sequitur "how old are you?" I don't see how your question has
anything to do with NASA, your alleged relatives and friends who work
there, their alleged religious POV's, the Apollo 8 astronauts, or
their Christmas Eve reading of Genesis from Apollo 8.
If you want to put this thread back on an honest track, I will be glad
to answer your question when you answer my question. Otherwise, you
can continue with your standard creationist tactics of denial,
obfuscation, and fabrication.
John Harshman
Nonsense. All god had to do with mess with mitosis to give Adam an
aneuploid rib cell: put both copies of the X chromosome in one, and the
Y in another, throw out the second cell and replicate. That makes Eve a
female clone of Adam, meaning that there can be only two alleles of any
given autosomal gene in the human population, and only one allele of any
X-linked gene (i.e. all human X chromosomes should be identical). Hey,
anybody know if that prediction is true?
Eric Root
Or did he accept God on faith, and still be a scientist, and thus not
a creationist?
Eric Root
Eric Root
Well, we don't get anywhere with Ray or Tony either. I don't get what
you think is "rich" about it.
Eric Root
Eric Root
It's called that out of respect and tradition, _not_ because God
actually wrote it Himself, word for word. And before you say, "well,
He inspired the original authors," there is not thing infallible about
inspiration and there are plenty of ways the inspired mere humans can
get the message wrong or not understand its intent. Look how, earlier
in this thread, you screwed up and said that Moses wrote Genesis.
Eric Root