Everything Wrong with Genesis....

[◊ Weezer ◊]

5 hours ago, Bhim said:

 

 I hope I didn't just commit a felony by encouraging the mentally ill to vote.

 

You just committed a felony. 

[Bhim]

6 hours ago, Weezer said:

You just committed a felony. 

 

It just occurred to me that the felony I committed may have been to encourage a minor to vote. Back in my Christian days, most of the geocentrists and flat earthers I ran into online were teenage zealots.

[midniterider]

5 hours ago, Bhim said:

 

It just occurred to me that the felony I committed may have been to encourage a minor to vote. Back in my Christian days, most of the geocentrists and flat earthers I ran into online were teenage zealots.

 

Can English people vote for Trump now? What the heck. Amurica is going downhill.

[Bhim]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

Can English people vote for Trump now? What the heck. Amurica is going downhill.

 

Want me to help you commit votor fraud?

[Joshpantera]

No more trolling the thread up. This is not the Lions Den. Actions have been taken, more to come if the trolling continues....

[InamBerea]

Wow -- There's a lot of information in these videos. I had time to view only part of the first video. From what I see the author's argument rests on the Big-Bang theory.

 

Stephen Hawking was a proponent of the "Big Bang", but admitted it was possible that the galaxy's of the universe converged at a single point. The galaxy's nearly missed each other, and continued on their way in the expanding universe we know today. The Big Bang is a widely accepted theory, but on it's own not enough to discredit Genesis.

 

According to Stephen Hawking, at the Big Bang the universe was so hot that atoms had not yet formed. The Universe was sterile at more than a million-trillion-trillion degrees Fahrenheit. [1].  So how did we get life from a sterile universe without "Spontaneous Generation"? Scientific laws do not allow life to emerge from a sterile medium.

 

Another argument against Genesis is based on the "Theory of Evolution". All branches of physical science embrace the "Law of Entropy" as a proven law. It states that our universe has a tendency to break down, Everything goes from Order ==> Chaos, from Order ==> Dis-Order. But Biology has chosen to disregard the law of Entropy and replace it with the "Theory of Evolution" which state the opposite, things do not break down they get more complex.

 

When you dig into Evolution and the Big-Bang, they are just man-made beliefs opposed to God. In ancient Israel their sin was to embrace man-made idols of wood and stone as an alternative to God. Today we are presented with man-made theories as an alternative to God. King Solomon was right, there's nothing new under the Sun. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@InamBerea, the law of entropy applies only to a closed, or isolated, system.  The earth is not a closed system, as we derive energy from the sun.

 

Evolution deals merely with speciation; and holds that genetic mutations which are beneficial to a species' survival within a particular environment tend to be passed down to successive generations.  That said mutations also often produce increased complexity is incidental, not purposeful.

 

Given these two details, entropy is not a valid argument.

[WalterP]

3 hours ago, InamBerea said:

Wow -- There's a lot of information in these videos. I had time to view only part of the first video. From what I see the author's argument rests on the Big-Bang theory.

 

Stephen Hawking was a proponent of the "Big Bang", but admitted it was possible that the galaxy's of the universe converged at a single point. The galaxy's nearly missed each other, and continued on their way in the expanding universe we know today. The Big Bang is a widely accepted theory, but on it's own not enough to discredit Genesis.

 

According to Stephen Hawking, at the Big Bang the universe was so hot that atoms had not yet formed. The Universe was sterile at more than a million-trillion-trillion degrees Fahrenheit. [1].  So how did we get life from a sterile universe without "Spontaneous Generation"? Scientific laws do not allow life to emerge from a sterile medium.

 

Another argument against Genesis is based on the "Theory of Evolution". All branches of physical science embrace the "Law of Entropy" as a proven law. It states that our universe has a tendency to break down, Everything goes from Order ==> Chaos, from Order ==> Dis-Order. But Biology has chosen to disregard the law of Entropy and replace it with the "Theory of Evolution" which state the opposite, things do not break down they get more complex.

 

When you dig into Evolution and the Big-Bang, they are just man-made beliefs opposed to God. In ancient Israel their sin was to embrace man-made idols of wood and stone as an alternative to God. Today we are presented with man-made theories as an alternative to God. King Solomon was right, there's nothing new under the Sun. 

 

You are confused on two points, InamBerea.

 

First, you are confusing the cyclic theories of Lifshitz and Khalatnikov with the singular one proposed by Stephen Hawking.  He writes about this in his book, A Brief History of Time.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

A Brief History of Time, p 48.

 

Another attempt to avoid the conclusion that there must have been a big bang, and therefore a beginning of time, was made by two Russian scientists, Evgenii Lifshitz and Isaac Khalatnikov, in 1963.  They suggested that the big bang might be a peculiarity of Friedmann’s models [of the expanding universe] alone, which after all were only approximations of the real universe.

 

In the real universe, however, the galaxies are not just moving away from each other – they also have small sideways velocities.  So, in reality they need never have been all at exactly the same place, only very close together.  Perhaps then the current expanding universe resulted not from a big bang singularity, but from an earlier contracting phase : as the universe had collapsed the particles in it might not have collided, but had then flown past and then away from each other, producing the present expansion of the universe.

 

They argued that since there seemed to be infinitely more Friedmann-like models without a big bang singularity than there were with one, we should conclude that there had not in reality been a big bang.

 

They later realized, however, that there was a much more general class of Friedmann-like models that did have singularities, and in which the galaxies did not have to be moving any special way.  They therefore withdrew their claim in 1970.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

InamBerea, your description of... 'the galaxies nearly missing each other and continuing on their way in the expanding universe of today' ...sounds like a garbled version of the Lifshiftz - Khalatnikov theory.  You are wrong to attribute this to Hawking.  He knew about it, but rejected their cyclic theory in favour of his own, singular theory.

 

 

Your second error concerns the science of thermodynamics.  The RedneckProfessor has correctly pointed out the difference between closed and open thermodynamic systems.  However, the scale involved goes beyond that of the solar system.   It involves the entire universe.  It is currently unknown if the entire universe is a closed or open system.  

 

The so-called ‘edge of the universe’ is simply a visual horizon beyond which we cannot see and not an actual physical boundary.  We cannot know the true extent of the entire universe.  We can only know the extent of the observable universe.  We therefore cannot say if the entire universe is closed or open.

 

The question, ‘Is the universe an open or closed thermodynamic system?’ cannot currently be answered.  That being so, it is quite wrong to claim that the entire universe is a closed thermodynamic system that is winding down due to entropy.  That's a claim nobody can reasonably make.

 

 

So, if you are going to dig into the big bang, evolution and thermodynamics, it helps to be using the right tools and to be digging in the right place.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[WalterP]

InamBerea,

 

You cite this link... https://sciencing.com/temperature-universe-during-big-bang-4822.html ...in your post.

 

Confirming the Theory

 

 

Besides Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding, which led to the development of the big bang theory in the first place, there are two other reasons for accepting the theory. One is that it predicts that the helium formed at the time of the big bang should account for 25 percent of the mass of the universe, which is what astrophysicists observe. The other is that it predicts that the temperature of the cosmic background radiation -- the afterglow of the big bang -- should be 3 degrees above absolute zero, and observations have also confirmed this.

 

 

 

So, do you accept that the big bang has been confirmed, as your source says?

 

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

Here you are, InamBerea.

 

I've done a little digging about the big bang.  Using the right tools and digging in the right place.

 

https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/03/16_hawking_text.shtml

 

In 2007 Stephen Hawking gave a lecture at Berkeley and the above link gives the whole text of the lecture.

 

Here's a relevant extract.

 

 

Another attempt to avoid the universe having a beginning, was the suggestion that there was a previous contracting phase, but because of rotation and local irregularities, the matter would not all fall to the same point. Instead, different parts of the matter would miss each other, and the universe would expand again, with the density remaining finite. Two Russians, Lifshitz and Khalatnikov, actually claimed to have proved that a general contraction without exact symmetry, would always lead to a bounce, with the density remaining finite. This result was very convenient for Marxist Leninist dialectical materialism, because it avoided awkward questions about the creation of the universe. It therefore became an article of faith for Soviet scientists.

When Lifshitz and Khalatnikov published their claim, I was a 21-year-old research student, looking for something to complete my PhD thesis. I didn't believe their so-called proof, and set out with Roger Penrose to develop new mathematical techniques to study the question. We showed that the universe couldn't bounce. If Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is correct, there will be a singularity, a point of infinite density and space-time curvature, where time has a beginning.

 

Observational evidence to confirm the idea that the universe had a very dense beginning, came in October 1965, a few months after my first singularity result, with the discovery of a faint background of microwaves throughout space. These microwaves are the same as those in your microwave oven, but very much less powerful. They would heat your pizza only to minus 271 point 3 degrees centigrade, not much good for defrosting the pizza, let alone cooking it. You can actually observe these microwaves yourself. Set your television to an empty channel. A few percent of the snow you see on the screen, will be caused by this background of microwaves. The only reasonable interpretation of the background, is that it is radiation left over from an early very hot and dense state. As the universe expanded, the radiation would have cooled until it is just the faint remnant we observe today.

 

 

 

As you can see, Hawking did not believe Lifshitz and Khalatnikov's theory or proof about galaxies missing each other and continuing on their way.  

 

You can also see that Hawking refers to the cosmic microwave background radiation confirming the big bang, just as your source said.

 

So, to repeat my question, do you accept that that the big bang has been confirmed, just as your source (and Hawking) says?

 

 

Walter.

 

[WalterP]

Hello again InamBerea. 

 

Since you're a fairly new member you may not know about a feature that appears on the front page of this forum.

 

Near the bottom of the page this can be seen.

 

WHO'S ONLINE   4 MEMBERS, 0 ANONYMOUS, 19 GUESTS (SEE FULL LIST)

 

When you click of the Full List option you can see the name of forum members who are looking in (lurking) but who haven't Signed In.

 

Over the past twenty hours or so I've seen you lurking... at least twice.

 

So I know you have been covertly watching the goings on here.

 

Would you please be so kind (and have the integrity) to answer the question I put to you in this thread?

 

 

Do you accept that that the big bang has been confirmed, just as your source (and Hawking) says?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 8/7/2020 at 3:30 PM, InamBerea said:

Wow -- There's a lot of information in these videos. I had time to view only part of the first video. From what I see the author's argument rests on the Big-Bang theory.

 

No, the video looks at everything wrong with Genesis. Starting with the many contradictions within the texts, as well as the old near eastern cosmology of Genesis of a flat, round disk, geocentric earth. Genesis is internally inconsistent and doesn't gel with observable nor theoretical (BBT) cosmology. It doesn't work out with the geological record, historical record, etc., etc. 

 

The questions you face from Walter are difficult to answer, no doubt. Hopefully you can try and answer them without leading into mindless trolling like the last guy......

[Myrkhoos]

The theory of evolution and big bang ARE man made. Nobody disputes that. The thing is, even IF I reject all of it, I still don't end up in some Hell, or of I accept it, will end up in Heaven. So it is hardly a " replacement" of religious revelations.

          

         

[InamBerea]

@WalterP - From the time my account was created until approved, I had limited access to the site as a Guest. I have no reason to browse anonymously. The Big-Bang remains a Theory. Stephen Hawking was still speculating on the Big-Bang in 2018: https://astronomynow.com/2018/05/02/stephen-hawkings-final-thoughts-about-the-big-bang/

@JoshPantera - GroupThink cuts both ways. General acceptance of the Big-Bang is not proof. 

If you look a a good Swiss clock. You can study the precision of the gears, intricate interactions, fine craftmansship and amazing complexity. But that will not help you understand who made the clock or why it was built. 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

26 minutes ago, InamBerea said:

The Big-Bang remains a Theory.

Please study the difference between the term "Theory" as it is used in science versus as it is used in the commoners tongue.

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, InamBerea said:

@WalterP - From the time my account was created until approved, I had limited access to the site as a Guest. I have no reason to browse anonymously. The Big-Bang remains a Theory. Stephen Hawking was still speculating on the Big-Bang in 2018: https://astronomynow.com/2018/05/02/stephen-hawkings-final-thoughts-about-the-big-bang/

 

 

Hello InamBerea.

 

 

With all due respect, you have avoided answering the question I put to you.

 

This question.

 

Do you accept that that the big bang has been confirmed, just as your source (and Hawking) says?

 

Would you please be so good as to actually answer that question?

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, InamBerea said:

@JoshPantera - GroupThink cuts both ways. General acceptance of the Big-Bang is not proof. 

 

 

InamBerea,

 

You list science and technology as your interests, in your profile information.

 

But surely, if you understand how science works, you would know that proofs are only used in the science of mathematics?

 

All the other branches of science, including cosmology, do not use proofs.

 

A cosmological theory is accepted or rejected on the basis of the observed evidence.

 

That's why I've asked you if you accept the observed evidence that confirms the big bang.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, InamBerea said:

If you look a a good Swiss clock. You can study the precision of the gears, intricate interactions, fine craftmansship and amazing complexity. But that will not help you understand who made the clock or why it was built. 

 

 

InamBerea,

 

 

You are making the same kind of teleological argument a Muslim, a Sikh or Hindu might make.

 

They believe that the clock maker (or universe-maker) is their particular god, not yours and nobody else's.

 

So, how are we to know who is right, when they (and you) are all claiming the same thing?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[InamBerea]

@WalterP -- The clockmaker argument is about intelligent design, not a particular religion. 

 

Another example is "Pascal's Wager", here's a paraphrase:

If you're going to bet everything (your existence) on a single outcome, why you would wager there is no God?  If you're right you get nothing, and if you're wrong you lose everything. But if you wager there is God, if right you with everything, and if wrong you've lost nothing.

[WalterP]

1 minute ago, InamBerea said:

@WalterP -- The clockmaker argument is about intelligent design, not a particular religion. 

 

Another example is "Pascal's Wager", here's a paraphrase:

If you're going to bet everything (your existence) on a single outcome, why you would wager there is no God?  If you're right you get nothing, and if you're wrong you lose everything. But if you wager there is God, if right you with everything, and if wrong you've lost nothing.

 

Yes, I know that InamBerea.

 

But other religions also argue that their god intelligently designed the universe.

 

So, to repeat (and adjust) my question.

 

How are we to know who is right, when they (and you) are all claiming that different gods intelligently designed the universe?

 

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

In case you doubt the truth of my claim InamBerea, here is a Muslim Intelligent Design website.

 

http://www.naseeb.com/villages/journals/intelligent-design-islam-69908

 

So, between you and an equally devout Muslim, who are we to believe?

 

You are both claiming the same thing - that the universe bears witness to an intelligent creator.

 

But you both cannot be right.

 

 

 

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

44 minutes ago, InamBerea said:

But if you wager there is God, if right you with everything, and if wrong you've lost nothing.

Unless you bet on the wrong god, of course.  What happens if you bet on jesus; but Allah turns out to be real?

[InamBerea]

@WalterP @TheRedneckProfessor - Jesus said it would be more lenient for Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgement than for the town where he ministered. That's because the people in Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented if they saw the miracles and heard the teaching of Jesus, and that will be considered. (Mat 10:15)

 

For those in other religions who never heard of Jesus, all that I can say is that God is Good and will consider the circumstances in which they were taught. But, for those of us who have the chance to learn of Jesus, more is expected. The Bible tells us that each of us will give an account of ourselves in the Day of Judgement based on the information that we have. (Rom 14:12)

 

@WalterP - I can only speak to Christianity. The only way you'll know who you're going to follow is to learn what's taught in the Bible, and distinguish between Bible truth and religious tradition. You'll find a consistent message in 66 books from 40+ authors, written over thousands of years.

[LogicalFallacy]

36 minutes ago, InamBerea said:

You'll find a consistent message in 66 books from 40+ authors, written over thousands of years.

 

Harry Potter also has a consistent message. If you have thousands of writings, and you pick through them to find the most congruent ones you will find a 'consistent' message. But even then there is nothing in the Bible to show that's it's divinely inspired. You can easily see that its a man made text, with stories that often have origins in older texts from other cultures.

 

However, even here I may be conceding too much. Sometimes in order to find this consistent message you have to shoehorn stuff in, squint one eye, and turn your head sideways. The 'virgin birth' prophesy relating to Jesus is probably the best well known example of this.

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, InamBerea said:

 

 

@WalterP - I can only speak to Christianity. The only way you'll know who you're going to follow is to learn what's taught in the Bible, and distinguish between Bible truth and religious tradition. You'll find a consistent message in 66 books from 40+ authors, written over thousands of years.

 

InamBerea,

 

Would you please confirm that you understand that Christianity is not unique in using the argument from Intelligent Design?

 

No special knowledge of other faiths or religions is required by you to understand this concept.

 

So, please answer Yes or No.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.