Nanoseconds after the Big Bang

[AgingYoung]

its a fictional book and nothing more. don't even try making more out of it than it is.

I would disagree on two points, Alan. On the first point, people are entitled to think in what ever manner they choose.

The second point is more significant. You might ask ‘when did mankind come to the conclusion that the universe is expanding?’ Recently we've figured out that expansion is accelerating. Man's understanding evolves.

The biblical perspective is there is a God that is the cause of creation. When you look at the verse from Isaiah it describes God stretching out the heavens or creation. The expansion of the universe could have been known for some time if that were considered. We know it now empirically but we could have known it before if we accepted the biblical account.

Gene

 

[Alan Heap]

qualified? are you ****ing serious? you're asking if god meant nanoseconds instead of days in the bible, do i really need to be qualified to answer any questions like that, related to the bible or not? i don't know harry potters friends names, i'm not a physics professor, but that doesn't mean that when i say 'people can't use ordinary broom sticks to fly' that i'm wrong.

i really don't care what people personally believe, just don't expect to mix religion or any fixed philosophy into scientific fact or theory. scientific evidence has been gathered and is still being done on the start of the universe, none for the support god or for god creating the universe.

philosophically it's flawed, let alone scientifically. if you want a biblical view on the big bang, this forum seems a silly place to ask.

an unbelievable joke

 

[AgingYoung]

qualified? are you ****ing serious? you're asking if god meant nanoseconds instead of days in the bible,

I never asked that question, Alan. Not only don't you have a qualified opinion on biblical matters you aren't a qualified observer. I think there's a relationship between the two.

Gene

 

[Alan Heap]

I never asked that question, Alan. Not only don't you have a qualified opinion on biblical matters you aren't a qualified observer. I think there's a relationship between the two.

Gene

saying i'm not qualified so my argument must be wrong, is pathetic.

so, elaborate...AGAIN?

 

[Lothian]

saying i'm not qualified so my argument must be wrong, is pathetic.

so, elaborate...AGAIN?

I could be wrong but I suspect that the fact that you don’t accept the Bible (as an inerrant account of everything and a guide to life) means that you don’t understand it and therefore are not qualified to comment on it.

 

[AgingYoung]

saying i'm not qualified so my argument must be wrong, is pathetic.

so, elaborate...AGAIN?

There you go again, Alan, attributing to me conclusions....

• saying i'm not qualified so my argument must be wrong

...that I haven't arrived at. You're putting words in my mouth. Worse you're attempting to decide for me what my perspective should be with your demands to exclude a biblical perspective from science. You are way beyond any reasonable expectation when you imagine you can dictate how people think and express themselves.

I'd suggest you quit while you're ahead but that wouldn't be accurate. You should quit while you're not too far behind.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

I could be wrong but I suspect that the fact that you don’t accept the Bible (as an inerrant account of everything and a guide to life) means that you don’t understand it and therefore are not qualified to comment on it.

Lothian,

That's not really the case. Alan described a biblical account between Moses and the Romans. The point isn't one of accepting any biblical account; the point is actually recalling what the details are. Alan has an Archie Bunker understanding of the bible and also of what has been said as recent as this thread.

The only point from the bible I've made wrt this thread is a comparison between the expanding universe that we somewhat empirically know to be true and the biblical account of a creative God stretching out the heavens.

Gene

 

[Lothian]

Lothian,

That's not really the case. Alan described a biblical account between Moses and the Romans. The point isn't one of accepting any biblical account; the point is actually recalling what the details are. Alan has an Archie Bunker understanding of the bible and also of what has been said as recent as this thread.

So you are crucifying him because he got one fact wrong. Is forgiveness not in the bible somewhere ?

The only point from the bible I've made wrt this thread is a comparison between the expanding universe that we somewhat empirically know to be true and the biblical account of a creative God stretching out the heavens.
Gene

The bible has so many different interpretations, all claiming to be correct. I don’t think any one interpretation is any more valid than another. In fact an argument that in saying Egyptians the bible means Romans would not be the strangest interpretation I have heard.

Each new interpretation just makes the whole thing a less credible source.

Rather than looking at an old book for support in what we now know I am more interested in what we don’t know and in that regard the Bible doesn’t really help.

 

[AgingYoung]

Lothian,

It wasn't just one fact

So you are crucifying him because he got one fact wrong. Is forgiveness not in the bible somewhere ?....

Alan, I forgive you. Now stop trying to tell me how to think or how to express myself.

This point...

...
The bible has so many different interpretations, all claiming to be correct. I don’t think any one interpretation is any more valid than another. ....

...is interesting in light of your quote

• When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lay exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."

So no matter how many different interpretations there are, it is reasonable to think one is more accurate than the others.

There are two points in this derail. One is the idea of the validity of the bible and/or its usefulness. Well above that point is the idea of a person's right to have a biblical perspective. Whether you would agree or not I find a biblical perspective useful.

To that second point I would have no problem with anyone deciding for me how to think or how to term things if they could be so kind as to explain what gives them the right to do that. I would want to in turn use that same right to determine how they think and express themselves. The obvious absurdity in that is we are swapping our minds; I'm controlling yours and you are controlling mine. It gets ridiculous.

Gene

 

[~enigma~]

I would disagree on two points, Alan. On the first point, people are entitled to think in what ever manner they choose.

The second point is more significant. You might ask ‘when did mankind come to the conclusion that the universe is expanding?’ Recently we've figured out that expansion is accelerating. Man's understanding evolves.

The biblical perspective is there is a God that is the cause of creation. When you look at the verse from Isaiah it describes God stretching out the heavens or creation. The expansion of the universe could have been known for some time if that were considered. We know it now empirically but we could have known it before if we accepted the biblical account.

Gene

Has this forum been changed to religion and philosophy while I was asleep?

 

[AgingYoung]

Has this forum been changed to religion and philosophy while I was asleep?

Usually when someone asks a question you'd imagine they're interested in a response. Now I know at times people ask questions to make a point. Some examples might be...

• ... and just who in the world do you think you are?
• ... did someone wake up on the wrong side of the cave?

There is an intersection between philosophy and science so a discussion of either can be pertinent. No change is necessary.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

.....bump

Schneibster,

If the universe were moving backward toward the big bang with of course you in it your measuring method would vary with the regression. The variation would be undetectable. That isn't something that could happen though. What we do is take a standard that we either don't calibrate and superimpose it on the past or we attempt to recalibrate it periodically as we regress and there are the inherent inaccuracies in that.

It might not be a good analogy but inflation of currency is something that comes to mind. If you measure the economy of 1900 with today's unadjusted dollars you won't get a good picture of the economy of 1900.

What do you think?

Gene

 

[~enigma~]

Usually when someone asks a question you'd imagine they're interested in a response. Now I know at times people ask questions to make a point. Some examples might be...

• ... and just who in the world do you think you are?
• ... did someone wake up on the wrong side of the cave?

There is an intersection between philosophy and science so a discussion of either can be pertinent. No change is necessary.

Gene

Bible is not and never has been nor never will be science. It belongs in a different forum.

 

[Lothian]

So no matter how many different interpretations there are, it is reasonable to think one is more accurate than the others.

Indeed, and in the case of the bible it is always the latest interpretation that is seen as the most accurate. So we no longer stone unruly children to death and shell fish are not the abomination that they once were.

If over time we are to come to more and more accurate ‘understanding’ of this book, all without divine intervention in that understanding, the question is; “Do we really need the book in the first place ?”

 

[AgingYoung]

enema,

People are entitled to their perspective. For instance Jonathan Kepler said...

I had the intention of becoming a theologian...but now I see how God is, by my endeavors, also glorified in astronomy, for 'the heavens declare the glory of God.

Kepler was inspired by the bible.

or there's Robert Boyle...

From a knowledge of His work, we shall know Him

or Newton...

About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition.

or Sir William Herschel...

All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more the Truths contained in the Sacred Scriptures.

But more to the point, people are entitled to think what ever they want to. You're no exception nor am I.

Gene

Keep it civil; do not insult other members, please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[AgingYoung]

Lothian,

What is seen as the most accurate and what actually is could be two different things. The point of yours I responded to was...

• I don’t think any one interpretation is any more valid than another.

...and now you're making the point the latest interpretation is seen as more accurate and want to draw conclusions based on that?

Gene

Indeed, and in the case of the bible it is always the latest interpretation that is seen as the most accurate. ...

 

[AgingYoung]

Schneibster,

4. Finally, if the rate of the passage of time varies, why would this measure not vary right along with it, rendering such variation undetectable?

If the universe were moving backward toward the big bang with of course you in it your measuring method would vary with the regression. The variation would be undetectable. That isn't something that could happen though. What we do is take a standard that we either don't calibrate and superimpose it on the past or we attempt to recalibrate it periodically as we regress and there are the inherent inaccuracies in that.

It might not be a good analogy but inflation of currency is something that comes to mind. If you measure the economy of 1900 with today's unadjusted dollars you won't get a good picture of the economy of 1900.

What do you think?

Gene

Gene

 

[Lothian]

enema,

People are entitled to their perspective. For instance Jonathan Kepler said...

Kepler was inspired by the bible.

or there's Robert Boyle...


or Newton...


or Sir William Herschel...


But more to the point, people are entitled to think what ever they want to. You're no exception nor am I.

Gene

Not forgetting Leonhard Euler who declared : a+b to the power n over n = x therefore God exists.
....but that was bollocks as well.

 

[Lothian]

Lothian,

What is seen as the most accurate and what actually is could be two different things. The point of yours I responded to was...

• I don’t think any one interpretation is any more valid than another.

...and now you're making the point the latest interpretation is seen as more accurate and want to draw conclusions based on that?

Gene

When it comes to the bible I see all interpretations as equally meaningless. However believers tend to think their latest interpretation is the correct one and those interpretations believed previously are wrong.

However as you say accuracy and interpretations of the bible are not the same thing. Enough of the bible in a science and maths forum.

 

[~enigma~]

enema,

People are entitled to their perspective. For instance Jonathan Kepler said...

Kepler was inspired by the bible.

or there's Robert Boyle...


or Newton...


or Sir William Herschel...


But more to the point, people are entitled to think what ever they want to. You're no exception nor am I.

Gene

You can think whatever you want. That in no way means science is compatible with the bible nor does it mean the bible belongs in a science forum. Also, everybody that has the displeasure of reading the idiocy you posted can see how defenders of the bible lash out with immature attacks that pretend to be cute by playing on words. You want to argue bible, go to another forum and argue all you want, invite me and i promise to make you look foolish. This isn't the forum however so you should consider yourself lucky.