Starship Asterisk*

I'll take the bibles very simple explaination.

Norval

craterchains wrote:I'll take the bibles very simple explaination.

Norval

That's great but how do you explain/prove it to someone lacking your faith but with a strong sense of curiosity?
Blind faith doesn't work for everybody, you might need more tools in your arsenal.

the problem between science and religion is science requires faith that the proof will be found and then requires the proof to be believed. Religion only requires faith. But their common ground is that neither can exist without faith in something.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

craterchains wrote:I'll take the bibles very simple explaination.

Norval

That's great but how do you explain/prove it to someone lacking your faith but with a strong sense of curiosity?
Blind faith doesn't work for everybody, you might need more tools in your arsenal.

The intriguing thing about curiosity, at some point it has to start working for you and start proving to yourself, not just sheep following the previous sheep over the cliff as the sheep keep going over the cliff the integrity of the science disciplines is disintegrating. The same goes for religion with its procedures and protocols.
An example, “weight for me the weight of fire, or measure me a blast of wind, or call back for me the day that is past” or “show me the picture of a voice”. BTU’s, Anemometer, VHS or DVD, and waves on an Oscilloscope have nothing to do with religion or their procedures and protocols, so it is not blind faith. It is logic, intelligence, doing what is right and the arsenal gets packed. But I guess at some point it does take faith to just read the damn book without religion getting in the way.

Hi FieryIce

The same goes for religion with its procedures and protocols.
An example, “weight for me the weight of fire, or measure me a blast of wind, or call back for me the day that is past” or “show me the picture of a voice”.

could you please explain the connection with the topic

& i think its lemmings, not sheep that follow each other over a cliff
Lin x

Let me repose my question. For people that reject theology how can you argue the topic with a blind eye or lack of understanding to their points?

I am a bit rushed for time just now, but I will be back to address the questions posed to me by the above posters.

Norval

To clarify I will restate it again but add your theology reference:

An example, “weight for me the weight of fire, or measure me a blast of wind, or call back for me the day that is past” or “show me the picture of a voice”. BTU’s, Anemometer, VHS or DVD, and waves on an Oscilloscope have nothing to do with religion and their theology or their procedures and protocols, so it is not blind faith. It is logic, intelligence, doing what is right and the arsenal gets packed. Just read the damn book without religion and theology getting in the way.

linx
The thread title Origins of the Universe makes the explanation self-explanatory.

Hi FieryIce,

i'm sorry but you still appear to be talking in riddles to me..can you use plain English please

what is this 'damn book' you speak of

& if you enter into the subject of Theology, to understand & expound, you must speak as from the spiritual ..you appear rather earth bound however

Linx

I tend to think this thread was off topic from the beginning, its called Origins of the Universe, but Harrys main point was to argue for an eternal Universe, which by definition can't have an origin. Just an observation.

Hello Astro

I fully agree with you.

The only origins would be,,,,,,,,,the never ending cycle of birth and death of stars, planets, galaxies and so on.

hello All

This link is interesting,,,,,,,,,,,,that does not mean I agree with it.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

It is known that many astronomical observations cannot be explained by means of the ordinary Doppler shift interpretation. The mere examination of a recent catalog of objects having very large redshifts shows that among 109 quasi-stellar objects, in which both absorption and emission lines could be measured, the value of the absorption redshift in a given object, is always different from the one measured in emission for the same object. It is clear that such results cannot be explained as being due solely to a Doppler redshift.
A new mechanism must be looked for, in order to explain those inconsistent redshifts and many other observations related to the “redshift controversy”.

In an eternal Universe how do you deal with entropy? Even if you allow matter to recycle the fusion reactions of the previous generations of stars will have emitted a significant amount of mass as energy in the form of starlight. This starlight cant just disappear, that would violate conservation of energy. So the next generation of stars must contain less mass than the previous. Eventually all the emitted star-light will have heated up the Universe to such a point that no more star formation can occur. The Universe will reach a uniform temperature and at that point nothing ever happens again, nothing moves, nothing emits or absorbs, the Universe is over.

As I stated above, "I'll take the bibles very simple explanation."

Dr. Skeptic asks;
"That's great but how do you explain/prove it to someone lacking your faith but with a strong sense of curiosity?" (and then states), "Blind faith doesn't work for everybody, you might need more tools in your arsenal."
And the question now posed, "For people that reject theology how can you argue the topic with a blind eye or lack of understanding to their points?

Well Skeptic;
It was curiosity that caused me to first read the bible, but only after I had concluded by reasoning that this universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies had to be created by one hell of an engineer and builder. I seriously wanted to meet such a being, and say thank you. The incredible complexity of our ecology here on earth, in the time that it could have supported life of some kind to begin with, throws the odds in the face of all evolutionists for how life came about here. The evidence on the other hand for planning, engineering, and building all that we now know about and have learned to comprehend about our universe, galaxy, and solar system, says we are not alone, and we are not the first by far.

No, it is not by faith that I blindly comprehend, nor by faith that I can understand and answer those questions that Gale (FieryIce) mentioned from the bible, but by our technological knowledge and wisdom. Because of technology, and all of the learning's we now call science, besides having read the damn book most would call the bible. And I say that with the utmost respect for it's content.

Those questions were posed to a man here on earth by a heavenly being, an angel, that was over two thousand four hundred years ago. Man didn't have the knowledge to answer 2,400 years ago, but, we can answer them today. That also makes us responsible for the rest of the message from ET. What S.E.T.I. searches for, mankind has had the finished version in their hands for 2,000 years. But only today by our knowledge of the heavens above and the everyday things around us can we answer those questions and it is stated that this would be the generation that comprehends these things would be what religionists call the second coming, or in other words, disclosure of the ET / UFO truth and the bible.

No folks, it isn't about religion at all. But then you be the judge of that after reading it from a different perspective.

Norval

Hello All

Intersting link,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it does not mean I agree with it.

Cosmology
The Metaphysics of Space and the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) explains how our Finite Spherical Universe Exists within an Infinite Eternal Space

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology ... nite.space

Also read

Exploding the Big Bang
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... xplode.htm

David Pratt

If light from stars or galaxies is passed through a prism or grating, a spectrum is obtained, consisting of a series of lines and bands. These spectra can be used to identify the atomic elements present in the objects concerned, as each element has a distinct spectral "signature." But if we compare the spectral lines of distant galaxies with those produced by the same elements on earth, we find that in every case the lines are displaced towards longer (redder) wavelengths. This is known as the redshift, and is the subject of intense controversy. The majority of astronomers and cosmologists subscribe to the big bang theory, and interpret the redshift to mean that all galaxies are flying apart at high speed and that the universe is expanding. A growing minority of scientists, however, maintains that the redshift is produced by other causes, and that the universe is not expanding. As astronomer Halton Arp remarks in Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, "one side must be completely and catastrophically wrong" [1].

You do come up with some brilliant links Harry, they definitely make me smile, this quote from the last one is one of my favourites

To explain how redshift might be related to age, Arp and Jayant Narlikar suggest that instead of elementary particles having constant mass, as orthodox science assumes, they come into being with zero mass, which then increases, in steps, as they age. When electrons in younger atoms jump from one orbit to another, the light they emit is weaker, and therefore more highly redshifted, than the light emitted by electrons in older atoms. To put it another way: as particle mass grows, frequency (clock rate) increases and therefore redshift decreases.

Thats why Arp can't get time on telescopes, because his theories are the worst type of rubbish. I mean we make particles in particle accelarators everyday, guess what, they all have the same mass, none of them start out massless, or even with masses less than particles that haven't just been created.

It was curiosity that caused me to first read the bible, but only after I had concluded by reasoning that this universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies had to be created by one hell of an engineer and builder. I seriously wanted to meet such a being, and say thank you. The incredible complexity of our ecology here on earth, in the time that it could have supported life of some kind to begin with, throws the odds in the face of all evolutionists for how life came about here.

You are saying that there was a threshold of understanding you had to reach before you determined faith needed to be part of the equation. Should every other persons threshold be equal to yours? What of those that who's threshold is higher?

No, I said this;
"No, it is not by faith that I blindly comprehend, nor by faith that I can understand and answer those questions that Gale (FieryIce) mentioned from the bible, but by our technological knowledge and wisdom. Because of technology, and all of the learning's we now call science, besides having read the damn book most would call the bible. And I say that with the utmost respect for it's content."

It dosn't take faith to understand and comprehend, just reading and today's basic knowledge of technology.

Norval

2 things which I assume you find difficult

It was curiosity that caused me to first read the bible, but only after I had concluded by reasoning that this universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies had to be created by one hell of an engineer and builder.

Isn't this what I paraphrased?


Sorry, I'm completely lost.

It's a mighty big universe, one can get lost.

You asked about faith and theology, today one doesn't need either one.

Norval

Hi craterchains, you wrote:

You asked about faith and theology, today one doesn't need either one

however you also said that you would take the simple explanation of the Bible ..surely that takes faith

+ within the Bible it is God who is the Creator of the Universe ..if you believe in the what the Bible says you cannot leave the study of God's & His Word out of the equation

you arent planning to build another Tower of Babel are you

Lin x

craterchains wrote:It's a mighty big universe, one can get lost.

You asked about faith and theology, today one doesn't need either one.

Norval

I can see getting lost in the universe, I was referring to your dialog.

You inferred that reading "The Book" was your answer where science left off. I agree science can answer quantitative questions but cannot answer qualitative questions. So, when/where should the human race stop pursuing science?

Lin x

With the ability to answer those questions, just one of them actually, it states that we would begin to understand the things of the heavens, and such of "God" and those that created us. Never have I stated you have to leave out reading the book. It requires reading the book to be able to reason on what it says. It requires basic technology comprehension to answer those questions. Not faith, or so called"spiritualism".

Skeptic "So, when/where should the human race stop pursuing science?"

Never stop looking for the how and why things happen. If that is science to you, then so be it.

Norval

Hi craterchains

With the ability to answer those questions, just one of them actually, it states that we would begin to understand the things of the heavens, and such of "God" and those that created us.

please quote the verse/s of the passage of Scripture that you refer to

thanks
Lin x

2 Esdras chpt 4 1-12 should do.

II Esdras 4:5
RSV with Apocrypha
I said, "Speak on, my lord."
And he said to me, "Go, weigh for me the weight of fire, or measure
for me a measure of wind, or call back for me the day that is past."

Norval