Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
What is your alternative to the mathematically-derived conclusions of the current Standard Model of Cosmology? God did it?

Hi Deep,

When all else fails -- fall back upon the Truth. And God did it is as close to the Truth as I have ever seen you come in any of your posts.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB-2_InBeginning
lol, I'll take a kook title.
God created everything. Not sure if he did it in 6- 24 hour days or maybe he mapped out the plans in 6- 24 hour days. I don't want to try and speculate to much but all of creation was designed by God just not sure how long it took God to do it or how he went about it.
So far none of the scientific theories have complete answers.

The following is a quote from Leon Lederman (well respected Nobel prize winning physicist) from his book THE GOD PARTICLE
"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

And we can also take Stephen Hawking as an example, Stephen Hawking gets angry if he is refereed to as an atheist, he seems to have a little touch of being agnostic but in case that's disrespectful I will just refer to him as a doubting Thomas which may also be a little on the strong side for his views on God and creation. Hawking has been quoted as saying something along the lines of "the big bang happened because God made it happen" He also makes a lot of other references to God when discussing his theories.

So, even if I were to exclude Biblical evidence from my argument, who is that I am going to put more stock in when it comes to the origins of the universe, Stephen Hawking and Leon Lederman? or some guy named Billy Joe Bob Gene and his friend the toilet trained elephant? Do I need to answer that one?

A few things to think about, some say that it is not possible that God is an eternal being who has always been here but at the same time science teaches us that the building blocks of the universe have always been here since before time began. So if what made up the singularity that is supposed to have been the small point of the universe before the big bang is eternal then why cannot there be a God that is eternal? If the material that made up the singularity is not eternal, then how was it made in an absolute vacuum? If there were no particles, no gas, no matter whatsoever then how was it made?? Something cannot possibly just appear from nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
oh, ramm, I'm devastated. Crushed.

What is your alternative to the mathematically-derived conclusions of the current Standard Model of Cosmology? God did it?

Dawkins the drunk? I think you owe Dr. Dawkins an apology, he's never been accused of being a drunk, in my experience. Perhaps you've had one too many.


The mathematical derived conclusions are in fact as real as God.

Yes dawkins is a slobbering drunk. Anything a threat to a drunk’s next drink is an adversary.

The root cause of his disdain for religious folk.

Krauss certainly has a hand on current theories.

His association with dawkins would raise eyebrows with most real physicists.

dawkins,hitchens,hawking,barker etc have let better judgement escape and are nothing more than Discovery Channel scientists.

I listen to them all. When one of them has something to say that I think you need to hear I'll let you know. Otherwise quit bawling constantly about God.OK
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Dr. Dawkins is waiting for his apology. BG

Hi Deep,

As Ronald Reagan told Jimmy Cahtah, "There you go again!"

You seem to have such a desire to imitate Bill Gray that you continue to use my initials. Oh, well, the highest form of flattery is imitation.

So, my Friend, thank you for thinking so highly of me -- that you want to be me!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_Donkey_Bear_TALK
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Dr. Dawkins is waiting for his apology. BG

Hi Deep,

As Ronald Reagan told Jimmy Cahtah, "There you go again!"

You seem to have such a desire to imitate Bill Gray that you continue to use my initials. Oh, well, the highest form of flattery is imitation.

So, my Friend, thank you for thinking so highly of me -- that you want to be me!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


and once again, Bill tries to impress us with his imagination.
quote:
Originally posted by vplee123:
I am going to go all "Bill Gray" on yall for a second, and venture that hadenough is really another BillGray persona? Hadenough, I have nothing whatsoever against you....
But I am curious...
Hmmm...do you think?


Wrong!!! See, thinking was your first mistake. Wink
quote:
Originally posted by Jankinonya:
quote:
Originally posted by HadEnough:
Oh, excuse my typo, "have"

Never claimed to be smart as you deep. Wink
But smart enough to defend this Country for the likes of you. Big Grin


How has Billy Joe Bob threatened our Country? What is that about?

BJBG are you plotting a coup again? Smiler


Man.. i hate it when he does that. always such a mess to clean up afterwards...
It saddens me that we (people in general, not just on the TD forums) are still having this argument. It is a subject that, when used as a weapon by one "side" against the other, seems to me to hamper both scientific exploration and nurturing of faith. Why must these positions polarize and berate each other? Faith and science are (or maybe I should say, could be) completely compatible. They each serve the purpose of explanation and understanding:

Science seeks to explain/show how.

Faith seeks to explain/show why.

It's discouraging that so many will never have the joy that faith brings because they have been put off by the dogmatic exclusion of scientific principles that are demonstrably factual.
Likewise it is discouraging that so many will never experience the exhilaration of unfettered learning because they have been put off by those who would tell them that, to do so, they must check their faith at the door.
I find it shameful that we would inhibit the full development of the whole person, body, mind and soul, for the sake of fear, anger and/or closed minds and hearts from either pole.
There are so many ills that could be addressed, so many solutions found then acted upon by science and faith both fulfilling the missions for which they are each best suited. Action and debate might better be channeled in those directions rather than ones like this thread.
My $.02.
Great post jefft!

However there are some of us that have been faithful and religious at one time in our lives and have decided it wasn't the path we wanted to keep following. I have often wondered if those that believe in god gave non-belief the same amount of thought and research if they wouldn't have a better understanding of the world around them. I feel like I have seen and experienced both sides of the coin.

I personally can't believe both at the same time. I know that there are those that can. I have a really hard time understanding their thought process on the matter. Thats just me.

I feel that its like right/left side brain. Your either religious or scientific. That's maybe not the best way to put it but some times its hard to put into words. All I know is that I grew up very religiously and spent a good part of my early adulthood believing in god, before I truly read the bible for myself. I no longer just went to church and listened to what the preacher was saying or my parents, or grandparents. I actually started reading it. By the end, god had become a myth to me. I can not go back and unlearn what I know now. Its impossible.

However, those who choose to believe in god and worship him have every right to it and no one should do anything to hamper that, unless it starts to infringe on others choices and beliefs.
quote:
Originally posted by jefft:
It saddens me that we (people in general, not just on the TD forums) are still having this argument. It is a subject that, when used as a weapon by one "side" against the other, seems to me to hamper both scientific exploration and nurturing of faith. Why must these positions polarize and berate each other? Faith and science are (or maybe I should say, could be) completely compatible. They each serve the purpose of explanation and understanding:

Science seeks to explain/show how.

Faith seeks to explain/show why.

It's discouraging that so many will never have the joy that faith brings because they have been put off by the dogmatic exclusion of scientific principles that are demonstrably factual.
Likewise it is discouraging that so many will never experience the exhilaration of unfettered learning because they have been put off by those who would tell them that, to do so, they must check their faith at the door.
I find it shameful that we would inhibit the full development of the whole person, body, mind and soul, for the sake of fear, anger and/or closed minds and hearts from either pole.
There are so many ills that could be addressed, so many solutions found then acted upon by science and faith both fulfilling the missions for which they are each best suited. Action and debate might better be channeled in those directions rather than ones like this thread.
My $.02.



First of all thank you for your post and welcome to the forum. Second Argument, is a strong word but one which, given much of the content, I would not try and refute based on some of the post becoming personal rather than general. You state that you believe Faith and science to be completely compatible and I don't disagree. Regarding science many have faith in that which Science reports to be fact however I would take issue with another statement about "scientific principles that are demonstrably factual". In the context of your comment and given what many have debated on here what are the Scientific principals that you consider to be "demonstrably factual"? Religious faith or what many call Faith in God is many times so misunderstood. I have never in any of my post made personal judgment about another's faith or the result of the lack of it yet that same courtesy is not extended to myself or other believers in a forum topic about Religion. Our belief, or reason behind it, is attacked and explained away as being some sort of delusion. While I don't claim that other Christians have exactly the same experience or basis for their faith I do take EXTREME Issue with someone else, other than myself, telling me I don't know what I experience and realize. I seek not to prove it to anyone or require another have the same experience but I shy not away from sharing my experiences. I have very real and valid reason for my faith in God as God and Creator, and that faith is based upon no less than God revealing Himself unto me in a most undeniable (at least for me) way. That way is via His Holy Spirit and while others call it a delusion or deceiving myself they accept other theories, that they themselves cannot prove, or disprove, as factual. It matters not to me if you or they believe my testimony but don't write it away just because you don't believe it or haven't experienced the same. I don't do that to you or anyone else in this forum and you should not do it to me unless you want to be hypocritical in doing so. My attacks upon evolution have been strictly using non-religious reason based upon observations, that anyone can make. The answers though or attempts at refuting my challenges, at least to evolution, have injected religion and creation as if I did it myself, which I didn't. I have also stated that we all have faith. The differences are in the basis of that faith and the objects of that faith, those are the differences here. Your post reflects a belief that Science is indisputable or certain parts are. I'm interested in what you view as which scientific principals you are stating that others dogmatically reject or better which scientific principals are so beyond reproach that they should never be challenged?

Please realize, as far as I am involved, I have not put forth an argument or challenge based upon Religion or "Faith Based" reasons. That is IF you are posting this in response to the Evolution challenges or statements. I can't say that othes do not bring religion into the discussion but if you read my initial post I did and have not.
gbrk,
I haven't impugned your faith nor that of anyone else. I wouldn't. I too am a believer in God the creator as well as the derivative Christian orthodoxy that springs from that proposition. What I have said is that, to me, the quibbling about the mechanics of how the creation was accomplished is counterproductive and that answering those questions is rightfully the job of science. It is enough for faith to believe that it is and to gain an understanding of why and the ways in which that applies to us as the created. The question of whether the universe was created in a week a few thousand years ago or in a several billion year process is of no consequence to my relationship with God. It does not shake my faith in the least to say that the opening chapters of Genesis are a simple and poetic way to explain our origins to a pre-scientific society.
You have your reasons for a belief that the earth is 6000 years old and was created in 7 literal days. There are those who do not share that belief and have good reason for that belief as well.
As for listing science that is demonstrably factual, that would take up far more space than is available in this forum and would take far more time than any of us have for typing. I don't care to argue the merits of scientific relative and/or absolute dating methods. I would suspect that, being a young earth proponent, you have prepared refutations for the concepts anyway. But keep in mind that, not so long ago, scientists were pilloried by the church for their assertions that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the other way around. Biologists were ridiculed for the notion that tiny things called germs cause disease. They didn't have a complete understanding of either of those principles form the start but they had begun a process of discovery. The idea that scientific hypotheses must be presented in full and unassailable form before they possess merit is terribly short sighted. Again, science is an orderly and observable process by which we learn the how of the physical world. Our faith is a process by which we learn the why of it. If we could spend more time with those propositions instead of arguing about whether the universe is 6000 or 4 billion years old, we could spend more time with addressing the pressing spiritual and physical needs of the here and now.
Hi Jeff and GB,

Can I make a wee suggestion which will allow more of us to enjoy and learn from your writings?

Break your comment up into short paragraphs. When a writing is one LONG paragraph -- I usually stop after the first one, maybe two, sentences. That is, if I can find where a sentence ends.

We all are sincerely interested in what you have to say. So, please, make it easier for us to read what you have written.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_TiggerToo_Bear_Piggy_On-Limb-TEXT
quote:
Originally posted by StarryNight:
The blog you referred to was talking about the campaign ad against Bradley Bryne who was accused of believing in evolution. One comforting fact is that Bryne received the most votes! So hopefully at least some of Alabamians are educated!


Bull. Yes, he was accused of that. Yes, he did offer his support for teaching evolution instead of the idiocy of Creationism. He had my vote.

Then, after the fundies made an issue out of it, the idiot turned right around and proclaimed his support of teaching Creationism in public schools and that he believed every single word in the bible is literally true.

So, no, educated Alabamians and educated Christians who also support the wonders that science has brought us have ZERO choice in this election. I swear, science education in Alabama is doomed. Doomed.
quote:
Break your comment up into short paragraphs. When a writing is one LONG paragraph -- I usually stop after the first one, maybe two, sentences. That is, if I can find where a sentence ends.



Oh Jeez. This suggestion coming from one who writes a dang BOOK that he expect people will actually read? The sheer abundance of your pride has blinded you to your own substantial faults.

Once again, Bill: Eye. Beam. Splinter.
"Discussion is exchanging ideas -- and does not entail berating another just because his/her grammar, punctuation, etc., might not be up to your standards."- Bill Gray, in response to BetternU


Geez, Bill, your words just keep coming back to bite you in the ***.
SK- welcome back, you've been missed! Smiler
jefft, my apologies for I know you did not intend to or did impugn my faith. Likewise I do agree with you regarding it being sciences realm to explain or attempt to explain those physical answers man at times strives for although I doubt that those answers, or definite ones, will ever be verifiably proved.

I wish I could recall a post I made, under an earlier topic, which stated essentially the same statement that quibbling about the mechanics of creation would be counterproductive for neither side can definitively prove to the other, with satisfactory evidence, what supports their faith basis.

One correction though, and evenly forgiven, is that I have never expressed my absolute belief in a 6000 year earth or creation in 7 literal days but only because I haven't taken the time and effort to actually research it out and diligently pray about it. Like "death" or the state and location of the soul it's one area I have questions about and haven't studied enough to formulate my beliefs as of this time although it is on my research and study list.

All along, every thought ( of mine ) behind any of my post considers that faith is a very personal thing. Judgment is an act that resides with God and it's not for me to prejudge my fellow forum members for their particular faith or beliefs. I will though, if prompted or given the chance, express my personal beliefs and the basis for those and others can make up their own mind given the material presented. Also that whether it be science, regarding many areas of science such as origins, etc, are matters of faith and we all make personal decisions based upon faith based in various tangible things.

Last, one area that does stir contention and failure to achieve acceptance, is that there exist a realm of the Spiritual which is and exist apart from that of the Physical realm. Science serves to analyze and attempt to explain the physical realm and everything within it however by it's very nature there exist and will continue to be the inability for science to explain, define, or analyze the Spiritual. Faith plays an important matter in both realms, at least I believe it does but many scientist continue to refuse to acknowledge or consider the reality of a Spiritual realm therefore the only explanations that are put forth is that people are delusional or convince themselves in something that doesn't exist for religion is all about the Spiritual and defining it. Again thanks for your input and I'm sorry if it seems I took it personally however I felt that it was saying that one could not challenge science theories, such as evolution, without and apart from the injection of Religion or the Spiritual.

And Bill, with regards to the suggestion. I don't disagree that many of my post are very long, or I'd rather say complete, and with the exception of yours, mine are most likely the closest to mini-novels. I doubt I'll make any changes as I am who I am and part of that is the way I write but I do hope that in spite of the lengthily nature they are readable and understandable to most forum readers.
quote:
Originally posted by gbrk:
jefft, my apologies for I know you did not intend to or did impugn my faith. Likewise I do agree with you regarding it being sciences realm to explain or attempt to explain those physical answers man at times strives for although I doubt that those answers, or definite ones, will ever be verifiably proved.

I wish I could recall a post I made, under an earlier topic, which stated essentially the same statement that quibbling about the mechanics of creation would be counterproductive for neither side can definitively prove to the other, with satisfactory evidence, what supports their faith basis.

One correction though, and evenly forgiven, is that I have never expressed my absolute belief in a 6000 year earth or creation in 7 literal days but only because I haven't taken the time and effort to actually research it out and diligently pray about it. Like "death" or the state and location of the soul it's one area I have questions about and haven't studied enough to formulate my beliefs as of this time although it is on my research and study list.

All along, every thought ( of mine ) behind any of my post considers that faith is a very personal thing. Judgment is an act that resides with God and it's not for me to prejudge my fellow forum members for their particular faith or beliefs. I will though, if prompted or given the chance, express my personal beliefs and the basis for those and others can make up their own mind given the material presented. Also that whether it be science, regarding many areas of science such as origins, etc, are matters of faith and we all make personal decisions based upon faith based in various tangible things.

Last, one area that does stir contention and failure to achieve acceptance, is that there exist a realm of the Spiritual which is and exist apart from that of the Physical realm. Science serves to analyze and attempt to explain the physical realm and everything within it however by it's very nature there exist and will continue to be the inability for science to explain, define, or analyze the Spiritual.

Faith plays an important matter in both realms, at least I believe it does but many scientist continue to refuse to acknowledge or consider the reality of a Spiritual realm therefore the only explanations that are put forth is that people are delusional or convince themselves in something that doesn't exist for religion is all about the Spiritual and defining it. Again thanks for your input and I'm sorry if it seems I took it personally however I felt that it was saying that one could not challenge science theories, such as evolution, without and apart from the injection of Religion or the Spiritual.

And Bill, with regards to the suggestion. I don't disagree that many of my post are very long, or I'd rather say complete, and with the exception of yours, mine are most likely the closest to mini-novels. I doubt I'll make any changes as I am who I am and part of that is the way I write but I do hope that in spite of the lengthily nature they are readable and understandable to most forum readers.

Hi GB,

I wasn't suggesting you write less; for you have good thoughts. I was only asking that you do as you have in this post -- and make it easier for us to read and digest your thoughts.

You have done a good job on this post. Keep sharing the Word of God! We need more doing this on the Religion Forum.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_TiggerToo_Bear_Piggy_On-Limb-TEXT
gbrk,
Sorry if I mischaracterized your position. I didn't mean to do that. It just seemed that was where you were coming from. Whatever take you have on this subject is yours and that's important in itself. What I've tried to convey is a hope for more cooperation between those who have differing views about these things that really carry no weight aside from personal perspective and/or intellectual exercise.

I agree with you that there often seems to be a hesitancy or unwillingness on the part of both disciplines to acknowledge and accept the other. This is the sort of wall that I would love to see disappear so that we can all be about more productive pursuits.
Not a problem at all. Also I doubt you will ever see "that wall" come down for there is almost adamant rejection of any possibility that a Spiritual Realm does, much less possibly could, exist in many Scientific minds.

You will also note, if you read enough forum post under various subject headings, that many on here, that espouse Christianity as their belief or position, fall under personal attacks from others who hold opposing views. Rather than provide substantive rebuttals or debates, all to often, some forum members retort to personal attacks against other forum members attempting to demean their intelligence or education just because we take a position based in the Spiritual realm

Still, welcome to the forum and I appreciate your comments.
quote:
Not a problem at all. Also I doubt you will ever see "that wall" come down for there is almost adamant rejection of any possibility that a Spiritual Realm does, much less possibly could, exist in many Scientific minds.



Spoken from, ignorance.

I have the mind of a scientist. I see the wonders and mystery of the Lord all around me. I often ponder the fact that many of my atheists friends describe the same feelings when they look up into the night sky: Awe. Inspiration. Wonder. Fascination. Astounding feelings of insignificance yet sill somehow vital to this vast universe. We both see and UNDERSTAND the same things. I simply believe they do not yet possess the evolved ability to compartmentalize their non-belief with their obvious spiritual beliefs.

Science has blessed me with the ability to understand the true powers of this universe. No, not the comic book superhero that the Bill Grays of the world preach but the one true Creator whose existence is reflected in the laws of the universe and unfathomable forces that constructed it.

You can be a learned man too, GB. Science doesn't have to scare you. You don't have to fear it. It provides concrete, real answers for scientific subjects. My faith guides me in how to use that knowledge for the good of all.

You can join me in the appreciation for reality as well You are smart enough. You just have to let go of your fear of science killing your faith. Your faith is stronger than that.
First, Sofa, Look at the specific statement of mine that you cited in your above response. So if spoken from ignorance, mine as you allude to, ( Ignorance being defined in my dictionary as "lack of knowledge or information").

Since you are such a excellent scientist then please explain then , with science being defined as:

science |ˈsīəns|
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology.
• a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences.
• a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology.
• archaic knowledge of any kind.
ORIGIN Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know."

how science can in any way define, recognize, study, or measure the Spiritual? Faith, of a spiritual nature, is also apart from the mental process. It is the acceptance of something illogical or unproven as fact and real having no proof or evidence.

You also stated that you "understand the true powers of this universe". You might be interested in sharing this with the scientific community as from my observation science has many theories but no definite, undeniable truths about the universe or even totally comprehend much of our own planet yet you have the ability to understand what they can't?

Science doesn't scare me at all but I consider it's limitations and fallacies and therefore realize that Science doesn't provide all the answers. And, in my ignorance, I still stick by my original statement that science will never comprehend, understand, measure, or recognize the Spiritual Realm nor can it if it continues to conform to the terms as it is defined.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×