7
   

Big Bang or a Stretch of God's Imagination?

 
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2011 11:09 pm
@georgeob1,
Why would that be nonsense?
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2011 11:34 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Perhaps you should think about it a bit.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 12:03 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
An act of smug denial that is not satisfying from a philosophic perspective.

If you find it more philosophically satisfying to ask meaningless questions, go right ahead. Far be it from me to interfere with your satisfaction. But you're on your own. I'm out.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 05:37 am
@georgeob1,
The argument is actually breaking down into a bit of a dustup, and yet you seem to deny the importance of the evidence to date. It is admittedly sparse but growing. The parallaz measurements made by Hubble have correlated nicely to the redshift measurements and the background radiation "maps" produced by radio interferometry measurements.
The ID folks have always loved to move the arguments back several steps in order to divert the fact that several lines of evidence support both natural unadulterated(unintelligent) earth processes as well as cosmological development.
Would an ID origin of the Universe concern me? Yes, since Im used to laws and theories of science being usable tools and not subject to some caprice.
Fortunately science doesnt concern itself with the miraculous .It has a job to do the results of which will always be second guessed by philosophers and clerics.I can inderstand the clerics positions though, should the universe not be subject to some super intelligent , these guys would be out of a job.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 01:23 pm
@farmerman,
I'm not denying the importance of anything in modern physics or cosmology. However, I do note the complete absence of any explanation arising from it that doesn't involve something unexplanable or undefined - even in its own terms of reference - at the core of its inferences. That's not much of an anchor, and certainly not a sufficient fixed point from which to deny any other possibilities.

Thomas asserts that the questions are meaningless or invalid ( like asking what's north of the north pole, he says). I believe that is an implicit admission of the limited domain of observational science, and in effect, an evasion of the question at hand.

I have no objection to the proposition that science can't find direct evidence of the hand of a creator, or that it can't completely explain the origins of our existence. However, I do object to the illogic of the proposition that, based on this, science can certainly prove there was no creator.
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 11:10 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Thomas asserts that the questions are meaningless or invalid ( like asking what's north of the north pole, he says). I believe that is an implicit admission of the limited domain of observational science, and in effect, an evasion of the question at hand.

Why single out observational science? In your opinion, what source of knowledge would not be so limited? As to your charges of evasion, there's nothing evasive in declining to answer a trick question. The only appropriate response is to exclaim "trick question!", and move on.
0 Replies
 
voiceindarkness
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2012 02:50 pm
Jesus told me, (in the lost book of Thomas), the Kingdom of God is within you and without you.

Reality is within you and without you. Reality is within God, and without God.

God is not within reality without, where science is looking. God is our reality within. Not the reality of mind and matter, space and time. This is the illusion of which God is the conclusion.
voiceindarkness
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2012 04:55 am
@voiceindarkness,

This is the simple explanation taught by mainstream science concerning "particles" of energy.

Quote:
Atoms are particles of elements, substances that can not be broken down further. In examining atomic structure though, we have to clarify this statement. An atom cannot be broken down further without changing the chemical nature of the substance. For example, if you have 1 ton, 1 gram or 1 atom of oxygen, all of these units have the same properties. We can break down the atom of oxygen into smaller particles; however, when we do the atom looses its chemical properties. For example, if you have 100 watches, or one watch, they all behave like watches and tell time. You can dismantle one of the watches: take the back off, take the batteries out, peer inside and pull things out. However, now the watch no longer behaves like a watch. So what does an atom look like inside?

Atoms are made up of 3 types of particles electrons, protons and neutrons. These particles have different properties. Electrons are tiny, very light particles that have a negative electrical charge (-). Protons are much larger and heavier than electrons and have the opposite charge, protons have a positive charge. Neutrons are large and heavy like protons; however neutrons have no electrical charge. Each atom is made up of a combination of these particles.
(Heavier- contains more energy)
These three energies are actually equal in energy. The negative energy appears week because it became stretched into the dark energy of the fabric of the darkness, by the expansion of the universe as it came into being. Where this energy is in contact with the neutral energy of an atom, it surrounds the atom and creates the energy cloud.
The pressure from the dark energy compresses the neutral energy around the nucleus, which in turn compresses the positive energy contained therein.
There is interaction between the positive and negative energies through the neutral energy, which both connects and separates the positive and negative energies.

Quote:
An atom made up of one proton and one electron, is called hydrogen (the abbreviation for hydrogen is H). The proton and electron stay together because just like two magnets, the opposite electrical charges attract each other.
This statement is false; this has nothing to do with electromagnetism, at this level. The force of the negative energy that make up the fabric of dark energy that fills the universe, pushing against a wall of neutral energy, creates the negative energy cloud surrounding the nucleus.
All of the pressure of this dark energy compresses the positive energy, like water pressure in an ocean of darkness, separated by a wall of neutral energy,

Quote:
What keeps the two from crashing into each other? The particles in an atom are not still. The electron is constantly spinning around the center of the atom (called the nucleus). The centrifugal force of the spinning electron keeps the two particles from coming into contact with each other much as the earth's rotation keeps it from plunging into the sun.
Wrong, centrifugal force has nothing to do with it. The wall of neutral energy that connects the negative to the positive also separates the two. It’s the sudden appearance of the neutral energy that created and separated the negative from the positive in the very first moment of creation.
There is absolutely no comparison between the affect of gravity, and centrifugal force on the earth’s rotation around the sun, and the structure of an atom.

Quote:
Keep in mind that atoms are extremely small. One hydrogen atom, for example, is approximately 5 x 10-8 mm in diameter. To put that in perspective, this dash - is approximately 1 mm in length, therefore it would take almost 20 million hydrogen atoms to make a line as long as the dash. In the sub-atomic world, things often behave a bit strangely. First of all, the electron actually spins very far from the nucleus. If we were to picture a hydrogen atom, so that the proton was ½ inch in diameter, the electron would actually be spinning approximately 0.5 km (or about a quarter of a mile) away from the nucleus. In other words, if the proton was ½ inch in diameter, the whole atom would be about the size of Giants Stadium.

You could change the size scale infinitely, what does that say about what fills the giant stadium? The negative and positive energies interact through this mass of neutral energy.
What is unique about our planet?, Our atmosphere, that separates the waters above from the waters beneath. And God called the firmament heaven. We share a consciousness of reality.
Our blood carries oxygen to our brains, starve the brain of oxygen and our consciousness leaves our bodies in near death experience. Our brain dies we leave our bodies and experience the dream that is heaven, or hell.
Our brains light up our minds to experience the dream of the physical through our six senses. Our subconscious minds share a subconscious mind within the atmosphere of reality? Within the arena of the neutral energy of the oxygen atoms?, a thought to ponder. Cool
Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Revelation 16:17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.

Quote:
Another peculiarity of this tiny world is the particles themselves. Protons and neutrons behave like small particles, sort of like tiny billiard balls.

(Compressed energy)

Quote:
The electron however, has some of the properties of a wave. In other words, the electron is more similar to a beam of light than it is to a billiard ball. Thus, to represent it as a small particle spinning around a nucleus is slightly misleading.In actuality, the electron is a wave that surrounds the nucleus of an atom like a cloud.

(Totally misleading) What is viewed as an electron is the highest point of concentration of negative energy spinning around the nucleus, trying to be in the same place at the same time as the nucleus, which is not possible.

Quote:

In an electrically neutral atom, the positively charged protons are always balanced by an equal number of negatively charged electrons. As we have seen, hydrogen is the simplest atom with only one proton and one electron. Helium is the 2nd simplest atom. It has two protons in its nucleus and two electrons spinning around the nucleus. With helium though, we have to introduce another particle. Because the 2 protons in the nucleus have the same charge on them, they would tend to repel each other, and the nucleus would fall apart.

True, they do repel each other, as they try to be in the same place, at the same time, which, as I previously stated, is impossible.
Quote:
To keep the nucleus from pushing apart, helium has two neutrons in its nucleus. Neutrons have no electrical charge on them and act as a sort of nuclear glue, holding the protons, and thus the nucleus, together.

Wrong, neutrons do not act like glue. As positive energy is added to the nucleus, neutral energy is also added, which in turn attracts more negative energy to the electron cloud. These three energies are always balanced. Because you can’t add more energy in the “stadium” of space between the nucleus and the electron cloud, the extra neutral energy added, appears in the nucleus with the proton energy. Each point of energy within the nucleus is equal to the amount of neutral energy in the neutral “Giant Stadium” or wall that separates the nucleus from the outer electron cloud, which is also equal to the negative energy drawn to the electron cloud. The negative energy, which is stretched across the cosmos of space, pushing against the outer wall of neutral energy, compresses the nucleus.
voiceindarkness
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2012 05:20 am
@voiceindarkness,

That being said, can we go back to my original post, and have a science discussion, instead of a debate about God and me.

Imagine, if you will, an infinite moment of creation. The entire infinite universe begins; the illusion of space-time is created. A neutral force of the mind of creation begins to separate two forms of light, negative and positive. Instantly the entire infinite universe is hot from the creation and annihilation of these two energies. The two energies instantly begin to spin, negative and positive, with the neutral separating the two (quark confinement)? As the separation continues the point of positive energy spins positive, the negative spins around the positive, separated by an equal amount of neutral energy, gravity is created. The negative energy pushing against a wall of neutral energy, with a singularity of positive energy spinning in the center, the negative energy completely surrounds the outer wall of neutral energy.
What are to become the atoms is simultaneously pushed apart, and compressed together, by the pushing of the negative energy. As the energies separate across the universe, the atoms are gathered and compressed into the locations where the galaxies will form. The negative energy is stretched across the universe forming the fabric of the universe, the dark energy. This stretched, dark energy both separates and connects the energies of matter. It creates the energy cloud that surrounds the outer portion of the atom. What appears as an electron is the point of concentration of the dark energy within the energy cloud. This energy seems week because it is stretched across the emptiness of space.
The reason an electron, photon, neutron, etc. appears as a particle when observed is because, when in motion, it stretches into infinite mass across the dark energy, the fabric of the universe, the vastness of space, getting weaker as it is stretched. When these energies are observed, their motion is stopped at the point of observation, and the energy is concentrated into a single point to appear as particle.
The pushing of the dark energy against the energy within the atoms of matter would explain why the galaxies are moving away from each other.
The condensing of the energy of matter at the locations where future galaxies would form, would form giant gas clouds. These gas giants would eventually become so compressed; they would go into super nova, exploding matter and gas into space while the remainder of energy would implode leaving the black holes in the center of each new galaxy.
From this gas and matter stars are born.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2012 05:42 am
@voiceindarkness,
You only forgot "let there be light".
Whats your science point that you are eager to discuss? All I see is your catechism, and just becauise you present it with a question mark is like saying that Eric von Denniken wasnt a shill for "Ancient astronauts".

Youre a shill, I accept that-- so should you. So therefore any valid discussion we may have had is going to be lost in your reasoning based on your catechism . Im certain that we will be talking right past each other.Sorry dude maybe "bewildered" will reveal his secrets to you.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2012 05:52 am
He can't keep his story straight, either. He has claimed to be Jesus, and now he says Jesus told him. Must be talkin' to himself.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2012 06:02 am
@Setanta,
Ha, I forgot about his actual claims to be Jesus. Kinda robs him of any credibility when he invokes the languages of science .
Ive not been following his antics .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2012 06:07 am
He and Spade Master have been havin' a doctrinal knock-down, drag-out . . . it would be funny, if it weren't so tedious. Both of 'em tend to be prolix . . .
0 Replies
 
voiceindarkness
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2012 01:16 pm
@farmerman,
Hey farmerman! Very Happy Wazup dude? Shocked Cool

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
You only forgot "let there be light".
The Light is yet to be, Smile though it is. Cool
To deep for ya? Cool
Look around, Smile it's the **** that has gotten way deep. Wink
And the stink? Surprised
Good God!, what have they been eat'n? Laughing
Quote:
Whats your science point that you are eager to discuss? All I see is your catechism, and just becauise you present it with a question mark is like saying that Eric von Denniken wasnt a shill for "Ancient astronauts".
You mean, what's my point? Laughing Or what's the point of it all? Cool You see any light in the catechism? Wink
Everyone has their own question marks. Rolling Eyes as did I. Laughing but I found the answer. Cool


Quote:
Youre a shill, I accept that-- so should you. So therefore any valid discussion we may have had is going to be lost in your reasoning based on your catechism . Im certain that we will be talking right past each other.Sorry dude maybe "bewildered" will reveal his secrets to you.

Hey! Surprised how long have you been talking to yourself? Shocked
Did you hear what you said? Cool
How well are you listening? Smile
Will you make your point? Cool
You will get to it. Cool
I don't know you yet, Smile but, Cool what's in a name? Cool
Do you know the Lord, Smile of the harvest? Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2012 01:25 pm
This all that emoticon bullshit, as well as his egregious language errors, this joker writes like a ten year old--maybe he just stole his dad's photo to use for an avatar
voiceindarkness
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2012 01:50 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

This all that emoticon bullshit, as well as his egregious language errors, this joker writes like a ten year old--maybe he just stole his dad's photo to use for an avatar
Yeah, he's my father. Laughing He's the Thinker that thought it through. Cool He's dead to me now. Smile
DestinyzChild
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2012 04:33 pm
@Setanta,
I have been watching all of this .. Why so judgemental and negative? My observations are that you, and others, protest too much, not by intelligent debate: but, by your rude and judgemental remarks and personal attacks. Who do you think you are? Superior ! Seems questionable? This is not high school ... you should respect others rights to say and believe as they choose. The need to go as far as criticize especially in the manner you just says a lot of your character, which could be a sign of your own insecurities manifesting itself.... Just my observation, now I open myself up for ridicule. Bring it On !!! Bullies are laughable, at best.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2012 10:55 pm
@DestinyzChild,
Please enlighten . Where is there any point of discussion between the Threadmeister and anyone who wants to have a decent non agenda'd -up debate.
Theres absolutely no room for debate here. You either agree with this clown or go somewhere where IQs come in 3 numbers.
He doesnt really deserve any consideration.

PS-hes also a great liar
DestinyzChild
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2012 03:29 am
@farmerman,
Thanks for proving my point!



Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2012 05:45 am
@DestinyzChild,
You're right, this is not high school. You can't post utter bullshit without being called on it. It is not just acceptable in debate to point out bullshit, it's part of the exercise. If you think people telling you are spreading bullshit when you are, in fact, spreading bullshit is bullying, you're not going to do well in life.
 

Related Topics

If the Universe has no beginning? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Bad News for "Big Bang(TM)" - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did all the antimatter go? - Discussion by CAfrica141
New TV series: Young Sheldon - Discussion by edgarblythe
God's Critical Mass - Question by dalehileman
The New State Religion: Atheism - Question by Expert2
Are evolution and the big bang true? - Discussion by Johnjohnjohn
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 02:38:31