Posted on 09/15/2022 12:56:44 PM PDT by OneVike
I am in agreement with you. Me being one with an apologist mindset, I tend to lean towards an accusatory line in dealing with most secularist scientists, because most refuse to ever take into consideration the possibility of a creator, or even look at the evidence that points to One.
However, I will readily admit that I have ran across more than a few secularists who are more than willing to look at the evidence from a Creationist point of view. I have yet to see them admit a Creator exists, and the closest they come is to say, well I know, but there must be a logical explanation for what I did not understand. Yet, they refuse to ridicule or malign creationist scientists.
It is my prayer that their willingness to consider it will lead them to the truth one day. Like Nicodemus, they are at least willing to listen to the other side. This is the first step in coming to Jesus.
“Reference to “after the beginning” in your second sentence appears to contradict your first sentence since it posits a beginning.”
I was using the other poster’s words so came out unclear.
More technically, the BBT implies a “beginning” of the universe but does not address it as part of the theory.
The theory begins with the universe as a high density plasma.
Looking at your bookshelf.....Being in a garage does not make you a car, owning science books doesn’t make you a scientist.
I guess you couldn’t answer the question.
To the contrary. These people have made very grandiose claims about the nature of the universe and how it evolved. It is more clear by the day that they know much less than they claim. In fact, I’d say the entire field is little more than a scam supported by taxpayer dollars. It is this taxpayer support that annoys me, and their claim of being a part of ‘science’, when in fact there is apparently more philosophy involved in their theories than actual science.
Must be a nice gig
You’ll have proof one way or the other when you die and there’s an afterlife or nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not quite, because if following death there’s nothing then the dead will not be aware of that. Recently a poster pointed out that it’s not the dead who suffer because they don’t know they are dead. Therefore those who experience suffering in relation to death are not the dead but the living.
I think death is most likely the same sensation as billions of years passing before you were born. Or endless general anesthesia. So you are correct, if there’s no afterlife there was no point in ever being alive. The greatest minds of mankind are no more important than the lowliest of flat worms if that’s the case.
The problem with that is that the universe is not perfectly spherical.
Assuming the Big Bang THeory is valid, for the purpose of my point, The matter created would be created unevenly, with some clumps being bigger than other clumps.
Consequently, the universe would be skewed in some direction with the actual origin point not being the current center point of the universe.
I dunno, man.
You’ve been educated in the American public school system.
“The problem with that is that the universe is not perfectly spherical.”
*We don’t know the shape of the universe.
“Assuming the Big Bang THeory is valid, for the purpose of my point, The matter created would be created unevenly, with some clumps being bigger than other clumps.”
*I believe that you describe the theory.
“Consequently, the universe would be skewed in some direction with the actual origin point not being the current center point of the universe”
*The theory does not address a point of origin. The theory begins with the universe as a plasma field. Matter develops at all points.
I don’t know what the shape of the universe is, but to have a spherical shape you would have to have even pulls of gravity at all point.
That’s not likely the case, which is why I can say that it is unlikely the universe is spherical.
I only used the Big Bang Theory to make my point, not state that I believe in it.
Geez, you are something else. I just don’t know what.
“I am in agreement with you. Me being one with an apologist mindset, I tend to lean towards an accusatory line in dealing with most secularist scientists, because most refuse to ever take into consideration the possibility of a creator, or even look at the evidence that points to One.”
Creator? Not God?
Whatever you can’t mix science and faith. Science neither requires a creator or denies a creator.
OTOH, There are a lot of “faithful” that deny science because it conflicts with some obscure passage or what their Sunday School teacher said.
“I don’t know what the shape of the universe is,”
Lets go back to your original statement: “The problem with that is that the universe is not perfectly spherical.”
If you don’t dnow how can you make any claim.
I am not sure what your point is or what the problem is that you see.
“I don’t know what the shape of the universe is, but to have a spherical shape you would have to have even pulls of gravity at all point.”
Who said it was spherical?
We can see objects are receding at speeds exceeding the speed of light.
~~~~
If something recedes faster than the speed of light then how does its light get here?
“If something recedes faster than the speed of light then how does its light get here?”
How fast it is receeding has no impact on the speed of light coming to us. Relativity 101.
The Big Bang Theory implies that it is a spherical shape.
I’m only saying that it is not a regular shape of any kind.
“The Big Bang Theory implies that it is a spherical shape.
I’m only saying that it is not a regular shape of any kind.”
It does not.
How fast it is receeding has no impact on the speed of light coming to us. Relativity 101.
~~~~
True, but doesn’t apply if the light doesn’t get to us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.