The Bible in quotations

[omaghjoe]

George Lemaitre first proposed the Big Bang idea in 1927.

Hubble first observed evidence that the universe was expanding in 1929.

It got it's name in the 1950s as a derisive comment from Hoyle.

So long before....? You were saying?

It came from an era hypothesis that is intertwined with the discovery that bodies in the universe are moving away.

[omaghjoe]

So where does the latest science sit within our conversation?

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

[muppet]

Why don't you era hypothesis me a €100 today and I will intertwine it back to you in 2017. 😀

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

I always enjoy reading Iceman's thoughts on Religion, lucid & thoughtful.

I sometimes think he makes the points an Agnostic would make as opposed to a Christian? More Q than God?

I have none of this figured out Benny unfortunately. I wrestle constantly with my living out of my faith and the why..... I also have 4 young kids who ask loads of questions that promotes lots of healthy conversation at the dinner table.
St Paul says you have to work your salvation out. Hopefully this is what he meant...

Think you'll get into Heaven Iceman, as per the (your) bible? This'll confirm it for you! 

Heaven eligibility test

[omaghjoe]

Why don't you era hypothesis me a €100 today and I will intertwine it back to you in 2017. 😀

Money is subject to inflation unlike scientific hypothesis and discovery which stay still until they are developed further.

Try to keep it relevant Muppet

[muppet]

Why don't you era hypothesis me a €100 today and I will intertwine it back to you in 2017. 😀

Money is subject to inflation unlike scientific hypothesis and discovery which stay still until they are developed further.

Try to keep it relevant Muppet

OJ, 1929 came after 1927.

Even Johnnie Cochran won't get you out of that one.

[omaghjoe]

Why don't you era hypothesis me a €100 today and I will intertwine it back to you in 2017. 😀

Money is subject to inflation unlike scientific hypothesis and discovery which stay still until they are developed further.

Try to keep it relevant Muppet

OJ, 1929 came after 1927.

Even Johnnie Cochran won't get you out of that one.

Did you not say that the theory was around long before the observation?
The observation that bodies were moving away from each other was before 1927 if you actually look it up. 

You were caught out on an insignificant point and now your trying to focus on irrelevancies in an attempt to try and discredit my points
Swallow your ego and let it go

Get on to working your way through the Koran so you can try and sum it up with a few out of context quotes

[J70]

Tetonic Plate theory like many scientific theroies has many holes, for example many geologists don't buy the convection theory, as they figure it aint possible with the measured densities of rock. I'm fairly well convinced on it but I am open to new theories. However the weathering and cooling theory was accepted until about 50 years ago, as the evidence for it also appeared quite strong (and still does!).
Floating atoms is pretty much what we are and everything else to according to the atomic theory, which I might add has been all but proven. So if that is the case then everything is possible in this universe and the only thing that is preventing us from seeing it all are our bodies which are incapable of observing those things. In other words we most likely will never be able to understand the universe!

Agreed, but what is your point?

It was a response to J70 that it was cast iron certainty, however the whole statement could be considered as a demonstration of how scientific theories are often replaced and debunked

Plate tectonics is NOT controversial. And what holes are you referring to? And you do realize that rocks as the depths where they undergo convection are in a plastic state fueled by radioactivity, right? And the convection currents are rather slow, like cm/year? There may be debate over the types of convection, but that hardly translates into a controversy over convection itself.

And no one is denying that scientific theories are often replaced and debunked. We've even mentioned some of them here. However, plate tectonics is not going anywhere. The evidence for shifting plates is simply overwhelming and it explains everything from vulcanism to earthquakes to mountain building to deep sea trenches to biogeography.

Your original statement on atoms was that scientists tell us we are "just" floating atoms.

However surely the basis of looking for new life is not looking to some far off world it would be researching how it started here in the first place, of which we have no idea.

Anyway let me say this, if you believe in the Big Bang and ET on the availble evidence then you are taking an enormous leap of faith. And I am glad that you have it in your lifes and it is a vital component for living.

What leap of faith? I said I believe it is very possible that ET life exists. Once again, given the development of life on earth AND the sheer scale of the universe meaning that there are probably some other planets somewhere with similar conditions to earth, there is a good chance that it has developed somewhere else. There is nothing fantastical about that. No leap of faith. Its simple logic.

As for the big bang, its the theory that best fits the evidence. Faith doesn't come into it. Anyone with a clue about science realizes that all the knowledge is provisional and that good scientific research necessarily leads to even more questions.

The likelihood of some of these grand theories being overthrown is not high. We are not talking about Newton's gravitation theory. Fine as it was, it was, necessarily, limited by the relative infant state of science at the time. There are thousands upon thousands of scientists today studying all of this stuff, competing in a cutthroat world to beat each other to the punch. Anything that's stood till now, while it might well be augmented and improved upon, is unlikely to be completely thrown out.

On the "looking for life" question, why not do both? Its more than 60 years since the Miller Urey experiments - abiogenesis is not a young field. The search for extraterrestrial life is, obviously, much more difficult, especially in terms of justifying funding, but there is no harm in incorporating it into stuff such as the Martian exploration (at least it makes headlines).

[omaghjoe]

Tetonic Plate theory like many scientific theroies has many holes, for example many geologists don't buy the convection theory, as they figure it aint possible with the measured densities of rock. I'm fairly well convinced on it but I am open to new theories. However the weathering and cooling theory was accepted until about 50 years ago, as the evidence for it also appeared quite strong (and still does!).
Floating atoms is pretty much what we are and everything else to according to the atomic theory, which I might add has been all but proven. So if that is the case then everything is possible in this universe and the only thing that is preventing us from seeing it all are our bodies which are incapable of observing those things. In other words we most likely will never be able to understand the universe!

Agreed, but what is your point?

It was a response to J70 that it was cast iron certainty, however the whole statement could be considered as a demonstration of how scientific theories are often replaced and debunked

Plate tectonics is NOT controversial. And what holes are you referring to? And you do realize that rocks as the depths where they undergo convection are in a plastic state fueled by radioactivity, right? And the convection currents are rather slow, like cm/year? There may be debate over the types of convection, but that hardly translates into a controversy over convection itself.

I agree it not controversial I never stated that it was, I am well enough versed on the theroy thanks, (why do you think i used it as an example? ) and accpet the theory as it seems pretty solid however there are some parts of that have not been fully explained such as:

How it began? How the plates actually formed the easy explanation is that a weak spot was pulled in by the convection current but this is not widely accepted as you would need an almighty strong pull from the current and it hasnt happened on other planets.

The mantle convection currents are the subject of alot of disagrements and different theories. Some scientists believe that the upper mantle is not dense enough to provide enough energy to push the plates and the main driver of the plates is when their edge begins to dip into the mantle and they start to fall, thereby pulling the rest of the plate.

And no one is denying that scientific theories are often replaced and debunked. We've even mentioned some of them here. However, plate tectonics is not going anywhere. The evidence for shifting plates is simply overwhelming and it explains everything from vulcanism to earthquakes to mountain building to deep sea trenches to biogeography.

You seem rather confident in plate tectonics. Even though I accept it I am open to new ideas and there are plenty out there and I am don't have the sufficient knowledge to debunk them but you must know something more than I do if you are supremely confident in its lifespan to entirety when as you say scientific theories have been constantly changing and being superseded

Your original statement on atoms was that scientists tell us we are "just" floating atoms.

Eh? so how does an adverb change what I was trying to say? Do you think we are something more?

However surely the basis of looking for new life is not looking to some far off world it would be researching how it started here in the first place, of which we have no idea.

Anyway let me say this, if you believe in the Big Bang and ET on the availble evidence then you are taking an enormous leap of faith. And I am glad that you have it in your lifes and it is a vital component for living.

What leap of faith? I said I believe it is very possible that ET life exists. Once again, given the development of life on earth AND the sheer scale of the universe meaning that there are probably some other planets somewhere with similar conditions to earth, there is a good chance that it has developed somewhere else. There is nothing fantastical about that. No leap of faith. Its simple logic.

As for the big bang, its the theory that best fits the evidence. Faith doesn't come into it. Anyone with a clue about science realizes that all the knowledge is provisional and that good scientific research necessarily leads to even more questions.

The likelihood of some of these grand theories being overthrown is not high. We are not talking about Newton's gravitation theory. Fine as it was, it was, necessarily, limited by the relative infant state of science at the time. There are thousands upon thousands of scientists today studying all of this stuff, competing in a cutthroat world to beat each other to the punch. Anything that's stood till now, while it might well be augmented and improved upon, is unlikely to be completely thrown out.

On the "looking for life" question, why not do both? Its more than 60 years since the Miller Urey experiments - abiogenesis is not a young field. The search for extraterrestrial life is, obviously, much more difficult, especially in terms of justifying funding, but there is no harm in incorporating it into stuff such as the Martian exploration (at least it makes headlines).

To say that the likelihood of these theories will not be debunked or superseded is very narrow minded, are you presuming that discovery, observations and hypothesis are going to end soon or something. Because history should tell you that as our knowledge increases old theories get left by the way side.

Indeed I am quite sure that you have googled the Big Bang in the course of this thread, as I have but did you miss the latest new articles about it?
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Do you feel confident enough in your knowledge of the Big Bang to tell these guys that its rubbish? I'm guessing not, I certainly don't, I don't even fully understand the theory of relativity. But perhaps you do in which case I really would be debating with the wrong person.
Anyway I'm guessing you don't and you put your trust in scientists conclusions, in which case you are putting your faith in those guys.
But where does not leave us when a new theory arises like in the article above? Do you wait and see what the scientists think and then follow their conclusions? Or do you spend years trying to figure the whole thing out on your own and then come to your own conclusion?

[muppet]

OJ you have made a number of claims on this thread to support your arguments, and backed up none of them with anything. Not a link or a reference to a book or document or discovery. Even if you are right, you don't seem to convinced.

When questioned, you attack your challengers 'egos'. A bit like Bertie when asked about a property crash.

Hubble first observed Andromeda, the nearest galaxy, in 1922 and published this observation in November 1924. That was the first galaxy, other than ours, ever observed and identified by anyone. To base an expanding universe on this observation would be quite an achievement.

Lemaitre published his theory, now know as the Big Bang Theory, in 1927 based on Einstein's Theory of Relativity and yes pointed to Hubble's observation of the new galaxy and possibly further observations of galaxies.

But it was only in 1929 when Hubble observed that ALL galaxies are moving apart that there was observational support for Lemaitre's 1927 Theory.

The good thing about talking about The Big Bang versus Adam & Eve is that it reminds us of the volume of hard evidence for the former and the lack of any evidence for the latter.

Back to Adam & Eve.

You claim this, like The Big Bang, was a reasonable scientific theory for the time. You also claim this was based on the observation that 'If you see procreaton and the numbers of the population growing then it is perfectly logical to assume that it all started with two people and grew from there.' Thus the 'observation' to support your theory is 'look - people!'. If you think this is science or the basis for a theory of everything then there is little point in discussing anything with you.

For example let's take an equally plausible theory.

You are born in the year 1 AD.
You have two parents.
They each had two parents and so on.
Thus 28 generations ago, back to Adam, according to one of the Gospels (it was 43 generations in another Gospel), there would have been 134,217,726 people on earth, along with Adam & Eve. The 'observations' to support this theory are 'look - people' and 'look - people have two parents!'.

Now of course there is an obvious flaw, everyone married their cousins, but this daft calculation is as plausible as your scientifically observed' theory.

[armaghniac]

You are born in the year 1 AD.
You have two parents.
They each had two parents and so on.
Thus 28 generations ago, back to Adam, according to one of the Gospels (it was 43 generations in another Gospel), there would have been 134,217,726 people on earth, along with Adam & Eve. The 'observations' to support this theory are 'look - people' and 'look - people have two parents!'.

That's a bit Old Testament, and so bigoted,  it doesn't fully recognise the role of same sex parents in the analysis.

[Keyser soze]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

I agree to a point.

As I see it, he problem is as simple as.

What (or who) caused the Big Bang?

Could it have been a 'being' or was it a 'happening'?

What was there before it?

The obvious problem with crediting some kind of being with creating the big bang is you are then stuck with the question of what created this being with such awesome power and knowledge.

So your telling me that you only believe in God if he created the Big Bang?

You do realise that the big bang is only a theory, there is no real evidence of it?
And that the theory is based on that everything in the universe appears to be moving away from everything else, from the point that we are looking at it.

The real truth is that scientists don't have a feasible explanation on the origins of the universe, the Big Bang theory is only a proposal based on what we know, much like the Adam and Eve theory.
It may take another eureka moment like Charles Darwin on evolution to explain the origins of the universe however my guess is that while it may further our understanding of the universe it will probably also make it more complicated and end up creating more questions than answers.

I rest my case lol

Thanks for your invaluable input.

However I would most welcome it if you could take us through the Big Bang theory and the evidence that it happened.

I will surely. If you take us through the Adam and Eve "theory" lol

[omaghjoe]

quote author=Keyser soze link=topic=25494.msg1439106#msg1439106 date=1423667464]

At the same time lads is atheism not even more illogical than faith?

I mean its a case of going "right there are those people over there who believe in God, of which there is no scientific evidence, but I am say there is definitely no God"

Kinda weird logic because how in the hell do you know there is no God?

I mean if you need evidence to support faith then why would you even consider God's existence in the first place?

And why would you waste your time to make a decision that you believe such a thing could never exist and arguing with the people of faith that he does not exist?

That's what I can't get my head around?

Agnostics make sense at least they are just going "Well I dunno.... maybe,... maybe not" "Yeah sometimes I do but then other times well I just dunno"

I agree to a point.

As I see it, he problem is as simple as.

What (or who) caused the Big Bang?

Could it have been a 'being' or was it a 'happening'?

What was there before it?

The obvious problem with crediting some kind of being with creating the big bang is you are then stuck with the question of what created this being with such awesome power and knowledge.

So your telling me that you only believe in God if he created the Big Bang?

You do realise that the big bang is only a theory, there is no real evidence of it?
And that the theory is based on that everything in the universe appears to be moving away from everything else, from the point that we are looking at it.

The real truth is that scientists don't have a feasible explanation on the origins of the universe, the Big Bang theory is only a proposal based on what we know, much like the Adam and Eve theory.
It may take another eureka moment like Charles Darwin on evolution to explain the origins of the universe however my guess is that while it may further our understanding of the universe it will probably also make it more complicated and end up creating more questions than answers.

I rest my case lol

Thanks for your invaluable input.

However I would most welcome it if you could take us through the Big Bang theory and the evidence that it happened.

I will surely. If you take us through the Adam and Eve "theory" lol
[/quote]

So in other words ....ye can't

We all know the Adam and Eve theory, it ain't mine and I don't subscribe to it.

Please stop trying to depict me as a creationist because I don't subscribe to the Big Bang

[omaghjoe]

OJ you have made a number of claims on this thread to support your arguments, and backed up none of them with anything. Not a link or a reference to a book or document or discovery. Even if you are right, you don't seem to convinced.

When questioned, you attack your challengers 'egos'. A bit like Bertie when asked about a property crash.

Hubble first observed Andromeda, the nearest galaxy, in 1922 and published this observation in November 1924. That was the first galaxy, other than ours, ever observed and identified by anyone. To base an expanding universe on this observation would be quite an achievement.

Lemaitre published his theory, now know as the Big Bang Theory, in 1927 based on Einstein's Theory of Relativity and yes pointed to Hubble's observation of the new galaxy and possibly further observations of galaxies.

But it was only in 1929 when Hubble observed that ALL galaxies are moving apart that there was observational support for Lemaitre's 1927 Theory.

The good thing about talking about The Big Bang versus Adam & Eve is that it reminds us of the volume of hard evidence for the former and the lack of any evidence for the latter.

Back to Adam & Eve.

You claim this, like The Big Bang, was a reasonable scientific theory for the time. You also claim this was based on the observation that 'If you see procreaton and the numbers of the population growing then it is perfectly logical to assume that it all started with two people and grew from there.' Thus the 'observation' to support your theory is 'look - people!'. If you think this is science or the basis for a theory of everything then there is little point in discussing anything with you.

For example let's take an equally plausible theory.

You are born in the year 1 AD.
You have two parents.
They each had two parents and so on.
Thus 28 generations ago, back to Adam, according to one of the Gospels (it was 43 generations in another Gospel), there would have been 134,217,726 people on earth, along with Adam & Eve. The 'observations' to support this theory are 'look - people' and 'look - people have two parents!'.

Now of course there is an obvious flaw, everyone married their cousins, but this daft calculation is as plausible as your scientifically observed' theory.

No one has been attacked more on this thread more than myself on numerous occasions in an insulting attempt to depict me as a creationist and thereby undermine my points, and you continue to do so by claiming that I base the Adam and Eve theory as a basis for a theory of everything when I never said such a thing. It is extremely insulting and infuriating and presuming that you are not trying to insult me, it leads me to think that you have difficulty understanding what I am trying to say. If it is the latter I would be happy to explain further prehaps you could give me guidance as to your intentions . But sorry for lashing out.

I am not sure what "claims" exactly you are referring but I didn't realise I had to source everything I said on this thread, I never read it on the forum rules and I don't see anyone else doing it much

A quick read on Wikipedia article on the Big Bang tells us that the first observations of a spiral nebula moving away was in 1912. I dont know where you are getting your information about Andromeda being first observed in 1922 but that is incorrect a quick look at the Wikipedia article tells us it was first observed centuries earlier

But if you like links, this is the third time I posted this link and no one has commented on it.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Latest news on the Big Bang what do you think of it. Are you confident enough in the Big Bang to refute these guys claims?


I don't understand what you are trying to say with the Adam and Eve theory, are you agreeing with me that it was perfectly plausible for the time and on the available evidence,.... we did inbreed, it is mathematically impossible for us not to have, DNA even proves it.

[foxcommander]