|
Post by Dave on Aug 29, 2013 10:20:19 GMT -5
A glimpse from my new book: Chapter 8A Gnostic view of Creation and Sacred Geometry An Academic Circumspection By, David Freed Th.D. MLS(ASCP)cm July 22nd, 2013
Gen 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The Big Bang The universal education systems of today no longer teach the creative event with religious vocabulary. In the scientific attempt to stick only to observable facts, the creation even has become restated from a miraculous and seemingly magical “poof” of the Creator to a random unexplainable explosive event called the Big Bang. At first, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with possible traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced by gravity through the Nebular Theory to form stars and galaxies. Eventually the heavier elements were presumably synthesized either within stars or as the result of exploding stars. The educational system has disseminated this modern science theory to the world, but in their zeal to eliminate all religious vocabulary from this event as possible, it fails to mention that it was a Belgian priest named Georges Lemaître who first suggested the big bang theory in the 1920s. Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was an astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first person to theorized that the universe began from a single primordial atom, which later became known as the Big Bang theory. He is also the first scientist to propose a theory of an expanding Universe, widely misattributed to the American astronomer Edwin Hubble. Lemaître’s derivation of what is now known as Hubble's law, or Hubble constant, was published in 1927, two full years before Hubble published his own calculations. So, this amazing scientific theory that has come to supersede any theological relevance to creation is actually a byproduct of a Roman Catholic publication. Yet, the world’s need to erase every theological reference has even hidden the true authorship of this theory. This deliberate oversight is just another obvious example that today’s scientific truth isn’t necessarily fact, but just the most commonly reported version of an assumed fact. Adoption of the Big Bang theory combined with a continued mistranslation of Genesis 1:1 work together to deny God’s omnipotence, the true nature of the trinity, or even the need for the existence of God. After all, both paradigms indicate that the something ultimately came from nothing doesn’t it? In the beginning there was nothing. Nothing existed before the Big Bang of creation – right? However, this very scientific view flies in the face of the very first Law of Thermodynamics, a scientific theory that is held in such regard that we call it a Law of Nature. Energy or matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transmuted or translated. Einstein restated this Law in the equation, E=mc 2 and he explosive energy of an atomic bomb is the experimental evidence that Einstein’s equation is correct. Accelerate some mass of uranium at the speed of light and it yields the energy release that destroyed both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Almost every episode of Star Tex includes examples of driving Einstein’s equation in reverse. Food replicators take energy from the engine room and transmute it into your favorite food in mere seconds. Transporters transmute mass into energy and then back into mass with such scientific precision that it is used for human transport. So, before the mass of the Big Bang came into being, science demands that there must be pre-existing energy from which it transmuted. At the very heart of any multidimensional belief must be that first dimensional singularity that is the foundation for all dimensions. Next is that second dimensional plane that forms the fabric , or as the scientist like to call it, the membrane upon which our third dimensional reality is formed, as well as all of the higher dimensions above. So before the Big Bang yielded our 3D reality, the first and second dimensional realities must have already existed to give definition to three-dimensionalism, or any construct of multidimensionalism. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now let’s look at the literal translation of Genesis 1:1 and perform a small word study of Hebrew verb ‘created,’ (bara,) with the aid of the Strong’s numbering system. Strong's Number: H1254, bara, (baw-raw), verb Definition - to create, shape, form, fashion, to fatten, to make yourselves fat, to be fat, fatten; with God as subject: create - of heaven and earth, of individual man, of new conditions and circumstances, of miracles Genesis 1:27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created (bara) he him; male and female created (bara) he them. Christendom never suggests that God made Adam from nothing. Scripture even states that,”… Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground …” (Genesis 2:7,) and eve was fashioned from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:22.) 1 Samual 2:29 Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in [my] habitation, and honorest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat (bara) with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? Psalms 102:18 This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created (bara) shall praise the LORD. Looking at these scriptural usages of ‘bara’ from another context, it become obvious that ‘bara’ does not mean to make something out of nothing, as the Big Bang theory and Christendom commentary present; but in each example, something pre-existed to serve as the material for the ‘bara.’ Just as, the strict adherence to multidimensional theory requires the first dimensional singularity and second dimensional matrix to form our 3D construct, applying this Hebrew context to the Genesis 1:1 the translation might read: In the beginning God fattened the heavens and the earth. Exploring the strictest meaning of the ancient Hebrew, Jeff Brener, the founder of the Ancient Hebrew Research Center to teach proper Biblical interpretation by providing others with the tools needed to read and understand the Bible from its original Hebraic context, suggests the alternative translations for genesis 1:1 :3 “Within the Beginning, he filled the powers, the skies and the land.” “Within the Beginning, the powers filled the skies and the land.” So, no matter how you slice it or dice it, the notion that something was created from nothing is absolute error. As a Gnostic Multidimensionalist , I would rather restate it as: God in the first dimension, that single point of ultimate knowledge, or the absolute omniscience singularity. God spread throughout the second dimension, the omnipresent plane that forms the very fabric of our universe, the matrix of it all, and God in the third dimension, the omnipotent corpuscular expression of that matrix. Or, as the Apostle John wrote: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 29, 2013 10:54:03 GMT -5
Sacred Geometry abridged At the very heart of Sacred Geometry and their sacred Flower of Life lays the basic construct of a single circle. It is this circle that is said to represent the mind of God, a unique and individual singularity. The next stage of development is the addition of a second circle of the same diameter, drawn so that the center of each circle is on the circumference of the opposite circle. The next step in creation is known as the Tripod of Life, or Triquetra, and also known as Borromean rings, is formed from a third circle being added to the Vesica Piscis, where the third circle's center point is placed at the intersection of the first two circles' circumferences. The Tripod of Life symbol has been used as a sacred symbol in a number of pagan religions throughout Europe, since ancient times. Within the religion of Wicca, the triquetrum symbolizes the Triple Goddess of the Moon and Fate; and also her three realms of Earth, sky, and sea. This symbol also represents the Holy Trinity at the very heart of Christian beliefs to represent the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Regardless of vocabulary used the theme of creation remains obvious. Run as far, and as fast as you can, from the Judeo-Christian heritage; bury yourself in the science, immerse yourself in New Age spiritualism, or even occultist paganism. However, when you stop for a moment and re-examine Sacred Geometry’s very foundation. It begins with a single point singularity. Then it spreads in a two directional plane forming the womb of the universe. Its third division yields, none other than, the trinity. From these beginnings form all of the mathematical forms and ratios that are the very building blocks for our reality. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 29, 2013 14:51:56 GMT -5
Joao Magueijo João Magueijo (born 1967) is a Portuguese cosmologist and professor in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College London. He is a pioneer of the varying speed of light (VSL) theory. (wiki) This forum was just introduced to this scientist as someone who countered Einstein’s theories, especially as related to the non-linearity of time. I have spent some time with this author and I do not find his theory of Variable Light Speed (VSL) a new concept or even an original one, but just a simple restatement of Einstein’s original proposal with differing vocabulary. I am a skeptic of any scientist that starts his presentation by misrepresenting previous views to empower their own. As Mr. Magueijo says more than once, there are many theories out there for almost every phenomenon; to pick only one and use it to misrepresent a previous theory is not an scientifically honest approach. Magueijo begins by tell us that there is a huge flaw in the current Big Bang model that cast doubt over the entire theory, but then he goes on to use the Big Bang cosmic beginning as the bases of his own theory. The flaw that he points out is the problem with finding the “Primordial Light.” The sciences are frustrated because they cannot find it to measure it. After he talks about this for a while he goes on to say that this light has actually slowed into the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) noise we pick up on our televisions. But then a mapping of this CMB doesn’t agree with the Big Bang model (he says) because it doesn’t present a nice spherical evenly proportional sphere of radiation. My responseAlthough it is true that science is frustrated with its inability to measure that initial “Primordial Light,” but as Marcus Chown says in his book, The Quantum Zoo, pg 144-150, the search for that light will always end in frustration; because we cannot measure light in motion, we can only measure light in reflection. The light must interact with something before we can measure it. Presuming that this expanding sphere of “Primordial Light’ forms the very boundary of our universe; we will never measure it, because nothing will ever be in front of it to cause that reflection. Magueijo then says that this light slowed and now forms the CMB we see on our televisions. This is different than the current model and is wrong in three aspects. 1. Einstein claim is that light “tires” - explaining the red shift from stars moving away from us. But counter to Mageuijo not all stars are moving away from us, some are moving toward us, thereby explaining the blue shift. 2. The current model yields the origin of CMB to a multiple sources of electromagnetic radiation. As for your television, the only way your television could possible measure the “Primordial Energy” it would have to be at the edge of the universe, which we are not, therefore any CMB measured here has been deflected and reflected back toward us mutating its wavelength and frequency 3. As for the imperfect spherical radiation measurement, Leonard Susskind, in his book, The Cosmic Landscape, pg. 157, says; “As smooth as the universe was at that early time, it could not have been perfectly smooth. Some small, primordial lumpiness had to be there to seed the formation of galaxies. … Even better cosmologist had a pretty good idea how strong the density contrast had to be in order to creat the galaxies as we see them now. The difference between the microwave intensity in different directions would be about 100,000 times smaller than the average intensity.” Cosmic InflationThen Mr. Magueijo correctly presents the principle of “Cosmic Inflation” and its flaws, but only address the 1980 proposal of American physicist Alan Guth, and Katsuhiko Sato in 1981, who both named it "inflation." This model claims an extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume, which only lasted from 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but at a slower rate. However almost 50 years earlier Willem de Sitter co-authored a paper with Albert Einstein in 1932 in which they argued that there might be large amounts of matter which do not emit light, now commonly referred to as dark matter. A few tears later (not sure of the publication) de Sitter suggested a highly symmetric inflating universe. Alexei Starobinsky of the L.D. Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics in Moscow developed the first realistic inflation theory in 1979. Starobinsky noted that quantum corrections to general relativity should be important in the early universe, and these generically lead to curvature-squared corrections to the Einstein–Hilbert action. The solution to Einstein's equations in the presence of curvature squared terms, when the curvatures are large, can lead to an effective cosmological constant, so he proposed that the early universe went through a deSitter phase, a symmetric inflationary era which then gradually slowed. (wiki) I agree with Magueijo on this one! For any explosion to hesitate, then expand overwhelmingly rapid, and then slows to a constant rate seems silly. I lean more to the exponent modification of Einstein’s original proposal. The perimeter of the explosion expanded rapidly at first and then tired, and therefore, expanding today at the slowest rate yet. Horizon ProblemThe horizon problem is a problem with the standard cosmological model of the Big Bang which was identified in the late 1960s, primarily by Charles Misner. It points out that different regions of the universe have not "contacted" each other because of the great distances between them, but nevertheless they have the same temperature and other physical properties. This should not be possible, given that the transfer of information (or energy, heat, etc.) can occur, at most, at the speed of light. The horizon problem may have been answered by inflationary theory, and is one of the reasons for that theory's formation. (wiki) Variable Light Speed (VSL)Mr. Magueijo uses the flawed Guth – Sato to introduce his new theory of VSL. Light traveled fast then and therefore it was capable of transferring the information of energy and heat required to solve the Horizon Problem. Magueijo put his theory up as a direct rebuttal of Einstein’s claim that the speed of light is constant and fixed and is the absolute speed limit of the universe. My response Einstein has already told us that the speed of light must be variable. His Special Theory of Relativity states plainly that time is not linear! If time is not linear then it is variable! And as for the absolute speed limit of light being fixed at 186,000 mps – mps includes a measure of time “seconds” – if time is not linear, then seconds is not linear, then the absolute speed of light is not linear. PERIOD!It is a misnomer to think that Einstein said that the speed of light was the absolute speed limit for anything and everything in the universe – this is not true! Although, it gets misrepresented this way by many people. Einstein said that the speed limit for A PHOTON, which then become a wave energy to continue through empty space, but when it slows by interacting with another particle, the light wave reverts back to the corporeal photon. From this statement we get the idea that all matter will convert into energy at the speed of light and yields the equation E=mc2. Even Magueijo states that the constant “c” goes on to work very dependably in many different equations that explain many observations of our reality. Beyond this concept Einstein proposes that Gravity’s force travels at speed much greater than light speed. Since 1911, many forces have been discovered that travel faster than the speed of liht. ProofMr. Magueijo admits that his theory, to date, has zero observational evidence, but he is looking for it. On the other hand, we have had approximately 100 years of observational evidence that has yet to deny Einstein’s view point. As for the new theory of Variable Light Speed (VSL)First off, it is neither a new or original theory. The varying speed of light cosmology has been proposed independently by Einstein in 1911, by Robert Dicke in 1957, Jean-Pierre Petit in 1988, John Moffat in 1992, and the two-man team of Andreas Albrecht and João Magueijo in 1998. (wiki) However, I think that the non-time concept of Einstein’s 1905 Special Theory of Relativity supersedes them all. Attachments:
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 29, 2013 19:30:12 GMT -5
Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was an astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first person to theorized that the universe began from a single primordial atom, which later became known as the Big Bang theory. He is also the first scientist to propose a theory of an expanding Universe, widely misattributed to the American astronomer Edwin Hubble. It was the work of William Huggins that led to the theory of the expanding universe; and yet before Hubble, Lemaître or Huggins, the bible states that God "stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent". (Isaiah 40:22) Modern science has simply discovered that God explained the universe accurately. The Big Bang, on the other hand, is not found in the bible - but it is ancient, and it is from the apostate Jewish religion (Pharisees). The big bang theory appears as early as 100-150 AD in the Targum Onkelos (attributed to Onkelos). Rashi (Solomon ben Isaac), Maimonides and Nahmanides all present views of the big bang. (see Gerald L. Schroeder, Genesis and the Big Bang). The big bang is found in the Zohar of the Kabbalah. www.zohar.com/article/history-zoharScience has been used as a tool to vindicate early Jewish dogma on the formation of the universe. Many "atheist" scientists are not aware that they are teaching a religious doctrine when they teach the big bang. All interpretations of origins are belief systems. You cannot empirically demonstrate the big bang - you believe it! Evolution is just as much a "faith" as is Christianity. The big bang is a doctrine of evolution. It is completely contrary to the doctrine of creation. The big bang tries to preach that a "singularity" consisted of all the matter of the universe in an atom sized particle, which then exploded and formed into the building block of nature. Space and time, apparently, did not exist. What did this singularity sit in if space did not exist? What led to the formation of the singularity (before time)? The idea is completely unproven speculation, and it relies entirely on faith. It is not my faith. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 29, 2013 23:43:52 GMT -5
You are correct - It was the work of William Huggins that led to the theory of the expanding universe, but that is not the same as the Big Bang. About the Targum Onkelos, I have not read it. It is an OT commentary in Arabic. My focus has been on the Hebrew. Go straight to the source sort of thing. I searched for an online version all day long, without success. What I did find was not in relation to the Big bang Theory, but Gap Theory, also not the same thing. However, I did find this comment: Genesis and The Big Bang – Part 2Dr. Jay L. Wile, on December 31, 2009 "I also have a bit of a problem with Onkelos in general, but that might be less because of Onkelos and more because of what people do with his work. There is a view of creation called the gap theory, in which God created the earth once, it was destroyed, and then God remade the earth a second time. In this view, there is a “gap” in the first verse of Genesis, and the creation account of Genesis is actually the “recreation” account, not the original creation account. This view is not Biblical in my opinion, but its proponents use Onkelos’s translation of Genesis 1:1 to support it."The big bang is found in the Zohar of the Kabbalah. @ www.zohar.com/article/history-zoharYour reference here is incorrect. This is a text I have read. I have my own copy here at home. I use it a lot to support my multidimensional views. From your reference link I found this quote – “The Zohar describes the moment of creation as a Big Bang-like explosion. It speaks of a universe that exists in ten dimensions.” For a 21st century writer to say, “The Zohar describes the moment of creation as a Big Bang-like explosion.” It is not even close to saying that the Zohar first coined the science of Big Bang. It is just the application of 21st century vocabulary to make ancient text seem contextual. There many versions of Big Bang floating around. Not all of them require that all the matter of the universe began in an atom sized particle. Some actually say that it didn't happen at a single point location, but happened simultaneously and ubiquitously throughout a large region of space, presumably to accommodate the Horizon Problem. You should really read my stuff and you would see that my version of that Singularity was the First Dimensional, omniscient, all knowing, all data, Father. Who spread Himself as the Holy Spirit across the omnipresent, Second Dimension and also became the matrix, or either, of the universe. The Father spoke the omnipotent Word, that reverberated thought that matrix expressing itself into the 3rd dimensional reality of corporeal matter. I am a creationist, not a Big Bang science only it happened without cause or purpose. But as you eloquently pointed out: 1. You need space –(is there space beyond our universe? Beyond God? I don’t think so) 2. You need laws of attraction, such as magnetism, gravity and centrifugal forces 3. You need sub-atomic particles to be distributed to every corner of the universe (horizontality) 4. You need an equal distribution of subatomic particles (homogeneity) 5. You need a mechanism of distribution of subatomic particles (propagation) 6. You need a blueprint of sustainability (architect) 7. You need a purpose (God) The only thing science tries to do is rediscover the blueprint. The Big Bang theory does say that ‘in the beginning it all started from one single source.’ You can claim that that single source was a single atom if you wish, I consider the single source to be God. Genesis 1:1 does not say something came from nothing – it says God fattened the heavens. The Word expressed into the 3rd dimension! You say - You cannot empirically demonstrate the big bang - you believe it!I say - You cannot empirically demonstrate creation - you believe it!And I also say – you do not have to be afraid of the vocabulary. Instead of discussing our lord, we seem to be arguing semantics. One of the biggest flaws of most science theory is that it is only 3 dimensional. At least Einstein placed time in a dimension of itself. Most theorist do not and are stuck in the trap of linearity.
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 30, 2013 0:44:00 GMT -5
You say - You cannot empirically demonstrate the big bang - you believe it!I say - You cannot empirically demonstrate creation - you believe it! [/size] [/b][/color] [/quote] That is the point I made... Evolution and creation are both faiths. Some try to make them compliment and harmonize with each other; yet they are two contrary and opposing worldviews. Once a person has been indoctrinated and brainwashed by evolution scientists they soon start mimicking their language and thinking. You can only see what you can see. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 30, 2013 1:38:41 GMT -5
You can only see what you can see.Show me an alternative. Teach me something different. I have been stating my perspective. You have been arguing against a vocabulary of evolution (which is a term usually applied to biology not physics). You talk about laws of attraction, such as magnetism, gravity and centrifugal forces, sub-atomic particles, and mechanisms; but instead of offering any version of the mechanism, you argue against vocabulary. If you just say God did it all by divine will, then what is the purpose of your laws and mechanisms? When a leaf falls from a tree, does God will it to fall heads or tails? Or are somethings just left to follow the laws and mechanisms that allow randomness? Bible and science are just two different perspectives of the same event, to which, they both witness. Remember, any one perspective, even biblical, never contains the entire story, but all points to the same truth. If you want to talk evolution, you should read my perspective there. I am sure there will be a lot you can argue against. ponderingconfusion.com/papers.php?id=increment
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 30, 2013 8:53:46 GMT -5
Bible and science are just two different perspectives of the same event, to which, they both witness.God does a thing. "A day," or years latter man discovers that thing from his limited and lowly perspective and attempts to define the thing. God says in the beginning I "bara" ( created, formed, fattened, made) the heaven and earth - you say that is correct. Sciences says, it all began at once - you say science is wrong, it is contrary and opposing. God says, the heavens and earth were "Tohu wa bohu" without form and void. - you say that is correct. Science says, early matter was disperse and formless - you say science is wrong, it is contrary and opposing. God says, let there be light before he made the sun. - you say that is correct. Science says, primordial light existed before the stars - you say that is wrong, it is contrary and opposing. God says, He separated the waters from the waters. - you say that is correct. Science says, matter coalesced into separate densities. - you say that is wrong, it is contrary and opposing. God says, there is a step by step progression of events from chaos to order. - you say it was by blueprint and mechanism. Science says, there is a step by step progression of events from chaos to order. - but you say that is wrong, it is contrary and opposing. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc - this is the argument that you are presenting here. Science is not completely wrong or we could not have this conversation. Actually, I think science has done very well in describing an event that took place so long ago - even if it was only 6000 years ago. I respect the science that says it happened, but remains honest enough to admit they have no idea of the initial mechanism that caused it to happen. I respect the science that has to resort to terminology such as the God particle, or the mind of God, to explain the yet unobservable portions of our beginnings. Any serious student of that science is only left with the impression that there had to be something more - I cannot help but respect that too. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 30, 2013 9:14:26 GMT -5
You say - You cannot empirically demonstrate the big bang - you believe it!I say - You cannot empirically demonstrate creation - you believe it! [/size] [/b][/color] [/quote] That is the point I made... Evolution and creation are both faiths. Some try to make them compliment and harmonize with each other; yet they are two contrary and opposing worldviews. [/quote] I say - Bible and science are just two different perspectives of the same event, to which, they both witness. And I also say -they do compliment and harmonize with each other much more than you allow them too.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 30, 2013 9:22:44 GMT -5
Once a person has been indoctrinated and brainwashed by evolution scientists they soon start mimicking their language and thinking.
AGAIN - I ask you - give us better language! Support your views!
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Aug 30, 2013 11:09:01 GMT -5
Honest scientific investigation is a tool of the mental faculties God gave us. We are charged to seek out his handiwork. Nature and all of creation is a physical testimony to his existence.
The religion of science has nothing to do with the step by step process and everything to do with the denial that God was behind each step. The religion of science says we are all here by accident and there is no God, and no need for God.
Religion that is trapped to a religious dogma is just a religion. Religion claiming that science is only a tool of misdirection is proof it doesn't understand science. It was religion that forbade autopsies in the middle ages that slowed the advancement of medical science. It was religion that caused the plague to spread. It was religion that burnt Giordano Bruno at the stake. It was religion that imprisoned Galileo. Where does religion draw the line? Water freezes, it thaws, and it boils, this is the vocabulary of science and it works for me.
Faith shouldn't be afraid of science. It is God that Einstein wanted to know. It is science that has shown us that there are other dimensions above us in our reality. It is science that has shown us the the thing of our reality is based upon the non-thing that science has yet to define. In these regards science point toward God.
Dave, if I haven't told you before, I love your paper on Incremental Creation and have shared it many times. It is very effective with our youth ministry.
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 30, 2013 20:59:19 GMT -5
Faith shouldn't be afraid of science. You are confusing science with science fiction. Science has not proven evolution or the big bang or how fossils are formed. They explain a fictional account that cannot be proven. The science fiction account is opposed to the traditional teachings handed down through the church concerning creation, the flood, and redemption. This is not science; it is a fictional belief system which requires more faith than does Christianity. Genuine breakthroughs in medical science are not the same as fictional "scientific" worldviews on how we got here. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Aug 30, 2013 22:28:15 GMT -5
I know I shouldn't. But now even I am interested in this discussion. You say I am confusing science with science fiction?
Do you consider that the scientific statement that the hard thing of this world is built upon the invisible non-measurable thing of God to be science fiction?
Do you consider the scientific revelation that there are more dimensions to reality than just ours to be science fiction. (don't forget about heaven and hell)
From Dave's post: God says in the beginning I "bara" ( created, formed, fattened, made) the heaven and earth - you say that is correct. Sciences says, it all began at once - you say science is wrong, it is contrary and opposing.
God says, the heavens and earth were "Tohu wa bohu" without form and void. - you say that is correct. Science says, early matter was disperse and formless - do you say this is science fiction?
God says, let there be light before he made the sun. - you say that is correct. Science says, primordial light existed before the stars - do you say this is science fiction?
God says, there is a step by step progression of events from chaos to order. - you say it was by blueprint and mechanism. Science says, there is a step by step progression of events from chaos to order. -do you say this is science fiction?
Is it science fiction that powers nuclear reactors?
Is the electricity in your house science fiction, many of the appliances you use are the products of the science fiction physics. We have an Iphone with cloud technology just how much science fiction went it to that?
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 31, 2013 0:07:28 GMT -5
Do you consider that the scientific statement that the hard thing of this world is built upon the invisible non-measurable thing of God to be science fiction? Please rephrase this question. If you are asking can the earth be "aged" by scientifically measurable instruments, then it depends whether or not those "scientific" instruments are found to be in error, such as radiometric dating measurements so often conflict with themselves, as well as other data which gives opposing measurements (such as the measurement of helium decay in the process of uranium-lead development, as well as dating rocks to be millions of years when the magma formation has sometimes been less than one hundred years). Such "science" is fraudulent, and is properly to be regarded as 'pseudo-science'. Even Dave has disputed such dating measurements as being contrived; so yes, this is really science fiction. Do you consider the scientific revelation that there are more dimensions to reality than just ours to be science fiction. (don't forget about heaven and hell) Of course it is science fiction. Parallel dimensions cannot be proven, they are "predicted" in certain theories (such as string theory). Particle physicists consider the parallel dimensions of string theory to be fictitious. BTW, which version of string theory would you have us believe is scientific? The subject of faith which is found in the bible is believed because we believe God to be truthful and honest. We believe that the flood was global because the bible tells us so, and Jesus confirmed the story to be accurate. Jesus also confirmed the truthfulness of Adam and Eve. When any man tries to tell us that God is a liar, and then they also try and teach us a competing belief, such as evolution, or that Adam and Eve is not real, or that the flood was not real, which they cannot prove..., you are left to conclude that either God is a liar or that the man is a liar. I believe such truths that compete against God are lies. You are welcome to believe that God is a liar if you desire to. From Dave's post: God says in the beginning I "bara" ( created, formed, fattened, made) the heaven and earth - you say that is correct. Sciences says, it all began at once - you say science is wrong, it is contrary and opposing.
God says, the heavens and earth were "Tohu wa bohu" without form and void. - you say that is correct. Science says, early matter was disperse and formless - do you say this is science fiction? This is not really the same thing. Science at times will agree with biblical statements because the order of creation is not disputed (generally). Science becomes fictional when they try to calculate a mechanism (big bang) which they believe could create hydrogen and disperse it to the most distant parts of the universe. This part is completely fictional and unproven. If you believe that the singularity is real; then please explain what compressed all the nothingness into the singularity, and how nothingness can have density, and what this singularity existed in, as space did not exist. Please show me the empirical evidence for this belief. God says, let there be light before he made the sun. - you say that is correct. Science says, primordial light existed before the stars - do you say this is science fiction? I ask you to demonstrate your measurable scientific data which empirically proves this belief. If you are saying that this is true, then what are you basing this belief on? God says, there is a step by step progression of events from chaos to order. - you say it was by blueprint and mechanism. Science says, there is a step by step progression of events from chaos to order. -do you say this is science fiction? I answered this above when stating that the order of God's creation is scientifically confirmed. Scientists agree with parts of the bible until you get to the point where God is involved. There are many christians who have tried to compromise with these scientists by agreeing with many of their fictitious scenarios about the big bang, inflation, black holes, etc. They think that they can make the bible more appealing to the scientific community by adopting the scientific description of origins and abandoning God's descriptions. Everyone must answer for their own integrity and beliefs. Is it science fiction that powers nuclear reactors?
Is the electricity in your house science fiction, many of the appliances you use are the products of the science fiction physics. We have an Iphone with cloud technology just how much science fiction went it to that? You are again confusing actual science with speculative theories. Comparing the technology of the i-Phone with the belief in the big bang is very different. Maybe this kind of double-talk is what tricked you into believing such things. It has not been able to trick me - I know the difference between science and fiction. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 31, 2013 1:26:24 GMT -5
Yesterday at 10:28pm, Richard wrote: Do you consider the scientific revelation that there are more dimensions to reality than just ours to be science fiction. (don't forget about heaven and hell)
Steve answered; Of course it is science fiction. Parallel dimensions cannot be proven, they are "predicted" in certain theories (such as string theory). Particle physicists consider the parallel dimensions of string theory to be fictitious. BTW, which version of string theory would you have us believe is scientific?
I am a super-string theory supporter. I don't know where you get the "Parallel Dimensions" term from string theory. You could not be more wrong here. Isn't parallel dimensions a late night horror movie? Super-string theory suggest 10 dimensions of space and one of time. It also predicts them at great angular convergences. Super-string theory either has to have other dimensions - or the very 1st law of thermodynamics must be denied.
If you want the experiments, if you want the dates, if you want the math - I am more than happy to present it.
What is a dimension - primarily the term dimension is just vocabulary. It is a non-theological way to say - another plane, or another level, or another locality (my favored expression) of existence.
You are a Christian. Don't you believe in other localities of existence? AND, if you just come back and say that heaven and hell are different, they are not dimensions of existence - then all you are choosing to do is argueing vocabulary and semantics.
|
|