A discussion about Science and religion

[Morny]

I am not a YEC and have never said anything about 6 day creation. You have made that up yourself.

Not what I said. You cited a YEC website for scientific cosmology support. That would be like someone citing to you a rabid atheist website article in a discussion about the triune God.

I am not talking about the MIlky way having a centre as in your post above.

Not what I said. Not sure why you're having so much trouble with reading comprehension.

[Jac3510]

I am not a YEC and have never said anything about 6 day creation. You have made that up yourself.

Not what I said. You cited a YEC website for scientific cosmology support.

Yay for genetic fallacies!

That would be like someone citing to you a rabid atheist website article in a discussion about the triune God.

If the website makes correct points about the triune God, then it is perfectly appropriate to cite in such a discussion. As it happens, most atheists do not have their information right, but that has far less to do with their failure to understand the theology than it does their failure to understand the underlying philosophy, and THAT has little to do with their atheism and far more to do with the current school of philosophical thought that dominates the West (which is less of a school and more of a method, but I digress). But, again, show me an atheist website that understands the nuances of Aristotelian-Thomistic thought and I'd be perfectly happy to accept it as a source in any such discussion.

[RickD]

Yes, Jac is right. Just because the YEC site is completely wrong about the age of the earth, that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong about the trinity.

Take Jac for example. He's 100% correct about his beliefs on salvation. Even though he's soooo wrong about his YEC beliefs.

That's exactly what you were trying to say, right Jac?

[Jac3510]

Well none of us can be right about EVERYTHING, Rick! I figured it wouldn't be fair if I were OEC. Really, in that case, why have a DB? No discussion necessary. Just ask. So this way, life is more interesting for all of us.

[RickD]

Well none of us can be right about EVERYTHING, Rick! I figured it wouldn't be fair if I were OEC. Really, in that case, why have a DB? No discussion necessary. Just ask. So this way, life is more interesting for all of us.

That's true Jac. If you were OEC, I'd probably agree with you on everything. Then there'd be no need for God. I could just worship you.

[Mazzy]

I am not a YEC and have never said anything about 6 day creation. You have made that up yourself.

Not what I said. You cited a YEC website for scientific cosmology support. That would be like someone citing to you a rabid atheist website article in a discussion about the triune God.

I am not talking about the MIlky way having a centre as in your post above.

Not what I said. Not sure why you're having so much trouble with reading comprehension.

Actually Morny, you did say what I said you said and it is there in print for all to see.

I have qoted many well credentialed scientists, so your nonsense about quoting rabid atheists is a statement made in desperation.

The supporters of big bang have their credibility on the line. They appear to be total loosers now that previous claims of finding this mysterious 'dark matter' have been falsasified.

You may like this....

http://www.bibhasde.com/Veltman.jpg

[Mazzy]

The notion of being on the edge of a ball with no centre is ridiculous.

You're not making sense.

Actually any geometric shape with nothing in the middle is what does not make sense.

Each new bigger and better telescope sees an isotropic universe. So as far as we know, with the current evidence, no one can make a scientific claim to being at the center. Some galaxy, maybe even The Milky Way, might actually be at the center, but we just cannot say yet.

And on a related note, when do very well-supported scientific theories have to make sense? Billions of people strongly believe ideas that make no sense and have no well-supported evidence. If you have a serious problem with cosmology making sense, I'm guessing that you're apoplectic with all but a handful of people in the world.

http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-c ... hifts-show

And finally, the other shoe drops ... citing cosmology via creation.com, whose statement of faith demands a 6 day creation and a few thousand year old universe. The world is so much simpler, being able to trivially dismiss not only evidence, but also expert consensus.

And here above see Morny saying the MIlky Way or some galaxy may be at the centre but we just canno tsay yet, then well suppported theories do not have to make sense, therefore I am an apologetic whose faith demands a 6 day creation.

Here again is something else for you to ignore in favour of the bluster of the majority.

Gerrit Verschuur, proposes that at least some of the fine structure seen in the all-sky plot of the universe’s cosmic microwave background is really the imprint of our local interstellar neighborhood. It has nothing to do with how the universe looked 380,000 years after the Big Bang, but how nearby clouds of cold hydrogen looked a few hundred years ago. The best challenge to this work you'll find is scientists suggesting this is sheer coincidence and hoping to hand wave it away.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1661

Why do you suppose so many scientistists are refuting current claims around Big Bang theory, challenging BB, and trying to come up with something that actually sounds credible? You are only fooling yourself to thing the scientists that support a universe based on 95% mystery actually know what they are talking about.

[Mazzy]

I am not a YEC and have never said anything about 6 day creation. You have made that up yourself.

Not what I said. You cited a YEC website for scientific cosmology support.

Yay for genetic fallacies!

That would be like someone citing to you a rabid atheist website article in a discussion about the triune God.

If the website makes correct points about the triune God, then it is perfectly appropriate to cite in such a discussion. As it happens, most atheists do not have their information right, but that has far less to do with their failure to understand the theology than it does their failure to understand the underlying philosophy, and THAT has little to do with their atheism and far more to do with the current school of philosophical thought that dominates the West (which is less of a school and more of a method, but I digress). But, again, show me an atheist website that understands the nuances of Aristotelian-Thomistic thought and I'd be perfectly happy to accept it as a source in any such discussion.

It is curious to hear posters have ridicule theist links is offered. Such posters do so regardless of the fact that the information therein cannot be refuted on any better platform that to refer to their own flawed and changing flavours of the day. The previous claims of the scientific majority concerning expansion were falsified just over a decade ago and been replaced with the latest flavour of the day.

Hubble’s couldn't even accept his own onservations and has faith in his own bias against this interpretation:

‘Such a condition [these Doppler shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe … But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs … [and] is intolerable … moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.’

Secular astronomers refuse to apply Occam's Razor in preference of a philosophy, the Copernican Principle. IOW.... Those that believe in the current Big Bang model actually require more faith than I do.

[Morny]

I am not a YEC and have never said anything about 6 day creation. You have made that up yourself.

Not what I said. You cited a YEC website for scientific cosmology support. That would be like someone citing to you a rabid atheist website article in a discussion about the triune God.

I am not talking about the MIlky way having a centre as in your post above.

Not what I said. Not sure why you're having so much trouble with reading comprehension.

Actually Morny, you did say what I said you said and it is there in print for all to see.

Again you seemed to be confused. Please indicate where I talked about you being a YEC, and the Milky Way having a center.

[Mazzy]

I am not a YEC and have never said anything about 6 day creation. You have made that up yourself.

Not what I said. You cited a YEC website for scientific cosmology support. That would be like someone citing to you a rabid atheist website article in a discussion about the triune God.

I am not talking about the MIlky way having a centre as in your post above.

Not what I said. Not sure why you're having so much trouble with reading comprehension.

Actually Morny, you did say what I said you said and it is there in print for all to see.

Again you seemed to be confused. Please indicate where I talked about you being a YEC, and the Milky Way having a center.

Morny said "And finally, the other shoe drops ... citing cosmology via creation.com, whose statement of faith demands a 6 day creation and a few thousand year old universe. The world is so much simpler, being able to trivially dismiss not only evidence, but also expert consensus." In case you are unaware, 6 days creation is a YEC paradigm. Re whom is talking about universal centres, It seems you are again confused, I am the one suggesting the universe has a centre and you are the one that believes in ridiculous myths.

Now back to the discusion at hand. Hubble himself believed observations suggest our galaxy is at the centre of the universe and pretty well had a melt down and needed to invent some nonsense to support his own belief.

Here below we see research indicating a new, huge LQG that appears to be the largest structure currently known in the early universe. Its size suggests incompatibility with the Yadav et al. scale of homogeneity for the concordance cosmology, and thus challenges the assumption of the cosmological principle.

Rather than continue to demonstrate how confused you are Morny and constantly begging the bluster of the majority, would you like to make an intelligent statement about this research, please.

This is the research article.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256

This link below is Science Daily speaking to the same research

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092539.htm

[Morny]

I am not a YEC and have never said anything about 6 day creation. You have made that up yourself.

Not what I said. You cited a YEC website for scientific cosmology support. That would be like someone citing to you a rabid atheist website article in a discussion about the triune God.

I am not talking about the MIlky way having a centre as in your post above.

Not what I said. Not sure why you're having so much trouble with reading comprehension.

Actually Morny, you did say what I said you said and it is there in print for all to see.

Again you seemed to be confused. Please indicate where I talked about you being a YEC, and the Milky Way having a center.

Morny said "And finally, the other shoe drops ... citing cosmology via creation.com, whose statement of faith demands a 6 day creation and a few thousand year old universe. The world is so much simpler, being able to trivially dismiss not only evidence, but also expert consensus." In case you are unaware, 6 days creation is a YEC paradigm. Re whom is talking about universal centres, It seems you are again confused, I am the one suggesting the universe has a centre and you are the one that believes in ridiculous myths.

Again, where did I talk about the Milky Way having a center? Without reading comprehension, how can we have a discussion?

Where did I say that you are a YEC? I said that you cited the YEC creation.com website for cosmology information, which at best only shows your credulousness. Do you understand the difference?

[PaulSacramento]

Keep it civil please gentlemen.

Thanks you.

[1over137]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092539.htm

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

[Mazzy]

Where did I say that you are a YEC? I said that you cited the YEC creation.com website for cosmology information, which at best only shows your credulousness. Do you understand the difference?

Ok, you didn't call me a YEC personally, you just dumped on a creationist site, like as if non creationists have it worked out by relying on 95% ????. What I understand is that I can quote many scientists that have problems with Big Bang theory as well as many articles. The other thing I understand is you like to avoid addressing the real issues I bring up. I have posted FAR more than a creationist website. Your ability and determination to evade any scientific material presented in favour of the irrelevant is amazing.

The Temple and Smoller model that places the Milky Way at or near the centre of the universe is not a creationist work.

"Of course, if a≠1, then the spacetime has a center, and this would violate the so-called Copernican Principle, a simplifying assumption generally accepted in cosmology (compare with the discussions in ‡ and refs. 8 and 13)."

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/34/14213.full

Science Daily is NOT a creationist website and neither is the researcher that published this....

"A Large Quasar Group (LQG) of particularly large size and high membership has been identified in the DR7QSO catalogue of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. It has characteristic size (volume^1/3) ~ 500 Mpc (proper size, present epoch), longest dimension ~ 1240 Mpc, membership of 73 quasars, and mean redshift <z> = 1.27. In terms of both size and membership it is the most extreme LQG found in the DR7QSO catalogue for the redshift range 1.0 <= z <= 1.8 of our current investigation. Its location on the sky is ~ 8.8 deg north (~ 615 Mpc projected) of the Clowes & Campusano LQG at the same redshift, <z> = 1.28, which is itself one of the more extreme examples. Their boundaries approach to within ~ 2 deg (~ 140 Mpc projected). This new, huge LQG appears to be the largest structure currently known in the early universe. Its size suggests incompatibility with the Yadav et al. scale of homogeneity for the concordance cosmology, and thus challenges the assumption of the cosmological principle."

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256


Previous articles suggesting dark matter was NOT found were also NOT from creationist sites and for your information, neither is this one.

"The first dark matter search results from LUX detector were announced last October. The detector proved to be exquisitely sensitive, but found no evidence of the dark matter particles during its first 90-day run, ruling out a wide range of possible models for dark matter particles. Previous experiments had detected potential signatures of dark matter particles with a very low mass, but LUX turned up no such signal. This latest work was focused on demonstrating the high sensitivity of LUX to potential signals in the search for those low-mass particles."

http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2014/02/lux

When do your reckon you will stop evading and start talking about the 'science' presented?

[Morny]

Ok, you didn't call me a YEC personally

Thank you. Can I assume that you also retract your claim that I talked about the Milky Way having a center?

you just dumped on a creationist site

But immediately following your retraction above appears this new highly misleading characterization of my statement. I "dumped" (to use your terminology) specifically on a YEC site. The difference between YEC and reasoned OEC is far larger than the difference between OEC and evolution.

The other thing I understand is you like to avoid addressing the real issues I bring up.

As I've said before, first establishing a common base for a discussion is paramount. How can we discuss Temple and Smoller when even the simplest misrepresentations go unresolved for several posts?