Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…161162164166167…232

Comments

  • #4892
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    steamengine wrote: »
    Theoretically, if there was a giant panoramic screen at the same distance as the moon and it completely encircled the earth, you stood at the North or South Pole and swished your lazer light right round the screen in 1 second, then the spot would travel at a speed greater than that of light.

    For starers it's laser :P

    And no.


  • #4893
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    steamengine wrote: »
    Theoretically, if there was a giant panoramic screen at the same distance as the moon and it completely encircled the earth, you stood at the North or South Pole and swished your lazer light right round the screen in 1 second, then the spot would travel at a speed greater than that of light.

    The problem with this is that the spot is not moving faster than light, it's just a series of spots. The same applies to the laser point on the moon, the image may appear to be moving faster than light but the image is actually just a series of photons striking the moon and reflecting back in a pattern. The image is not actually moving.


  • #4894
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    Ah, someone has put up a matchstick man video on you-tube.

    Again, back to my example of the man standing on the mountain. Do you really think you flick a laser beam across half the entire universe in less than a second?
    Yes, if a laser is swept across the Moon, the laser spot can be made to move across the surface at a speed greater than c. However, the light doesn't travel from the source to the Moon faster than c nor does any information travel faster than light in this scenario.


  • #4895
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    For starers it's laser :P

    And no.

    Freudian slip ???


  • #4896
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    J C wrote: »
    the laser spot can be made to move across the surface at a speed greater than c.

    The Laser spot will hit the moon and reflect back. The laser will then move on and another packet of photons will hit the moon and reflect back. The eye might think it's seeing something faster than the speed of light, but it's an optical illusion.


  • Advertisement
  • #4897
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    J C wrote: »
    Yes, if a laser is swept across the Moon, the laser spot can be made to move across the surface at a speed greater than c. However, the light doesn't travel from the source to the Moon faster than c nor does any information travel faster than light in this scenario.

    The spot cannot move across the surface at a speed greater than c because the spot, over time, is not a single thing.


  • #4898
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    J C wrote: »
    Yes, if a laser is swept across the Moon, the laser spot can be made to move across the surface at a speed greater than c. However, the light doesn't travel from the source to the Moon faster than c nor does any information travel faster than light in this scenario.

    And that is precisely the point with inflation, at the big bang space consisted of nothing just like the image and therefore its expansion was not limited to 'c'.


  • #4899
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    steamengine wrote: »
    Freudian slip ???

    ? :pac:


  • #4900
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robdonn wrote: »
    The observed expansion of spacetime does not violate c because the speed limit of c does not apply to spacetime itself. There is no breaking of laws involved as the laws we are talking about do not apply.

    And just a minor point, one does not need to be "atheistically" inclined to understand and support the big bang theory. :P
    If you were a Creationist, you would believe that it was a Big Whisper ... when God spoke the Universe into existence in one act of His divine will.

    robdonn wrote: »
    See, that's the really cool thing about quantum entanglement, there isn't 'something' 'moving' between them, it is not a chain reaction. The two particles change simultaneously. As the state of one particle is measured, the other particle changes properties at the exact same moment. There is no time between the two events and without time there is no speed. Without speed, how can it break a speed limit?
    Interestingly, there was also no time at the moment of the Creation / Big Bang ... so the current laws limiting the speed of light didn't exist.


  • #4901
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    ? :pac:
    Re-read your post above slowly :)


  • Advertisement
  • #4902
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    steamengine wrote: »
    Re-read your post above slowly :)

    I needed to re-read that several times. :o


  • #4903
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    J C wrote: »
    If you were a Creationist, you would believe that it was a Big Whisper ... when God spoke the Universe into existence in one act of His divine will.

    Actually those are two different events, the Big Bang is not the creation of the universe, it is simply a time of rapid expansion. Nobody knows if the universe was created at this time (using the word 'time' colloquially here) or if it always existed but maybe in a different form.
    J C wrote: »
    Interestingly, there was also no time at the moment of the Creation / Big Bang ... so the current laws limiting the speed of light didn't exist.

    Actually time didn't exist before the Big Bang, but the Big Bang created time. So the moment that there was a moment, there was time.


  • #4904
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    J C, sorry for bouncing around your posts, while reading through all the posts today I found so many things that I disagreed with that I was getting distracted by them. :P

    I'd like to comment on the below:
    J C wrote: »
    Anyway, in relation to your substantive point, I'm convinced by both Biblical truths and scientific evidence for these truths.
    I'm just as logical and in search of the truth on where we have come from and where we are going ... as you are.:)

    You say that you are just as logical and in search of truth, but you appear to be starting with the conclusion (that the Biblical record is true) and trying to find evidence that supports it. What happens when the scientific evidence contradicts the Biblical evidence?


  • #4905
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robdonn wrote: »
    Actually time didn't exist before the Big Bang, but the Big Bang created time. So the moment that there was a moment, there was time.
    ... as well as all of the matter/energy currently in the Universe ... something like ... in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ... seems to be what occurred.


  • #4906
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robdonn wrote: »
    J C, sorry for bouncing around your posts, while reading through all the posts today I found so many things that I disagreed with that I was getting distracted by them. :P

    I'd like to comment on the below:



    You say that you are just as logical and in search of truth, but you appear to be starting with the conclusion (that the Biblical record is true) and trying to find evidence that supports it. What happens when the scientific evidence contradicts the Biblical evidence?
    If such a situation were to arise ... then I would have to revisit the Biblical Evidence to see if I was somehow misinterpreting it (as well as re-checking the scientific evidence).

    Could I ask you the same question back ... what would do you do if you found that the scientific evidence indicated that an intelligence of God-like capacity was required to produce life, for example?


  • #4907
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    J C wrote: »
    what would do you do if you found that the scientific evidence indicates that an intelligence of God-like capacity was required to produce life?

    I'd be on my knees faster than a laser across the moon ( i.e. AT the speed of light)... but, I'll not hold my breath.


  • #4908
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    J C wrote: »
    ... as well as all of the matter/energy currently in the Universe ... something like ... in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ... was what occurred.

    Actually matter came later, after the initial inflation. But are we to take it that the you believe the Big Bang theory is the Biblical Creation event? Do you agree with the timeline?


  • #4909
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robdonn wrote: »
    Actually matter came later, after the initial inflation. But are we to take it that the you believe the Big Bang theory is the Biblical Creation event? Do you agree with the timeline?
    I don't actually believe in the Big Bang ... or it's timeline ... but it has faint parallells with the Creation Event IMO.


  • #4910
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    J C wrote: »
    If such a situation were to arise ... then I would have to revisit the Biblical Evidence to see if I was somehow misinterpreting it (as well as re-checking the scientific evidence).

    And at what point would you consider the Bible, and not just your interpretation, to be wrong?
    J C wrote: »
    Could I ask you the same question back ... what would do you do if you found that the scientific evidence indicated that an intelligence of God-like capacity was required to produce life?

    Then I would believe that an intelligence of God-like capacity was required to produce life. (Weird detour in the conversation as we have not been discussing the abiogenesis). But my starting point for assessing any claim is "I don't know", so a lack of evidence for a natural cause does not lead to a supernatural cause, the latter would need evidence to support it.


  • #4911
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    J C wrote: »
    I don't actually believe in the Big Bang ... or it's timeline ... but it has faint parallells with the Creation Event IMO.

    Or the Biblical Creation Event has faint parallels with the Big Bang. :p

    Do you mind explaining what you do believe? I'm not sure if you've explained it before on this thread (and if you have, please simply point me in the right direction).


  • Advertisement
  • #4912
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    I'd be on my knees faster than a laser across the moon ( i.e. AT the speed of light)... but, I'll not hold my breath.
    ... then prepare to go down on your knees !!!:)
    The observable presence of Complex Specified Functional Information, of almost infinite quantities and almost perfect quality, present in the genomes of all living organisms, is proof beyond all doubt of the requirement for an intelligent input of effectively infinite capacity in the creation of life.


  • #4913
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    J C wrote: »
    ... then prepare to go down on your knees !!!:)
    The observable presence of Complex Specified Functional Information, of almost infinite quantities and almost perfect quality, present in the genomes of all living organisms, is proof beyond all doubt of the requirement for an intelligent input of effectively infinite capacity in the creation of life.

    lol says who? Eric Hovind or Ken Ham?


  • #4914
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    J C wrote: »
    ... then prepare to go down on your knees !!!:)
    The observable presence of Complex Specified Functional Information, of almost infinite quantities and almost perfect quality, present in the genomes of all living organisms, is proof beyond all doubt of the requirement for an intelligent input of effectively infinite capacity in the creation of life.

    Praise Jesus!

    Oh wait, Complex Specified Functional Information is made up. Never mind...


  • #4915
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    robdonn wrote: »
    Oh wait, Complex Specified Functional Information is made up. Never mind...

    Now he tells me, *creeeeeeeak* back on my feet again.


  • #4916
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robdonn wrote: »
    And at what point would you consider the Bible, and not just your interpretation, to be wrong?
    If and when it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be wrong.
    robdonn wrote: »
    Then I would believe that an intelligence of God-like capacity was required to produce life. (Weird detour in the conversation as we have not been discussing the abiogenesis). But my starting point for assessing any claim is "I don't know", so a lack of evidence for a natural cause does not lead to a supernatural cause, the latter would need evidence to support it.
    I agree that absence of evidence for a natural cause isn't evidence for a supernatural one ... but it is a requirement for proceeding to search for a supernatural cause.
    I also agree that physical evidence for a supernatural cause would be required to logically hold such a belief ... but the thing is that we do have such evidence ... in bucket-loads as it so happens.


  • #4917
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Harika wrote: »
    lol says who? Eric Hovind or Ken Ham?
    You too could also say this ... if you look at the overwhelming evidence for it.


  • #4918
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    J C wrote: »
    You too could also say this ... if you look at the overwhelming evidence for it.

    Then show the evidence?


  • #4919
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robdonn wrote: »
    Praise Jesus!

    Oh wait, Complex Specified Functional Information is made up. Never mind...
    What do you mean it is 'made up'?
    Complex Specified Functional Information is the type of information objectively observed in the genomes of all living creatures ... and nowhere else ... other than with the products of applied Human Intelligence.

    BTW are you serious about praising Jesus ... because I can lead you to Salvation in Him ... if you are ... please pm me


  • #4920
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    J C wrote: »
    If and when it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be wrong.

    But if just a single part of it is show to be incorrect then it undermines the rest of it.

    Take evolution for example, problems have been highlighted with it in the past so the theory has been changed over time. The Bible is shown to have many inaccuracies, but the story never changes and the inaccuracy is simply explained away as misinterpretation rather than fault with the material.

    That is not an honest way to interpret information.
    J C wrote: »
    I agree that absence of evidence for a natural cause isn't evidence for a supernatural one ... but it is a requirement for proceeding to search for a supernatural cause.

    Actually it simply requires a single proven supernatural event amongst all of the natural ones.
    J C wrote: »
    I also agree that evidence for a supernatural cause would be required to logically hold such a belief ... but the thing is that we do have such evidence ... in bucket-loads as it so happens.

    And what is this evidence?


  • Advertisement
  • #4921
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    robdonn wrote: »
    the inaccuracy is simply explained away as misinterpretation rather than fault with the material.


    Allegory is my favourite. The statement of which would have you got burned not that long ago relatively speaking.


Advertisement