Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Age of the universe

245678

Comments

  • #32
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    topmanamillion wrote: »
    Couldn't be bothered to help with world hunger, war and poverty

    Each being man made creations.


  • #33
    malnurtured
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 107 ✭✭malnurtured


    Thaddeus Most Garbage wrote: »
    The speed of light can change and has been achieved in lab conditions.

    Cite the peer-reviewed research that demonstrates this. If you mean that the speed of light can change based on different media (air, glass, vaccuum, etc.) then that is already well-established fact but is irrelevant to YEC theory since all of space is a vaccuum.

    If you are claiming that it has been observed to change in the same medium, then present your evidence for this extraordinary claim.


  • #34
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    cardinal tetra wrote: »
    Explain with your lido waves what was there before the creation of the universe? Nothing? Nothing is something? Where did nothingness come from. Where did it all begin.
    Ever try to complete a large 1000 piece jigsaw Cardinal? I like to start at the edges or the corners and work it from there. Invariably, I end up looking for a piece with very little reference on it. It may contain a tiny piece of a branch or a leaf. I know it is there but it is really hard to find. Eventually I find it. It slots in nicely and then I move on. Scientific reseach of the cosmos is a lot like completing that really complex jigsaw. Scientists find a tiny piece of information, it slots nicely into place and then they look for the next piece. The jigsaw is growing all the time. All of the pieces fit so far.
    My kids used to use wooden jigsaws with 10 or 12 pieces when they were about 4 or 5 years of age, then they progressed to more complex puzzles.
    A Young Earth creationist is like a person using a piece of a 5 year old's wooden jigsaw to complete a complex 1000 piece puzzle, and insisting it fits. Any logical person can look and tell him it won't fit but he keeps insisting it will, despite all of the evidence demonstrating that his large basic piece does not fit into this complex puzzle.


  • #35
    drdeadlift
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,189 ✭✭✭drdeadlift


    Never posted in this section before.

    But i find it odd that this is the place to question Christianity,why not let Christians believe what they want?
    Why constantly try to take apart people beliefs,post this in the atheist section.


  • #36
    drdeadlift
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,189 ✭✭✭drdeadlift


    Never posted in this section before.

    But i find it odd that this is the place to question Christianity,why not let Christians believe what they want?
    Why constantly try to take apart people beliefs,post this in the atheist section.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    topmanamillion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,616 ✭✭✭topmanamillion


    hinault wrote: »
    Each being man made creations.

    Who were supposedly made by God.. What exactly is he supposed to be doing? apart from taking credit for all the good stuff ("miracles') and blaming people/hiding behind a mysterious plan when it comes to all the bad ****.
    I can live and die with out him!


  • #38
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,033 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    hinault wrote: »
    Each being man made creations.

    How would a drought be a man made creation?


  • #39
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,443 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    drdeadlift wrote: »
    Never posted in this section before.

    But i find it odd that this is the place to question Christianity,why not let Christians believe what they want?
    Why constantly try to take apart people beliefs,post this in the atheist section.
    Young earth creationism is a phenomenon born of Christian sophistry. It is promoted and taught in some schools. It's proponents demand that 'what they would like us all to think' be given equal parity of esteem with 'what is known'. It is the opposite of knowledge.

    An overwhelming proportion of Christians, of course, don't believe it. Some do, and should be challenged. Not because of what they believe, but because of what they promote. A forum where they hang out is a good spot to find them.

    It is interesting to note that the only notable defender of the position appears to be a messer, and not to actually believe it. :)


  • #40
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    topmanamillion wrote: »
    Who were supposedly made by God.. What exactly is he supposed to be doing? apart from taking credit for all the good stuff ("miracles') and blaming people/hiding behind a mysterious plan when it comes to all the bad ****.
    I can live and die with out him!

    God grants man free will.

    The fact that folks are starving on this planet is man's doing.


  • #41
    topmanamillion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,616 ✭✭✭topmanamillion


    hinault wrote: »
    God grants man free will.

    The fact that folks are starving on this planet is man's doing.

    Free will they are supposed to use to follow him unquestionably and within a stringent set of rules which impinge upon everything from man's sex life to dietary intake. Free will indeed.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    drdeadlift wrote: »
    Never posted in this section before.

    But i find it odd that this is the place to question Christianity,why not let Christians believe what they want?
    Why constantly try to take apart people beliefs,post this in the atheist section.

    That's a fairly dangerous line of thinking. Would you say the same thing to a jihadist?

    I always thought the most reasonable thing would be to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible.


  • #43
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    hinault wrote: »
    Each being man made creations.

    So I guess those starving babies in Africa share some of the responsibility.


  • #44
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,443 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    hinault wrote: »
    God grants man free will.

    The fact that folks are starving on this planet is man's doing.
    First part: no. ;)
    Second part: usually yes. :(


  • #45
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    So I guess those starving babies in Africa share some of the responsibility.

    The victim carries no responsibility.

    People are starving because of the actions, or inactions, of other people


  • #46
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    topmanamillion wrote: »
    Free will they are supposed to use to follow him unquestionably.

    Not true.

    St Matthew's gospel states,
    "“'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind"


  • #47
    topmanamillion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,616 ✭✭✭topmanamillion


    hinault wrote: »
    Not true.

    St Matthew's gospel states,
    "“'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind"

    What?
    How does underlining mind help your argument.
    That sentence you've quoted stresses undying devotion.


  • #48
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    topmanamillion wrote: »
    What?
    How does underlining mind help your argument.
    That sentence you've quoted stresses undying devotion.

    Incorrect.


  • #49
    topmanamillion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,616 ✭✭✭topmanamillion


    hinault wrote: »
    Incorrect.

    If you say so.


  • #50
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 28,640 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    hinault wrote: »
    God grants man free will.

    The fact that folks are starving on this planet is man's doing.

    Thats a rather simplistic view of things,
    If for example go back and look at the Mayan civilization collapsed we can see there is evidence that it fell because of drought.

    drought would have of course caused crop yields to fall and people to stave, but you can hardly contribute the drought to the fault of our species at that time. Instead it was down to an act of "god".


  • #51
    di11on
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭di11on


    You know, it really annoys me these science vs. religion discussions. The definition of these two fields implies that there should be no overlap.

    Science describes the universe and all its laws and characteristics. Religion attempts to put this all in a broader context - e.g. why is it the way it is?

    Why does the religious person have to concoct their own version of science to torture the observed reality into something consistent with a view of how things should be? And why does the scientist so vociferously refuse to allow the religious person the possibility that the universe exists within a wider context?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    di11on wrote: »
    You know, it really annoys me these science vs. religion discussions. The definition of these two fields implies that there should be no overlap.

    Science describes the universe and all its laws and characteristics. Religion attempts to put this all in a broader context - e.g. why is it the way it is?

    Scientists typically define the universe as the broadest possible context. Only exception being hypotheses on multiverses.
    di11on wrote: »
    And why does the scientist so vociferously refuse to allow the religious person the possibility that the universe exists within a wider context?

    Who says they do so? They point out when one conflicts the other- do with that what you will. Pointing out the contradictions between our assumptions and science is what science is all about.


  • #53
    di11on
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭di11on


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Scientists typically define the universe as the broadest possible context. Only exception being hypotheses on multiverses.

    What I mean is that science describes the natural and religion the supernatural. And by supernatural, I don't mean ghosts and miracles - I mean a hypothesised "everything" outside of, external to and imperceivable from the physical universe. However you define the universe I can hypothesize that as a box within another "super universe" which is external to your definition.


  • #54
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    hinault wrote: »
    The victim carries no responsibility.

    People are starving because of the actions, or inactions, of other people

    So in other words they don't have 'free will' on an individual level at all, and as starving infants they haven't at all participated in anyway in the creation of the circumstances that have lead to their suffering.
    So this leaves us with three options:
    1. God can't or doesn't have any power to intervene;
    2. God simply doesn't care about the suffering of these innocents enough to do anything about it.
    3. God thinks it is appropriate to inflict, or to permit the infliction of horrible suffering on innocent babies in order to make some meta point to humanity.


  • #55
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,457 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    di11on wrote:
    What I mean is that science describes the natural and religion the supernatural. And by supernatural, I don't mean ghosts and miracles - I mean a hypothesised "everything" outside of, external to and imperceivable from the physical universe. However you define the universe I can hypothesize that as a box within another "super universe" which is external to your definition.

    Ah here. Science involves working really hard to find out facts about reality. Religious person says 'god put that fact there to trick you', and we're supposed to pretend both science and religion are equally valuable?

    Working really hard to find out how things work is not the same as wishing really hard that you already know how things work.

    There's no reason in the world to throw them a sop and pretend religion brings anything to the discussion about reality. Religious people should feel patronised by the idea.


  • #56
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    di11on wrote: »
    What I mean is that science describes the natural and religion the supernatural. And by supernatural, I don't mean ghosts and miracles - I mean a hypothesised "everything" outside of, external to and imperceivable from the physical universe.

    Science places no bounds on its remit. The universe, everything, including your outer context, is of interest to science. The universe is all that is observable to humans, via any sense or any technology they can use to augment their senses. Science is the study of that totality of the observable. What is the supernatural? If it is something observable in any manner, then it is subject to scientific study. If not, then it is of no consequence.
    di11on wrote: »
    However you define the universe I can hypothesize that as a box within another "super universe" which is external to your definition.

    That's circular logic. A hypothesis is a proposal that must, by definition, have measurable consequences and therefore be testable (or falsifiable if you go with Popper's take on it). You cannot hypothesise something outside the context of all that is observable. You can propose such a thing or context, but that proposal would not be a hypothesis. It would be a proposal, and a useless one at that.


  • #57
    topmanamillion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,616 ✭✭✭topmanamillion


    di11on wrote: »
    You know, it really annoys me these science vs. religion discussions. The definition of these two fields implies that there should be no overlap.

    Science describes the universe and all its laws and characteristics. Religion attempts to put this all in a broader context - e.g. why is it the way it is?

    Why does the religious person have to concoct their own version of science to torture the observed reality into something consistent with a view of how things should be? And why does the scientist so vociferously refuse to allow the religious person the possibility that the universe exists within a wider context?


    For the same reason astrology and vodoo are not accepted sciences, despite vast amounts of people accepting them.


  • #58
    PlainP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 714 ✭✭✭PlainP


    It has taken 100 years to prove the existence of gravitional waves. It's an exciting time to be living in. It always amazes me how much we don't know about our universe. To think how small we are in the vastness of space/space-time.

    I think we use religion to feel important in the world, it gives us hope from the vastness that is our known universe.

    It's down to fear in the end. Religion stemmed from our ancestors from fear of the unknown. Lightening/thunder/eclipses etc...

    We know a bit more about our place in the universe now, I don't really see where religion fits in anymore.


  • #59
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    So in other words they don't have 'free will'

    That's incorrect too.


  • #60
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,457 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    hinault wrote:
    That's incorrect too.

    They have free will but it's not absolute? Other people's free will can rump theirs and natural agents can trump their free will.

    So they have fee will, it just can't be relied upon.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,703 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    cardinal tetra wrote: »
    I believe God sent these waves to test our faith.
    The mere idea that you can measure waves from outer space that were created from world holes colliding and then slowing down and speeding up time is preposterous. only god has the power to implement such things.

    I can't tell if you're being serious, or if you're taking the p1ss

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement