IamJoseph

I understand the BBT does not make definitive claims how it appeared; but it does condone a primary 'EXPANDED/EXPLODED/CHANGED' action. There are only two possibilities here: that action was triggered by either internal or external factors. If internal, then the notion of singular entity becomes violated [it was not a primary or singular entity]; if an external triggering caused the first action - than it means there's some bogey man out there - so why focus on the effect than the cause?

IMHO< we are inside the first entity. Lets see this as a particle [for want of anything else]. The particle expanded. This means, the centroid [sole point centre] expanded - its circumference exanded; there was no space outside the BB point as yet. We are in the centre. I see no other descriptive scenario - and the notion the uni has no centre an error.

Here, I see that no action could have occured unless an external factor impacts, because eventually the primal entity would have to be reduced to an irreducable factor [de-contraction, or an absolute ONE/SINGUALR], namely containing nothing else within but itself. Thus there is no choice to factor in an external impact; this leads to the additional factor that TWO, not ONE entity would have had to be placed on the menu simulatainiously. Else no actions could occur - at least according to all logic, science and math before us.

IamJoseph

Paleanthology - which accounts for 90% of all archeologcal datings. A 4000 year name does not occur 3500 years ago - not in the same form. You will find ALL the names of Adam and Noah's generation different - these are not Hebrew or any other later religions.


What I am saying is, I agree with a finite universe, which is what Genesis is saying. Here, before discussing genesis' version of Creationism, it is vital one states their preamble if they condone an absolute finite universe or not. Otherwise we end up discussing two different universes and deviating from the issue into sub-plots.

IMHO, Monotheism is the single greatest scientific and mathematical premise of all. This sounds very basic today, but this is a retrospective view - it would have been totally diabolocial and controversial 4000 years ago. I can site you numerous references of relatively recent Greece and Rome - they saw the notion of Monotheism as barbaric, propostrous and a heresy - millions were murdered for it. Galeleo was nothing compared to this. There is credibility why there was a death sentence issued on Abraham who had to flee Ur 4000 years ago from an equavalent Mesopotamium Vatican ruler!

You should try it - or initiate such a thread to know this is impossible. Hint: be careful to apply the factor of HONESTY as the first ethical constant [3rd C]; followed by HONOUR [5th C]: what merit in any law without those as precedent! Also allow a mandated contemplation and study break [4th C] - this reduces the likelihood of violating any laws you list; allign Murder 1 above adultry - the later is akin to the former - a destruction of an entire family. If forbidence of stealing precedes coveting - than the later becomes established what it refers to and where it ends. Its very mathematical, you know!

I don't believe in a devil - only in develish deeds. I don't believe in messengers with no message. I don't think one can fullfill what they never observed - probably why they failed. Count how many were murdered in the name of Jesus - and walk humbly before your Lord. :wave:

spamandham

There was a time, when time did not exist? Do you understand the concept of contradiction?

That isn't true. We can not say anything about the nature of reality prior to Plank time. Regardless, if we accept the past as finite, that means the past is finite rather than there being a big black empty time. The universe has existed for all time, even if time is finite. There is no time nor place for a creator to act.

The absurdity of this statement is evident to almost all.

IamJoseph

This is like the arguement nothing was always present, even if no things existed. Suffice to say that Genesis has manifestly reduced the arguement to the most desperate levels. If time existed pre-uni then what events occured in all that zillions and trillions + infinite time, and why did it take that long to reach 2009? Now one cannot say it takes 10 minutes to jog 1 KM - because it throws the entire measurements and equations of science in the garbage can. When we say time exists in the universe - it is imperically based and not an academic premise - so why are you leaping to the surreal as a counter to imperical?

Then lets quit debating and correct me adequately - describing it as ubsurd by itself is not an adequate responsa. List your answers with evidenced specific examples - direct me to a source - I won't reject you just for the sake of it.

What's the first recording of a graduated list of species - was this from Darwin? - because my reading differs from that answer. Where is it first recorded the uni had a begining, or where is the first example of Medicine as separated from occultism? Where do you find a recording of the first scientific cencus, in the millions, with cross-reference sub-totals in counts of gender and age? What's the oldest and most accurate calendar in existence? Need I go on listing scientific premises and their first recordings? What are the first alphabetical books? :constern01:

Julio

"...there is greater science and credibility in Genesis than its antithesis."

It’s “antithesis”?!…
You mean “evolution” is the antithesis of “creationism”?…
You mean there was evolution before “creation”?!…
Please, explain…
And remember that “creationism” was not a satisfactory view for INTELLIGENT minds; only for the SUPERSTITIOUS ones!…

spamandham

No, it's more like the argument that time is an aspect of the universe, and so it makes no sense to talk about a time before time. Critical analysis requires logical thinking.

This is a problem for a theistic mindset, not a scientific one. What was god doing in that infinite time before creation? Why did he wait so long? If god exists in time, then god supervenes on time. If god does not exist in time, then time is a red herring to the entire discussion.

A simple recognition that since time is an aspect of the universe, there never was a time when the universe didn't exist even if the past is finite, alleviates this quandry.

The effects of relativity are directly measured. Time is not something the universe exists in, time is part of the universe. The mere fact that time can be measured should have made that obvious, but relativity drives the point to ground.


Outrageously absurd statements do not deserve debate. They indicate someone who holds an irrational position they will not budge from.

I have no idea, but it isn't the Bible. The Bible refers to 'kinds', not species. Bats and birds are the same 'kind' (flying kinds), but they are not related species.

Since you think the Bible is the oldest human record, and since you deny the cult nature of your cult, you are obviously not not going to accept anything else as older or less cultish. This is a silly game you are trying to play.

IamJoseph

This is correct.


How would we be able to measure this? An example. I once had this discussion elsewhere, that multi and para unis contradict a finite uni. Because a finite uni means all ts componenents are also finite and never existed at one time. The correct conclusion was pointed out to me with the premise, there could have been a pre-universe, but it would not contain anything which is contained in this universe. IOW, no space, time, matter, forces, energy, etc.

I agreed with it. This is not a violation of the finite universe, which is a corporeal realm. So anything pre-universe, would not be decipherable or recognisable to a human - we would not be able to utilise vision, touch or hearings, nor would our brain's wirings detect it. It is even different from radar, for example, which is universe contained, but required advanced universe prowess to detect it.



It did not take long; time is this side of the uni.




One must not be misled by deceptively simple biblespeak. Species is a new recent term. The variance is that Darwin gives a cross-species [kind] unlimited cross-speciation - while genesis gives a more limited one only.

According to ToE, speech is derived from a graduation of adaptation which took millions of years to develop; Genesis says it did not come that way. There is no opposition in Genesis that all life is related - it clearly says man is from the 'dust of the earth' - a microcosm of everything contained in the earth. However, Genesis also says that graduations of species [kinds] have limitations of their trajectories and paths, and these limitations are controlled by the host seed factor.

To see which is correct, we do not need to rely only on academic conclusions of selected examples given in million year old fossils of retrovirus, as given in ToE; we need to also see ToE working independently, without the 'seed' factor applying: genesis can be seen without the retrovirus application!

I don't - the Hebrew bible emerged late in the ancient world. However, it is the only source which lists a past history in imperical terms, and we have no proof against it - aside from academic ones made in ToE. The lack of demonstrable evidence in our midst, for what is said to be an on-going process - ToE fails; Genesis prevails. The math proves Genesis right - an on-going process does not require time, but has to be seen in all times.

Your problem is you view Genesis as a cult, and thereby cannot give it any avenue for scientific evaluation. If one thinks correctly, what are termed as miracles - are ultimately all based on practical, imperical, scientific processes. If we told a human just 300 years ago we could capture his voice and send it across the globe instantly, and without corruption - they would deem this voodooism and instanty bow down before the one performing this feat. All miracles were also subject to such advanced impirical means, al beit ahead of its times. If the laws of nature required a transcendent entity to formulate them [no options here], then why is it far fetched that an advanced means was and is always available to perform the miracles listed in the Hebrew bible? Imagine a means of controling forces in particles selectively - making them impact a sea splitting, as opposed making them gather a song and transporting them to another point? very little difference here.

Judging from past prowess, the future points to time travel - exactly as we transport a byte of music without corruption today, and being able to move Jupiter 5% to the left if required. Humanity has no option but to emulate the directive in Genesis: GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY - AND HAVE DOMINION OF ALL THE WORLDS'. Think 5000 years ahead - not 50.

Julio

"GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY - AND HAVE DOMINION OF ALL THE WORLDS”
is not written in Genesis 1:28. “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.”

This commandment will never be fulfilled. This planet is indomitable. We are trying to “replenish” it, but we’ll not succeed: in the end, we’ll be the losers. Now, as to go to other planets to “replenish” them, I find that to be crude science fiction.

spamandham

No, there couldn't. A pre-universe necessarily requires that time is something the universe exists in, rather than the other way around. Time loops, parallel univeses, etc., do not pre-exist, they coexist (if they exist at all).

...one of the better ways of detecting a contradiction.

Genesis is the simple minded explanation of an ancient desert tribal cult. It does not mention species as we know them in any way, ...which is not surprising.

Can you cite a source for this claim?

Genesis doesn't say how speech developed, but one could infer that Adam was created with such an ability from the git go.

...except that men are singled out as fundamentally different from animals - created independently from them - fashioned out of clay in "the image" of god. That simply isn't the case biologically, nor are other animals described in such a fashion.

Chapter and verse please.

The ToE does is independent of the claims you wrongly think Genesis makes.

No, I view your positions as those indoctrinated by your cult.

That's because it couldn't be done 300 years ago, just as 2000 years ago, it was not possible to rise from the dead, cure the blind with dirt and spit, or walk on water. And 2800 years ago, it was not possible to raise the dead by touching them with a magic cape or summon a she bear to shred 40+ annoying brats to shreds for calling you a baldie.

If you are right in this regard, neither of us is likely to be there to say "I told you so".

Amaleq13

"proven"? Bullshit. Hawking never makes this claim and neither does anyone else in the field. You've never actually read Hawking have you? The "finite" of his theory refers to the size of the universe while he argues that time is not as he eliminates the BB singularity.

IOW, you are misusing Hawking and falsely claiming that his theory supports your belief that existence is finite when, in fact, it claims the exact opposite. Hawking is arguing that the universe exists eternally just not in the same "time" with which we are familiar.

This is like pulling teeth!! Just answer the freaking question!!!

What specific evidence allows you to claim that the Genesis list of ancestors is accurate?

You don't have any, do you? That is why you are avoiding providing a direct answer, isn't it?

Unless you are also saying that Genesis is correct on that point, you still aren't saying anything. Understand? Genesis tells a creation story that may or may not comport with what actually happened to start existence as we know it. That is all you can actually claim so, again, who cares?

Do you understand why no one else should be particularly persuaded by your subjective and, apparently, uninformed belief?

I must be awesome because I have accomplished the impossible!

Did you not actually read the post? I already informed you which have no objective relevance to civilization.

No, the former continues to be a physical act while the latter is nothing but a guilty thought that most definitely reinforces the belief system.