|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Oct 18, 2004 9:29:54 GMT -5
Andy,
Just to try to clarify a little your confusion between matter and energy.
Matter and energy are related through Einstein's theory of relativity. Energy is equal to matter times the speed of light squared.
E = m c2
So, if there was energy, then there had to be matter, because if energy was always around, it cannot be created or destroyed (by man or nature), and so would be constantly transforming into pkmtyolm (law of thermodynamics, entropy, etc dictate this).
So if energy was always existing with God in the physical realm (space), then matter always existed too. And if matter and energy always existed, then the laws of nature also always existed. If they always existed, then the universe always existed. So, if the universe always existed, then the universe has always gone through a cycle of Big Bang and Big Crunch, over eternity. The universe will have been eternally cycling from these two extremes.
These are the implications of your arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Oct 18, 2004 9:31:14 GMT -5
Ooh, ooh, I can answer this question. He bases his conclusions about the established theories on the evidence that God has left both in His creation, as well as in the Bible. Except that going by what I and other Christians have seen of Traffic Demon's posts, He doesn't appear to take what is written in the Bible seriously. So how accurate is he going to be when expressing his opinion about how everything came into existence? Christian. |
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Oct 18, 2004 9:36:16 GMT -5
Except that going by what I and other Christians have seen of Traffic Demon's posts, He doesn't appear to take what is written in the Bible seriously. So how accurate is he going to be when expressing his opinion about how everything came into existence? Andy. I, a Christian, have seen his posts, and although they do lack humilty and an openness to being taught, he takes the Bible very seriously. He believes it is the very written word of God, give to man so that we may learn more about the nature of God and live the life as a Christian should. That is how seriously he takes the Bible. TD just happens to interpret the beginning of the Bible differently than you. He believes it is an allegory, a parable about how the universe was created. Is he right? I don't know and I don't care. We are spending WAY TOO MUCH TIME arguing over how God created the universe when we should be out living the life that God has called us to. |
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Oct 18, 2004 9:50:21 GMT -5
Andy, Just to try to clarify a little your confusion between matter and energy. Matter and energy are related through Einstein's theory of relativity. Energy is equal to matter times the speed of light squared. E = m c 2So, if there was energy, then there had to be matter, because if energy was always around, it cannot be created or destroyed (by man or nature), and so would be constantly transforming into pkmtyolm (law of thermodynamics, entropy, etc dictate this). So if energy was always existing with God in the physical realm (space), then matter always existed too. And if matter and energy always existed, then the laws of nature also always existed. If they always existed, then the universe always existed. So, if the universe always existed, then the universe has always gone through a cycle of Big Bang and Big Crunch, over eternity. The universe will have been eternally cycling from these two extremes. These are the implications of your arguments. It was God who put the above stated laws in place in order for His creations to function. And if God was not the source of all energy, then He would be an extremely impotent God. He is the God of unlimited power. He only had to speak and everything came into being. That proves that He has energy. How could He ever create anything out of an empty power- less void? It doesn't make sense. His Creation is an expression of His nature and power. His Creation screams "God, the Maker of all things". He is the Father of all Creation. And I already knew about Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Thanks. Christian. |
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Oct 18, 2004 9:59:33 GMT -5
I, a Christian, have seen his posts, and although they do lack humilty and an openness to being taught, he takes the Bible very seriously. He believes it is the very written word of God, give to man so that we may learn more about the nature of God and live the life as a Christian should. That is how seriously he takes the Bible. TD just happens to interpret the beginning of the Bible differently than you. He believes it is an allegory, a parable about how the universe was created. Is he right? I don't know and I don't care. We are spending WAY TOO MUCH TIME arguing over how God created the universe when we should be out living the life that God has called us to. Philip, How can a lack of humility be a sign of a willingness to learn? Oh well, never mind. As for "spending WAY TOO MUCH TIME arguing" - me? Never!! ;D Just like to share my thoughts with people..... Christian. |
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Oct 18, 2004 11:00:16 GMT -5
Philip, How can a lack of humility be a sign of a willingness to learn? Oh well, never mind. As for "spending WAY TOO MUCH TIME arguing" - me? Never!! ;D Just like to share my thoughts with people..... Christian. No, read my post again. I said that TD's posts lack both. |
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Oct 18, 2004 11:04:27 GMT -5
Now here's something that I think we can all agree on:
"By faith we understand that the worlds [during the successive ages] were framed (fashioned, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose) by the word of God, so that what we see was not made out of things which are visible."
Hebrews 11: 3
Christian.
|
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Oct 18, 2004 11:10:39 GMT -5
Now here's something that I think we can all agree on: "By faith we understand that the worlds [during the successive ages] were framed (fashioned, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose) by the word of God, so that what we see was not made out of things which are visible." Hebrews 11: 3 Andy, what Bible version are you using? Mine reads differently enough to result in a very different meaning. (Especailly that part about "world s" and "successive ages." Where did that come from?) LJ |
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Oct 18, 2004 11:45:18 GMT -5
Now here's something that I think we can all agree on: "By faith we understand that the worlds [during the successive ages] were framed (fashioned, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose) by the word of God, so that what we see was not made out of things which are visible." Hebrews 11: 3 Andy. So, by faith we know that God created the universe? I think this has been pretty universally accepted in these threads. |
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Oct 18, 2004 17:11:26 GMT -5
I won't argue the humility issue, but where have I ever shown a lack of willingness to be taught? I think I may have mispoken. What I meant to say is that in areas where you are pretty certain that you are absolutely correct (as in the evolution debate you are not open at all to anything that can be interpreted in a way that is different from evolution), and are not open to other thoughts on the subject. Case in point, when I brought up the cataclysm theory as a method of creating the grand canyon in a span of time much shorter than the millions of years that at the time was mainstream thought on how long it took to develop. You pretty much dismissed that outright. Also your claim that no credible evidence at all has been presented that can be interpreted for a conclusion other than evolution. Just because you dismiss it doesn't mean it hasn't been presented, and there are some good arguments as to why creation is a valid argument. That is what I was trying to say. On some issues you are pretty close minded about. Almost as closeminded as those who think that it can only have happened through a literal, six-day creation as in Genesis. |
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Oct 18, 2004 17:27:38 GMT -5
Note: This post was originally Reply #69 of this thread. <Edited by AuntRonda> I2AM4AndyChristianOmega7-11 - "The problem with the Big Bang and the end of the universe is that they remain unproven theories."What better way to start off a series of posts than with an outright lie. The Big Bang theory and the concept of a finite universe have been "proven" as much as any scientific principle can be. They "remain unproven theories" only to... "And the idea that Genesis, ch.1, vv.1-2 is figurative is a an unproven theory of yours."Um, no. Through the physical evidence, it was "proven" over two hundred years ago that if the Creation parable is to remain true, it cannot be interpreted literally. That you disagree with this fact does not cause it to be falsified. "What do you base your theories on?"I believe PhilipDC78 covered it pretty well in his response. Thanks. "Except that going by what I and other Christians have seen of Traffic Demon's posts, He doesn't appear to take what is written in the Bible seriously."Failing to interpret the Bible in the same way as you is not the same as failing to take it seriously. As PhilipDC78 stated, I take the Bible very seriously. "So how accurate is he going to be when expressing his opinion about how everything came into existence?"Given that my statements on the topic are based on the physical evidence, very accurate. PhilipDC78 - "and although they do lack humilty and an openness to being taught"I won't argue the humility issue, but where have I ever shown a lack of willingness to be taught? --End Reply #69-- PhilipDC78 - "in the evolution debate you are not open at all to anything that can be interpreted in a way that is different from evolution), and are not open to other thoughts on the subject."I'm absolutely open to new thoughts on the subject, provided that they can be backed up with evidence. That's just the problem for those who dispute the accuracy of evolutionary theory, they don't have any evidence. None in the nearly 150 years since Darwin and Wallace published. Without that evidence, such objections have no credibility. "Case in point, when I brought up the cataclysm theory as a method of creating the grand canyon in a span of time much shorter than the millions of years that at the time was mainstream thought on how long it took to develop. You pretty much dismissed that outright."But only because the "cataclysm theory" has been shown to be an outright falsehood. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When all of the evidence points in one direction, it takes something big to overturn that body of evidence. "Cataclysm theory" doesn't have that kind of support. "Also your claim that no credible evidence at all has been presented that can be interpreted for a conclusion other than evolution. Just because you dismiss it doesn't mean it hasn't been presented"I haven't dismissed anything that has been presented by the young Earth creationists, I have shown through the physical evidence why those claims do not contradict evolutionary theory. I don't just say that they are false, I show why they are. "and there are some good arguments as to why creation is a valid argument."But only if "creation" does not refer to the young Earth creationist model. Anything that has been presented to this board in support of that model, I've shown to be based on misunderstandings, bad science, and outright lies. If there's anything I've missed, please let me know and I'll take care of it. --TDv2.0 1:4:9 |
|
|
|
Post by SonWorshiper on Oct 18, 2004 18:12:50 GMT -5
The part you missed? How 'bout this part: that the only person you've won over to your way of thinking is yourself, "Mr. Undefeated Champion." Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Oct 18, 2004 19:23:22 GMT -5
SonWorshiper - "The part you missed? How 'bout this part: that the only person you've won over to your way of thinking is yourself, 'Mr. Undefeated Champion.'"
That others refuse to honestly examine the evidence can hardly be considered my fault. Now, if you would like to present a specific criticism of the presently accepted scientific models, or any evidence you feel supports the young Earth creationist model, the "Interpretations" thread has been up and running for nine months, what's taking you so long?
--BDT
sparty
|
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Oct 19, 2004 6:13:53 GMT -5
Andy, what Bible version are you using? Mine reads differently enough to result in a very different meaning. (Especailly that part about "world s" and "successive ages." Where did that come from?) LJ It came from the Amplified Bible, copyright: The Lockman Foundation. I got this from www.BibleGateway.comChristian. |
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Oct 19, 2004 7:20:38 GMT -5
Sonworshipper,
Isn't it time that you gave your attitude towards Traffic a rest?
Christian.
|
|
