Roosters for ever:
Welcome to sciforums. Your posts here are on the borderline of what we consider acceptable here. I urge you to familiarise yourself with our Site Posting Guidelines, which you can find by viewing the topic list in the Site Feedback subforum. In particular, I direct your attention to the sections at the end, regarding preaching, proselytising and evangelising, as well as trolling.
It is fine by us for you to hold the views that you have expressed in your posts to the forum so far. However, you need to be wary about crossing the line into just asserting that your views are
self-evidently true or correct. I'm not saying you have necessarily done that yet, but there are some suggestions of that kind of thing in your posts.
The bible. An ancient obscure book, written in an age of obscurity, in an obscure manner, by equally obscure fishermen and goat herders.
Actually, the books that made it into the bible were written by literate people and obviously not by illiterate fishermen or goat herders.
The fact that the four Gospels of the New Testament are so literate is, in itself, evidence that they are unlikely to have been written by any of the disciples of Jesus most of whom were, as you say, very probably illiterate.
My comments on the bible go from being laughable ( talking snakes, humans turning into pillars of salts, sudden unexplained burning bushes and dead men walking) to exaggerated claims regarding the whole world when this 'whole world" was actually confined to a small region in the middle east.
That's true of the Old Testament writings. The New Testament authors were a little more worldly. They were certainly aware of the Roman empire and were familiar with the eastern Mediterranean region, at least.
1C1VDKB_enAU1119AU1119&oq=the+pale+blue+dot+narrative+video&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRifBdIBCTEzMTEwajBqN6gCCLACAfEF8_Ope6JVMEHxBfPzqXuiVTBB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:0337514e,vid:wupToqz1e2g,st:0
Is that supposed to be some kind of link?
That is Also the goal of scientists. The big bang while being the overwhelmingly most likely scientific theory of the Universe we see today, does though fail us at the first quantum/Planck instant.
The big bang theory isn't actually about the first instants of how the universe started. At present, we can't investigate those first tiny fractions of a second, so the big bang theory doesn't attempt to consider them.
The question of what, if anything, caused the big bang is not something that the theory attempts to answer.
I don't see any evidence for any old bloke in a beard, waving his hand, wishing everything into existence.
Neither do I.
In my opinion, the best speculation as to that what happened at that first tiny instant, and even before, is detailed in Professor Lawrence Krauss' book, "A Universe from Nothing"....the nothing being essentially defined as spacetime at the quantum/Planck level and termed "quantum foam" It is this quantum foam that has existed for eternity and what is essentially nothing. I find that speculation far easier to accept then that old bloke with the long flowing beard.
That book is a popular science book, not a research paper or a textbook.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the obfuscation that Krauss employs to try to redefine "nothing" to mean "quantum foam", or whatever. A universe from quantum foam isn't the same as a universe from nothing, in my opinion. Not that I'm claiming the universe came from nothing. I don't know where it came from. There are quite a few ideas out there - some more plausible than others. We simply don't know which is right, though - if any.
It is clear, however, that a narrative involving a God creating a magical garden with a talking snake is not a plausible scientific explanation.
Many disciplines give us plenty of evidence of Earth itself being 4.5 billion years old.
Yes. Young Earth Creationism is a non-starter. There's far too much science stacked up against it. It's a faith-based, fringe belief motivated by religious fundamentalism.
I mean really, while I'm trying to be polite, a 6,000 year old UNIVERSE is crazy!!
It's not crazy. It's just wrong. In the absence of evidence, the universe
could be 6000 years old. It's just that all the physical evidence we have points to it being far older than that.
You us some biblical reference in Hebrews, again the bible is an ancient obscure book, written in an obscure manner, in an age of obscurity, by equally obscure fishermen and goat herders.
The bible is hardly an obscure book. It is the best selling book of all time.
In summing re your faith based claims just let me say again, ancient man needed to explain the Universe around him before science arose. Today many believers simply are following generations of their own generational beliefs. eg: if I was born in India, I would likley be Sikh, if born in Iran, Muslim etc.
It is true that people's religious beliefs tend to be highly correlated with those of their parents. Religion is passed on through indoctrination, typically starting at a very young age.
Religious people seldom consider why they have been so "lucky" as to be born in one of the places in the world where the majority of the local population has settled into belief in the One True Religion. I think that a lot of them assume - if they give it any consideration at all - that they would somehow have come around to their current religious belief, had they been born somewhere different.
It seems like our friend is "demanding" PROOF from scientific theory, despite even lacking evidence for his 6000 year old universe.
Kermos (in the thread from which this one was split) tried to make his own belief system a very small target, by trying to shift the onus of proof to his opponents to prove a negative. What he
should try to do, if he had any integrity, is to attempt to make a positive case for why his own religious beliefs are true. But he has tried to skip out on that, too, by claiming that he believes what he believes entirely because of "faith" - which actually means he just became convinced of the truth of certain religious claims without appealing to any evidence for them. In other words, he has effectively admitted to having an irrational belief. At the same time, he is very coy about any personal "spiritual" experiences he may or may not have had, most likely because he knows he can't meet any reasonable onus of proof when it comes to those. I actually think he's embarrassed that the basis of his belief system is on such shakey ground.
Scientific theory as you probably know and understand, is never proof of anything...
Kermos doesn't understand that point, despite having it explained to him three or seven times.
I also read in one of his posts his objection to evolution. I mean really?
No surprise that a Young Earth Creationist is also an evolution denier. Those people find the very idea of common descent with other apes icky (although, having said that, most of them don't understand what common descent even means - they think it means "we came from monkeys"). It's one more reason that they insist on the Young Earth.
Perhaps he needs to learn the distinction between the "fact of evolution" and the "theory of evolution" or the exact methodology and pathway evolution has taken, which is of course debatable.
I'm not sure if it's very helpful to try to distinguish the "fact of evolution" from the "theory of evolution". What do you mean by those terms?
This of course differs from religion and its 'set in concrete" beliefs, under pain of eternal damnation.
Eternal damnation isn't found in every religion. It's mostly just the Abrahamic ones.
www.sciforums.com
---
continued:
