Creationism
24 Feb 2012 13:05 #51468
by
Replied by on topic Re: Creationism
I mean no offence to Christians, Muslims or Jews but I can see it now, God sat there on His throne deciding how to screw with our minds next and suddenly thinking up dinosaur fossils!
MTFBWY
MTFBWY
Please Log in to join the conversation.
22 Apr 2012 11:53 #57192
by
Replied by on topic Re: Creationism
There is a problem with all the theories explaining cosmogony, and we can only be certain, that we don't know jack about all that. When you come down to the meaning of most theories, then Something (Someone) created Everything out of Nothing. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Creationism or the Big Bang, no theory makes sense, which doesn't mean, that they don't have to be true. All we can say for sure, is that everything somehow began, period.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
24 Apr 2012 10:29 #57534
by
Replied by on topic Re: Creationism
The point where you started drawing this circle :whistle:
Please Log in to join the conversation.
24 Apr 2012 11:18 #57536
by Gisteron
Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
Replied by Gisteron on topic Re: Creationism
Just one thing I have been thinking of: What's the difference? What effect does any of these theories have on our lives at all? (Unless one would bound more beliefs to some of them and unless one would work in archaeology or so)
Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
Please Log in to join the conversation.
24 Apr 2012 12:01 #57539
by
It ultimately doesn't matter if you're ok and find yourself happy with having believing that creationism is true
Where it does matter is when people attempt to force their own religious beliefs into the education of children and claim that their views are scientific fact when they absolutely in no way are.
That is my key point of contention and that is why I think the debate over the validity of creationism (as scientific fact and not opinion) is a debate worth having
Replied by on topic Re: Creationism
Gisteron wrote: Just one thing I have been thinking of: What's the difference? What effect does any of these theories have on our lives at all? (Unless one would bound more beliefs to some of them and unless one would work in archaeology or so)
It ultimately doesn't matter if you're ok and find yourself happy with having believing that creationism is true
Where it does matter is when people attempt to force their own religious beliefs into the education of children and claim that their views are scientific fact when they absolutely in no way are.
That is my key point of contention and that is why I think the debate over the validity of creationism (as scientific fact and not opinion) is a debate worth having
Please Log in to join the conversation.
24 Apr 2012 13:23 #57551
by
Replied by on topic Re: Creationism
okay, heres my quick 5p for those who care...i gotta go to work in a min, but this is indeed an interesting topic, is it not?
i am nominally a christian, in that i have been baptized and attend church regularly. i dont think that this in any way supercedes the technological paradigm this world has created since the time of the writing of the bible. by that i mean, we all remember the catholic church's stance on the research of galileo galilei (among many, many others). heliocentric. flat earth. slaves as willing converts to christianity. and so on.
the writers of the bible had no possible way to conceive of the world we live in now, and its many scientific theories (some, like gravity, more verifiable than others, like multiverse theory). i think that in matters of the technological and scientific, the Church (as a whole) needs to admit its lack of education and experience in this field and leave it to the scientists/technologists who are advancing the field. after all, you dont see them (usually) telling anyone how to worship their god of choice. stick to what you know, fellas.
i am nominally a christian, in that i have been baptized and attend church regularly. i dont think that this in any way supercedes the technological paradigm this world has created since the time of the writing of the bible. by that i mean, we all remember the catholic church's stance on the research of galileo galilei (among many, many others). heliocentric. flat earth. slaves as willing converts to christianity. and so on.
the writers of the bible had no possible way to conceive of the world we live in now, and its many scientific theories (some, like gravity, more verifiable than others, like multiverse theory). i think that in matters of the technological and scientific, the Church (as a whole) needs to admit its lack of education and experience in this field and leave it to the scientists/technologists who are advancing the field. after all, you dont see them (usually) telling anyone how to worship their god of choice. stick to what you know, fellas.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
24 Apr 2012 13:39 - 24 Apr 2012 17:20 #57560
by Br. John
The circle was not drawn. It's generated by a mathematical equation; there's no starting point.
(x - h)2 + (y - k)2 = r2
Founder of The Order
Replied by Br. John on topic Re: Creationism
Kalkho wrote: The point where you started drawing this circle :whistle:
The circle was not drawn. It's generated by a mathematical equation; there's no starting point.
(x - h)2 + (y - k)2 = r2
Founder of The Order
Last edit: 24 Apr 2012 17:20 by Br. John. Reason: Added equation.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Adder
Please Log in to join the conversation.
25 Apr 2012 13:43 #57744
by
Replied by on topic Re: Creationism
Ah, but the process of developing this particular circle have started when You commanded Your computer to make one for You. There's always a start.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Wescli Wardest
- Offline
- Knight
- Unity in all Things
Less
More
- Posts: 6458
25 Apr 2012 14:13 #57746
by Wescli Wardest
Replied by Wescli Wardest on topic Re: Creationism
Physicists theorize that before there was time “to start” there was no time. So it either it always was or couldn’t have been.
Let V (x) be continuous and positive near zero.
If V (x) ≥ 3/4X to the −2 power, near zero then V (x) is in the limit point case.
If for some, E > 0, V (x) ≤ ( 3/4− E)x to the −2 power, near zero, then V (x) is in the limit circle case.
So that in space time:
Ds to the 2 power = −rαdt to the 2 power + rβdr to the 2 power + C −2rγdθ to the 2power + rδ(dz + Adθ)to the 2 power
This of course is theory, but it is the accepted model.
Let V (x) be continuous and positive near zero.
If V (x) ≥ 3/4X to the −2 power, near zero then V (x) is in the limit point case.
If for some, E > 0, V (x) ≤ ( 3/4− E)x to the −2 power, near zero, then V (x) is in the limit circle case.
So that in space time:
Ds to the 2 power = −rαdt to the 2 power + rβdr to the 2 power + C −2rγdθ to the 2power + rδ(dz + Adθ)to the 2 power
This of course is theory, but it is the accepted model.
Monastic Order of Knights
Please Log in to join the conversation.