"Some people see time as a line, others see it as a circle. Others do not beleive Time exists, that time is simply our recognition of motion and change."
Well, we are not really discussing perceptions at the present time we are discussing facts, and I did not (or at least I hope that I did not) imply that time was a force. Notwithstanding, I will defer (and refer) to Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary (as I do in all of my posts that warrant an objective, impartial rendering of some term).
Main Entry:time
Pronunciation: 'tIm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English tIma; akin to Old Norse tImi time, Old English tId -- more at TIDE
1 a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : DURATION b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future
So, based on this authoritative definition time (as I have previously--but humbly--stated) is measured in terms of past, present, and future because it occurs in a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events.... (What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?) Glad you asked (just kidding). This means that even with respect to your Big Crunch claim there is a point in time that the universe has collapsed. The point between the time that it collapses and then re-emerges as the universe formerly known as...uh...sorry I got a little carried away. But the point in the cycle at which the universe re-expands has a starting point (i.e. a beginning). This beginning violates the Law of Cause and Effect. No matter what point the universe is at in the Big Crunch process, time is involved and there exists a continuum of past, present, and future events associated concomitantly with something else in the process. Simply put: the universe had to have a beginning regardless which Theory you assert because if it does not have one, then it violates the Law of Cause and Effect.
"Secondly, A Big Bang/Big Crunch theorty does not violate Newton's Laws of Motion, because the factors that would provoke movement are Gravitational forces and Heat."
But this theory certainly does contravene the Law of Cause and Effect. You see, you still have not provided so much as a hypothesis about where those gravitational forces and heat originated.
The cause of the big bang is a totally different theory. And one that is currently unknown to science. There are some reasonable hypothesis, however, they go over my head like most of the finer points in physics.
MANY physical phenomena go against Newton's laws. Newton was over hundreds of years ago, very little in science remains unchanged for a year or decade, let alone a century.
In fact, the major split in physics is because there is a scale at which Newtonian understanding of matter breaks down. Newtonian physics only deals with things that are large enough for humans to interact with. Given that whatever it was that existed prior to the big bang had to be smaller than a point in space, it seems likely that any Newtonian physics would be useless in understanding it.
Finally, the Big Bang is a proven event. Many of our findings in astronomy make sense only in light of it. Sure, if a theory that better explained our observations came along, it would be adopted, however, it would still almost have to have the same characteristics as the Big Bang. Just because there is a very important dealing with the cause of the Big Bang does not mean the theory itself does not do what theories are supposed to, which is describe observable evidence.
I personally said nothing about matter being created or destroyed. However, I will comment briefly.
A better way of saying "matter and energy cannot be destroyed" is "all of the matter and energy that exists in the universe today was present and created in the Big Bang." (maybe not created, I am generalizing for purposes of space and my own understanding).
We do have a proposed theory for creating new matter from nothing, it would be to recreate a Big Bang. Since that is not scientifically possible at this time, it is still speculation.
If I may, your incessant questioning of the most fundamentally unanswerable sections of science is useless. This is a forest through the trees problem. Just because YOU are unable to see why the theory of the Big Bang or any other scientific theory is valid given our appraisal of the evidence does not mean that it is invalid. Not to mention you only focus on the smaller, less experimentally testable areas, almost to give the illusion that the theory does not explain as much as it does as well as it does.
Hopefully you are not claiming to be better at science than scientists. And REALLY hopefully you aren't claiming to know quantum physics better than physicists and the Big Bang better than astronomers...
Teampac08, being Catholic and being a true believer in Jesus are two different realities. I already know what I have studied and experienced first-hand, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Do you believe that if you die right now that you will go to Heaven? I am assuming that we both agree on what I mean when I say, "you will go to Heaven."
There may not be facts that you would agree are facts but there is ample reason to believe that Jesus is Truth. Also, I don't agree with your use of the phrase "found acceptance in life" because that is not what I seek per se. Besides, if you truly knew Jesus Christ as you assert you would know that He is Truth. Do you understand what I mean teampac08? For example, I don't have any question about who my true friends are or who the true Michael Jackson is (please stand up, please stand up...oh...sorry, I keep getting carried away). I am just as convinced of who my true friends are and who the real Michael Jackson is as I am that Jesus is Truth (I know, I know, that was a terrible analogy). Nevertheless, If Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, then that precludes any one else from being the Way, the Truth, and the Life. This includes every religious leader/figurehead representing all of the world's religions. All of them are excluded from being the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and from being the means by which we come to the Father.
Another point that I would like to make is that Jesus Christ used definite articles in his declaration. Jesus did not say,
"I am a way, a truth, and a life, and I am just one of the few, several, or many ways that someone can come to the Father."
Jesus Christ said,
"I am THE Way, THE Truth, THE life, no one comes to the Father except through Me."
--John 14:6
Teampac08, what does it mean to you when I write, "I am THE Attorney General, or THE chief physician of x hospital, or THE police chief of so and so city, or THE President (at this moment) of these United States, or THE JesusIsAlive?" I will tell you what it means to me, that I am the one, the only one, and there is no other (like me). I am unique. No one else has my fingerprint, social security number, bank account number, house address, retina characteristics, etc. I am the true JesusIsAlive (or whatever my identity may be). It is amazing how we can see this and understand it in non-Biblical terms, but when it relates to the Bible and Jesus for some uncanny reason this rule does not apply.
I apologize for all the emphasis and caps. I am not shouting I just wanted those words to stand out because they are critical. I believe Jesus was deliberately precise and definite for a reason. He knew that people down through time would have the same questions that you and others have teampac08. So, the point is that there is only One Savior. For me to affirm to know Jesus in one breath then to declare that there are other equally valid methods or ways to get to God the Father in another breath would be to betray my Lord and Savior. There is only one North, one South, one East, one West, one up, one down, one left, one right, one correct interpretation of the Scriptures, one you, one me, one God, one Savior, and thus one Way to God the Father—Jesus the Christ.
The apostle Peter said it better:
Acts 4:12
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
John the Baptist stated this after seeing Jesus (probably for the first time):
John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world!
Notice tempac08 that John the Baptist used the definite article "the" to refer to Jesus.
John did not say,
“Behold! a lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
John said THE Lamb of God. So Jesus is THE Lamb of God. There aren’t any other Lambs of God that can take away the sin of the world because Jesus is THE Lamb of God. In other words, Jesus is the only Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. Jesus is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life, no one [this includes me too] comes to the Father except through Him (i.e. through Jesus Christ). Again, I apologize for the caps they are just for emphasis.
I find that the poster of this thread is narrow-minded and is belittleing my faith towards Horus, who was crackin out miracles way before Jesus was, especially considering the simlarities between the two god-men
__________________
You don't need good rear vision because you're always in front!
Precisely my point. Thanks for answering my question. This is what I was trying to get others to answer.
Can you provide some reference to support your claim that the Big Bang Theory has been proven. If that is the case then why is it still referred to as a "theory" instead of as the "Big Bang Law?" Furthermore, inimalist I assure you that I am not the only one that does not see the validity in the Big Bang Theory. Actually, I am just agreeing with scientists on the the infeasibility of the Big Bang Theory (not all scientists endorse the Big Bang Theory as a viable answer for the formation of the universe).
Physicists Say Big Bang was 'Nothing Special'
By SPACE.com Staff
"...The duo wondered why time flows in only one direction, and whether the Big Bang -- a theory that has not been proven-- arose from an energy fluctuation in empty space that conforms to the known laws of physics...."
--Sean Carroll, an Assistant Professor in Physics at the University of Chicago and graduate student Jennifer Chen.
"...Due to the efforts of those and other fighters for evenhanded cosmological investigation and, despite the powerful influence of mainstream BB cosmologists, evidence against the BB has been building to the point where the world may soon start to doubt it. Some of that evidence is briefly reviewed in this paper...."
“…The big bang hypothesis has clearly not yet been proven and it is therefore important for all the alternatives to be discussed with an open mind. Unfortunately the big bang seems to have become an article of faith for a great many scientists; in 1951 it even received the blessing of Pope Pius XII Geoffrey Burbidge points out that astronomical textbooks no longer treat cosmology as an open subject, and that cosmologists are often intolerant of departures from the big bang faith. Researchers who question the prevailing orthodoxy tend to find it more difficult to obtain access to funding and equipment and to get their articles published. A few years ago Halton Arp was denied telescope time at Mount Wilson and Palomar observatories because his observing program had found evidence contrary to the standard big bang model….” (Scientific American, February 1992, p. 96).
(For kicks) AngryManatee, I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell me, I likewise will tell you whether I have a background in quantum physics or not. Fair enough?
Have you ever created an actual, working universe (like the one God created that needs no oil changes, tune ups, or tire rotations)?
Why are you using the Bible as fact? You tend to be literal on some points and then interpret some other meanings. Was Jesus really the LAMB of God? A Lamb? You're using the Bible as a definite religious text, but what gives you proof that it is? You cant use quotes from the Bible itself to prove that you're correct because of course the Bible is goin to be biased in your answers, you're defending the Bible. Any person can start pulling quotes from religious texts, which one is the definite truth though? What would you say to one who pulls out the Qur'an and starts quoting from it? You're going to prove him wrong by quoting the Bible? Then he'll most likely counter with a quote from the Qur'an. Who's correct now? Point is many parts of the Bible CAN be seen as literal while others are most likely put up for interpretation. I can't believe you're defending your points around the word "the" either. I am not questioning my faith whatsoever like you claim I am. I am merely pointing out that you are rude in telling others what is the absolute truth. You question theories right down to smallest of details, yet there is no details to prove that you're belief is absolute truth.
But you still have not answered my question: if you die right now, do you believe without any shadow of a doubt that you would go to Heaven? This is a loaded question.
Halton C. Arp received his Bachelors degree from Harvard College in 1949 and his Ph.D. from California Institute of Technology in 1953, both cum laude. He is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, conducted Edwin Hubble's nova search in M31. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For 28 years he was staff astronomer at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he produced his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are disturbed or irregular in appearance.
Arp discovered, from photographs and spectra with the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically connected to galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Because of Arp's observations, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the Big Bang theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - has to be fundamentally reexamined.!
HMMM, JIA you think you know what will happen to your soul after you die.
AND SO DOES everyone else here. They know where their soul is going, or what it will be doing once life has passed on. WE DO NOT NEED you to tell us that.
HEY, you say that the big bang theory has not been proven
BUT so has the existance of GOD. WE believe( those who believe) that God exists. WE dont need proof because our hearts and minds have accepted that.
JUST the same goes for those that believe in the theory of the Big Bang. It makes logical sence so thus it is accepted by the hearts and minds of some. That is up t someone to accept by themselves. They should not go around and say that IS THE ONLY way and any other way is wrong. WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING. You accept the version of creation that best suits you. Why must you come here and try to enforce it on us????
Dont go quoting books, crying for the hundredth time to accept jesus and all of that, we've heard it before. Funny how you give some type of answer when I get annoyed with you, but a calm post you ignore totally.
and just to add. The theory of the big bang, goes quite nicely with the creation of the universe according to hindu scripture. That along with my physics background, I see the logic in the theory.
__________________
Thank you god for the blessing me with Chanel.
She is back with you now, so take care of her
KMC Community Forums
Apr 11th, 2007 11:53 PM
