In the begining God made Science
-
I thought "In the begining God made Science" sounded more like an assertion of Logos theology. Since 'science' is from the Greek word for truth, God creating science in the beginning is like the pre-creation of the Word of God.
I do have a problem with the Genesis creation story - but it is not with the first six days. It is with the seventh day. It says God rested. I don't agree with that, it conflicts with the Quran. The Quran say God is not only the creator but the sustainer of the worlds. If God is resting it means he is not sustaining the universe - hence it cannot be true. God does not rest. It is only his creation that gets tired and needs to rest.
-
Selam Abdun Nur
Again you are on the deffensive. You seem to think that anyone posting anything in the forum seem to be against you? I was expressing a comment to back up your plasma theory, or trying to say that might be the missing link but you seem to have taken it the wrong way. Which is a shame. It puzzles me. I don't like your personal attacks and feel you are extemely patronizing.
Peace
Hope
-
Salaam Hope,
I tend to be defensive as I find most do not accept the evidence, but I am always willing to apologise, I am sincerely sorry if I have miss-understood your post, I thought you were being sarcastic, if you look at what you posted, you can see why I could have taken it the wrong way, this of course doesn't excuse my miss-understanding.
As I thought you were being sarcastic, I was a little condescending, again I am sorry if this was evidently not the case.
-
Salaam Hope,
I tend to be defensive as I find most do not accept the evidence, but I am always willing to apologise, I am sincerely sorry if I have miss-understood your post, I thought you were being sarcastic, if you look at what you posted, you can see why I could have taken it the wrong way, this of course doesn't excuse my miss-understanding.
As I thought you were being sarcastic, I was a little condescending, again I am sorry if this was evidently not the case.
Peace Abdur Nur
Sorry if my post came across that way. I am only here to seek knowledge. I do take in what people say on the forum but because of constrants in time I have not been able to look at most of what you are posting (sites) but slowly God willing I will, as I have a natural interest in science. You must understand that people need to catch up to you interms of what you have read. You must give us that chance to do this. Finally as a rule even if people do not accept your view then you have layed down your argument and it is up to them to research it. You have no responsibility to force your opinions or clear evidence on anyone. I am sorry again for not being clear and I am not trying to argue against any of your views but rather understand.
Peace
Hope
-
I thought "In the begining God made Science" sounded more like an assertion of Logos theology. Since 'science' is from the Greek word for truth, God creating science in the beginning is like the pre-creation of the Word of God.
I do have a problem with the Genesis creation story - but it is not with the first six days. It is with the seventh day. It says God rested. I don't agree with that, it conflicts with the Quran. The Quran say God is not only the creator but the sustainer of the worlds. If God is resting it means he is not sustaining the universe - hence it cannot be true. God does not rest. It is only his creation that gets tired and needs to rest.
You make a good point there.
-
Selam Abdun Nur
Again you are on the deffensive. You seem to think that anyone posting anything in the forum seem to be against you? I was expressing a comment to back up your plasma theory, or trying to say that might be the missing link but you seem to have taken it the wrong way. Which is a shame. It puzzles me. I don't like your personal attacks and feel you are extemely patronizing.
Peace
Hope
I am sick of his personal attacks, which is why I have him on ignore.
-
Salaam Hope,
I tend to be defensive as I find most do not accept the evidence, but I am always willing to apologise, I am sincerely sorry if I have miss-understood your post, I thought you were being sarcastic, if you look at what you posted, you can see why I could have taken it the wrong way, this of course doesn't excuse my miss-understanding.
As I thought you were being sarcastic, I was a little condescending, again I am sorry if this was evidently not the case.
Then why are you bulling us emotionally? remember that this is a public forum man.
-
Salaam Munzir Ali,
it's not personal attacks but idealogical, I have explained why the Rev is wrong in his assertion that things are established truths, like the big bang, black holes or dark matter, when in fact they are pure seculation on the part of the conventional establishment, to justify Einsteinian / Newtonian physics, when the physical evidence has no support for them. If I have been over zealous with my posting, I apologise to Rev John, if he wishes to justify with some physical evidence his assertions, I will examine and debate his views without further conflict.
-
Peace Abdun Nur
I have done a bit of research on the plasma theory and find it amazing. I recommend people watch http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEbatH0ssYE and http//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#
It makes a lot of sense and thank you for bringing this to our attention. I think it explains a lot of physics which otherwise was left with loads of ??? One thing I havent yet understood, as it was only touched on was the blackhole, they dismissed the gravitational theory and thats fine I understand that but what replaced the blackhole theory was not explained. I may need to look into that, but if you have good links please share.
There was one quote which stood out for me "The fact that a theory is able to describe an observation, does not mean the observation proves the theory" and how true this is.
Peace
Hope
-
...
There was one quote which stood out for me "The fact that a theory is able to describe an observation, does not mean the observation proves the theory" and how true this is.Peace
Hope
This is based on a misconception about science and proof. In science the only poofs are in mathematics which doesn't depend on observations. Evidence is what is pertinent to science not proofs. As more observations fit the explanation the evidence mounts supporting. Science works on the basis of what is the best explanation for the evidence at the present time and this is always changing. Sometimes it changes in a revolutionary way but for the most it changes by gradual refinement. This doesn't mean it changes willy nilly though. Einsteins relativity was a revolutionary theory but at the same time it was a refinement on Newtonian physics. The real test is in predictions and consistancy. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.
-
This is based on a misconception about science and proof. In science the only poofs are in mathematics which doesn't depend on observations. Evidence is what is pertinent to science not proofs. As more observations fit the explanation the evidence mounts supporting. Science works on the basis of what is the best explanation for the evidence at the present time and this is always changing. Sometimes it changes in a revolutionary way but for the most it changes by gradual refinement. This doesn't mean it changes willy nilly though. Einsteins relativity was a revolutionary theory but at the same time it was a refinement on Newtonian physics. The real test is in predictions and consistancy. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.
Selam
Totally agree with you, thats why when their calculations did not add up they try to fit their calculations in with unknowns which was effecting the calculations rather than reject the theory and go back to the blackboard.
Peace
Hope
-
Selam
Totally agree with you, thats why when their calculations did not add up they try to fit their calculations in with unknowns which was effecting the calculations rather than reject the theory and go back to the blackboard.
Peace
Hope
Well I'm not sure exactly which calculations you are referring to however the big bang theory and mainstream cosmology have made predictions which have later been shown to be observable in contrast to plasma cosmology which has not come up with any predictions. Most notably are the results from the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) mission.
What yopu write reminds me of Einstein's blunder in adding an unknown to make the universe a steady state one as he couldn't imagine it was really expanding.
The currently accepted theory of the Big Bang, the role of gravitation, dark matter etc. is simply the best explanation for the observable properties of the universe among all available alternatives including plasma cosmology.