The Creation

[earth]

So tell me Trippy, Dywyddyr, and Pandaemoni, where did the big bang come from?

What set it off?

Where did the materials come from to create the reaction known as the Big Bang?

The discussion is about the bible and the creation story and not the Big Bang theory.

 

[James R]

Buffalo Roam gets nuttier by the thread. I mean, really. Creationism now?

 

[CheskiChips]

Well James R, I've refuted all of your (and most everyone here's) root points which were basically based on illiteracy. And I am only just now - in this post - mocking you for ignorance. If you think you know what Genesis says better than I do or BR does - put your money where your mouth is. If you can disprove God, win a Nobel and be the atheists saint - until then, demeaning others who have no power over you for their long held beliefs is embarrassingly doltish.

 

[James R]

CheskiChips:

Genesis isn't a scientific textbook. Treating a Creation myth as literal truth is what is embarassingly doltish.

Trippy has covered the point I made quite adequately, so there's no need for me to repeat.


Buffalo Roam:

How about a Formal Debate on which is the more accurate scientific theory of the start of the universe: Creation or Big Bang?

 

[CheskiChips]

CheskiChips:

Genesis isn't a scientific textbook. Treating a Creation myth as literal truth is what is embarassingly doltish.

Trippy has covered the point I made quite adequately, so there's no need for me to repeat.

Not being able to read Hebrew or Aramaic and telling someone who can what it says is also arrogantly humorous...too. Trippy, like you, most likely has no background in the subject. Would I trust him with Chemistry - you bet. Do I expect that either of you to understand what it says, with only basic backgrounds in an English re-re-re-re-re-translation of a 2500 year old book originally written in a language you don't understand, describing a culture you have no experience in....no. Do I expect you to admit that, yes.

 

[James R]

CheskiChips:

How about a Formal Debate on which is the more accurate scientific theory of the start of the universe: Genesis or Big Bang?

 

[CheskiChips]

Since Genesis never seeks to explain in depth the universe inception - there's no need. If you had ever actually read it, you might know that. I don't claim that it's the most comprehensive knowledge we have of the known universe, I do contend that it's without internal conflict.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Oh so WRONG

Solis is the Spanish word for Sun.

That circle with a dot in the middle of it?

It's the astrological symbol for the sun.
Via Solis is another name for the plane of the ecliptic.

The symbol for the Earth is a circle with a cross in it.

That map has the earth in the middle, and the 'fourth rock from the sun' is, in fact, the sun.

Then explain the Central sun figure that all else revolves around? or the context of the citation that it was referencd from?;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/cwiu/cwiu04.htm​

Soli, or solis can also translate as alone, Latin, the sole planet of life in the universe, most scientific texts were written in Latin at that time,and unless I miss my observation:

Schemah uius pramiffa diuifionis Spharaunm​

is Latin.


soli-1 
a combining form meaning “alone,” “solitary,” used in the formation of compound words: solifidian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
< L sōli-, comb. form of sōlus. See sole 1

 

[Trippy]

Then explain the Central sun figure that all else revolves around? or the context of the citation that it was referencd from?;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/cwiu/cwiu04.htm​

Soli, or solis can also translate as alone, Latin, the sole planet of life in the universe, most scientific texts were written in Latin at that time,and unless I miss my observation:

Schemah uius pramiffa diuifionis Spharaunm​

is Latin.


soli-1 
a combining form meaning “alone,” “solitary,” used in the formation of compound words: solifidian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
< L sōli-, comb. form of sōlus. See sole 1

Typical, you address one half of an argument, while completely ignoring the other half of it - the fact that the symbol assigned to the position that you're insisting is the earth is the symbol for the sun. That point hasn't gone away. It's still there. It still needs addressing.
From Cusa's text:

. . . it is obvious that the earth moves. And because from the motion of the comets, of the air and of fire, we know by experience that the elements move, and [that] the moon [moves] less from the Orient to the Occident than Mercury or Venus, or the sun, and so on, it follows that the earth

p. 15

[paragraph continues] [considered as an element] moves less than all the others; yet [considered] as a star, it does not describe around the center or the pole a minimal circle, nor does the eighth sphere, or any other, describe the maximal, as has already been proved.

You have now to consider attentively what follows: just as the stars move around the conjectural poles of the eighth sphere, so also do the earth, the moon and the planets move in various ways and at [different] distances around a pole, which pole we have to conjecture as being [in the place] where you are accustomed to put the center. It follows therefrom that though the earth is, so to speak, the star which is nearer the central pole [than the others] it still moves, and yet does not describe in [its] motion the minimum circle, as has been shown supra. Moreover, neither the sun, nor the moon, nor any sphere—though to us it seems otherwise—can in [its] motion describe a true circle, because they do not move around a fixed base. Nowhere is there a true circle such that a truer one would not be possible, nor is [anything] ever at one time [exactly] as at another, neither does it move in a precisely equal [manner], nor does it describe an equally perfect circle, though we are not aware of it.

So then from Cusa's text we can plainly see that he considered the earth to be revolve about the same pole as the rest of the planets AND THE SUN, but the earth was the closest to the pole and wandered about it in a non circular fashion (he didn't hold the earth in the 4th position out).

Further. Look at the image. Look closely at the figure in the center. Notice the clouds and other figures in it?

Let's assume you're right about Solis (but you're not, I'll get on to that in a minute, congratulations on making me get my Latin textbook out though). The Sun is also the only object like it in the sky.

But you're wrong, and here's why.
Sol is a third declension noun that follows the consonant stem:
Sol; Sol-em; Sol-is; Sol-i; Sol-e.
Sol, of course being the latin name for the sun.

The word you're thinking of is solus - solus; sola; solum.

And if you're wondering why they would use genitive case, in this istance it has to do with the other thing you're ignoring: 'coelu'

Which in context I'm guessing is actually colo which means 'Cultivate, worship, inhabit' depending on the context it's used it and so coelu solis would be (in essence) 'place the sun inhabits'.

So that's what, 4 counts now?

1. You ignored the argument regarding the symbol.
2. Your latin is wrong.
3. Your context is wrong.
4. Your argument regarding the central symbol is wrong.

 

[Photizo]

CheskiChips:Genesis isn't a scientific textbook. Treating a Creation myth as literal truth is what is embarassingly doltish.

You're right, it's not a man made (read "doltish") 'scientific' textbook, it's Revelation...an accommodation by God (given our inability) which, when coupled with faith (in God, not man) bridges an otherwise impassable chasm. i.e. our collective abysmal ignorance.

One only needs to consult the recent climate gate scandal to understand that 'science' is impossibly hamstrung (given doltish 'man'). Climate-gate and the 'science' which spawned it, ironically testifies to the truth of the very Revelation 'science' ignores, scorns, and ridicules: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength..." Indeed, "Out of the mouths of sucklings Thou hast ordained praise." Selah.

 

[earth]

Climate-gate and the 'science' which spawned it, ironically testifies to the truth of the very Revelation 'science' ignores, scorns, and ridicules: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength..." Indeed, "Out of the mouths of sucklings Thou hast ordained praise." Selah.

According to your belief out of the mouth of God he sent plagues. Also, do you think polution wouldn't be counted as a curse from him? Science has made vaccines ending some of the evil shit coming from the mouth of God and polution will be done in too. I too do my part in ending evil shit coming from the mouth of God, I reverse and return the curse. Signed earth

 

[Buffalo Roam]

The discussion is about the bible and the creation story and not the Big Bang theory.

No, the discussion is that, both are mutually supported by each other, not mutually exclusive of each other.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

CheskiChips:

Genesis isn't a scientific textbook. Treating a Creation myth as literal truth is what is embarassingly doltish.

Trippy has covered the point I made quite adequately, so there's no need for me to repeat.


Buffalo Roam:

How about a Formal Debate on which is the more accurate scientific theory of the start of the universe: Creation or Big Bang?

James R, I never said it was absolutely accurate.

I said it seems to be in step with what science tells us from the Big Bang....through the formation of the sun and the planets, through the appearance of in the seas, through it arrival on land to the appearance of man.

I find it funny that you, and Trippy, have invested so much of your self worth into wanting to be insulted for My questioning, a Orthodoxy that you insist is absolute and proven and correct, and that You have to beat me down for my insolence in not Kissing your A$$ and accept Your contention that Global Warming as a fact, and the science is settled science.

Even CaptBork has pointed that out to you, that the science is far from settled, and I think, that I am in better standing in believing His thoughts and reasoned post than accepting in blind faith your's and Trippys, ranting because I question the Orthodoxy of AGW and CO2 the major forcing and feed back problem.

CaptBork, has pointed to Water Vapor as a major feed back, just as I have.

According to this article, the Clausius-Clapeyron equation would suggest a virtually indefinite cycle of increasing water vapor and temperature, as it's a positive feedback mechanism. The article states that heat radiation into space is the primary negative feedback limiting the growth of water vapor and temperature. So at a minimum if I understand the article correctly (I have studied Clausius-Clapeyron as an undergrad, not going to pretend I remember all the details off the top of my head though), even without any substantial increase in CO[sub]2[/sub], it ought to be possible for a small shift in water vapor levels and other conditions to lead to a large and rapid cascade of climate change, as water vapor isn't in and of itself a self-regulating substance.

To put it in other words, again only based on my personal understanding, the growth of water vapor is not self-limiting, but rather the growth in temperature itself is self-limiting. Make a shift in the Earth's conditions (i.e. solar input, other gases and sources of climate change), and the concurrent rise in water vapor won't be self-limiting, but will rather continue until the Earth has warmed enough such that the increase in heat radiation creates a new balance.

Ok, but in that case I have to ask if such a reflecting effect is also adequately accounted for in current climate models. If I understand the gist of your argument, you're saying that water vapor fluctuations couldn't be a major source of climate change, because of the negative feedback from clouds reflecting sunlight back into space. Would such negative feedback not also limit the effects of CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions?

Capt.Bork, make more sense to me than You, or Trippy, do and is a Better gentleman at presenting His facts.

So I stand with the Capt.

And now CheskiChips, has just cut you a new one over your doltish insistance that I was wrong about Genesis and the Creation, you still haven't addressed His points, your are still to personnelly invested with your ego trying to beat me up for not rolling over and playing dead because the Great James R had spoken.

Well James R, I've refuted all of your (and most everyone here's) root points which were basically based on illiteracy. And I am only just now - in this post - mocking you for ignorance. If you think you know what Genesis says better than I do or BR does - put your money where your mouth is. If you can disprove God, win a Nobel and be the atheists saint - until then, demeaning others who have no power over you for their long held beliefs is embarrassingly doltish.

Not being able to read Hebrew or Aramaic and telling someone who can what it says is also arrogantly humorous...too. Trippy, like you, most likely has no background in the subject. Would I trust him with Chemistry - you bet. Do I expect that either of you to understand what it says, with only basic backgrounds in an English re-re-re-re-re-translation of a 2500 year old book originally written in a language you don't understand, describing a culture you have no experience in....no. Do I expect you to admit that, yes.

 

[James R]

Buffalo Roam:

James R, I never said it was absolutely accurate.

You and Cheski are pretending that the bible is a science textbook. Genesis is a myth. How old do you think the Earth is? Do you believe in dinosaurs? Do you think they lived at the same time as man? Have you been to Ken Ham's Creation Museum?

I find it funny that you, and Trippy, have invested so much of your self worth into wanting to be insulted for My questioning, a Orthodoxy that you insist is absolute and proven and correct, and that You have to beat me down for my insolence in not Kissing your A$$ and accept Your contention that Global Warming as a fact, and the science is settled science.

You're hardly qualified to discuss the issue. You were afraid to even debate it properly. I have no more time to waste on you on this matter, so don't bother addressing me on it again. I will not be interacting with you on this subject. You're not willing to stand up for what you say you believe about it, which makes me question your motives.

And now CheskiChips, has just cut you a new one over your doltish insistance that I was wrong about Genesis and the Creation, you still haven't addressed His points, your are still to personnelly invested with your ego trying to beat me up for not rolling over and playing dead because the Great James R had spoken.

You know what I think? I think you've learnt from Cheski something you had no idea about before, and now you're riding on his coattails because it suits your argument of the moment. Your modus operandi is to make up your mind on things first and never mind any evidence. Then, your next step is to go looking for anything that looks like it might confirm your view, while stupidly ignoring everything that goes against it. You're a walking advertisement for confirmation bias.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

No, James R you were the one who failed to join the debate already in progress, and as to me and Chips, treating the Bible as a scientific work, yes, really, again your ego is getting in the way, and you are trying to put words into our mouths.

You still haven't answered to Chips now have you.

You're hardly qualified to discuss the issue. You were afraid to even debate it properly. I have no more time to waste on you on this matter, so don't bother addressing me on it again. I will not be interacting with you on this subject. You're not willing to stand up for what you say you believe about it, which makes me question your motives.

:roflmao: I have engaged you at every turn, any time, it is your who have deleted my posts and locked my threads because I wouldn't respond to your ego driven challenge to debate on your chosen field of battle.

1st. rule of warfare, don't fight the enemy by his rules, or on his ground.

2nd. rule of war, if you have to fight the enemy on His ground, do not fight restricted by His rules.

The ground for battle was not acceptable, and we would not have come up with rules that would be acceptable to Me, or You, so why waste the time?

The Debate was already on, and so far you haven't done well at all, you let your ego get in the way.

 

[James R]

I have engaged you at every turn, any time, it is your who have deleted my posts and locked my threads because I wouldn't respond to your ego driven challenge to debate on your chosen field of battle.

I request, t this stage politely, that you do not tell lies. Thankyou!

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I request, t this stage politely, that you do not tell lies. Thankyou!

I thought you weren't going to respond to me any more?

 

[James R]

Buffalo Roam:

Your reading comprehension is faulty. Please read post #74, slowly, so you understand it. Do it as many times as you need for what I actually said to sink in.

 

[786]

How about a Formal Debate on which is the more accurate scientific theory of the start of the universe: Genesis or Big Bang?

Could creation not occur through Big Bang?

peace be unto you

 

[James R]

786:

Yes. We're discussing the literal truth of the Genesis Creation story here. Buffalo Roam and CheskiChips, for example, seem to believe that the biblical story is the literal truth, as far as I can tell.