Contributions of Creationism/Intelligent Design to Science

reply to post by SuperiorEd


So your arguments concerning the big bang are mostly based on bible quotes...that's LUNATIC given so much in the bible has been debunked!!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It is precisely because it was Lemaitre, (the M is not capitalized), who advocated this theory that it is clear that it is rooted in Creationism.

Except that it's not clear. It's simply his assertion. Just because he shoehorned the Big Bang Theory into the bible's claims in Genesis doesn't mean that said theory validates creationism.

So, Zeitgeist debunks the Bible? Sorry, not accurate at all. Dawkins and the Selfish Gene. Not a chance. Hitchens and his raving. No again. The problem here is that God cannot be fact yet. He is faith only at this point. It will always come down to point/counterpoint and the incredulity of fixed mindsets. That is, by default, faith. Science can only be faith. Read my other posts on the subject. Science rests on the 90% of reality that is called dark matter. Unseen, just as the Bible states in Hebrews 11:3. The 10% percent of visible nature is ever passing into another form so science has no way of verifying its theories. No debunking is possible. Science and religion are on a pendulum swing, getting closer and closer to equaling at equilibrium. Both are saying the exact same thing. This is the pure philosophy of admiration for the Creator and appreciation of his work. Pride is placing yourself above this obvious fact in your own self-knowledge.

Genesis ch. 3 is the fall of man by choosing knowledge by the toil of his own work instead of walking with God. We will eventually wake to this problem and start following God. At our lowest point, we only have ourselves to blame for working God's laws against each other. Japan is an example of knowledge that is absent wisdom. The Bible is correct again. No debunking. Give me some examples of your debunking.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

So your arguments concerning the big bang are mostly based on bible quotes...that's LUNATIC given so much in the bible has been debunked!!

reply to post by MrXYZ

I love how you post 3 quotes to prove science says god did it...but none of those 3 quotes make that claim

It is beyond ironic that the guy that suggests that I am trolling is purposely twisting words to make a moot point. I did not post those 3 quotes to "prove god" nor have I entered this thread to prove, or defend God. I have made clear that what I got from the O.P. was a question regarding what Creationism/Intelligent Design has contributed to science. I have made perfectly clear that Lemaitre, being a Jesuit Priest, is fairly considered a "Creationist", and that it took a Jesuit Priest to change the scientific paradigm of a steady state, to the prevailing cosmological Big Bang Theory.

I responded to poster who claimed that science "has not been convinced" that the universe was most likely created.

Your level of disingenuous is the best I can do to compliment you, because either you are being extremely disingenuous, or you have bigger problems.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You actually never proved that aforementioned Jesuit was a creationist. In fact, you simply asserted it without proof. I've heard of Catholic priests having non-creationist beliefs before, especially the Jesuits. Furthermore, you're saying that a creationist contributed something, but not that the idea of creationism did.

How did creationism contribute to the idea of the big bang? Making a guy believe that it was possible that the universe had a beginning doesn't count because it's the sort of thing where the universe either did or did not have a beginning (or there's a complex understanding of what 'beginning' would mean).

But you know, I must just be equivocating. Because that's all you always tell me. You've yet to prove your claims that the BBT was a contribution of creationism rather than one of materialist science.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Except that it's not clear. It's simply his assertion. Just because he shoehorned the Big Bang Theory into the bible's claims in Genesis doesn't mean that said theory validates creationism.

This statement is ironic on so many levels. Lemaitre did not "shoehorn" the "Big Bang Theory" into the Bible's claims in Genesis. However, that you insist on phrasing it as if he did, only supports my contention that Lemaitre's Primeval Atom Hypothesis, (The Big Bang Theory was coined by Fred Hoyle), was clearly influenced by Genesis.

As one of the other disingenuous posters keeps insisting, ad nauseum, is that Lemaitre relied solely upon physics to present his hypothesis, which is to say, he did not quote the Bible, he did not in anyway make a connection between the Bible and his mathematical findings, but relied solely on the tools of science to make a scientific hypothesis.

Even so, when he first advocated this hypothesis, most of the scientific community accused him of what you call "shoehorn"(ing), and even Einstein was among those skeptics. Later, Einstein recanted his skepticism and supported Lemaitre in his findings.

If you cannot be bothered to actually learn the facts, then why should anyone take you seriously?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Read the theory, it doesn't use creationism as back up, it's NOT part of the theory. Wether or not Lemaitre was a creationist is therefore irrelevant for the theory. Newton was a Christian, but there's no mention of god in his scientific theories. Their belief isn't part of the theory...no matter how hard you try to make it seem that way

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Let's see how wrong the bible is:

1) Global flood...no objective evidence supporting it.
2) Talking snakes...no objective evidence supporting it...in fact, it's biologically impossible.
3) God...no objective evidence supporting it.
4) 2 of each kind in a single wooden ship...totally impossible.
5) The sun created after the earth...total nonsense.

And the list goes on

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
So, Zeitgeist debunks the Bible?

Straw man. I'd actually say scientific research disproves parts of the Bible. I'd say historical and archeological finds disprove claims of the Bible. I'd say the Bible itself disproves others.

Sorry, not accurate at all.

Well, it's easy to call your straw man inaccurate because nobody is saying that.

Dawkins and the Selfish Gene. Not a chance.

Yet another straw man, as you're the one mentioning him. Also, you're not explaining why there isn't a chance. I guess you must be omniscient, as you're offhandedly dismissing a scientific idea because you don't agree with it.

Hitchens and his raving. No again.

Yet another straw man and an ad hominem to boot. Please, don't demean the work of an important journalist who actually understands how to construct a logical argument.

The problem here is that God cannot be fact yet. He is faith only at this point. It will always come down to point/counterpoint and the incredulity of fixed mindsets. That is, by default, faith.

...no, being an atheist has nothing to do with faith...and this is entirely off topic. Why are you even bringing this up? I asked some very specific questions, what the hell does this have to do with anything?

Science can only be faith. Read my other posts on the subject. Science rests on the 90% of reality that is called dark matter

...that's one idea, it's still debatable, and it's not as you have previously claimed undectable.

. Unseen, just as the Bible states in Hebrews 11:3. The 10% percent of visible nature is ever passing into another form so science has no way of verifying its theories.

Except that it does. You are using a computer, aren't you? You're verifying circuit theory quite often every second. And we can detect dark matter, it's called gravity. Learn to Newton please.

No debunking is possible.

Someone makes specific claim, you show that the specific claim is false. Religions (all of them) make quite a few specific claims about the natural world, these are claims that would be testable because they involve events that would have left evidence in the physical world.

Science and religion are on a pendulum swing, getting closer and closer to equaling at equilibrium. Both are saying the exact same thing.

No, they really aren't. Science is incredibly contradictory to the idea of religious belief because it is solely based around testing its claims, not about taking things on faith.

This is the pure philosophy of admiration for the Creator and appreciation of his work. Pride is placing yourself above this obvious fact in your own self-knowledge.

So...you're just going to wax romantic about your own personal ignorance? If so, please go off to another thread.

Genesis ch. 3 is the fall of man by choosing knowledge by the toil of his own work instead of walking with God.

Oddly, Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory accounts. And Genesis 3 is a piece of fiction. Furthermore, the point of the story is stupid. The story itself has such obvious holes that a child can simply ask "Why was the tree there in the first place?"

We will eventually wake to this problem and start following God. At our lowest point, we only have ourselves to blame for working God's laws against each other.

No, one of our problems is that too many people want to follow their deity rather than live peacefully with each other and explore the world around us through science. The problem is that admonishment of knowledge by the religious, the vilifying of 'knowledge without wisdom' as you put it yourself.

Japan is an example of knowledge that is absent wisdom.

Japan is an example of knowledge that saved lives. Do you realize how many more people would have died if they didn't build their buildings to be earthquake safe? Natural disasters are horrible, and for you to drag out the death of thousands as some sort of proof of your deity and your story book being correct, you are a person deserving of admonishment.

The Bible is correct again. No debunking. Give me some examples of your debunking.

Ok, what year was Jesus born in?
How did Judas die?
Where is the evidence of the global flood?
Where is the genetic evidence of the garden of Eden.
Where is the archeological evidence to support the Biblical account of the conquest of Canaan?
Where is the evidence to show that Jesus and the 12 apostles were real people?
Where is the evidence to show that slavery is a perfectly ok thing to practice?

I can keep going.

reply to post by cLOUDDEAD


Learn how to contribute to discussions rather than insert emoticons and short hand as 'attaboy' posts. Also, learn how a logical argument is formulated before you claim that an individual "owned" another. Making a claim without evidence that doesn't even address the question at hand is not "owning" anyone, it's being illogical.

JPZ didn't even bother to demonstrate how the Big Bang Theory has a connection to a creationism, merely that one of its pioneers was a creationist. Two different things. F=ma is not a contribution of creationism, no matter how creationist Newton was.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

You actually never proved that aforementioned Jesuit was a creationist.

You have never clearly defined "creationist". As a Catholic myself, I understand that Genesis is given much credence in regards to a theological discussion on the Creation of the universe, and Lemaitre was a Catholic priest. Catholics are presented with dogma, and that means there is little variance from one Catholic to the next on that dogma. Since you failed to define what it is you mean by "creationist" your point is moot.

I've heard of Catholic priests having non-creationist beliefs before, especially the Jesuits.

I have heard plenty of things about Catholic Priests that just are not true. What you've "heard" is not proof of anything either. Is this your idea of a scientific method, or critical thinking? You've heard, have you? Tell me what you've heard about the tooth fairy, why don't you.

Furthermore, you're saying that a creationist contributed something, but not that the idea of creationism did.

First of all, make up your mind. Either, in your opinion - since you have no regard for facts - Lemaitre is a creationist or not. Secondly, I am saying both. I am saying Lemaitre was what would be fairly called a "Creationist", and that it took a "Creationist" to use the tools of science to change the paradigm of a steady state universe - which would be a universe without creation - to the current prevailing cosmological paradigm of the Big Bang.

How did creationism contribute to the idea of the big bang?

I just explained to you how. How long are you going to keep pretending otherwise?

Making a guy believe that it was possible that the universe had a beginning doesn't count because it's the sort of thing where the universe either did or did not have a beginning (or there's a complex understanding of what 'beginning' would mean).

More priest class mysticism from you? Prior to Lemaitre's contribution the belief was that the universe did not have a beginning, and now while there is certainly quibble room to mystify on what a beginning means in terms of a singularity and where that singularity existed, there is a belief in not just a beginning, many scientists are inclined to believe there may be an ending as well.

But you know, I must just be equivocating.

But you know you are.

You've yet to prove your claims that the BBT was a contribution of creationism rather than one of materialist science.

The irony of this remark is that you sound just like the Church in Galileo's time. It took the Catholic Church 500 years to vindicate Galileo, how long will it take you to look past your own personal biases and consider the truth?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Learn how to contribute to discussions rather than insert emoticons and short hand as 'attaboy' posts. Also, learn how a logical argument is formulated before you claim that an individual "owned" another. Making a claim without evidence that doesn't even address the question at hand is not "owning" anyone, it's being illogical.

This lecture on logical argument coming from the guy who dismisses the idea that Lemaitre was a "Creationist" because he "heard' of Catholic Priests having "non-creationists" beliefs, "especially the Jesuits". This logic? Any news on the tooth fairy?

reply to post by MrXYZ

Read the theory, it doesn't use creationism as back up, it's NOT part of the theory. Wether or not Lemaitre was a creationist is therefore irrelevant for the theory. Newton was a Christian, but there's no mention of god in his scientific theories. Their belief isn't part of the theory...no matter how hard you try to make it seem that way

Can we at least consider that creationism may have provided the inspiration to formulate those scientific theories?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

You actually never proved that aforementioned Jesuit was a creationist.

You have never clearly defined "creationist". As a Catholic myself, I understand that Genesis is given much credence in regards to a theological discussion on the Creation of the universe, and Lemaitre was a Catholic priest. Catholics are presented with dogma, and that means there is little variance from one Catholic to the next on that dogma. Since you failed to define what it is you mean by "creationist" your point is moot.

So technically for you a creationist means a general sense that 'a creator was in some way involved'? I'm sorry, but as a former Catholic myself (for oh so many good reasons) I know that Genesis is given little credence to the discussion of the creationist of the universe in theological discourse.

And furthermore, being a Catholic priest doesn't mean he was necessarily a creationist. I've met Catholic priests who don't even claim that God is necessarily a real thing or that Jesus was a historical figure.

And there's no dogma position that I'm aware of on creation in the Catholic church, though I'd be

I've heard of Catholic priests having non-creationist beliefs before, especially the Jesuits.

I have heard plenty of things about Catholic Priests that just are not true. What you've "heard" is not proof of anything either. Is this your idea of a scientific method, or critical thinking? You've heard, have you? Tell me what you've heard about the tooth fairy, why don't you.

I've heard of people engaging in offensive behavior before, I've also heard that it's an attempt to cover up a lack of argument. You're saying that I'm lying, that's stupid.

Oh, and I'm just saying it's a possibility. You need to sort of...provide evidence of your claim. I have every right to doubt your claim and I also have every right to point out that this is all a red herring as you're not addressing the content of my post. You're deflecting from your lack of argument with sophistry.

Furthermore, you're saying that a creationist contributed something, but not that the idea of creationism did.

First of all, make up your mind. Either, in your opinion - since you have no regard for facts - Lemaitre is a creationist or not.

I'm not confused, I'm saying that even if he were a creationist, it doesn't mean that creationism contributed to the findings. "Even if", have you not heard that before? It's common English.

Secondly, I am saying both. I am saying Lemaitre was what would be fairly called a "Creationist", and that it took a "Creationist" to use the tools of science to change the paradigm of a steady state universe - which would be a universe without creation - to the current prevailing cosmological paradigm of the Big Bang.

Well, you can say a lot of things, but you've yet to prove it...and you also don't really have a leg to stand on with that claim.

Vesto Slipher would be a predecessor to Lemaitre in contributing to the idea of a non stead state universe, as would Carl Wilhelm Wirtz. Einstein's theories already admitted a possibility that steady state was possible. Lemaitre synthesized the ideas from existing information...

Oh, and Friedmann derived the idea a full 5 years earlier, though Lemaitre did come to the same equations independently. It's not like Lemaitre was the only guy proposing an expanding universe model, he just happened to be one of several who brought the same information together at around the same time.

How did creationism contribute to the idea of the big bang?

I just explained to you how. How long are you going to keep pretending otherwise?

You didn't explain how. You just said this:

I am saying Lemaitre was what would be fairly called a "Creationist", and that it took a "Creationist" to use the tools of science to change the paradigm of a steady state universe - which would be a universe without creation - to the current prevailing cosmological paradigm of the Big Bang.

Why? The evidence was there, an atheist came up with the same basic idea earlier.

More priest class mysticism from you? Prior to Lemaitre's contribution the belief was that the universe did not have a beginning,

Nope, Lemaitre was one of several. In fact, there's a name for the idea of a universe as described by several scientists, Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric. He wasn't the only one contributing. Others had the same idea at the same time. Remember, I told you I paid attention for that lesson.

Now, Friedmann was most likely an atheist, though I don't know about Robertson and Walker. Of course, you'd rather just hurl out some insults against me.

and now while there is certainly quibble room to mystify on what a beginning means in terms of a singularity and where that singularity existed, there is a belief in not just a beginning, many scientists are inclined to believe there may be an ending as well.

Well, the idea of the 'end' is relative as well. And again, you're just hurling out derogatory language.

But you know, I must just be equivocating.

But you know you are.

Except that I'm not, I'm right here. Lemaitre wasn't the only person to come up with the idea and the idea doesn't have any necessary creationist roots. The idea of a steady state universe existed not because of a-creationism, but because that was the model supported by what evidence they had at the time.

The irony of this remark is that you sound just like the Church in Galileo's time. It took the Catholic Church 500 years to vindicate Galileo, how long will it take you to look past your own personal biases and consider the truth?

Hey look, more insulting language. I'm just going to leave this post here. It shows that your claim is full of fecal matter.

Now I'm off to sleep, I have better things to do with my time than listen to someone who thinks a single Catholic priest was the beginning of the Big Bang theory.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

So technically for you a creationist means a general sense that 'a creator was in some way involved'? I'm sorry, but as a former Catholic myself (for oh so many good reasons) I know that Genesis is given little credence to the discussion of the creationist of the universe in theological discourse.

You "know", do you?

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

This same Catholic website continues with:

It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.

This site break the discussion of Genesis down to two interpretations; a Chronological Reading, and a Topical Reading, then addressed "Real History" where this is stated:

Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

www.catholic.com...

I do not know why you thought just simply declaring yourself a former Catholic would somehow lend credence to your bogus claims, and why you thought those bogus claims were not easily refuted, but then again, you have some strange ideas on what a logical argument is.

And furthermore, being a Catholic priest doesn't mean he was necessarily a creationist. I've met Catholic priests who don't even claim that God is necessarily a real thing or that Jesus was a historical figure.

If your claim of being a former Catholic is true it goes without saying that you've "met" Catholic Priests, and your ambiguity of 'meeting' priests who "don't even claim that God is necessarily a real thing or that Jesus was a historical figure" could easily mean that you've met Catholic priests who never had this discussion with you. It is not as if you clearly made the claim that you've "met" Catholic Priests who asserted that God is NOT necessarily a real thing or that Jesus was a historical figure, did you? This is what I am talking about with your equivocations. Your statement could be true, but it is demonstrably avoiding the truth.

What does the "historical Jesus" have to do with this thread? More mystical nonsense from you? Further, if you were genuinely a Catholic once, even a mediocre Catholic, then you would know that Catholics are far less concerned with the "historical Jesus" and more concerned with the living spirit of Jesus in their lives today. The "historical" Jesus is an obsession with non-believers, much more than believers, but again, Jesus is really off topic, isn't he?

And there's no dogma position that I'm aware of on creation in the Catholic church, though I'd be

It is becoming more and more doubtful that you really were a Catholic. Were you a Confirmed Catholic?

I've heard of people engaging in offensive behavior before, I've also heard that it's an attempt to cover up a lack of argument. You're saying that I'm lying, that's stupid.

Is it stupid? Here you are making an argument that my dismissal of your anecdotal claims is a.) offensive behavior, and b.) an attempt to cover up for a lack of an argument, while you defend you "argument" that Catholics do not believe in Genesis because of what you've "heard".

The lying is evident at this point.

Oh, and I'm just saying it's a possibility. You need to sort of...provide evidence of your claim. I have every right to doubt your claim and I also have every right to point out that this is all a red herring as you're not addressing the content of my post. You're deflecting from your lack of argument with sophistry.

No one is trampling on your rights in this thread, so your claims of red herrings is just you accusing me of your crimes.

I'm not confused, I'm saying that even if he were a creationist, it doesn't mean that creationism contributed to the findings. "Even if", have you not heard that before? It's common English.

If you think that Lemaitre was not a "Creationist" than your "even if" is a moot point. In today's dumbed down world, the word "moot" is not so common English. Do you need that word defined?

Well, you can say a lot of things, but you've yet to prove it...and you also don't really have a leg to stand on with that claim.

You are ignoring much evidence presented in order to keep screaming "prove it!" and this makes you look foolish.

Oh, and Friedmann derived the idea a full 5 years earlier, though Lemaitre did come to the same equations independently. It's not like Lemaitre was the only guy proposing an expanding universe model, he just happened to be one of several who brought the same information together at around the same time.

More equivocations. While Friedmann's findings were similar, he was virtually ignored by the scientific community but Lemaitre was not? Why is that do you think? Could it possibly be because Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest, and this fact generated enough controversy to garner attention to an idea being ignored as valid prior to this? No matter how you slice it, the "Creationism" angle remains deeply rooted in the Big Bang Theory, and your protestations play like a spoiled little child.

Further, the similarities between Friedmann and Lemaitre lies in the expanding universe solution. The difference between the two is that Friedmann's model was used for both the steady state universe model, and the Big Bang Theory, where Lemaitre's Primeval Atom Hypothesis necessarily rejects a steady state model.

Why? The evidence was there, an atheist came up with the same basic idea earlier.

The atheist camp?

Nope, Lemaitre was one of several. In fact, there's a name for the idea of a universe as described by several scientists, Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric. He wasn't the only one contributing. Others had the same idea at the same time. Remember, I told you I paid attention for that lesson.

First of all, I did not say that Lemaitre was the only one contributing to science, what I said was that prior to Lemaitre's contribution, the belief was in a steady state model, and Friedman's math applied to both the steady state model, and the Big Bang. You can post all the links you want, if you do not understand what the research you are posting the reference becomes mysticism.

Now, Friedmann was most likely an atheist, though I don't know about Robertson and Walker. Of course, you'd rather just hurl out some insults against me.

Friedmann came from Jewish ancestry. Whether he was "most likely" an atheist or not is conjecture, unlike my assertions that Lemaitre was most assuredly Catholic and because of this a "Creationist".

Friedmann's paternal grandfather was a Jewish cantonist. These were Jewish children conscripted into Russian military institutions, where they received military training and were placed under intense pressure to convert. Upon reaching the age of eighteen, they were then forced to serve in the Czarist army for another twenty-five years. The degree of Friedmann's Jewish ancestry is unclear, but he was probably no more than one-half Jewish. See Alexander A. Friedmann: the Man who Made the Universe Expand, by E. A. Tropp, V. Ya. Frenkel, and A. D. Chernin (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 1993, Chapter 1). See also www.jewishgen.org... which contains entries for both Friedmann and his father (both names spelled "Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Fridman").

www.jinfo.org...

Well, the idea of the 'end' is relative as well. And again, you're just hurling out derogatory language.

And again, you're just uttering nonsensical mystical incantations.

Except that I'm not, I'm right here. Lemaitre wasn't the only person to come up with the idea and the idea doesn't have any necessary creationist roots. The idea of a steady state universe existed not because of a-creationism, but because that was the model supported by what evidence they had at the time.

How many times will you deny equivocating and then turn around and equivocate? No one has argued that the steady state was a refutation of "Creationism", what I am saying is that it took a Catholic Priest to see the universe in different terms. As to this assertion that Lemaitre wasn't the only person to come up with the idea of a Primeval Atom Hypothesis, the best you have done is point to Friedmann who had similarities in math, but did not formulate the hypothesis that Lemaitre did.

Hey look, more insulting language. I'm just going to leave this post here. It shows that your claim is full of fecal matter.

And yet, the earth still moves.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Sheesh, what is this? The clown calling the playwright a whitefaced rednosed rainbow wig wearing absurdist?

No, it is Astyanax hinting gently that you may be addressing the membership of Above Top Secret through some inappropriate orifice.

What precisely is the argument I have made in the post you replied to?

Claiming that the Big Bang theory implies a creator, in order to convince us that the Big Bang theory is a contribution of creationism to science. Which is, of course, a load of frabjous poppycock.

Withal your ill-mannered pomposity, you cannot even find specific words to refute madness’s claim that theologians rarely incorporate the Big Bang theory into their theologizing. The best you can do are allusions. That’s pretty damn’ incompetent, if you ask me.

Do you need it explained to you that I replied to someone claiming science has not been convinced that the universe was created?

When I need something explained to me, I will go to someone intelligent, lucid and polite.

And literate enough not to misquote Samuel Beckett in his signature.

But thanks for asking.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Would you please answer my questions without dodging them? Last time of asking...

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Nothing has ever gone against entropy apart from consciousness. Provide me with one example please.

Why should I? I agree that nothing escapes entropy – not even consciousess

Don't say evolution because this would be the single singularity of entropy that has ever been theorized. All matter flows away from the source. High order and low entropy is where the universe started and all inanimate substance moves in that flow one direction. Consciousness reverses entropy...

Go and learn thermodynamics, for Heaven’s sake.

reply to post by Astyanax

No, it is Astyanax hinting gently that you may be addressing the membership of Above Top Secret through some inappropriate orifice.

And that was Jean Paul Zodeaux making a literary reference to the pot calling the kettle black that clearly went over your head swimming in your own flatulence. But what the hell, everybody farts.

Claiming that the Big Bang theory implies a creator, in order to convince us that the Big Bang theory is a contribution of creationism to science. Which is, of course, a load of frabjous poppycock.

That load of frabjous poppycock is precisely what Einstein and many other scientists thought at the time Lemaitre advocated his hypothesis, that he was advocating theology, and they thought this because of the striking similarities between his hypothesis and Genesis, which was my initial argument:

The sequence of events narrated by the author shows, however, that time and again Lemaître was accused (especially by Einstein) of using scientific reasonings "to defend a (religious) dogma of the Church". Was it really so? Was Lemaître the scientist being guided by Lemaître the Catholic priest? The author leaves these points for readers to decide for themselves. However, he remarks that "for modern scientific cosmologists, although they may feel uneasy about this primordial singularity, the objectivity of the thinking of its initiator is beyond doubt".

www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk...

But good for you in at least understanding the point I am making, this at least elevates you above the dimwitted mystic atheists in this thread. However, your next reply suggests some sort of psychosis, or at the very least some confusion:

When I need something explained to me, I will go to someone intelligent, lucid and polite. And literate enough not to misquote Samuel Beckett in his signature. But thanks for asking.

What makes you think someone intelligent, lucid, and polite would tolerate a buffoon like you? Which text of Beckett's do you presume I am misquoting, genius?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

That’s the way, Jean-Paul. Keep digging yourself in deeper.

Prove to us that Einstein disagreed with Lemaitre on religious as opposed to scientific grounds. You have not done so. The quote you mined was from a review of a book on Lemaitre by someone called R.N. Tiwari, which was simply re-quoted in the link you posted. Is that the best you can do?

Find us some actual words of Einstein to this effect if you wish to be taken seriously.

Which text of Beckett's do you presume I am misquoting, genius?

This one:

Your mind never active at any time is now even less than ever so. This is the type of assertion he does not question. You saw the light on such and such a day and your mind never active at any time is now even less than ever so. Yet a certain activity of mind however slight is a necessary adjunct of company.

Satisfied, genius?

And While We’re on the Subject

Readers of this post who are on Above Top Secret for the same sort of reason I am will appreciate this page I found while pottering about the internet looking for evidence that Jean-Paul Z. might be right.

Einstein Unmasked

My rib was well tickled.