The SUN (lets take a look see)

[Enoch2021]

So, you keep decrying ad hoc...how do we increase our kowledge if we don't add to and adjust our theories?  What should we do...stand by a stove and extrapolate the knowledge we learn there to something as complex as the sun?  I think the parties just beginning - we have so much to learn.  I think I'll move away from the stove and learn it.

 

 

============================================================================

 

Adjusting theories is a "Increasing knowledge" exercise for you as your "Evolution Mantra" has attested to. They are Ad Hoc Hypothesis by definition Plain and Simple.

 

And Again....

 

Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDOscientific objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

 

Get New Theories...How about that?

 

 

You've already embarrassed yourself enough with the 2LOT fiasco Sir...I'd probably leave the "Wood Stove" thing go, but to each his own.

[Sheniy]

I am limited in my quote boxes, so I had to combine some.
 

 

I believe our disagreement comes from our own personal, fallible interpretations of the written text. If you can show me proof beyond doubt that I am wrong, I am more than willing to change my view. I just haven't seen that proof yet.

 
What Specifically?
 

I don't think that everything in the evolutionary theory ultimately rejects God.

 
I do.  But again, you have to provide Specific Examples of some of the "Everything" you're referring too.

 

Answer to first question: Um...anything. Provide any real actual proof (not mere evidence or conspiracy theory or speculation) that I am wrong and I will change my view. It still might not be your view. I might just alter my view to accommodate your proof...if you have any.
Second answer: I did provide a specific example. The big Bang. I reject the "there is no God and it just happened on its own" part, but yeah.


 

 

The base component of the big bang theory is that the universe has a beginning and that it came from practically nothing, which I believe is very much in line with the bible.

 
Yes. Conceptually they're more or less the same.  The "devil" so to speak, is in the details. 

 

Note that in my very speculative (I do not deny it) example, the sun is made after the vegetation, on the "fourth day", along with the moon and the rest of the planets.

 
This lines up with The WORD but it doesn't line up with the Big Bang

 

See...I already said I reject the evolutionary take on the big bang. I reject the parts that require that God doesn't exist. The rest (universe has a beginning and it exploded into existence), I consider as possible and in line with the bible, as I have shown.
I don't see where the problem is.


 

 

if not a rapid expansion from nothing, then how did the universe happen? I'm not asking who: we both know it's God. I'm asking how He did it. Specifically. Where did the stars and galaxies and planets and nebulae come from?

 
 
The Earth First.  Don't know "HOW" other than HE Spoke it.  As for where it "Matter" came from....pure conjecture from me:  From Nothing

 

 

The plain Word of God seems to indicate that the heavens were created first, or at least at the same time (Gen 1:1). *shrug* That's what it seems like to me.

As for the rest, I agree. He spoke and it came from nothing. I just don't think it goes against the bible to see that creative force as mega-explosive.

 

 

I did read your other thread on nebula something or other (I'm not a scientist, so much of it went over my head), but I don't see how it contradicts any of what I wrote here. Can you give me a specific example? Preferably in layman's terms?

 
Please post the Specific Issue and I'll try and explain it.

 

I don't know. You brought it up as contradictory. Shouldn't you provide the specifics? lol


 

 

Creativity requires imagination.  There is nothing wrong with using this God-given ability.

 
No there isn't.  But it depends on where it is being applied.  It should not be applied to Imagining other "scenarios" that are in direct contradiction to The WORD.
 

I wasn't there, so I can't know the details for sure.

 
IMHO, there is enough there in Genesis to understand the basic framework and to rule out "Concocted" scenarios.

What I won't do is tell you that you must agree with my speculations.  That wouldn't be fair to you.

 
Agreement with me has nothing to do with it IMHO, Are you IN-Line with The WORD is the question..... that needs to be asked of One-Self.  If I fall out Of-Line with The WORD, I would expect you to correct me quickly.

 

1. You already stated my post was in line with the word (see above). If it isn't in line with the Word, please show me where, in my post specifically. And please don't just attack other general evolutionary theories, as I already said I reject most parts of them.

2. If the specifics aren't exactly included in the bible and I'm doing a bit of speculating (which I've admitted to), where is the problem? As long as I'm not forcing my own speculation down your throat and demanding it be accepted as THE ONLY TRUTH, which I'm not, and as long as it doesn't change any already established vital christian doctrines, which it doesn't...where's the issue?

[LookingForAnswers]

 

Missing Neutrinos from Hugh Ross.

 

http://www.reasons.org/articles/missing-solar-neutrinos-found

 

 

And, I forgot....

 

Dr. Scott has a rebuttal to these so called "found" "Flavored" Neutrinos.

 

If you wish I will post....but I think there are bigger fish to fry.

 

 

No thanks, not really necessary.  I am sure there is a rebuttal.  But that is not really the point.  The point is there is a viable, well laid out explanation for the "missing" neutrinos.  While this does not prove your theory wrong, it removes at least one piece of what you consider to be a slam dunk. 

 

Let me use this example of what I mean.  Atheist like to use the two stories of the death of Judas as a slam dunk that there are errors in the bible.  But since there is a viable, well laid out explanation for the two stories and how they mesh their slam dunk is no more.  Now, they reject the explanation just as you reject the one by Dr Ross, but that is not really relevant.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

A clarification question for you Enoch....are you saying the chrimosphere is hotter than the core of the sun?

 

 

No, I'm saying (see Temp Profile below) that the Chromosphere is Hotter than the Photosphere (surface) and the Corona is Hotter by Logarithmic Magnitudes than either of them.

 

I don't think anyone can get or ever will get to the "Core" for a Temp; In this case it's irrelevant anyway.....

 

 

 

 

Thank you, I will address this soon.  Very busy day so have not had time to dig too much yet.

[Enoch2021]

I read the article you linked to.  Basically the gist is "convective velocities are 20–100 times weaker than current theoretical estimates".  What's your point?  What's the point of this thread?  Are you saying that since science is attempting to update and improve its theories that the devil made them put out false information originally?  Are you just attempting to impugn the scientific process in general?

 

 

=============================================================

 

 

Basically the gist is "convective velocities are 20–100 times weaker than current theoretical estimates"

 

Are you telling me you read that paper in 5 minutes and this is what you Got?  Would you like me to post that tech paper in full and we'll go over it? LOL

 

 

What's your point?

 

See "Back To Convection"    From the previous post.  That's my point

 

 

What's the point of this thread?

 

   Dandelions, what else?

 

 

Are you saying that since science is attempting to update and improve its theories that the devil made them put out false information originally?

 

They're mostly Clumsy Ad HOC's and quite obvious. 

 

Well this is a peripheral issue to the Big Bang but still linked to the paradigm.  I was just pointing out that Absolute Speculation and Just So Stories are taken as Fact when they crumble under the Slightest Scrutiny.

 

Jerry, I'm just warming up. 

 

I haven't released the "Kracken" yet

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

===========================================================================

 

While this does not prove your theory wrong, it removes at least one piece of what you consider to be a slam dunk.

 

It doesn't remove anything actually....he has a quite the "Eye Opening" rebuttal.

 

 

 

Now, they reject the explanation just as you reject the one by Dr Ross, but that is not really relevant.

 

I didn't reject it...and your analogy is Non-Sequitur.

 

And I provided reasons and asked you questions concerning .......Types/Sources and How did they conclude Source, that I felt was legitimate and extremely relevant.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

A clarification question for you Enoch....are you saying the chrimosphere is hotter than the core of the sun?

 

 

No, I'm saying (see Temp Profile below) that the Chromosphere is Hotter than the Photosphere (surface) and the Corona is Hotter by Logarithmic Magnitudes than either of them.

 

I don't think anyone can get or ever will get to the "Core" for a Temp; In this case it's irrelevant anyway.....

 

 

 

 

Thank you, I will address this soon.  Very busy day so have not had time to dig too much yet.

 

 

 

No Problem, Take your time

[LookingForAnswers]

It doesn't remove anything actually....he has a quite the "Eye Opening" rebuttal.

 

 

I am sure it is.  In the end you have two (or more) competing theories and one must choose which they feel is the best supported. 

 

And I provided reasons and asked you questions concerning .......Types/Sources and How did they conclude Source, that I felt was legitimate and extremely relevant.

 

The link I gave has references at the bottom of the page which answer some of your questions. I am not equipped to answer them as that is not my area of expertise so I must rely on others that I have come to trust.   I am sure most of your questions have probably been answered on the reason.org site, more than once

[LookingForAnswers]

 

Well this is a peripheral issue to the Big Bang but still linked to the paradigm.  I was just pointing out that Absolute Speculation and Just So Stories are taken as Fact when they crumble under the Slightest Scrutiny.

 

Jerry, I'm just warming up. 

 

I haven't released the "Kracken" yet

 

 

I hope this comes out right, but there is nothing being crumbled, not even close.  You are offering an alternative theory that may well be correct, but nothing you have posted has not even done much denting let alone crumbling.   It seems that these discussion would flow better without such hyperbole, which just puts people on the defensive.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

============================================================================

 

 

Um...anything. Provide any real actual proof (not mere evidence or conspiracy theory or speculation) that I am wrong and I will change my view.

 

What Like Dandelions?  We've talked about "Specifics" before if I recall, No? 

 

Bring Specifics Sheniy.

 

 

Second answer: I did provide a specific example. The big Bang. I reject the "there is no God and it just happened on its own" part, but yeah.

 

The Big Bang......Oh that's coming.  Here, this should tide you over until I release the "Kracken".....

 

‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published .....New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). **Currently over 300 have signed up.

Some Highlights.....

‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’

‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’

‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.'

‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’

 

aka......"Just So" Stories or "Recovery Hypothesis"

 

Big Bangs Afterglow fails Intergalactic Shadow Test.  Dr. Richard Lieu.... ‘Either it (the microwave background) isn’t coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or … there is something else going on.'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm

 

 

I just don't think it goes against the bible to see that creative force as mega-explosive.

 

 

I do.  Because it's not there

 

 

I don't know. You brought it up as contradictory. Shouldn't you provide the specifics? lol

 

OF WHAT??   Were getting into "ridiculous" Sheniy

 

 

You already stated my post was in line with the word (see above). If it isn't in line with the Word,

 

As I said, this is a question you ask yourself.  If I see any, you'll most likely hear from me 

 

 

and as long as it doesn't change any already established vital christian doctrines, which it doesn't...where's the issue?

 

I've pointed out the discrepancies with the Big Bang Official Theory and The WORD of GOD quite specifically.  The balls in your court whether to accept or reject.  I'm not gonna twist your arm.