["IMO, a clear demonstration that advancing scientific understanding of the universe, and belief in the existence of God as the Creator of the Universe, are not only compatible, BUT VERY LIKELY THE SAME THING."]
Yes, in fact if you make two changes to Hawking's cosmos it matches Genesis quite well:
1. Make it a bounded universe (and thus by equal distribution of gravitation, spherical).
2. Place earth at the center, as God most certainly would have.
These two changes to a universe that expanded from a singularity give us D. Russell Humphreys' well thought out model, which allows distant bodies to be truly distant while still having a six day creation as measured at the center, through the gravitational dilation of time of Einstein's General Relativity.
When you get your science right, it never disagrees with God's word.
37 comments
Sure, the earth can be the center of the universe, just like any arbitrary point can be technically referred to as the "center." The truth is of course that there is no real center of the universe.
I love how he brings up time dilation as if it's some magic fix all. What he doesn't realize is that time dilation doesn't say that time can just speed up like that. Especially not all at the same time everywhere at the exact same speed. Time dilation would not allow the light from distant objects to reach earth in less time because the whole fucking point of time dilation is that the speed of light is constant.
These people never get tired of their thought experments, do they. Real science, with real experments are just too hard, don't you know.
When you get your science right, it never disagrees with God's word That sounds like something straight out of 1984 .
But yes, if you change proven facts, they match your Biblical 'teachings'. Though this says more about the Bible than about science.
But by all means, re-write science. You're already routinely tampering with history and biographies, so why the Heck not.
You know, maybe I'm pushing the spotted balloon analogy for cosmic inflation a bit too far, but if we are actually on the outside surface (or whatever those krayzee higher-dimension geometry folks call it) of an expanding four dimensional manifold, doesn't that essentially mean that the "center" of the universe isn't actually in the universe at all? Or am I stretching the analogy too far?
AAAAHHHHH. AAAHHHHHHHHHHHH.
The universal geocentrism... it hurts my brain...
How the hell can someone look into the various Hubble deep fields and say "Yup. This is it. There's the great US, the most important part, and then all that other junk out there that orbits around us." How can someone look upon the vastness and the grandeur of the cosmos and see themselves as the only part that really matters? How. HOW?
Aside from that. If you make two fairly large changes to Hawking's cosmos, then it agrees with Genesis. How compelling.
@Jeremy PC
Hawking would be rolling in his wheelchair.
No change there then...
"How can someone look upon the vastness and the grandeur of the cosmos and see themselves as the only part that really matters?"
Some people are terrified by the idea that we are, on the galatic scale, so insigificant as to be worth nothing. Having a sense of perspective can be frightening.
I, for example, prefer to keep my perspective confined to a 10-foot by 10-foot square centered on myself. If I think about infinity too long I have a panic attack.
However, I'm not about to rewrite the entire cosmic map to make myself feel better. That way lies pure idiocy.
Yeah, and if frogs had wings and could fly they wouldn't bump their ass every time they hopped! That little phrase "IF YOU MAKE CHANGES" means a miss as good as a mile, or in your case 93000000 miles!
When you get your science right, it never disagrees with God's word
You can prove anything simply by inventing a reality that agrees with your beliefs. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has an even simpler explanation than Humphreys: the FSM alters our perception with his Noodly Appendage. Galaxies appear millions of light years away because the FSM makes them appear that way. Then he buries fossils to keep geologists entertained.
Anybody can invent any unprovable shit they want, which is the whole point of FSM. The only sad thing is that Humphreys, unlike Bobby Henderson, is actually serious.
Like my BiL's "argument" that went like this. "just imagine for a second that god really does exist, okay, now..."
OF COURSE if I prepresume your side of the argument it's going to appear to make sense, but you're asking me to turn off what I know, and replace it with fantasy for a hypothetical situation. THEN it's PERFECT!
Sure, if you change the very nature of the universe to fit your book, it will fit your book. My, but you're clever.
Yeah, but if you make two changes, I'm half tiger:
1. give me claws
2. give me a tail
Since neither of these are true, I am not a tiger. Do you see where I'm going with this, you moron?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.