The Dome of Heaven in a Water-Filled Universe

[StuartJ]

E v C debates are almost always a critique of the limitations of science.

A ploy of the faith community is to steer them away from a focus on Genesis mythology.

Let's see if we can keep the microscope firmly on "scripture":

6And God saith, ‘Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.’ 7And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so. 8And God calleth to the expanse ‘Heavens;’ and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day second. Genesis 1 YLT

Quite clearly, biblical creation mythology has this version of Creator God open a dome of air in a water-filled universe.

Can the faith community leave science alone and back up their "scripture" with anything other than belief ...?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 15 by EarthScienceguy]

8. The big bang theory violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Are you back to that one again? You seem obsessed with the 2nd law but have shown repeatedly that you don't understand what it is. I won't even ask for your reasoning for making that statement.

There you go bringing your faith into our discussion again.

Science is not based on faith (for the umpteenth time). Faith is the basis for religion. Religion and science are not the same thing. You can Google the two words and find the proper definitions very easily. At least educate yourself on this simple point.

So which one do you want to start with.

None. I have no interest in debating the Big Bang as I'm not a physicist. But as pointed out by brunumb if some things are yet to be explained by science that just means they are open research questions. There are many open questions in science. Religion has no open questions because everything is made up by man who is free to write the stories in any way he/she wants. If enough gullible people can then be convinced that the stories are true, you have a religion. There are many examples of this process.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 20 by DrNoGods]

Humphrey just invents a "god did it" event to solve that problem.

Every time a believer falls back on God-magic, I wonder why it is always so complicated. If you can do anything, why all the convoluted procedures to achieve an outcome that magic can achieve with just a snap of the divine fingers? Trying to squeeze both science and religion into an explanation of ancient mythology is akin to trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 20 by DrNoGods]

Seriously ... this is his great explanation of planetary magnetic fields.

Does Humphrey offer an explanation for why Earth's magnetic field has flipped its polarity many times over the millennia? God-magic again?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 23 by brunumb]

Does Humphrey offer an explanation for why Earth's magnetic field has flipped its polarity many times over the millennia? God-magic again?

I haven't wasted enough time reading this guy's ramblings to see if he's attempted to tackle that one, but if he has I'd expect it to be some similarly ridiculous line of reasoning.

And I agree with you on not understanding why these guys bother trying to bash science and/or warp it to be consistent with their religious beliefs. Why not just admit that they believe their particular god being can do virtually anything and leave that as the simple explanation for everything? No need to bring science into the discussion at all.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 24 by DrNoGods]

Why not just admit that they believe their particular god being can do virtually anything and leave that as the simple explanation for everything? No need to bring science into the discussion at all.

I think it is recognition of the fact that science does actually answer our questions.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 19 by brunumb]

They are just unanswered questions. Can you explain how any of those questions actually refute the BB theory?

Do you even know science works? If a theory cannot explain observations then it is an untenable position.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 26 by EarthScienceguy]

So Humphey's theory that all planets start out as balls of water would need to explain all observations we make about planets and their compositions correct? I mean it would have to explain not just the magnetic fields but it would also explain, scientifically, why the planets look the way they do now, or it would be untenable, correct?

Ok here's an easy one

why are the planets not made of water

let me know k thx

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 26 by EarthScienceguy]

Do you even know science works?

Strange question to ask someone, from a person who gets their information from creationist websites rather than from science.

If a theory cannot explain observations then it is an untenable position.

How do you think the Big Bang hypothesis came about? It was from observations such as the presently expanding universe, the presence of the (predicted) cosmic microwave background radiation, and general consistency with modern physics. There is some debate on whether it should be called a theory yet (and we're not talking about the television show ... or maybe you are confused on this?). But it does come from observations and theoretical analysis, unlike the many creation myths of religion which are as far from science is you can possibly get. They explain nothing and are completely inconsistent with observation, so by your definition they are untenable, right?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 28 by DrNoGods]

I am going to have to start a new sting on this topic because I am getting to many similar comments which I can address at the start and then we can go from there.