When did this guy
become Fred Hoyle reincarnated?
WTF?
And I used to like this guy.
I used to think we could have a beer together or something
But ever since he has started going around saying:
"We don't know
if the universe
had a beginning or not"
and
"or whether its eternal or not."
Yeah no thanks on a brew w this Limey.
It honestly seems like this guy is trying to revive
parts of the
of the universe
which was scientifically
discredited in the early 60's.
But we are sixty years on now
and nobody remembers
the steady state model much any more.
So why wouldn't he try and revive parts of it?
"In cosmology, the steady-state model or steady state theory is an alternative to the Big Bang theory. In the steady-state model, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle, a principle that says that the observable universe is always the same at any time and any place.
From the 1940s to the 1960s, the astrophysical community was divided between supporters of the Big Bang theory and supporters of the steady-state theory. The steady-state model is now rejected by most cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers.
(Just not by a nice looking,
funny, affable, telegenic
British Particle Physicist
or at least one of them anyway.
BTW?
He is not a cosmologists,
nor is he an astrophysicists,
nor is he an astronomer.
He is a particle physicist.
I guess he didn't get the memo
about the universe having a beginning
and is not therefore eternal.
Who knows?)
"The observational evidence
points to a hot Big Bang cosmology
with a finite age of the universe,
which the steady-state model does not predict."
(Finite age = it had a beginning.
No matter what a false prophet says.
He worked some at CERN.
Lets see what their webpage says:
"All matter in the universe was formed
in one explosive event
13.7 billion years ago – the Big Bang"
(Yo dude?
Sure sounds like a beginning to me.
What's your beef with it?
Becomes my question.
(trust me I already know what it is
Don't like theistic implications much?
Sure seems like it.
Why else are you pushing
a false agenda
("We don't even know
if the universe had a beginning or not."
that's been discredited?)
Matthew 7:15
True and False Prophets
“Watch out for false prophets.
They come to you in sheep’s clothing,
but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."
"nice looking,
funny, affable, telegenic"
Makes more sense to you now?
will abound in the end times.
Not just in the church
but in government,
economics, media
science, politics,
social commentators,
just pretty much everywhere basically.
Satan's goal
is to confuse you
about what the truth is.
They abound in the end times
because Satan knows his time is getting late.
From the false prophet link above:
"...But I believe
some of the most dangerous false prophets
will be popular social commentators
and media personalities
who are dignified, good-looking, cool, caring, intelligent, and well-spoken.
They will use dynamic and creative social media platforms to communicate to multitudes. They will promote a false narrative regarding what is happening—a deceptive narrative that will oppose the biblical narrative of what is unfolding across the nations."
"The social commentators will be very persuasive in their call for new values and perspectives on social, sexual, and financial issues—issues currently escalating quickly in the social conversation of many nations and identified as key topics in the cultural wars. They will come across as logical and loving to many who listen to them."
("The social commentators
will be very persuasive
in their call for new...perspectives"
Its not even new.
He is simply rehashing old shit
that has been discredited a long time ago
and most never even heard of it anyway.
"the most dangerous false prophets
will be popular social commentators
and media personalities
who are dignified,
good-looking,
cool,
(He has or had a rock band)
caring, intelligent, and well-spoken.
They will promote a false narrative...
a deceptive narrative.
They will come across as logical and loving
to many who listen to them."
You couldn't draw it up any more perfect
The guy foots the bill to a "T".
Period.)
Now lets look at a panel discussion he participated in and see what he had to say. And to be fair the conversation was obviously edited but none of that changes what was said:
"So I don't believe in a God, however I don't like
the antagonism that is produced by this question."
(The guy is a public figure
actively prompting a false narrative that
"most cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers"
simply do not agree with,
but then question of whether or not he believes
there is a God is somehow
ANTAGOGNISTIC?"
WTF?
Its not.
Its a legitimate question not just for him
but for any in his position and here is why.
It is their viewpoint that shapes their world view.
It is his personal built in
(and yes I have mine too)
(Observer bias is one of the types of detection bias and is defined as any kind of systematic divergence from accurate facts during observation and the recording of data and information in studies. The definition can be further expanded upon to include the systematic difference between what is observed due to variation in observers, and what the true value is.
Observer bias is the tendency of observers to not see what is there, but instead to see what they expect or want to see. This is a common occurrence in the everyday lives of many and is a significant problem that is sometimes encountered in scientific research and studies. Observation is critical to scientific research and activity, and as such, observer bias may be as well. When such biases exist, scientific studies can result in an over- or underestimation of what is true and accurate, which compromises the validity of the findings and results of the study, even if all other designs and procedures in the study were appropriate.)
Being a public figure and pushing a narrative that "most cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers", do not agree with? The public has a right to know what lenses you are observing the universe through, antagonistic question (I really don't think it is) or not.
"What you can say if you are a cosmologist what you should say is we know the universe was hot and dense 13.8 billion years ago. We don't know how it got hot and dense..."
(Im all good with all of that
now comes the problem
Warning!
Agenda pushing alert ahead!)
"We don't even know
if the universe had
a beginning in time,
don't know."
(These types try and be so clever.
It took me about four or five times to watch the video (sorry for being unable to upload it) but the whole key to what he says there is:
"We don't know
if the universe had
a beginning in time"
No.
It absolutely did not
"have a beginning in time"
It's beginning
CREATED TIME!
So how could its beginning
be created
"in time"
if time
hadn't been created yet?"
Reminds me of this:
“The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop.
You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in.
(God
The uncaused cause.
The first source of first sources.
The uncreated creator)
"For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.”
― Stephen W. Hawking
Poor Mr. Hawking
"the universe created itself"
We see this where else in nature?
Things creating themselves?
Nowhere.
This is the only place
(universe creation)
they want you to believe that garbage.
God is eternal.
He exist outside of time.
No beginning.
No ending.
eternal (i-tür'nal) adj. 1 Having neither beginning nor end of existence; infinite in duration. 2 Having no Having end; everlasting. 3 Continued without interruption; perpetual. 4 Independent of time or its conditions; timeless; un- changeable; immutable. 5 Of or pertaining to eternity. & Appearing interminable; incessant: Vaughn and his eter- nal jokes. -the Eternal
That is from my 49 year old Doubleday Dictionary.
I went to four different online dictionaries and not a one said anything about:
"Independent of time or its conditions;
timeless; un- changeable; immutable."
Think that's an accident?
I sure don't.
That's why I keep my books.
(and sometimes other peoples
till they ask for them back lol)
Since the uncreated creator
exist outside of time?
He has no need for it Me Hawking.
Eternal isn't dependent upon time for anything.
Do you honestly think Stephen Hawking didn't know that?
Knowingly leaving out specific parts of things
is deliberately pushing a false agenda.
Eternal created time...
and space and energy and matter
all in a continuum
and all in a flash
but thats another story lol.
And? It sure seems like Mr. Hawking thought there was a beginning to the universe:
"You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang"
(Implies a beginning)
"Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang..."
(So professor Cox?
How could the big bang
have had a beginning
"in time"
if time itself
didn't exist yet?
So yes we do know:
The universe had a beginning
and that beginning?
Created time.
(and the other things mentioned above :-).
Okay back to what Professor False Prophet was talking about during the panel discussion:
Discussion leader:
"So science doesn't rule out the existence of a creator?"
Professor false prophet:
"NO but..."
(Don't ya just hate when people do that?
I mean so defensive and so quick?
"NO but..."
Shows agenda pushing if you ask me.)
"...In the sense that I just said that I think we're overstepping the mark I do not believe there is any evidence for a creator."
(See observational bias above
He is seeing what we wants
and expects to, not what is.
Ill give ya three pieces of evidence there
Mr. Rockstar Particle Physicist:
One:
You are walking around in the creators creation.
Two:
"Information when you trace it back
is always the result of a mind,
it is never the result
of a material process."
(Love his book The return of the God Hypothesis
thanks for getting it for me honey :-).
"Genetic code refers to the instructions contained in a gene that tell a cell how to make a specific protein. Each gene’s code uses the four nucleotide bases of DNA: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) — in various ways to spell out three-letter “codons” that specify which amino acid is needed at each position within a protein."
And that was from:
So professor rockstar?
What "mind" authored
the instruction manual?
Or do instruction manuals
just create themselves?
Like Mr Hawking thinks the universe did?
We see this in nature where exactly?
One more tidbit about DNA and then Ill move on to example number 2
"DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."
Bill Gates
Software creates itself too?
Sure seems like yall sure got a lot of self creation going on.
Example number 2
You can tell what's going on with certain of these types by what they avoid talking about, not what they do talk about.
Discernment.
Knowing what's going on
by wat is being deliberately omitted.
Initial conditions
or more specifically
the initial conditions of
that govern its existence.
There's absolutely
no wiggle room here.
They had to be in existence
before
the universe they were to govern
came into being.
If they weren't?
Then there is no universe.
Just chaos.
So how did that happen?
Let me guess,
They self created too.
(Thats sarcasm BTW)
Those three examples right there give it away that there is a creator and to think that Mr. Rockstar Oasis look alike doesn't know so?
Well...
Seems a lil farfetched don't ya think?
Knowing and not telling
is pushing a deceptive agenda.
Remember:
"Observer bias is the tendency of observers to not see what is there, but instead to see what they expect or want to see."
Makes more sense now?
Remember his comment
"overstepping the mark" as well
it will come up again later
probably tomorrow.)
And that's the CERN, NASA and
National Human Genome
Research Institute websites for reference materials
just in case anybody is keeping track at home :-).
Discussion leader:
"There certainly isn't no evidence."
Professor False Prophet:
"That the correct thing to say is we don't even know if the universe had a beginning."
("most cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers"
Disagree with that,
and your average lay person wouldn't know that
and professor false prophet knows this
and knowingly exploits that lack of knowledge,
and again, it goes right to agenda pushing.)
"I don't even know whether it was eternal
nobody does."
(Eternal doesn't have a beginning or ending
The universe had a beginning.
(Inflation or Big Bang take your pick it doesn't really matter
it had a start and this guy apparently hates that
He is pushing what he wants you to believe
cause its what a lot of people wanna hear
He is simply preaching falsehood
and he knows so.
And? I got a question for this brainiac,
and it goes like this:
If the universe is eternal?
Why did it have a start according to most
"cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers"
And why are the elementary particles in it
(Its building blocks of nature so to speak)
designed
to decay?
"at the deepest levels,
all weak interactions ultimately
are between elementary particles."
Again
he knows you don't know this
(Most dont anyway)
and is exploiting your ignorance
to push a false agenda.
"There is a beautiful quote that says that...what is the meaning of it all and he said in the end we have to admit that we don't know but in admitting that we don't know we may have found the open channel, that's the key to science, we don't know."
The Meaning of it All - — Richard Feynman
Disagree.
The meaning of it all is to love and be loved.
And that comes solely from your creator.
1 John 4:19
We love because he first loved us.
Our creator created all of this for us to enjoy with him.
Im Curious where he thinks love came from.
Transcends time and space
so its not a man made construct.
Probably thinks it self created as well.
And hey professor False prophet?
Feynman also said:
“The first principle
is that you must not fool yourself
and you are the easiest person to fool.”
You may fool yourself
and a lot of others
all you want to
but you're not gonna fool me
or the people
in the community of faith
I belong to.
We know better.
Part 2 tomorrow.
And hey dude?
"I don't even know whether it was eternal nobody does."
"There is a beautiful quote that says that...what is the meaning of it all
and he said in the end
we have to admit that we don't know
but in admitting that we don't know we may have found the open channel, that's the key to science, we don't know."
Think about what is really being said here for a second and its not just him there's plenty more with the same viewpoint.(Dawkins Krauss etc)
"We dont know.
But no God."
Burden of proof logical fallacy
"we must assign value to any claim based on
the available evidence, "To dismiss something
on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt
is also fallacious reasoning."
Saying we don't know, but it cant be God is faulty thinking/logic.
If you admit you don't know?
Then by what means are you able to dismiss just one option out of many unless its just personal preference?
(Goes to observational bias above)
And it just happens to be the one option he obviously don't like? Science is supposed to be objective, non partial to what people wish it to be, the above example is anything but that. Not only is it faulty logic, its not scientific to dismiss things without cause, nor is it being intellectual honest with one self.
There's plenty of evidence for theism. The three I like to use the most are matter/antimatter asymmetry, information in the DNA molecule, and the reacceleration of the universe expansion. In this particular piece I went to initial conditions of the laws of nature having to have been designed before the matter they were to govern came into existence.
So?
If the logic is faulty?
How good can the science behind it be?
Becomes my question.
(Personal belief is their logic is faulty for a reason.
They dont want you to believe
just how well it was designed for life to be in it.)
And?
Professor Rockstar
gets to go around knowingly pushing a false narrative?
with his own built in observational bias and
only eliminates one possibility
out of many?
And he says its antagonistic?
To even ask him the question if he believes there's a God?
That sir is what my community finds
Anatagonistic.
Particularly in light
of all the evidence listed above.
More about Mr. Rockstar particle physicist:
"Despite lacking a belief in deities, Cox has rejected the label "atheist" and has instead preferred to describe himself as having "no personal faith".
Everybody has faith.
His personal faith is this:
"We don't know,
but no God"
and its far more illogical
than a theist position.
Here is the problem in a nut shell:
“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
(September 7, 1925 – February 8, 2008)
was an American astronomer and planetary physicist. He was a NASA scientist, populist author and futurist.
Simply put?
Nothing has changed in the 16 years
since he has passed
to make things any different today
than they were when he said that.
Except that people like Professor False Prophet want to wiggle themselves out of the corner they find themselves trapped in. Im just not gonna let em.
Here is a real simple explanation of what Jastrow was saying above and what professor Cox and his ilk don't like and are trying to wiggle their way out of.
By Gerald Schroeder.
Love this guy.
Its pretty straightforward
and very much worth your five minutes
to watch.
And besides Professor Cox?
"We as Christians
should not be intimidated
by what scientist say."
Why should we?
When the science is on our side?
And they are actively pushing a knowingly false narrative?
Its all because of one reason folks.
Getting late in the game so to speak.
Decision time yo.
You gotta roll with it
You gotta take your time
You gotta say what you say
Don't let anybody get in your way
.jpg)
(Almost sometimes yup)
Don't ever stand aside
Don't ever be denied
You wanna be who you'd be
If you're coming with me
(No choice.
Just in case you couldn't tell?
Free will done
checked out a long time ago)
I think I've got a feeling I've lost inside
I think I'm gonna take me away and hide
I'm thinking of things that I just can't abide
I know the roads down which your life will drive
(which your life will drive)
I find the key that lets you slip inside
(lets you slip inside)
Kiss the girl, she's not behind the door (not behind the door)
But you know, I think I recognize your face
But I've never seen you before
You gotta roll with it
You gotta take your time
You gotta say what you say
Don't let anybody get in your way
(Oh dont worry :-)
'Cause it's all too much for me to take
I know the roads down which your life will drive
(which your life will drive)
I find the key that lets you slip inside
(lets you slip inside)
Kiss the girl, she's not behind the door (not behind the door)
But you know, I think I recognize your face
But I've never seen you before
You gotta roll with it
You gotta take your time
You gotta say what you say
Don't let anybody get in your way
'Cause it's all too much for me to take
Don't ever stand aside
Don't ever be denied
You wanna be who you'd be
If you're coming with me
Seein why these guys don't wanna
take on the hick from the sticks?
They'd be embarrassed publicly
by the power in and using me
and they know it.
I got two more of these I'm working on.
Youre gonna see just how much
Professor Cox plays both sides against themselves
and speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
PS
The thing that struck me the most in doing this piece?
Was just how exacting this description is:
.jpg)
"...some of the most dangerous false prophets
will be popular social commentators
and media personalities
who are dignified, good-looking, cool, caring,
intelligent, and well-spoken.
They will use dynamic and creative social media platforms to communicate to multitudes. They will promote a false narrative regarding what is happening—a deceptive narrative that will oppose the biblical narrative of what is unfolding across the nations."
"The social commentators will be very persuasive in their call for new values and perspectives on social, sexual, and financial issues—issues currently escalating quickly in the social conversation of many nations and identified as key topics in the cultural wars. They will come across as logical and loving to many who listen to them."
"Christians don't fight for victory
We fight from victory"
Brother Joe
(Battle is already won)
RNM
“I'n'I nah come to fight flesh and blood,
But spiritual wickedness in 'igh and low places.
So while they fight you down,
Stand firm and give Jah thanks and praises."
Gladly destroying principalities and strongholds in the name of the conquering Lion of the tribe Of Judah, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Lord God Almighty in the flesh Jesus Christ.
He aint a lamb this time.
Your soul ready?
Two more piece like this comin...
No comments:
Post a Comment