The Greek word for the heavens was ouranos ('[symbol]ouranos[/symbol]), HOWEVER, the word kosmos ([symbol]kosmos[/symbol]) had a whole range of interrelated meanings. One of them was “order” and, by extension, “all of everything,” (since they perceived the universe as ordered, not chaotic, giving us our word cosmology), and then took on the specific connotation of the ordered bodies in the sky, from which successor languages such as Russian, used it to mean the heavens–as in “cosmonaut” that could be a direct borrowing from Greek to mean sky traveller.
At any rate, while it would have been more appropriate for lightwait to provide the citation for his definition, (or, better, a link), it is pretty clearly a definition taken from some reference (I’m guessing Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the New Testament), and is certainly a more appropriate definition than a single word etymology from dictionary.com, On the other hand. the original comment was off-base and not really relevant. And on still the other hand, it is getting to be a really big deal over a pretty innocuous comment that did nothing to support or undermine anyone’s actual thesis.
If you are trying to show that physics updates itself, a 1961 update of a 1947 book is hardly the way, especially since you quote Gamow as saying relatively few updates were necessary. True then, hardly true today.
This matters because of your claim that the Big Bang is an assumption. In 1961 it was still a more or less unverified hypothesis. The discovery by Penzias and Wilson that Gamow’s prediction was correct made it more than that. We can quibble about what is meant by truth, but at this point calling the Big Bang just a theory is as silly as calling evolution just a theory. Your posts would be a lot more credible if they included evidence you’ve read something about cosmology written in the past 20 years.
I never though you were a crackpot, just a person seeking God, and apparently given the spiritual gift of evangelism and possibly wisdom to interperate scriptures, I was wondering about the gift of prophecy also or in place of the gift of wisdom.
So, you say (that is, state the assumption) as a truth that to accept assumption as truth is that which misleads our societies, eh? Obviously, the first assumption to dismiss would be this statement itself. Seeing as it itself is specifically the sort of assumption that it itself refers to.
A more sensible mindset is to refrain from accepting statments for which there is poor or unconvincing justification. Unfortunately this mindset (being a sensible one) pops the fragile bubble of ‘credibility equality’ that you are attempting to pretend exists between religion and science.
To express to the masses that the “big bang” is a truth is a falsehood only if the big bang is in fact not true. Which there is zippo reason for believing. Your assertion that it is false is just another “assertion of truth” that should be dismissed summarily. Just like all other lame attempts to equate the uncertainty of accepting science with the uncertaintly of accepting some religion or another.
You attitude is that you are a fountain of truth and that every thing that crosses your lips must be True, with a capital T, because you said it, and reality be damned if reality doesn’t agree with you. For this to be ‘a correct posture’ a deciever God would have to be in play, of which the only one I know of is the FSM. Are you prostelyting for the FSM?
I do accept and agree that you’re not here to practice humility. That is very clear.
If you continue to post insults, “they” will not have to get rid of you: you will be gone.
(I am also a bit curious why you sign off insulting posts with the tag “blessings.” That seems a tad counterproductive–to say nothing of hypocritical.)
You used the first edition of his book as a cite for the idea that if you look far enough with a big enough telescope all you will see is evenly spread light and used his definition from back then as your definition of “optical horizon” rather than the current, rather more terrestrial meaning of it. It seems to me that if you are citing a source you must believe that source to be correct. Otherwise, why would you cite it?
It seems to be a habit of a certain type of Christian. They mix in platitudes like “Blessings” or “God hates the sin and not the sinner” in order to appear or feel compassionate. Generally while insulting people or threatening them with eternal torture.