[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

What other words are there?

Words created by God, of course. Haven't you heard of the Tower of Babel?

Faith hinges on an unshakable belief devoid of empirical evidence.

That is true. But that's what science is, too. When I was young, geologists had faith that the continents were fixed on the surface of the Earth. Now they say the continents move around on plates. So, what exactly was the new empirical evidence available between 1960 and 1980 that caused the geologists to change their minds? The answer is there wasn't any. Volcanoes and earthquakes aren't exactly new. So much for science being empiricism rather than faith.

In another 25 years, they'll probably going to say that the continents float around on helium balloons.

BTW, if science is really based on empiricism, why are you science types so set against the teaching of creationism? What in Heaven's name is wrong with presenting all hypotheses, and all of the evidence, and letting children make up their own minds? Isn't that what your precious empiricism is all about?

[Mister Brasil]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

I wouldn't say the bible is untrue if I had not even read it.

The contrapositive of my original statement [...] would read:
"If I had read the bible, I would say it is untrue."

The contrapositive of your original statement is, "If I said the bible was true, then I would have read it."

Ad hominem, irrelevant, and pointless. Stay on topic if you wish to discuss anything I have posted, or the OP has, do so.

You must be fond of studying logical fallacies. Indulge me for a second, if you will:

Have you traveled to the Leaning Tower and dropped your balls over the edge? No? Then how do you know that gravity exerts an effect proportional to mass?

I suspect that you read it in a book somewhere. But wouldn't that be an appeal to authority?!?

I bet that you read some things that you believe, and some that you do not. May I ask how you distinguish between the two?

I'd like to share one method that I use. If an author claims to fully know about something that I also know a bit about, and gets it wrong, then it sets off an alarm in my head. I double-check, of course, so as not make a fool out of myself. Then I write the errant author off.

This thread is now about much of a fool you are. Remember, ad hominem isn't fallacious if your argument is genuinely to the man.

[Mister Brasil]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

The contrapositive of your original statement is, "If I said the bible was true, then I would have read it."

Please allow me to correct my typo. The contrapositive statement would be, "If I said the bible was untrue, then I would have read it."

[Warrior of God]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

I think I can help explain a little. The big bang does not suggest it is an explosion in the sense you are familiar with, the big bang is a rapid expansion of space/time. To claim otherwise would be a strawman attempt or just ignorance.

1. The big bang theory (Ill just refer to as BBT) does not claim in the beginning there was nothing. In fact the BBT claims that the universe expanded from a hot dense state, commonly referred to as a singularity.
2. As I explained above, the term explosion is inaccurate.

.

So...science me this....

When it suits scientists the BBT is a huge explosion...
but it isn't when the dynamics of an explosion contradict their needs...

This, singularity , this rapid expansion of a hot dense state...

1...where in CREATION did that hot dense state come from...
science always avoids that one...Even if we accept any of the science way of it, that hot dense state had to be CREATED for it to be there to expand...
For that to be CREATED it needed a CREATOR...

2...this hot dense state going into such rapid expansion...
something had to generate that expansion, if you sciency types are right.
Also some force, energy ,, whatever , would have had to keep it going...This generation of impetus would have needed to be self-feeding...it would have been necessary for it to fuel and power its own expansiion...That means some form of perpetual motion style input...

and that would mean it would just keep on going.

Indeed your sciency types say the universe is still expanding...
BUT...that creates problems for the science theories, because if they are right about the BBT , the universe is not expanding fast enough is it...
The top dogs of science and the BBT agree on that...

So , HOW COME...
Well they say,,," there is a big old huge negative energy mass hanging around out there somewhere that counteracts the positive expansion of the universe and slows down the universe's rate of expansion..."

problem... when we say God created everything... they all say
" show us God " , then when no-one can they say
" see you claims are false as you can't show us poof in a solid form."

BUT...when they need a big old negative energy mass to prove their theory is workable in any way , they can't show us one anywhere near enough big enough to cause the slowing of expansion that has supposedly happened....Then they reckon it has to be out there just because they need it to be to let their BBT theory work....
and we should accept that on their say so alone...

That's not too solid a case for some folks who claim they only deal in logic and proof now is it...

I reckon BBT sounds liike a sandwich....

More chance of proving that....

Hey....didn't that Einstein fellow say
"science without God is nothing" or some such...
he may have been a heathen heading for hell, but it sounds like he at least had some inkling of God's hands at work....
Even if he did ignore it and choose a heretic's way...

[Kyeb20]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

This video is from the same guy who said the collider is a santic machine and a load of other utter trash! Woah....

[Squidward]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

The bible is Un-scientific, what gives?!

[Squidward]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

The Big Bang Theory is nonsense! We know from the scripture that God created the earth and everything else in 6 literal days and then he rested on the 7th. That's how it happened folks.

Here, this video is a PERFECT example of God's creation

Are you people ignorant or what?! Bananas were actually genetically Engineered to be that shape.

[Kyeb20]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

You know what is also incredible about this thread? Is the tag that says "science is evil" Really funny, seeing as the p.c and internet was invented using science.

[Talitha]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

You only need to look at the word SCIENCE

[eliot mayfield]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

You know what is also incredible about this thread? Is the tag that says "science is evil" Really funny, seeing as the p.c andinternet was invented using science.

Homeschool my friends! Look at this grammar!!!!

[Kyeb20]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

You only need to look at the word SCIENCE

No that is a different word with a different point, your point is invalid and completety stupid,

ChriStIaN

See it?

[Squidward]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

Hm? Here comes another wannbe intellect telling everyone how bad thier grammar is, want a blue peter badge?

[Talitha]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

No that is a different word with a different point, your point is invalid and completety stupid,

ChriStIaN

See it?

Yes, I see CHRISTian.
That's good

We don't need your Science, we've got our Bible

[Squidward]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

Yes, I see CHRISTian.
That's good

We don't need your Science, we've got our Bible

Who cares? He's dead.

You got owned, through and through.

We'll I suggest you turn off your computer that was made by SCIENCE and just read your bible.

[eliot mayfield]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

Who cares? He's dead.

You got owned, through and through.

We'll I suggest you turn off your computer that was made by SCIENCE and just read your bible.

Who is "we". Those voices in your head? That's Satan talking to you!