[enclave2k7]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

Look son, are you going to get your head round KJV1611 or not? All that is required is faith.

I don't think i will ever view the Bible as you do. So, I don't think I should contribute if this is all that is expected. The original video asked for reasoned/logical discourse, which is what I attempted to engage in.

Faith and logic are incompatible, while you have a right to your faith of course, there is no room for debate. Faith hinges on an unshakable belief devoid of empirical evidence.

As such I will stop posting in this thread unless someone would like to discuss the topic rationally.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

[lots of words deleted]

Look son, are you going to get your head round KJV1611 or not? All that is required is faith.

[Sister Rebecca]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

So why did he bother stretching creation out over six days? He could have created it all, exactly the same, in the blink of an eye, right?

Why are you questioning Him? He did it that way because HE WANTED TO! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is the exact same reason He even allows idiots like you to be born, much less live (if you can call it that) until adulthood with your stunted brain capacity. It is simply His whim. When He gets tired of laughing at you falling all over yourself in your own stupidity, He will crush you like a bug.

[enclave2k7]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

I think you need to go back to school. I know of an excellent university that has some unanticipated openings. Can you pass a background check? You're not too much of an invert to handle seminar, are you?

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

[Mister Brasil]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

Actually, the converse of my statement would read:
"If I had not read the bible, I would not say it is untrue"

You tried to express the contrapositive of my original statement, but made an error. It would read:
"If I had read the bible, I would say it is untrue"

I think you need to go back to school. I know of an excellent university that has some unanticipated openings. Can you pass a background check? You're not too much of an invert to handle seminar, are you?

[enclave2k7]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

Basically, this is an all-or-nothing church – Jesus or you’re damned. A little is not going to get us far

I can appreciate that, Ill do my best to explain all that I can.

No, no, no! Ge:1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

I'm unclear on the relevancy of this, perhaps you could elaborate?

Do scientists get paid? Who pays them?

I suspect they have some way of sustaining themselves, I fail the see the relevancy of getting paid for work.

Are those the scientists involved in the conspiracy?

Which conspiracy? It seems to be 100% conjecture.

A fine distinction between man-made words

What other words are there?

Do you not think that was God’s Plan? I don’t know how He did it but it looks good to me – and as you say, it’s all theory.

What you see and what I see are very different things. This is what intrigues me about this forum. In any event, yes it is a theory, as is Newton's theory of gravity.

mumbo-jumbo – God made the stars, case closed. Yeah, I know, inventing this stuff probably hurts your brain I recommend Young Earth by John D Morris – have a look at it…

I have not made one thing up thus far. I will look into the book you mention though.

So, to take the converse, if you had read it, you would say that it’s true?

Actually, the converse of my statement would read:
"If I had not read the bible, I would not say it is untrue"

You tried to express the contrapositive of my original statement, but made an error. It would read:
"If I had read the bible, I would say it is untrue"

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

I think I can help explain a little.

Basically, this is an all-or-nothing church – Jesus or you’re damned. A little is not going to get us far

As for the video... […]The big bang theory 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.

No, no, no! Ge:1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Next, he says that based on what JFK said in a speech, no scientist can be trusted as he may be involved in a conspiracy.

Do scientists get paid? Who pays them?

He then goes off on an unrelated […] Here's why. If we can show that an idea is wrong (all hypotheses must have a way in which they can be wrong) then this adds to our knowledge, as it shows us what is not true.

Are those the scientists involved in the conspiracy?

The BBT is more than a hypothesis however, it is a theory, and makes all of this, while interesting, quite irrelevant.

A fine distinction between man-made words

he mentions that the explosion necessary would be so great that it would 'vaporize' any matter present. Well, he's partially right. The state of the early universe was so hot and dense matter did not exist as it does now, atoms were not present, only parts of atoms.

Do you not think that was God’s Plan? I don’t know how He did it but it looks good to me – and as you say, it’s all theory.

[…]when the universe expanded and cooled, atoms were able to form and coalesce in to clumps of gas via gravity, which formed stars, which formed higher elements via fusion.

mumbo-jumbo – God made the stars, case closed.

This is too much to explain all in one post,

Yeah, I know, inventing this stuff probably hurts your brain

but I would suggest reading any book on the subject before claiming something cant happen.

I recommend Young Earth by John D Morris – have a look at it…

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

So, to take the converse, if you had read it, you would say that it’s true?

Evidence for the BBT is as follows:

• […]

If anyone wants further explanation I will be glad to do so to the best of my ability.

Demonic, anti-God websites deleted

[enclave2k7]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

OK..
so help me out here science fan...
I have no real experience of science as such...

But...I have had a fairly detailed grounding in blowing stuff up.

Out of all the explosions I have brought about , I have never seen one that made anything,except maybe a hole.

Explosions do not create form , they dismantle it.
etc..

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.

As for the video... here is my refutation:
First, he asks for a reasonable and logical debate. I assume this type of discourse is welcome here; if it is not please ban me so I do not waste my time.

His first claim, "The big bang theory claims, in the beginning there was nothing and then there was a huge explosion."

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.

Next, he says that based on what JFK said in a speech, no scientist can be trusted as he may be involved in a conspiracy. Not only is this hearsay, but its completely unsupported by factual evidence. Unlike the BBT, which actually has factual evidence which supports it, of which I will describe at the end.

He then goes off on an unrelated tangent (red herring) and relates an anecdote in which he has a conversation with his scientist friend. On this point his friend is right, whether a hypothesis is true or not, as long as it is falsifiable it can be considered to aid science. Here's why. If we can show that an idea is wrong (all hypotheses must have a way in which they can be wrong) then this adds to our knowledge, as it shows us what is not true.

The BBT is more than a hypothesis however, it is a theory, and makes all of this, while interesting, quite irrelevant.

He continues to expose his ignorance on what the BBT actually claims for the next few minutes. I have addressed these issues above.

The next point he makes is again irrelevant because it is based on a false premise, but I feel I must address it. That is, he mentions that the explosion necessary would be so great that it would 'vaporize' any matter present. Well, he's partially right. The state of the early universe was so hot and dense matter did not exist as it does now, atoms were not present, only parts of atoms.

So then he asks, "how did it form back into rocks?" Well when the universe expanded and cooled, atoms were able to form and coalesce in to clumps of gas via gravity, which formed stars, which formed higher elements via fusion. This is too much to explain all in one post, but I would suggest reading any book on the subject before claiming something cant happen. I wouldn't say the bible is untrue if I had not even read it.


Evidence for the BBT is as follows:

• 3.1 Hubble's law and the expansion of space
• 3.2 Cosmic microwave background radiation
• 3.3 Abundance of primordial elements
• 3.4 Galactic evolution and distribution

If anyone wants further explanation I will be glad to do so to the best of my ability.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

So why did He bother stretching creation out over six days? He could have created it all, exactly the same, in the blink of an eye, right?

God does not have a time and motion man standing over His Perfect Shoulder with a grubby clipboard. God owes you no explanation whatsoever. Although, I feel from your persistent and unwelcome posts, dripping with arrogance and self-righteousness, that you some how do deserve one.

As it happens, it is more than likely that He was thinking about things that we (and you in particular) will never comprehend but, which nevertheless are essential to the wealth and well-being of all True Christians.

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

then how did god make it in only 7 days and why dont we know about all of space.

Because He's God. He can do anything.

So why did He bother stretching creation out over six days? He could have created it all, exactly the same, in the blink of an eye, right?

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

Care to explain how the Big Bang is scientific? Starting with your definition of what is scientific? Me, as a true Scientist™, aim to find the Truth™, the Way™ and the Light™, not some silly, easy-to-cope-with explanation that doesn't require any thinking at all.

I'd like to hear that, too. Right now, the astrologers all point to microwaves in the sky as "proof" of the so called Big Bang, when it's obvious that those microwaves are just the leakage from microwave ovens on Earth, bouncing back and forth off of Heaven.

[Dr. Santiago Solo]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

Thank you for that brilliant and eloquent refutation of Dr. Solo's work.



...




...

Ah, it is always good to see sweet, innocent girlie girls like yourself laughing, my dear Sister, I am really looking forward to seeing you in Freehold, so I can explain to you all about Big Bangs and furious volcanic eruptions, including those emanations explanations you enjoy so much.

Sorry, but you are not funny at all lady.

You are not anything at all but Stinky, Stinky. Care to explain how the Big Bang is scientific? Starting with your definition of what is scientific? Me, as a true Scientist(tm), aim to find the Truth(tm), the Way(tm) and the Light(tm), not some silly, easy-to-cope-with explanation that doesn't require any thinking at all.

[Warrior of God]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

No, the Big Bang Theory is scientific.

OK..
so help me out here science fan...
I have no real experience of science as such...

But...I have had a fairly detailed grounding in blowing stuff up.

Out of all the explosions I have brought about , I have never seen one that made anything,except maybe a hole.

Explosions do not create form , they dismantle it.
Explosions do not create cohesion and mass as would be needed to create something like a universe , they create chaos and disordered rubble...

When I blew bridges up , the bridge didn't go
"oooh let's take all this constructive boombangboom and add another
layer to ourself"...
They collapsed , they ceased to be...

When I blew a string of power pylons or telephone poles, they didn't miraculously go 'wireless'...
the went to scrap and kindling.

when I blew reinforced door or window from a hard-point, they didn't suddenly develop roccocco decorations and extra handles.
They became holes,
they became nothing...

and that big bang must have been a fair chunk more intense than anything I ever set off.

Like the man said , even if there was any kind of big bang ,
someone had to use the clacker and detonate it.
Let's see, wonder who that might be ?

I think we know.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

<Rudeness to True Christian(tm) lady>

How dare you, an obvious imbecile, come on this Christian Church forum, and insult one of your hosts?!

Sister Jenny is indeed clever, but it seems in this case she was merely laughing AT you, not WITH you.

[Mister Brasil]

Re: The Big Bang is Un-Scientific

Sorry, but you are not funny at all lady.

She's not as good at dead-panning absurdities as you are, but she's got a wicked collection of "You might be a redneck if" jokes.