[Peter]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Oh, if you want the same proof for God, go through the Bible, line by line...

Bible is no proof, except for the question: "Are there books that contain nonsense?"

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: The "Big Bang"

It isn't written in the bible. But it is proven with multiple methods, I shall give an example: If you measure the movement and the speed of stars,... (that is possible, because of the Doppler-effect and other methods), and if you then "turn back the time" with computer programs, you'll see that if you go back +- 13.7 billion years that everything is concentrated in one point. That proves that +-13.7 billion years ago, everything was in one point, then it exploded and there was the universe.

Forgive me, I'm a little slow on this one, can you just run through all of the math, line by line, that proves this?

Oh, if you want the same proof for God, go through the Bible, line by line...

Idiot child....

[Peter]

Re: The "Big Bang"

That's why they call it a THEORY, right?

Show me where it's "proven" in the Bible, monkey worshiper.

It isn't written in the bible. But it is proven with multiple methods, I shall give an example: If you measure the movement and the speed of stars,... (that is possible, because of the Doppler-effect and other methods), and if you then "turn back the time" with computer programs, you'll see that if you go back +- 13.7 billion years that everything is concentrated in one point. That proves that +-13.7 billion years ago, everything was in one point, then it exploded and there was the universe.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Evolution and the Big bang actually are proven.

That's why they call it a THEORY, right?

Show me where it's "proven" in the Bible, monkey worshiper.

[Peter]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Good! Good! Well said! As neither evolution nor the origin of the universe has been "proven" by so-called scientists, I may now assume that you are willing to accept that the earth is ~6000years old and that God created the universe and all that is in it?

Evolution and the Big bang actually are proven.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: The "Big Bang"

That's not an answer to my question.



Good scientists know better than to believe in false idols. I only believe things that are proven.

Good! Good! Well said! As neither evolution nor the origin of the universe has been "proven" by so-called scientists, I may now assume that you are willing to accept that the earth is ~6000years old and that God created the universe and all that is in it?

[Peter]

Re: The "Big Bang"

The universe wasn't created by "god".

It was created by God.

Next.

That's not an answer to my question.

Amen, Brother Wide.

This God mocker reminds me of a man who's trapped in a burning building, but instead of doing the natural thing and fleeing the flames, he wants to stop and ask what the fire is made out of.
In a combustion reaction there is heat and light, this is what we call fire. To make something burn is to let it react with oxygen, but there is not always fire with an oxidation.

There is a limit to how much we humans can wrap our minds around when it comes to comprehending the mightiness of "god" almighty. Good christians know better than to tug on his cape.

Good scientists know better than to believe in false idols. I only believe things that are proven.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: The "Big Bang"

If the universe was created by "god", how did "god" came into being?

The universe wasn't created by "god".

It was created by God.

Next.

Amen, Brother Wide.

This God mocker reminds me of a man who's trapped in a burning building, but instead of doing the natural thing and fleeing the flames, he wants to stop and ask what the fire is made out of.

There is a limit to how much we humans can wrap our minds around when it comes to comprehending the mightiness of God Almighty. Good Christians know better than to tug on His cape.

[Wide-Open]

Re: The "Big Bang"

The universe wasn't created by "god".

It was created by God.

Next.

[Peter]

Re: The "Big Bang"

If our universe arose from the intersection of two membranes in a multiverse, then how did the multiverse come into being?

If the universe was created by "god", how did "god" came into being?

[Silent Wench]

Re: The "Big Bang"

That entire dialogue was I am sure a fascinating correspondence, but I didn't read most of it because the format was tough to follow. Sorry.

I'm with him, Mates. That was a train wreck an a half.

[Nobar King]

Re: The "Big Bang"

That entire dialogue was I am sure a fascinating correspondence, but I didn't read most of it because the format was tough to follow. Sorry.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The "Big Bang"

It will also allow Brother Ahimaaz's words of wisdom to be better savored by those visiting this thread.

Thank you, Brother Bathfire. I was trying to speak to him in his own language, that of children, but you are right, it is better to cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Sommanol Beatmeup, could I ask that HTML quotes are used please?

For example, if you want to quote "I think branes are wonderful", in your reply, type, [xquote]"I think branes are wonderful"[x/quote] (but leave out the "x"). Then you will get

"I think branes are wonderful"

This will make the thread a lot easier to read.

It will also allow Brother Ahimaaz's words of wisdom to be better savored by those visiting this thread.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Were did I say that in THIS thread your statements did? Off course I have knowledge about it. But I know that the purpose of it isn't taking it literally. I admit I don't know it out of my head, or like you guys do with "check genesis #, exodus #, ..". But I don't have to..
So you know all about strings that you can't see and Bible verses that you can't quote. That is pathetic. You seem to be a double scoop of opinion without even the slightest sprinkling of fact.

My foreskin (are you having gaytalk right now.. )
Again, you seem fixated with homosexuality. Not only are you schizophrenic, you are obviously a sodomite, too.

And calling at theory doesn't mean that it is one untill it has been proven.Since you're such an expert in string theory, what is you opinion of this statement:

The string theorists are trying to push ahead without much support from relevant experiments, because there aren't any relevant experiments that can be done at the kind of scales that the string theorists are interested in.

And who was saying Pi to be 3.
Because pi is 3.

Landover Christian University has a large Creation Science Department that is wholly dedicated to showing that the Bible is backed by empirical evidence....Well, give me an example of that "proof".
Easily done. There are dinosaur tracks and human footprints running next to each other in Texas.

When you have to make up more and more hidden dimensions, and more and more undetermined constants, to make a hypothesis work, you probably have the wrong hypothesis.
But with calculations, you can check it.. And it fits.
Of course it fits--every time it doesn't fit, the string "theorists" add another dimension in which the strings can vibrate, and that makes it fit. The Ptolemaic epicycles all fit, too. Yet no scientist today believes they have anything to do with the orbits of the planets.

Well, if god sees fit in playing with planets, what a pathetic thing is it then.. Can do whatever I want..
Yes, God gave you free will, and you can do with it what you please. But your choices will have consequences.

Thank you, need proof for that one?
If I need proof of anything, I won't be asking you. You obviously have no proof to back up any of your statements.

Howly Loo Paper sounded just that little bit more..
Gosh, another zinger. You're a regular Robin Williams. You should be writing for Saturday Night Live or something.

If you have identified a "fault" in the Bible, then, by all means, tell us what it is. But, frankly, I don't think you've even opened the cover.
Noach Arc.. You probably agree with me that Noach took 2 species from every living specie on earth (male and female). So here is the fault: we all know ants and bees (for example) can't survive with only 2, they need a whole colony! So that overthrows the story of Noach.
"Noah took 2 species from every living specie?" That makes no sense whatsoever. As for bees and ants, all you need is a single queen who has already been impregnated (they store the male seed in special sacks in their bodies for months) to reconstitute an entire colony. Moreover, the Bible said that Noah took two (or 7) of each animal. Where does it say that only two got off the boat? Maybe a bunch of them gave birth during the 40 days. So that overthrows your superficial argument.

BTW, why do you say Noah took bees on the arc? The Bible says nothing about Noah taking flying insects on board:

In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. Genesis 7:13-14

Two collapsing membranes, whats the difficulty in that one??
Three difficulties: (1) In what way do the membranes in string "theory" collapse? The M-Theory explanation is that the two membranes intersect in a spacetime. (2) If our universe arose from the intersection of two membranes in a multiverse, then how did the multiverse come into being? It's like saying that human life began because the first two human beings mated with each other. It leaves out the really interesting question, which is where did the first two human beings come from? (3) What is the evidence that membranes had anything to do with cosmic origins?

I don't need to visit someone. I'm fine, thank you.
So you're in denial. Not surprising, really.

Maybe you should. Believing in imaginary things is severe!!
Believing in imaginary things is stupid.

Allow me to quote yourself: If so, I'd suggest you seek psychiatric help immediately or, even better, an exorcism, because that's the kind of thing that paranoid schizophrenics do. They also make a lot of "shit" jokes. Lol?
They also say LOL when they think they have said something funny. Everyone else on the planet says LOL when someone else says something funny.

Like the whole post..
Why stop there? Why not say the context is everything ever written on the planet by anybody? You obviously can't isolate individual ideas to string together a logical argument, and when you try to debate someone who can, you fall back on the idiotic notion every argument you can't counter takes something out of context.

That's just scientific propaganda, not scientific progress.

Dude, do wrote the following two sentences:
When something begins to resemble not correct or slightly incorrect because of the progressions science tools etc make, scientists start to recalculate and correct it. What doesn't want to say that the former statement was completely wrong, maybe just not complete..
So before you start correcting my typos, you might want to go back for some remedial education in basic grammar.

- He's talking about things that nobody has ever seen
- I believe in those things because I have seen them, but it is specious to claim that a phenomenon for which there is no proof whatsoever is like bread or anything else.

==> god..
Millions of people saw God. He preached in Nazareth, in Galilee, and in Jerusalem. He delivered sermons on hilltops. He was publicly crucified, and 500 people saw him alive three days later.

When he can measure the properties of the strings the way we can taste and feel and see jelly, then I'll be open to using this kind of metaphor. I'm sorry that you're too dense to follow my argument, but do at least try to keep up.
I do, you are the one who has this jelly in his head the whole time.
Again, you seem totally befuddled by the concept of irony. If you want me to think that you do understand it, then please tell me what the word irony means.

One thing that literature would be greatly the better for
Would be a more restricted employment by authors of simile and metaphor.
This sentence really is against the bible, that too is full of metaphors and similes..
Name one.

And the equation fits perfectly..
Man, you just don't get it. Of course the equations fit perfectly! That's because whenever the equations don't fit perfectly, the theorists add one more dimension and one more universal constant to make them fit. Sting "theory" not only describes our universe, but it describes an infinite variety of possible universes. So ask yourself, if a theory explains everything that might have been, in what sense does it really explain what actually is?

And some people need a funny book to be able to handle with reality.. Now that's just pathetic.
And ungrammatical.

Are you really that dense? I DO NOT like these misleading metaphors, toilet paper boy. That's why I poked fun at them. It's called irony. You should look that one up, too.
Which retard doesn't know what irony is.
You are slow witted, but I don't think you are more than borderline retarded.

If you would have a BIT of IQ, you would know that they used sugar for example because, like the gravity loops, they could possibly fall of the bread/membrane with some kind of action.
Well, my thesis committee at Harvard seemed to think I had something on the ball when they awarded my degree. You don't need to explain the jam/jelly/bread analogy to me, I understood it perfectly well. But it is just rhetoric, designed to make us think that strings are real, and not just entirely theoretical constructs without any supporting evidence.

That's a fair question indeed, and I'm not going to stop you asking questions. Look for "Loop Quantum Gravity", you will find your answer there..
Wow, so you believe in both string theory and loop quantum gravity! Interesting, since string theory is background dependent, versus LQG, in which the native objects are topological spin networks that are independent of any underlying geometry, so the two bodies of work are mathematically inconsistent. Of course, there's no more evidence for LQG than there is for string "theory."

See my answer to the previous inane (look that one up, too) comment you made.
This whole answer of you is inane, or senseless.
In what way is it senseless to discuss whether there is any evidence to support a particular scientific hypothesis?

I'm sorry for you thatbut I DO know eEnglish vocabulary..
Apparently not. Grammar, too, seems to mystify you.

I thought you weren't going to use the bible in this thread..
Rather than providing any proof to back up your belief in string "theory," you chose to attack me personally by saying that my views on string theory are invalid because I believe in the Bible. In response, I pointed out that nothing I have said in this thread about string theory was in the slightest bit dependent on my Christianity. I am opposed to people claiming that string "theory" is true because it lacks evidence, not because it is anti-Biblical. I have no idea how God created the universe, and, if He chose to do it with strings and membranes, I have no problem with that. But I am NOT going to accept that he did it with strings and membranes unless somebody provides some proof.

This is a church website, so I don't have a problem discussing the Bible when it is germane.

And by the way, YOU started with "feeling the love of god" in this discussion of string theory. So only a mormon woult try to..
I am not a Mormon, what makes you think that I am? My feeling the love of God comment was trying to reach out to a sinner and bring him into the fold where he can share the joy that I have found in Christ Jesus. It had nothing to do with my skepticism regarding string "theory," which has nothing to do with my religious views.

Double lol??
I don't hold the fact that you are psychologically imbalanced against you. Jesus instructed me to love my neighbor as myself, and I am concerned for your mental health. If you don't want to heed the warning signs and seek assistance, well, there's not much more that I can say.

The text was arguing that the universe didn't exist long before. Why don't you try to keep up?
I quote G-Baby again:
Those were the problems, but can String Theory solve them? Some string theorists have suggested that the big bang, hold on, wasn't the beginning of everything at all! That the universe could've existed long before, even forever. Some aren't agreed with that idea and say that a universe without a beginning is a universe without explanation. So what is the explanation? What if String Theory is right and we're all living on a giant brane inside a higher-dimensional space? Some scientists have proposed that the answer to the big bang riddle lies in the movements of these gigantic branes. Well, it's simple: you have a brane on which we live and another one floating in the higher dimension. What is difficult about imagining that these branes collide with each other?
The text said that some scientist say this, others say that. So "why don't you try to keep up" back at you.
Finally, you have actually managed to string together a lucid and thoughtful argument! You are right, and I concede the point that nobody knows whether string "theory" cannot explain the origin of everything because (A) it implies that every universe was caused by the intersection of membranes in another univers that were caused by the intersection of more membranes in another universe without end or ( there was an origin that had nothing to do with intersecting membranes, but string "theory" has nothing to say about what that origin might have been.

"preaching the piffle" doesn't say it well. I gave actual facts..
Piffle? What is piffle? And as for the facts that you gave, name one.

Peace.