[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The "Big Bang"

You meant to say by a factor of several billion, but that's beside the point.

"Scientists" say the universe is 14 billion years old. The universe is actually about 6,000 years old. The "scientists" are off by a factor of 2.3 million. If you can't do the math, at least show us the courtesy of shutting up.

If God created the Earth in seven days, why did He rush? Why not take the time to make the Earth a little bit better if He's got an eternity.

God is very busy, so he doesn't like to dawdle or procrastinate.

In my perspective there's either two things that are true: (1) God did not create the universe or (2) our God is an untillegent one.

Nobody cares about your opinion, because you don't back your arguments up with facts.

Point taken. This is not a freshman english class. It is the LBC forums

And yet you, Harpo, seem to have learned how to punctuate (though perhaps not how to capitalize) since you started posting.

The fools are those that believe everything that comes from the bible. I don't need to explain to you why I think the bible is wrong, because I'm sure you already know.

The universal refrain of the person who has no evidence with which to back up his argument.

Scripture isn't evidence, TO ANYTHING.

It is eyewitness evidence of everything it encompasses.

The concept, "The bible is right, because it says it is" is flawed, and you know that. If I told you I was Jesus, you would say I'm a liar, but if I told you that Jesus is always right, I say I'm Jesus, therefore I am the son of God, and you would still believe I'm not Jesus. Therefore what prove does the Bible give that gives it so much credibility?

Would you believe a book that said it was full of lies? If you want proof, you should look at all of the Biblical prophecy that has come true. Or stop by a Landover healing service, and see people step out of wheelchairs and walk again for the first time in years. There's no scientific explanation for that.

Believing your faith is fine. When you practice your faith in so that it violates the constitution, is when I express my hatred to you.

We support the Constitution. But we support it as it was written, not the way activist, anti-Christian, liberal judges have contorted it beyond all recognition.

For example, judges declared a "woman's right to choose" to be a part of the Constitutional right to privacy, yet privacy is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

Here's another one: The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Nowhere does it say that you can't have public religious displays, provided you do not promote one church as the established state church. It actively protects our children's right to pray and to learn about Jesus in public schools (that is the free exercise of OUR religion). Nowhere does it talk about actions taken by the President (Congress shall make no law...) or by a city or state government or local school board, yet the courts regularly strike down faith-based programs. Finally, even if you ignore these facts and say that government has to be completely separated from religion, which is far more than the Constitution says, the simple fact is that there is an established religion, Secular Humanism, and it is being shoved down our children's throats without any opportunity for rebuttal or debate.

[LyingDingDong]

Re: The "Big Bang"

God is very busy, so he doesn't like to dawdle or procrastinate.

If God forever was, then he procastinated for an infinite amount of time.

Nobody cares about your opinion, because you don't back your arguments up with facts.

Your facts come from the Bible, which has no evidence leading to its credibility.

Your Bible is as contradictory as the statement, "This sentence is a lie."

[LyingDingDong]

Re: The "Big Bang"

You cannot logically call youself an idiot but then clearly present logical proof that you are? I'd carefully reevaluate anything you think you "know" if this is how you rationalize all your knowledge.



No problems there. When you walk a path such as my own, hatred becomes as commonplace as breathing. I do pose a question though: Is your grudge against me or my less than reputable beliefs?

My grudge is against you for embracing an idea that is not backed up by evidence.

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: The "Big Bang"

If God forever was, then he procastinated for an infinite amount of time.
.......

Your own "scientists" have ventured to guess that there may be more than one universe. God could very well be busy right now working on another one.

[LyingDingDong]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Your own "scientists" have ventured to guess that there may be more than one universe. God could very well be busy right now working on another one.

Because he f*cked up on this universe.

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Because he f*cked up on this universe.

I assume that you are speaking for yourself. The loving Jesus has shown the way out of your misery.

[LyingDingDong]

Re: The "Big Bang"

I assume that you are speaking for yourself. The loving Jesus has shown the way out of your misery.

Your assumption is wrong.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The "Big Bang"

If God forever was, then he procastinated for an infinite amount of time.

You're assuming that there was time before God created the universe. That's wrong. Genesis 1:1 is very clear that God created the heaven and the earth "in the beginning." Just because you seem unable to conceive of a universe without time, that doesn't mean that God cannot.

FWIW, the prevailing scientific view is that there is no meaning to the idea of time before the Big Bang (The string theorists think that there was time before the Big Bang, with our own universe being caused by the meeting of multidimensional membranes, but that doesn't really explain creation, since it doesn't explain where the membranes came from. String theorists are notorious for making up lots of ridiculous stuff like extra dimensions and wandering membranes for which they have absolutely no proof.)

Your facts come from the Bible, which has no evidence leading to its credibility.

There is a great deal of evidence supporting the Bible and Creation Science, which you can see in many threads in the Creation Science Forum. Since you have yet to present a single shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions, why should anyone accept your criticism of the Bible? There is a big difference between stating your opinion and proving a fact, and until you learn to bridge that gap, you're not going to convince anyone that your views should prevail.

Your Bible is as contradictory as the statement, "This sentence is a lie."

Again, this a bald assertion rather than a statement backed up by fact. If you want to discuss purported contradictions in the Bible, that's fine, but please enlighten us as to what these purported contradictions in the Bible are.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Because he f*cked up on this universe.

So now you're telling us that in addition to being a lying jap, you're also a whiney emo fag?

Enjoy hell.

[LyingDingDong]

Re: The "Big Bang"

So now you're telling us that in addition to being a lying jap, you're also a whiney emo fag?

Enjoy hell.

I don't know how you where able deduce that I am whiney, emo, or a fag from my statement.

But I'm right. If I was an omnipotent God and created a universe such as this, I would admit to failure.

[LyingDingDong]

Re: The "Big Bang"

FWIW, the prevailing scientific view is that there is no meaning to the idea of time before the Big Bang (The string theorists think that there was time before the Big Bang, with our own universe being caused by the meeting of multidimensional membranes, but that doesn't really explain creation, since it doesn't explain where the membranes came from. String theorists are notorious for making up lots of ridiculous stuff like extra dimensions and wandering membranes for which they have absolutely no proof.)

The string theory is backed by scientific evidence that contains more proof than your God or the bible. If you want to argue this and say that there is evidence to God and/or the bible then I would be happy to help you realise why it is inadequate proof.

There is a great deal of evidence supporting the Bible and Creation Science, which you can see in many threads in the Creation Science Forum. Since you have yet to present a single shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions, why should anyone accept your criticism of the Bible? There is a big difference between stating your opinion and proving a fact, and until you learn to bridge that gap, you're not going to convince anyone that your views should prevail.

What I find in the Creation Science Forum are ignorant ideas of closed-minded individuals. My goal in this forum is not to prove a fact, but for you not to accept a fact without proof.

Again, this a bald assertion rather than a statement backed up by fact. If you want to discuss purported contradictions in the Bible, that's fine, but please enlighten us as to what these purported contradictions in the Bible are.

The "Bible is right because it says it is", proof. That is the contradiction.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The "Big Bang"

The string theory is backed by scientific evidence that contains more proof than your God or the bible.

If you can name a single experiment that demonstrates the correctness of string theory, then the Devil can have my soul, free of charge. The simple fact is that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for string theory--and that's what the string theorists say about it, too.

My goal in this forum is not to prove a fact, but for you not to accept a fact without proof.

Well, I don't accept anything you say, and you have offered no proof to back up any of your statements, so you have succeded.

The "Bible is right because it says it is", proof. That is the contradiction.

Do you have even a rudimentary understanding of logic? A contradition is the logical incompatibility between two propositions. This is a contradiction:

(1) A is true
(2) A is false

No way can both (1) and (2) be correct. They are logically incompatible.

This is not a contradiction:

(1) A is true
(2) Everything that I say is true

Proposition (2) could be right or it could be wrong, but it does not contradict proposition (1) at all. For the Bible to say that it is correct cannot be a contradiction.

You seem to be very good at pulling bull$**t out of your a$$, but when you run up against somebody who understands science--and I do understand it, since I was a scientist before I was saved--you run away with your tail between your legs instead of backing your arguments up with facts. Same thing with the Bible--you keep saying that the Bible is wrong, but you never provide a single example of where it is wrong.

I'm dropping out of this thread now, because there is no use in debating someone whose idea of an intellectual discussion is to deliver one unsupported opinion after another, after another, without end. I hate to say it, Ling, but you are a tedious, sanctimonious, unctuous moron. Goodbye, and good riddance.

[ayerea]

Re: The "Big Bang"

all i have to say is...E=MC^2
there, big bang proven. pretty much. pure energy turned into mass. the whole entire universe existed at energy, and the big bang was the universe moving towards greater chaos, 2md law of thermo dynamics.

[Nobar King]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Hello Aryan, Elmer Einstein wasn't proving the big bang. He was trying to show the difference/similarity of matter and energy.

[ayerea]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Ah, you are correct in that statement.
but alas how can all the matter in the universe be condensed into and infinitely small area? when all of it is pure energy, because energy dose not take up space.
because of this, the theory of a big bang is tangible. and when coupled with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, its quite elegant.