[Mrs. Mary Whitford]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Ah f*** God and his "majesty"
i wish you all would start to pay attention to logic. and forget your ancient book thats a pile of contradictions and bulls***.

I took care of those obscenities and capitalized God's name. You'd do well to keep your language clean and show some respect.

Now, I noticed your signature...

Open your mind and heart

How hypocritical. Here you are telling others to do what you refuse to. You've clearly closed your heart and mind to Jesus and His temporary sacrifice FOR YOU so that you can find salvation.

[ayerea]

Re: The "Big Bang"

What!? Are you serious!? Only an idiot would believe that.

How can anyone buy such nonsense? The majesty of God is evident everywhere!

Ah f*** God and his "majesty"
i wish you all would start to pay attention to logic. and forget your ancient book thats a pile of contradictions and bulls***.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: The "Big Bang"

The singularity before the big bang wasn't a black hole. It was ALL the matter in the universe condensed into an area smaller then an atom, then it became instable and blew up. Actually, black holes have been proven, theres one at the center of our galaxy.
Black holes=/=big bang singularity

What!? Are you serious!? Only an idiot would believe that.

How can anyone buy such nonsense? The majesty of God is evident everywhere!

[ayerea]

Re: The "Big Bang"

The singularity before the big bang wasn't a black hole. It was ALL the matter in the universe condensed into an area smaller then an atom, then it became instable and blew up. Actually, black holes have been proven, theres one at the center of our galaxy.
Black holes=/=big bang singularity

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The "Big Bang"

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.

Ayerea, I decided to return to this forum since your post is screaming out "I want to be saved." The scientists have a word for what happens when matter is condensed into an infinitely small area. They call it a black hole. Just one problem using that to explain the universe, though--the scientists say that Black Holes can't explode (well, there are more problems than that one, but we have a whole thread to explore it).*

because of this, the theory of a big bang is tangible.

Because Black Holes don't explode, the theory of a big bang is wrong. Nevertheless, the general notion of everything in the universe emerging from a single moment of creation is obviously correct.

*More precisely, the term for the infinitely small area containing matter is a singularity. For our purposes, that term and black hole are pretty much interchangeable, but a black hole includes both a singularity and a region of space around the singularity where gravity is so strong that nothing can emerge without God's active intervention. Of course, nobody has proven that black holes exist, and they aren't mentioned in the Bible, so this is all very theoretical. Also, the scientists do say that black holes evaporate. The larger they are (and one that held all of Creation must have been a real whopper), the more slowly they evaporate. Black Hole evaporation, even if proved to be true (again, no evidence for it) is way, way slower than the purported Big Bang (by a factor of billions of billions of billions--it's like comparing a slingshot with a thermonuclear missile).

[ForGodsSake]

Re: The "Big Bang"

The way i see this (And i am not a scientist) is that God created the heavens and the earth and everything we see(accept man made stuff that's just a mess). I do not understand why in some area's science is out to disprove the righteous work of GOD almighty. There are theories and debates and arguments about this since i was born and will be for along time to come. but as i said before GOD created all things and that's that.

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: The "Big Bang"

"He is! Inspect your colonoscopy images to see His creations! Yes, He is everywhere always!" - Mark Twain, "Letters from the Earth"

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.

Your stupid "scientists" have not decided whether the universe is a closed system or not, so the Second Law of Thermodynamics may not apply.

Jesus has a first law, the law of ThermoGodamics, where He sends unbelievers. There is no entropy in Hell.

[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.

[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"

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.