But the universe is only is made up nothing and nothing must always have been here.
How are you defining nothing? Because it seems that my definition of nothing, and your definition of nothing is varying extremely.
A singularity is infinitely dense so no there wouldn't be space
You still haven't answered the question of where it all came from.
No, your pantry is not full of space. I had no idea that some people didn't even know the difference between a pantry full of AIR and outer space which is a VACUUM. If you don't even know this then why are you trying to argue scientifically
Air is the combination of oxygen, nitrogen, and other such gasses correct? And Rutherford, through his gold foil experiment, found that an atom is mostly empty space. So you're talking about a really big space, and I'm talking about a very small space. NOt to take the words out of your mouth, but:
'If you don't even know this, why are you trying to argue scientifically?'How is science a sham? Science is all proven in experiments.
If you look back to the response in which I had replied, someone had said that Causality only applied some of the time. Almost all of science today is based on the simple principal of Causality. Without it, science is a sham.
And why does what a book, that is thousands of years old and written by stupid goatherds that thought pi=3
I see you are refering to 1 Kings 7:23. THis should clear you up:
http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3
Prior to the 'big bang' there was no time, so we cannot apply time dependent things like causality to them.
For you to exert such a claim as true is fallicious. Scientist who subscribe to the Big Bang Theory don't actually know what was before the Big Bang.
http://www.universetoday.com/15051/thinking-about-time-before-the-big-bang/
Article Said:
But the right answer, says physicist Sean Carroll, is, âWe just donât know.â Carroll, as well as many other physicists and cosmologists have begun to consider the possibility of time before the Big Bang, as well as alternative theories of how our universe came to be.The 'big bang' DID happen, we know it, have proven it, and have proven the resulting data as well such as the age of our planet, the age of the universe, etc.
IF the Big Bang Theory is true, than the universe is one seriously messed up place. Quoting from the above article, the Big Bang doesn't account for about 95% of the Universe. Theres also the question of star and galaxy formation.
Quoting Dr. Danny Faulkner: Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognized that the clouds donât spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started, and almost all of them require having stars to start with [e.g. a shockwave from an exploding star causing compression of a nearby gas cloud]. This is the old chicken and egg problem; it canât account for the origin of stars in the first place.[/i]
Quoting Dr. James Trefil:
There shouldnât be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldnât be grouped together the way they are. The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldnât be there, yet there they sit. Itâs hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy
Article Said:
Another problem is cooling a gas cloud enough for it to collapse. This requires molecules to radiate the heat away. But as Teaching about Evolution points out in the quote earlier, the big bang would produce mainly hydrogen and helium, unsuitable for making the molecules apart from H2, which would be destroyed rapidly under the ultraviolet light present, and which usually needs dust grains for its formationâ"and dust grains require heavier elements. The heavier elements, according to the theory, require pre-existing stars.that there was a global flood
http://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers
Hopefully this will help with your questions.
that rabbits chew cud
http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud
Article Said:
In modern English, animals that âchew the cudâ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.
However, the Hebrew phrase for âchew the cudâ simply means âraising up what has been swallowedâ. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed âraise up what has been swallowedâ. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
It is not an error of Scripture that âchewing the cudâ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Mosesâ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do âchew the cudâ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.that bats are birds
http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html
Article Said:
Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.
The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers).I'd also like to point out that both Birds and Bats are in the Phylum Chordata, so...
and that there used to be unicorns
http://creation.com/the-unicorn
Article Said:
So what was the animal described in the Bible as the âunicornâ? The most important point to remember is that while the Bible writers were inspired and infallible, translations are another thing again. The word used in the Hebrew is ר×× (reâem). This has been translated in various languages as monoceros, unicornis, unicorn, einhorn and eenhorn, all of which mean âone hornâ. However, the word reâem is not known to have such a meaning. Many Jewish translations simply left it untranslated, because they were not sure which creature was being referred to.
Archaeology has in fact provided a powerful clue to the likely meaning of reâem. Mesopotamian reliefs have been excavated which show King Assurnasirpal hunting oxen with one horn. The associated texts show that this animal was called rimu. It is thus highly likely that this was the reâem of the Bible, a wild ox.
It appears that the reason it was shown in Assyrian (but not Egyptian) art as one-horned was as an artistic way of expressing the beauty of the fact that these horns on the rimu/reâem were very symmetrical, such that only one could be seen if the animal was viewed from one side. The first to translate the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek probably knew that the rimu/reâem was depicted as one-horned, so they translated it as monoceros (one horn).
The real reâem or wild ox was also known as the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This was the original wild bull depicted in, for example, the famous Lascaux (Cro-magnon) cave paintings. This powerful, formidable beast is now extinct, though its genetically impoverished descendants lived on as domestic cattle.Again, it did occur. It's a very well demonstrated reality.
And as I have shown, a very faulty one as well.
As is the age of the universe, of our planet, and the history of life on our planet. If the entire evidence of hundreds of years of research, observation, testing, and demonstration show one thing, and a 2,000 year old book say another
So because something is old, it is wrong? That is the most ignorant statement I have ever seen.
Firstly, there is no such thing as 'nothing'. Even in space, out in the empty void between observable matter, and right down to the 'empty' space between subatomic particles there are still what are called 'virtual particles' which are constantly coming in and out of existence. These are unimaginably small and short lived, but they exist. They have mass and energy and they mean that everywhere in the universe there is matter. 'Nothing' doesn't exist.
Particles popping in and out of existence would appear to violate the conservation laws.
All it takes is one of these little particles popping into existence in the wrong spot, bumping into an electron in a dense mass of matter and voila, the singularity begins to expand
Again, how did the singularity get there?
As for the evolution of life, you first have to understand chemistry. The chemical composition of our planet, coupled with the environment, had all of the necessary tools to create simple amino acids, and that's what happened. Once these chemicals were formed, and there are many different ones which were, some were able (due to their chemical structure and the other surrounding chemicals) to combine and replicate. This is where evolution begins.
Over billions of years these chemicals became more complex, more stable chemicals. They gradually became organized, with parts that allowed for intake of, or attachment to, other present chemicals. They developed tools for creating and/or processing simpler necessary chemicals like proteins, ATP, and glucose. The beginnings of what we would recognize as a cell (most likely similar to today's virus) had formed. This was the very first 'living' thing on Earth. From there we've had roughly 4 billion years of evolution which has led gradually to all life on this planet. Every single living thing on Earth gets it's genetic information from this initial organism.
I also understand the Law of Abiogenesis. Life can only come from pre-existing life, so to say that a bunch of non-living particles created life is preposterous. Pasteur has disprooved Spontaneous Generation, and to uphold the notion is akin to saying that flies come from rotting meat.
Either way, these things (big bang, evolution, etc.) are facts. They are real, they happen/have happened, and are proven.
If the Big Bang is so 'real', than why are scientist still searching for other ways the universe came to being? Unless those scores are wrong as well? I find it hard to believe that you know something that hundreds of PhD's don't.
And before you begin to administer advice on my apparenly fallicious beliefs, you might want to take a look at the weakpoints in your own beliefs. In otherwords: Physician, heal thyself.
No, science is not a sham
See above, please.
So you cite causality saying that a singularity of matter/energy cannot exist and, due to quantum fluctuations, rapidly expand, but then you say that an omnipotent invisible being is out there? If you really want to stick with your causality argument then you have to admit that each thing created would require an (at least) equal force creating it. If there is a God then someone must have created Him. And someone must have created his creator, since we cannot have a result without a cause. However we know that the 'big bang' happened and it doesn't defy any established laws.
TRhis statment contains so many assumptions, so many ignorant statements, so many fallicious arguments, that I can't even begin to attak it. You slam me for holding on to my 'dogma', while you continue to assert theorys, and unprooven events as fact, and all other things as lies, opiates, and misguided evils. Its disgusting.
Again, you could say that the 'big bang' was God's way of creating the universe if you like so you can accept reality and not discard your religion.
As I've stated earlier, and in other threads, you can't both be Christian, and believe in the Big Bang. The Big Bang would have millions and billions of years of death, suffering, and evil before Adam and the Fall. If there was no first sin, than there was no fall. And no fall means no First Adam, which means no Last Adam. And I believe there was a certain video of an Atheist that made its rounds on the internet. And to use his words: "And I believe this would put Jesus into the ranks of the Unemployed".
So the Big Bang is clearly not compatible with a Christian Worldview. Again to quote Aesop, but 'Thoughtless friends are more harmful than enemies'.
