We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Gods existance
| 164 | 20614 |
I have a question and it would be nice If somebody could answer it.
How is it possible that somebody believes in God although there doesn't exist any proof or at least an evidence for Gods existance besides some old books?
In my opinion God's an explanation for everything unknown.
- 164 Replies
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'.
How are you defining nothing? Because it seems that my definition of nothing, and your definition of nothing is varying extremely.
Nothing is NOTHING. No Time. No time means no Energy. No energie means no Matter. No Matter, no Dimension. No dark matter (if it exists).
BtW a very intelligent question.
You still haven't answered the question of where it all came from.
It hasn't to come from somewhere because it always have been there. Nothing comes from Nothing everythin always existed (Matter = Energy, energy cannot disappear.
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?'
The space in Atoms is small but infinite small like 1/3=0,333... or 0,999...=1
That doesn't mean that you have infinite space avible. Something can be infinite and something can be more infinite.
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.
C'mon, if you were really sophisticated about the Big Bang you would know that that is a theory based on prooved theses and hypotheses. It's the best explanation for everything and scientist can calculate what happened some trillion seconds after the allgedly Big Bang. It's the best prooved scenario. I'm not sure but I think it's prooved that at the beginning the universe expanded.
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 don�t 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 can�t account for the origin of stars in the first place.[/i]
Quoting Dr. James Trefil: There shouldn�t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn�t 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 shouldn�t be there, yet there they sit. It�s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.
Sorry, false. When the Big Band occured 99% Energie was set free, 1% matter. Matter had it's own Energie. There were mainly Hydrogen particles, then a (Hydrogen ion/) proton hit a Hydrogen particle and Helium arised and so on.
BtW it's prooved that the universe is still expanding.
So because something is old, it is wrong? That is the most ignorant statement I have ever seen.
Yes, if something is old it's probably wrong. That's the opposite of ignorance it's a sophisticated statement.
Let's take an example. Hmmm... *pretendthinkingofone* Aha, Newton. Newton had theses which were wrong, which were fatally wrong. The whole idea of physics was updated some years ago.
There's a simple reason why something old is often false: 2000 years ago the mankind didn't knew much about physical laws, etc. C'mon, 2000 years ago the people thought the earth is flat, do you really think that. It's an old statement and it's wrong. Checkmate.
Again, how did the singularity get there?
Singularity is a timeless state. It describes a state with no dimension (or 0-D) where the energy is focused in one point, just sayin'
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.
It's not a fact but a obvious theory.
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".
This type of believing is called "deism" your little God isn't involved in Universe's history.
You still haven't answered the question of where it all came from.
That's an unknown to me. But that's not the argument I've been presenting. Your claim is God is eternal, I'm pointing out that we can just as easily apply that condition to the pre-expanded universe. So there is no need to insert a God in the first place.
If you look back to the response in which I had replied, someone had said that Causality only applied some of the time.
That's not correct. If your referring to what I had said, it was causality only applies in the existence of spacetime. So your calling science a sham based on something that isn't even being stated by scientists.
Particles popping in and out of existence would appear to violate the conservation laws.
Again quantum mechanics deals with different laws of physics.
If the Big Bang is so 'real', than why are scientist still searching for other ways the universe came to being?
That's how science works. It's constantly testing and re-evaluating things to improve our understanding. That includes looking into alternatives in case we got it completely wrong.
I'd also like to point out that both Birds and Bats are in the Phylum Chordata, so...
Doesn't mean a lot.. most common animals we know are chordatas.
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.
The experiment that Pasteur used to demonstrate spontaneous generations, involved almost none of the conditions in which the first molecules formed; also, it would take a lot more time. No scientist up to date would claim that flies would pop out in sterile meat, or fishes in a swimming pool. But molecules can form under certain circumstances, and to say that Pasteur's flask proves abiogenesis wrong, shows a lack of understanding in that matter.
If the Big Bang is so 'real', than why are scientist still searching for other ways the universe came to being?
The only way to prove your hypothesis, is to try to prove it wrong. Not trying to search for other explanations would be a mistake in science.
That's an unknown to me. But that's not the argument I've been presenting. Your claim is God is eternal, I'm pointing out that we can just as easily apply that condition to the pre-expanded universe. So there is no need to insert a God in the first place.
Actually, we're all in the Matrix right now. The only reason we can't do that fantastic jazz in said Matrix is because Neo is taking all the coding.
But hey, we were created by semi-humanoid cyborgs whom's last hope was this dream machine where 12 of their cyborgs took on an organic form, succeptible to many things (such as emotion) they began to weep.
The first humans to be.
Fine, don't believe me. Right now a geeky cyborg is looking over me making sure I type the right buttons on this keyboard, and if you don't like it, then he'll delete you from the super-massive-úber-compressed-and-efficient computer.
Oh, and he's called God, apparently.
- H
If the Big Bang is so 'real', than why are scientist still searching for other ways the universe came to being?
If you found something wrong with your hypothesis, then you found something right.
Why not? I mean, any step in Science is always going to be a step forward because we're enhancing our learning one way or the other (this is possible because we have discovered X / this is not possible because X can't Y).
That's how science works. It's constantly testing and re-evaluating things to improve our understanding. That includes looking into alternatives in case we got it completely wrong.
So many things seem to fit with the "Big Bang" that no better conclusion may show up - possibly. But I don't know the chances of it. :>
Oh btw sry for double post I got a little off-topic.
Obviously I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. >.>
- H
It hasn't to come from somewhere because it always have been there. Nothing comes from Nothing everythin always existed (Matter = Energy, energy cannot disappear.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Something spontaneously generates from nothing? What?
That doesn't mean that you have infinite space avible. Something can be infinite and something can be more infinite.
I never said I had an infinite space. I was talking about a small amount of space, and he was talking about a large amount of space. You really aren't making very much sense.
It's the best explanation for everything and scientist can calculate what happened some trillion seconds after the allgedly Big Bang
There are so many incongruencies with the Big Bang Theory that it looks like a block of swiss cheese.
http://creation.com/what-about-the-big-bang
Article Said:
Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.
But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.
But according to theory, the âbig bangâ made mainly hydrogen, with a little heliumâ"the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to formâ"and dust grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.
So if the heavier elements can't even form, than there would be no elements to combine to create the molecules that would later become life. Obviously, there living things in this universe, so the Big Bang didn't work out to good in this case.
Yes, if something is old it's probably wrong. That's the opposite of ignorance it's a sophisticated statement.
Newton also came up with the Theory of Universal Gravity, which is crucial to physics today, so that was a poor example on your part. Copernicus is considered the Father of Modern Astronomy, and his idea are rather old. Galileo contributed greately to our understanding of celestial bodies, and his idea are rather old. It was Democritus, in the 5th century BC, who coined the idea of the Atom which would ultimately lead to Modern Atomic theory, and his ideas are millinia old. So to say that old idea are wrong, is a very, very ignorant statement.
Singularity is a timeless state
Actually, the Big Bang has a few underlying assumptions. One of them is the universality of Physical Laws. One example of a Physical Law is Newtonian Causality. The Singularity that caused the Big Bang cannot be timeless, because that would imply that it had no cause, which violates Physical Laws and Newtonain Causality.
This type of believing is called "deism" your little God isn't involved in Universe's history.
Not quite sure what your point of writing this was, but I'm a Christian, not a Deist. If God created the Universe and then left, he wouldn't have sent Christs to sacrifice himself on the cross.
But that's not the argument I've been presenting. Your claim is God is eternal, I'm pointing out that we can just as easily apply that condition to the pre-expanded universe. So there is no need to insert a God in the first place.
Again, if God is eternal, and God created the Universe, than God could have just as easily created Physics, so that they would not need apply to him.
Again quantum mechanics deals with different laws of physics.
Not really. Conservation Laws are applied through others Theoroms on the quantum level. Noether's Theorem, for example.
The experiment that Pasteur used to demonstrate spontaneous generations, involved almost none of the conditions in which the first molecules formed
The point is that it upheld the Law of Biogenesis, that life can only come from pre-existing life. So the non-living elements created by the Big Bang could not form into life.
But molecules can form under certain circumstances
But to say that that molecule would form from non-living elements is absolutely preposterous.
The only way to prove your hypothesis, is to try to prove it wrong. Not trying to search for other explanations would be a mistake in science
That was in response to MrWalker's statement that the Big Bang is fact. It is a fact that the sky is blue, so whats the point of me launching a scientific endeavor to proove that its pink?
How are you defining nothing? Because it seems that my definition of nothing, and your definition of nothing is varying extremely.
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?'
Nothing is a vacuum which has no matter in it which is what space mainly consists of. You define nothing as a space filled with air. And it was obviously implied that I was talking about a space which is a touch bigger than an atom. I'd have expected that even you could've figured that out. So to clarify when I say space I mean a big vacuum with stars and planets spinning around in it. Not air.
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
You know this is exactly the kind of thing people say to make an old book written by stupid goatherds sound legitimate. This applys for most of your links
In this you claim that the big bang clearly couldn't work and since this obviously a site biased towards christianity I assume that you imply that God doing it in 6 days is the only alternative. Since you claim that God has always been here he was here for an infinity before he made the world and since an infinity can't end he can't have ever made the world. I'm not a scientist so I can't argue on the finer points of the Big Bang but it's a better suggestion than yours.
I couldn't be bothered to read so many links on a site so obviously biased towards christianity but I assume they were about as convincing as the first few. That is, a lame attempt to twist meaning to give their precious superstitions credibility
Actually, that makes perfect sense, countering an argument with something brainless and unbelievable, which is the same as their faith. I applaud you *clap* *clap* *clap*
My picture followed their holy book, it is all backed up by the bible. Their picture was probably backed up by a book called why the earth is flat but all evidence and logic says it is a ball by a stupid Christian fundamentalist.
There are so many incongruencies with the Big Bang Theory that it looks like a block of swiss cheese.
Yes but there are so many holes in christianity thats it's just a big hole.
The point is that it upheld the Law of Biogenesis, that life can only come from pre-existing life. So the non-living elements created by the Big Bang could not form into life.
Living beings are made from non-living stuff that reacts with themselves and other things. Living beings are made of a mass of dead stuff. Or are you saying that atoms and molecules in our body are living too?
But to say that that molecule would form from non-living elements is absolutely preposterous.
Again, a molecule is not something living, it is simply a more complex structure made of single building units, made of smaller particles etc.
Living beings are only accumulations of reacting molecules, so I don't see why it should be preposterous.
That was in response to MrWalker's statement that the Big Bang is fact. It is a fact that the sky is blue, so whats the point of me launching a scientific endeavor to proove that its pink?
I guess noone ever found a better way to explain the universe and everything scientifically, than the big bang theory. I could very well try to prove that the sky isn't blue, but I would soon come to the conclusion that it has to be blue, not least because of all the eye witnesses.
[quote]It hasn't to come from somewhere because it always have been there. Nothing comes from Nothing everythin always existed (Matter = Energy, energy cannot disappear.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Something spontaneously generates from nothing? What?[/quote]
Oh... Yes it does. You don't make sense. In one part of your statements you argue with physical laws at now you cannot accept the simple law that energie can't disappear.
Imagine the whole existance of everything is a cycle, Big Bang, Matter moulders, Singularity, Big Bang...
The is no start and there is no end. That's the reason why there hasn't to be an incurrence of matter (because there is no disappearing of Matter or Energy).
BtW do you think that you understand everything?
Did you ever think about the forth Dimension? If yes did you understand it? Maybe the Singularity or the cycle of the Universe is only understandable with the knowlede of the forth or fift Dimension...
I never said I had an infinite space. I was talking about a small amount of space, and he was talking about a large amount of space. You really aren't making very much sense.
Just saying...
There are so many incongruencies with the Big Bang Theory that it looks like a block of swiss cheese.
http://creation.com/what-about-the-big-bang
Article Said:
Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.
But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.
I don't see there any contradiction, I've already told you that there are Hypotheses which aren't prooved.
BtW how do you know that all the Articles you quote are prooved? If I understand the site is Christian.
But according to theory, the Big Bang made mainly hydrogen, with a little heliumâ�"the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to formâ�"and dust grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.
T think you didn't understand my statemant: At first, the arise of Helium was an example. What will happen if Helium gets an Proton? Right, Lithium arises.
You say that compounds of two Hydrogen particles are weak? And that they can be destroyed by Ultraviolet Light? I have an Answer, after the Big Bang, what do you think UV-Light does come from? And if you would know anything about chemics you would know that loose Hydrogenium particles are radicals and that they compound with any other molecule.
And inert gases can compund with other elements they just need a lot of energy.
Newton also came up with the Theory of Universal Gravity, which is crucial to physics today, so that was a poor example on your part.
Lol. Do you really think that I use this example, something what is completely right? No I alluded to Newtons theory about Gravitation which was refuted by Albert Einstein.
Copernicus is considered the Father of Modern Astronomy, and his idea are rather old.
I wasn't talking about about "rather old" I was talking about "older than". The These that the earth is flat is older than Copernicus' Theorie.
Galileo contributed greately to our understanding of celestial bodies, and his idea are rather old.
500 years ago is different than 2000 years ago.
It was Democritus, in the 5th century BC, who coined the idea of the Atom which would ultimately lead to Modern Atomic theory, and his ideas are millinia old. So to say that old idea are wrong, is a very, very ignorant statement.
He was wrong. He thought that atoms are the smallest particles, they aren't. Ever heard of Quarks?
Actually, the Big Bang has a few underlying assumptions. One of them is the universality of Physical Laws. One example of a Physical Law is Newtonian Causality. The Singularity that caused the Big Bang cannot be timeless, because that would imply that it had no cause, which violates Physical Laws and Newtonain Causality
No time just means that nothing is moving or changing. In one point nothing can move.
Not quite sure what your point of writing this was, but I'm a Christian, not a Deist. If God created the Universe and then left, he wouldn't have sent Christs to sacrifice himself on the cross.
This wasn't an allusion to you.
I believe that there is something out there but i also believe that what you believe in is what you get in the end
I believe that there is something out there but i also believe that what you believe in is what you get in the end
So if you believe that there are no other gods you get no other gods yet other people get other gods so there are other Gods. I don't really see how that could work.
If I understand the site is Christian.
It is definitely Christian.This is an excerpt from a page saying what the site is all about. To paraphrase for people who can't be bothered to read it it basically says science has proven a lot of things which go against my beliefs and I don't want that so I'm going to come up with lame excuses to cover up bits in the bible that show clearly how ignorant the people who wrote it were and come up with excuses to defend my beliefs like if God doesn't exist there are no morals (which either means murder, slavery, genocide etc are all right since God approves or this is just another lame excuse). And some bits are just stupid like when this professor says that if there is no creator God then humans have no free will. I think you find that if there is no God then humans DO have free will since we won't have to labour under a cosmic dictator.
This website answers many of the most-asked questions about God (our Creator) and the Bible.
Many today think that humans exist merely because of a freak cosmic accident that had no cause or purpose. Indeed, this belief now permeates educational institutions around the world. As Oxford (U.K.) Professor Peter Atkins said, âWe are just a bit of slime on the planetâ. Even many who say that they âbelieve in Godâ have been âeducatedâ in this new âenlightenedâ way of thinking. Thus they now think that the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God, is merely the words of fallible men. Consequently, they see themselves as free to invent their own ideas about God, rather than submitting to what God has revealed in the Bible.
This naturalistic philosophy (âevolutionâ) removes any clear source of authority in our lives. If there is no Creator-God who rules over us, then there is no ultimate basis for morality, meaning or purpose. As Cornell University professor, atheist Dr Will Provine, pointed out regarding the consistent evolutionary view:
ââ¦there are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. Thatâs the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.â1
Or, putting it another way, how can meaning and morality come from random chemical reactions emanating from a cosmic accident? An admission by well-known British evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins underlines the problem:
From this website you can learn many things that show that there is a Creator who made us and that He has revealed important truths to us in the Bible.
Jaron Lanier: âThereâs a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.â
Richard Dawkins: âAll I can say is, Thatâs just tough. We have to face up to the truth.â2
For Christians, trying to accept the prevailing evolutionary-long-age view undermines basic tenets of Christian belief. Consistent application of the evolutionary worldview to the Bible, bending the Bibleâs teaching to make it fit, results in either atheism or a âreligionâ indistinguishable from atheism, as professor Provine recognized:
â⦠belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.â3
The story of apostate former evangelist Charles Templeton sadly confirms the truth of Provineâs statement. Many other atheists have similar stories: they once believed, they say, but not once they learned the âtruthâ of evolution at school or university.
Due to recent events I unfortunately Don't have the energy t shoot down every error, but I would still like to point a few things out.
http://creation.com/what-about-the-big-bang
Please use better sources then a creationist site. If all you want are a bunch of lies and fallacies they are great, otherwise they are useless.
Again, if God is eternal, and God created the Universe, than God could have just as easily created Physics, so that they would not need apply to him.
Sure, but we don't need to jump to that conclusion at all and can just as easily leave him out all together. A point you have continually ignored.
If nothing existed. Not even a colour. No solid form. Nothing.
You cannot imagine what would exist if there was nothing.
You cannot imagine it.
You cannot imagine God in His purest form.
That, is proof that God exists.
Thread is locked!