Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your first link is from William Lane Craig, who not only isn’t a scientist, but misrepresents science in order to give his apologetics more gravitas.I will try one last time to debate wit you in a civil manner. You should be more humble than you are, especially since most of what you have been taught is in error. Citation: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=big+bang+explosion&btnG=
Read any of the dozens of links. There are hudreds, something infinitely dense, relieving pressure would explode. It's obvious.Your first link is from William Lane Craig, who not only isn’t a scientist, but misrepresents science in order to give his apologetics more gravitas.
Your second link describes the Cambrian explosion, which has nothing to do with the Big Bang whatsoever.
Here, here’s an actual description of what the Big Bang purports:
Was the Big Bang Actually an Explosion?
“Obvious” if you don’t understand what cosmologists say about the theory perhaps.Read any of the dozens of links. There are hudreds, something infinitely dense, relieving pressure would explode. It's obvious.
evolution is already refuted in a few sentences
Okay, I can work with that. We'll call this a totally valid answer as to how God gained the ability to create. Now if you'll be so kind as to answer the other questions in post #786 that would be swell.self.defining per the definitin of God is that He is omnipresent Omniscient and Omnipotent. All powerful, everywhere at once, and knows everthing. That is what makes God, God, per definition.
Macroevolution and microevolution have the exact same mechanisms behind them. One is just the cumulative effect of the other. Can you to cite a single scientific source that demonstrates a mutation barrier that would allow for changes within species, but not at the species level?
HINT: No. You can't.
Thank you for continuing to make an example of yourself.
Sure, and I'm saying that the laws of physics might have created our universe. That's the "creator".
I agreed that I need to show it's possible. Do you mean something else by "valid at least"?
This doesn't answer either of my questions. I'm not going to attempt to prove that God is illogical. It'll save us a lot of time and confusion if you don't try to guess what my argument is going to be and answer questions in an attempt to deflect an argument that hasn't been made.
How did God gain His creative abilities? He gained them by being defined as having them?
Why would a rain cloud create a puddle it will never have any contact with? The definition of God has nothing to do with that question.
These questions have nothing to do with the definition of God.I feel I have answered all these questions in the definition of God as being omnipresent, omnicient, and omnipotent.
I agreed that I need to show [a multiverse] is possible. Do you mean something else by "valid at least"?
Why would a rain cloud create a puddle it will never have any contact with?
How did God gain His creative abilities? He gained them by being defined as having them?
Why would a rain cloud create a puddle it will never have any contact with? The definition of God has nothing to do with that question.
that burden would be on you sir.
and you have the definition wrong.
Macro evolution is a barrier.
then please provide one example of macro evolution being observed in biological history.You have less than no hope of 'refuting' the cornerstone theory of biology.
You, someone who doesn't even know what the theory is, are against the overwhelming scientific consensus. They are backed by thousands of converging lines of critically robust evidence from a dozen relevant fields of study. You are backed by nothing.
You may as well be riding into battle on a broomstick horse, wielding a wooden sword, with a spaghetti colander for a helmet and your pants around your ankles. Against the Spartans.
“Obvious” if you don’t understand what cosmologists say about the theory perhaps.
Show me a definition of the theory from a cosmologist that describes it as an explosion and not simply an expansion.
then please provide one example of macro evolution being observed in biological history.
@gradyll You keep quoting this question, but not answering it:
Why would a raincloud choose to create a puddle it will never have any contact with? The definition of God has nothing to do with this question.
I accept your answer to the other question, God didn't "gain" abilities, I don't disagree with that. But I need an answer to this question that you keep avoiding.
Sure it does. It drops rain on the ground. Rain on the ground that isn't absorbed is a puddle. It's like saying a painter doesn't create a painting; once the paint leaves his brush, his job is finished. Why would a rain cloud choose to drop rain that forms puddles knowing that it will never see that rain again?sir a raincloud does not create puddles so I don't exactly know how to answer that question. A rain cloud does not even create water that compose the puddle. a rain cloud absorbs water moisture from what I can tell. But it would not be creating puddles. When the water is released from the rain cloud, the cloud's job is actively finished. It is the result of the rain fall to the earth that creates the puddles, not the clouds themselves.
You misunderstood me. I don't disagree with your definition of God. And I don't disagree that God always had His ability to create. I'm agreeing with your definition, I want to make that clear.The definition of God is very important to our discussion, after all you say you disagree that God did not obtain His creative ability. How would a God be God if He could not create? He would fail to be omnipotent, and thus fail in one of the three aspects of God hood according to theological circles. Now you can define God however you wish. But I would disagree with those definitions as I find the christian definition of God to be the most intellectually full.
It’s done because cosmologists say your wrong. And you’ve yet to provide a definition from an actual cosmologist that describes the theory in terms of an explosion.I provided dozens of examples of scientific literature explaining the term.
then I provided logically how infinitely dense material, being relieved of densness, would cause an explosion outward, and this explains why the universe expands.
I have sufficiently refuted this with citation, and with logic, so unless you can provide sufficient rebuttal, I would say this topic is done.
Sure it does. It drops rain on the ground. Rain on the ground that isn't absorbed is a puddle. It's like saying a painter doesn't create a painting; once the paint leaves his brush, his job is finished. Why would a rain cloud choose to drop rain that forms puddles knowing that it will never see that rain again?
You misunderstood me. I don't disagree with your definition of God. And I don't disagree that God always had His ability to create. I'm agreeing with your definition, I want to make that clear.
It’s done because cosmologists say your wrong. And you’ve yet to provide a definition from an actual cosmologist that describes the theory in terms of an explosion.
But please, keep denying you’re wrong. It’s great.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?