Any answer that has Xenu in it cannot be pathetic . By definition Xenu is an answer , and it offers enough of a maturity. You have to be mature to understand Xenu.
Look, there you go, thats Xenu.
Upvote
0
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.
Any answer that has Xenu in it cannot be pathetic . By definition Xenu is an answer , and it offers enough of a maturity. You have to be mature to understand Xenu.Very pathetic but expected.
You see you dont believe in God because you dont have any proof,yet you believe in the big bang but have no proof to back it up.
I hope you can be mature enough to reply with "maturity" this time.You need it.
Here is what I believe. An entity made of energy
God is not outside of science. He created it and used it to create us. Jesus said that in the last days "Knowledge will increase". This knowledge being the knowledge of how God created us. He said that shortly after this, he will return and show just how powerful he is.
The arrogance exhibited by cdesign proponentsists always gives me a chuckle.
So I cannot prove you were once a sperm because I cannot reconstruct your past in a lab? Your thinking is so flawed that it does not warrant a reply. Sorry to burst your bubble but BB has been proven by prediction of the cosmic microwave background radiation and the Red shift......... Oh what's the use! But here eat your heart out:I hate to burst be the bearer of bad empirical news, but actually BB theory is based on 'faith' in the "unseen" (in the lab) every bit as much as any theory of God. In fact inflation, DE and DM are more impotent in the lab than your average deistic concept of "God". In most theistic concepts of God, "God" can typically have an effect on nature, and can have an effect on humans today, here and now. Inflation is dead, so it's never going to influence anything in the lab, and "space" never expands in the lab, so that belief is also an "act of faith" in something that has never been empirically demonstrated.
FYI, all of the inflation and DE claims are predicated upon "faster than light speed expansion" concepts. Furthermore they are not based upon empirical data, they are based upon a highly subjective "INTERPRETATION" of the redshift phenomenon, not "direct empirical evidence". Until you can get "space" to expand in a lab, it's an "act of faith" in their "interpretation" of the redshift phenomenon, nothing more. In fact, only two theories created by man require that the universe expand faster than light, YEC and Lambda-magic theory.
It's interesting how the only person on this thread to give a decent description of the Big Bang was a Christian. The Atheists just dodged the question saying that it's "too complicated" to explain and that I should look elsewhere. I have looked elsewhere and know exactly what the scientists believe.
Here; This is as simple an explanation as one can get (from: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/The Big Bang Theory.htm):It's interesting how the only person on this thread to give a decent description of the Big Bang was a Christian. http://www.thereligionofdarwinism.com/darwinisms unscientific formula.html
The arrogance exhibited by cdesign proponentsists always gives me a chuckle.
/QUOTE]
Look whose talking.
And: You're God's ambassador, the only link some people may have to who God is. And for those reasons it is very important you do not drive them away by saying "A is FALSE and B is TRUE; Therefore God is real!" when they may know extremely well that A is in fact very true, regardless of what B is. Do you follow what I said?
To put it in simpler terms:
We are called to love, to be humble, to be merciful. Not to make strong claims about things we know little about, or could be wrong about.
God loves you, and He loves them. That is our core message. Science is not something we need to fight. Or stand up against. It is only the study of what God made. How can that ultimately lead anyone astray? Only one way I know of would do that with any great success: If those who believe say that science and God are enemies. If that happens - and it does - then science will win the hearts of man. Because science can be tested. And science gives people things that are tangible and real to them.
The Big Bang does NOT conflict with God's existence. You really should not put them up against one another, because they are not opposites. And in essence what you are doing is NOT weakening anyone's faith in science, but many people's openness to Christianity.
I never said that if one is true , the other isnt.
And about the big bang,depends which one you meant,because countless people and TV documentaries and even some scientists keep saying that the so called 'bing bang" started with an explosion. I dont know much about the subject,but I'm just stating what many used to say about the big bang.
An overwhelming weight of evidence has convinced cosmologists that the universe came into existence at a definite moment in time, some 13 billion years ago, in the form of a superhot, superdense fireball of energetic radiation. This is known as the Big Bang theory.
Actually nothing led them but pure rejection of creation, and 100% lack of anything else.
Until the arrival of the Big Bang theory the universe was believed to be essentially eternal and unchanging, represented by the Steady State model. The first clear hint that the universe might change as time passes came in 1917 when Albert Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein realised that his equations said that the universe must be either expanding or contracting, but it could not be standing still, because if it were then gravity would attract all the galaxies towards one another. This was, at the time, a revolutionary concept, so revolutionary that Einstein refused to believe it and introduced his infamous 'cosmological constant' into the equations so that the sums agreed that the universe could be static. He later claimed it was the biggest blunder of his career. It was in 1920 that Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding by measuring the light from distant galaxies.
Nope. That is a belief that the far universe obeys earth laws...i.e. redshift etc.
Gibberish. A person followed belief? Whoopee doo.This discovery was followed in 1927 by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian astronomer, who was the first person to produce a version of what is now known as the Big Bang model.
It is necessary to understand that the Big Bang did not begin as a huge explosion within the universe, the Big Bang created the universe. A popular misconception is that it happened within the universe and that it is expanding through it. This causes people to wonder where in the universe it started, as if by running the clock backwards we would reach the point where all the galaxies come together in the centre of the universe
You run the present state backward. Nothing else. That us foolish, ungodly, unproven, unsupportable, and unbiblical.
Ignorant specualtion, based on a belief that the universe is in the earth state of the present.. The universe does not have a centre, any more than the surface of a sphere has a centre,
there is no preferred place that could be termed the centre. I know this sounds odd, it must have a centre, mustn't it? The problem we have here is we are trying to visualise the universe in the standard 3 dimensions that we are familiar with and therefore expect to find a centre to an expanding sphere.
Stop envisioning belief based nonsense.
Utter rubbish and total speculation.The universe, however, is not an expanding 3 dimensional sphere, it contains also the dimension of time (see 'What is Time?') and many other dimensions as well.
By way of an illustration imagine a balloon with dots painted on the surface to represent the galaxies. If the balloon is now inflated we can see that all the dots are moving away from one another, just as the galaxies are in the real universe, and we can also see that on the surface of the balloon there is no centre point from which all the galaxies are moving away from.
Fiction. This is belief based projection.
The Big Bang theory
The standard model of the Big Bang theory proposes that the universe emerged from a singularity, at time zero, and describes all that has happened since 0.0001 (10-4) of a second after this moment of creation.
Fable.The temperature of the universe at that time was 1,000 billion degrees Kelvin (1012) and had a density that of nuclear matter, 1014 grams per cubic centimetre (the density of water is 1 gram per cubic centimetre).
No. That is a long series of present state what iffing....all of which is false and unprovable.
Anyone that believes that should step up and talk to us here! That is unproven antiChrist nonsense.One-hundredth of a second after time zero the temperature had fallen 90% to 100 billion K. By one-tenth of a second after time zero the temperature was down to 30 billion K. The temperature after 13.8 seconds was down to 3 billion K, and by three minutes and two seconds had cooled to 1 billion K, only 70 times hotter than the centre of the Sun today. At this temperature nuclei of deuterium and helium could be formed and stick together despite collisions with other particles.
etc etc the creation remnant background has no relation to your religion.... none.
Your answers speak for themselves!Actually nothing led them but pure rejection of creation, and 100% lack of anything else.
Nope. That is a belief that the far universe obeys earth laws...i.e. redshift etc.
Gibberish. A person followed belief? Whoopee doo.
You run the present state backward. Nothing else. That us foolish, ungodly, unproven, unsupportable, and unbiblical.
Ignorant specualtion, based on a belief that the universe is in the earth state of the present.
Stop envisioning belief based nonsense.
Utter rubbish and total speculation.
Fiction. This is belief based projection.
Fable.
No. That is a long series of present state what iffing....all of which is false and unprovable.
Anyone that believes that should step up and talk to us here! That is unproven antiChrist nonsense.
etc etc the creation remnant background has no relation to your religion.... none.
Actually nothing led them but pure rejection of creation, and 100% lack of anything else.
Nope. That is a belief that the far universe obeys earth laws...i.e. redshift etc.
Gibberish. A person followed belief? Whoopee doo.
You run the present state backward. Nothing else. That us foolish, ungodly, unproven, unsupportable, and unbiblical.
Ignorant specualtion, based on a belief that the universe is in the earth state of the present.
Stop envisioning belief based nonsense.
Utter rubbish and total speculation.
Fiction. This is belief based projection.
Fable.
No. That is a long series of present state what iffing....all of which is false and unprovable.
Anyone that believes that should step up and talk to us here! That is unproven antiChrist nonsense.
etc etc the creation remnant background has no relation to your religion.... none.
The arrogance exhibited by cdesign proponentsists always gives me a chuckle.
Look whose talking.
I never said that if one is true , the other isnt.
And about the big bang,depends which one you meant,because countless people and TV documentaries and even some scientists keep saying that the so called 'bing bang" started with an explosion. I dont know much about the subject,but I'm just stating what many used to say about the big bang.
He explained what you could learn in a documentary. He didn't explained to you the actual physics, and that's not something you learn in a forum. Anyone could've explained you the theory (some better and some worst, i probably worst, but i did try to explain the evidence...), all they would need to do is give you a wikipedia article. What i said is that if you really wanna talk about the big bang start learning physics. And that, i think you'll understand, is not something someone can explain in one post.It's interesting how the only person on this thread to give a decent description of the Big Bang was a Christian. The Atheists just dodged the question saying that it's "too complicated" to explain and that I should look elsewhere. http://www.thereligionofdarwinism.com/darwinisms unscientific formula.html
Well... There's no evidence for the ID viewpoint. And cdesign followers tend to make extreme mistakes, arrogantly proposed. Your own criticism of BB does not appear to hold water for example. Yet you word yourself with more certainty than I have ever seen even in a lecture hall from the professor giving the lecture. Yet I do not see any substance to your claims.
This needs to be approached with humility, not arrogance. Especially from those who do not have any evidence backing their position. Science deals with what we can see, model and extrapolate from those models. It does not deal with pure speculation and wishful thinking. And it does not make assumptions without evidence. Scientists can make a hypothesis, and then test it. And that could be seen as speculation, but the core here is that said hypothesis needs to be testable, and it needs to be based on observations or mathematical predictions for example.
IDers do not have that. They have a philosophical position they want to pass off as science. It isn't. Science does not deal with purpose or meaning. That's the realm of philosophy. It deals with what is. What is observable, testable and quantifiable. ID is none of those things. Therefore it is not science. We aren't saying there is no God. That is completely irrelevant. It's like we're talking about combustion engines and the chemical composition of ideal fuel for a certain engine design, and someone comes along asking "But what color is the car, and are the seats cushy?". The questions may be important in many ways, but they are completely irrelevant to what is being discussed. This is also the case for ID. It may be we have an intelligent designer. I think we do have a God who made everything - though how I leave to nature to tell us herself. And why, that is not at all the domain of science to answer.
Simplifications made to help people understand the theory's basic concepts without needing to get extensive knowledge on the subject.
You cannot take this simplification, criticize it and expect the criticism to be valid if applied to the theory itself. It was no explosion, that is simply an analogy. A simplification to help people visualize that which is quite hard to actually visualize. How would you visualize reality becoming bigger, growing from something infinitesimally small, in all four (at least) dimensions.
What I'm saying here is: Be careful! You're doing what amounts to jumping on thin ice when you're attacking BB like you are.
That means what to my point?And whom did I address?
I see now,countless sources on the internet too count it as an "explosion".
And careful of what?Will BB punish me for attacking it?And btw. how can you be so sure that a theory alike would never change anyways?Like many other scientific theories?Technology didnt reach the max yet,and not even in billions years,so ANY theory can still change,especially theories alike.
So I cannot prove you were once a sperm because I cannot reconstruct your past in a lab?
Your thinking is so flawed that it does not warrant a reply. Sorry to burst your bubble but BB has been proven by prediction of the cosmic microwave background radiation
and the Red shift.........
It does depend on what you mean by empirical. You do observe evidence to suport the big bang
Those "three famous evidences" that you mention aren't really "evidence" at all. They mainstream has never shown any cause/effect link between 'dark energy' and "acceleration" before pointing at the sky and claiming their impotent (on Earth) sky entity did it. Ditto for Guth's dead inflation genie.(you do, you have those 3 very famous evidences. the theory might be wrong, but those 3 proofs suport it, a wrong theory still can be suported by evidence). I don't need that god is tested in the lab to believe in it xD
Tired light theories have been around as long as BB theories. Why do you choose to prefer one "interpretation" of that redshift phenomenon over another, particularly when a movement oriented interpretation requires faster than light speed expansion?Like i said, there's proof that suports the big bang. You can have proof against it, and the theory will be wrong if the proof against it is "stronger" then the other proof.
I will agree that objects can move and thereby "spacetime" can expand. I do not agree that "space" does any sort of magical expansion tricks. Care to demonstrate that later claim empirically?That's expalined by the fact that it is spacetime that expands (now, you may not believe that it does, but IF it does, it MAY explain that, i think we can agree on that)
Um, following your own analogy, mainstream Lambda-invisible-dark-stuff-theory is like claiming there are invisible cats in space (dark energy), invisible dogs in space (dark matter) and the whole thing was created by an invisible dead gorilla (inflation). Matter and energy as we understand it only make up 4% of the universe, and the rest of it is made of invisible dogs and cats. Baby, that's faith!That's an excelent question and the answer depends on you opinion of religion.
You see, it is no faith to believe in the big bang. You don't believe it 100% without proof. I could say that i believe in invisible cats in my living room.That would the faith.
I will grant you that most "dark stuff" theories are related to SUSY theory and it can be studied in lab. It's the least offensive "invisible sky entity" from that perspective. At least there is a HOPE that it could be falsified in the lab. That's impossible for dark energy and inflation genies.If you have a little bit of proof then it is not faith. It's like M theory. Except you can try to detect dark matter in the lab for example. There are devices design for that.
A more "skeptical" view of "dark energy" would be to suggest it's pure metaphysical "gap filler" to prop up an otherwise falsified "bang" theory. It's introduction into Einstein's "blunder" theory is the only thing that lends it even the slightest credibility in terms of science. It's no better however than stuffing invisible genies into that same set of formulas however.Dark energy would be a prediction of the theory then. I didn't said every aspect of the theory was theoretically based. The theory was created through other scientific theories, so it is theoretically suported, it wasn't observed and then interpreted, the observation came after the theory.
Er, no. Actually it's a *POSTDICTION* that was stuffed into BB theory after that subjective redshift interpretation of yours/theirs suggested that the universe must be accelerating over time. It was "gap filler' that was added to BB theory about 20 years ago once we made that "discovery/new belief about redshift". It wasn't a 'prediction', it was a "postdiction". Prior to that point we believed that the universe was slowing down over time.Dark energy (whatever that is i admit we don't really know it) is a predition of the theory.
Imagine me pilfering your formulas, changing the terms and claiming "If there is Godflation, the you can easily see why the red shift and the Godflation is explained by the God energy. Don't you expect me to empirically demonstrate that Godflation has a material effect on matter? Don't you expect me to demonstrate that 'God energy' is somehow related to the acceleration of material objects or the 'expansion of space'?If there's inflation you can easily see why the red shift (and the inflation is explained by the dark energy).
See my comment above. How do you know Godflation and God energy and God matter do not exist? I used exactly the same formulas to produce exactly the same "predictions" as mainstream theory. Now what?And again, you can't ignore possibilities outside the lab, you sound just like an experimental physicist!
I said I have no empirical evidence that it *SPACE* expands. Only objects expand in the lab. "Spacetime" can certainly expand if objects in motion stay in motion. As the objects that makeup space time move further and further apart, spacetime can indeed expand. SPACE however doesn't do anything, it's just empty space.Anyway, you say spacetime can't expand. Why can't it?
Yes, but this just shows that you personally are "detached" emotionally, but it also shows some interesting double standards IMO about the "evidence" you expect to see for an idea. Dead inflation genies in the sky seem to be fine by you, but a living God is something you seem to reject. Why?Look, it's a theory, yes, it can be wrong. I'm not saying it's 100% right, i do agree it has flaws.
Let's turn that around and explain to me why you lack belief in God again. What "better" explanation can you offer us for the fact that 85 percent of all humans believe in, and claim to experience, a living creator?Just do me the favor to see that it is not faith, specially because you do have proof in favor of it and you don't have proof against it (saying that there's no lab experiments in favor of dark energy and inflation is not proof against it).
By making bold claims you cannot back, such as your claims that there is no evidence for BB - a blatant falsehood - you are putting yourself in a bad light. And not only yourself, but Christ as well if you bring Him or Christian faith into it.
This is news??I see 'dad' can still teach nobel prize winners about the fields within which they won their prizes. In fact, it seems according to him they are all wrong. ..
Secondly, all "Christians" have a right to their opinions on various topics. It doesn't necessarily reflect badly on Christ, just the individual.
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?