- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,273
- 52,669
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
Incidentally, are you for throwing out the Ten Commabdments?Nothing, I was just responding to your comment.
Well, you can have a problem with both.I'm talking as an atheist now.
From what I think would be an atheist's perspective.
If I was an atheist, it wouldn't be "creatio ex nihilo" that I would think be unpopular; it would be "God" that I would have a problem with.
That's true.Well, you can have a problem with both.
Creationists who come up with that sort of remark, seem to overlook the fact that creation ex nihilo is, and always has been, a Christian dogma. In fact, before it became established as most likely true, the big bang theory was unpopular amongst atheist scientists for that very reason.
Well, originally there were 613, I didn't throw any of them out.Incidentally, are you for throwing out the Ten Commabdments?
They are able to establish that there was, after all, a big bang event. That's a major accomplishment.
On a scale of 0 - 100, with zero being all doubt, and 100 being all certainty, how sure are you, your god exists?
You said that, because the universe was expanding now, that doesn't mean that it was always expanding. Well, yes it does mean that, unless you can come up with something which would have started it expanding. Anything else would be a violation of Newton's First Law of Motion.
Creationists who come up with that sort of remark, seem to overlook the fact that creation ex nihilo is, and always has been, a Christian dogma. In fact, before it became established as most likely true, the big bang theory was unpopular amongst atheist scientists for that very reason.
My guess is you don't understand the concept of the events of the onset of the big bang.
. . . . . . If I got too far from topic there, oh well.
Indeed; 'stretchest' is the poetic choice of the English translation - it no more means 'expand' in this context than it does in other descriptive literature, e.g. "The valley stretched out before him...". Literal readings of poetic language make for absurd implications.Thats probably because the word EXPAND is confusing you.
The Bible says "stretchest."
There's a big difference.
Then skip the poetry, if it confuses you.Indeed; 'stretchest' is the poetic choice of the English translation - it no more means 'expand' in this context than it does in other descriptive literature, e.g. "The valley stretched out before him...". Literal readings of poetic language make for absurd implications.
Ah! Assumption, of the most misrepresented terms with respect to science, by the creation science community. No Kenny, as a layman it is more than evident that you do not understand what what the term "assumption" represents in the greater scientific community. Scientific assumptions are base on facts and falsifiable evidence. We assume the sun will rise and set everyday based on the earths rotation which is observable and measurable. We assume when we drop a ball it will fall to the ground because we observe and understand the effects of gravity. We assume things in science from experience, observation and testing which yield repeatable results. "Assume" in science doesn't mean, well the think, or maybe, as you indicate. We assume the big bang because we observe it expanding and observable WMAP and other physical observations that are unique only to the big bang theory.I understand the concept of assumption.
'Satan's term' ? It was Fred Hoyle who coined the term, as a jibe (he was a strong proponent of 'Steady State' theory). So you appear to be suggesting that the chief (and unrelenting) supporter of 'Steady State' theory was Satan......Satan's term, "Big Bang," is interpreted by his followers as an "expansion," not a "stretching."
But, of course, you scientific methodists already know that, don't you?
If the shoe fits ...So you appear to be suggesting that the chief (and unrelenting) supporter of 'Steady State' theory was Satan...
In that case, this thread may be on CPR for a long time.Well, the challenge of the opening post is to find a creationist contribution to science that consists of actual, original, creation science work.
We're just keeping the thread alive until something along that line shows up.
Ah! Assumption, of the most misrepresented terms with respect to science, by the creation science community. No Kenny, as a layman it is more than evident that you do not understand what what the term "assumption" represents in the greater scientific community.
Sure I do...simple term, and it's written all over most if not all of your so-called evidence. Layman? sure, but it hardly takes a genius to discern assumption from fact. But no matter, I could push your nose right into examples, and you'd just start whining and making more excuses...seen to much of that already to even bother trying.
Raise all the stink you wish...doesn't change the facts.
WThay, I have the time...go ahead, give a short explanation of the events of the big bang, and let's see how it goes.
Then you should be able to provide an example from one of the mainstream science peer review peer review and show how the use of the word assumption is used specifically as a guess. Frankly, I seriously doubt that you have ever even read an actual scientific paper, yet you think you know all about it. The two most misrepresented terms in the creation science community are "assume" and "theory".Sure I do...simple term, and it's written all over most if not all of your so-called evidence. Layman? sure, but it hardly takes a genius to discern assumption from fact. But no matter, I could push your nose right into examples, and you'd just start whining and making more excuses...seen to much of that already to even bother trying.
Quantum fluctuation. Boom. Particles. Inflation. Expansion and cooling. Stars. Galaxies.WThay, I have the time...go ahead, give a short explanation of the events of the big bang, and let's see how it goes.
Then you should be able to provide an example from one of the mainstream science peer review peer review and show how the use of the word assumption is used specifically as a guess. Frankly, I seriously doubt that you have ever even read an actual scientific paper, yet you think you know all about it. The two most misrepresented terms in the creation science community are "assume" and "theory".
WThay, I have the time...go ahead, give a short explanation of the events of the big bang, and let's see how it goes.
And that is a brief history of the universe in 10 words. 1
So much empty bombast.
Challenge to the OP.
Yet no answer to my challenge....
....just the usual go here and look at this. You want me to do the work while you just point to information? I've done that before with Atheists challenges, showed the assumptions, then they just start whining... "you just don't understand, you don't know the definitions the these words, you , you , you, excuse after excuse". So you do some work here, I'll meet you half way...put it on the table and let's examine it.
Let's keep it simple, and take it one step at a time so y'all aren't able to get yourself and the reader lost in your added complications, with added rules and double standards that always seem to accompany this type of thing...It's a very simple and doable request.
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?