My theory on creation.

[AV1611VET]

There are countless myths that can be reinterpreted.

Abusing the Bible does not help you.

That doesn't answer my question, chief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That doesn't answer my question, chief.

Sure it did, Genghis.

 

[tevans9129]

Because NOBODY KNOWS

I am sorry, do you speak for Subduction, did I ask him or you the question?

 

[Speedwell]

I am sorry, do you speak for Subduction, did I ask him or you the question?

You think Subduction will give you a different answer? Anyway, this is an open forum, anyone may post--even those who won't play into your puerile attempt at a rhetorical trap.

 

[AV1611VET]

You think Subduction will give you a different answer?

Yes.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes.

Why? He already gave the same answer as I did (post #52) and if he didn't, he's wrong because nobody knows what happened before the big bang.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why? He already gave the same answer as I did (post #52) ...

Okay.

 

[tevans9129]

You think Subduction will give you a different answer?

Yes, well, so far he has given a number of different answers, such as this one...

When was roughly 13.8 billion years ago, at least that was when the universe as we know it began. I could link you to the work of physicists, but what they do is to measure how fast various galaxies are retreating from us and work backwards. To appreciate the answer you might need to learn quite a bit of basic science first.

To this question.

Where, when and how did space, matter, energy and time come into existence and in what sequence, using empirical evidence for your answer?

It had previously been clearly stated, "in the beginning", do you see an answer to that question as it was asked? Nothing more required than, not known, so why try to deflect and avoid the question? Could it be because "belief" does not go with science when one is scoffing at "belief" and trying to pass off unknowns as science?

Even science admits...

"It's one of several scientific models that attempts to explain why the universe is the way it is. The theory makes several predictions, many of which have been proven through observational data. As a result, it's the most popular and accepted theory regarding our universe's development."

"models...attempts...several...most popular...theory"

Which means there are other "theories" coming from the scientific community, BB is the most popular one but it does not claim to be a provable fact, does it?

In addition, it only attempts to explain the "universe's development" not its beginning which my question clearly stated, is that correct?

 

[lesliedellow]

In what would become to be known as day one, He created the heavens and the earth and furnished light from Himself to temporarily set up day and night until earth and the sun were created.

Yet another idiotic attempt to conflate physics with theology? Light consists of oscillations in an electromagnetic field, so I guess that makes God into an electromagnetic field.

 

[tevans9129]

Yes, you demonstrated that you had no rational reason for your beliefs in the OP. You are demonstrably wrong, but do not seem to be interested in learning why.



Sorry, but then you are merely repeating an error. If you don't mind being corrected every time that you make that mistake feel free.

Fair enough....if you do not mind having it pointed out every time you avoid answering questions that you are asked, that is fair, is it not?

 

[tevans9129]

Nobody knows. All science has at this point is speculation. But you don't know, either--so we're all in the same boat. Some of us think God brought it all about ex nihilo (though I'm more of an ex materia man myself) But nobody knows exactly what happened.

I see that as an honest answer and I accept it as such. I have two primary reasons for asking the questions that I ask, one is, can the one being asked, provide verifiable evidence for his answers and two is, does his deflection, diversion, ignoring of questions as they are asked, raise a flag if the person can be trusted, IMO.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, well, so far he has given a number of different answers, such as this one...



To this question.



It had previously been clearly stated, "in the beginning", do you see an answer to that question as it was asked? Nothing more required than, not known, so why try to deflect and avoid the question? Could it be because "belief" does not go with science when one is scoffing at "belief" and trying to pass off unknowns as science?

Even science admits...

"It's one of several scientific models that attempts to explain why the universe is the way it is. The theory makes several predictions, many of which have been proven through observational data. As a result, it's the most popular and accepted theory regarding our universe's development."

"models...attempts...several...most popular...theory"

Which means there are other "theories" coming from the scientific community, BB is the most popular one but it does not claim to be a provable fact, does it?

In addition, it only attempts to explain the "universe's development" not its beginning which my question clearly stated, is that correct?

That's what we have been trying to tell you, but you seem to be looking for some other answer.

 

[tevans9129]

Because shortly after the Big Bang is as far as the scientific method can take us right now. Demanding answers that do not exist will not get you anywhere.

Then why not make that admission at the very beginning rather than try to deflect with ludicrous "answers" to the question that I asked? BTW, can you quote me ever "demanding" answers to my questions? If not, was that a false accusation?

 

[Speedwell]

Then why not make that admission at the very beginning rather than try to deflect with ludicrous "answers" to the question that I asked? BTW, can you quote me ever "demanding" answers to my questions? If not, was that a false accusation?

It's not an "admission," it's a given, a well-known fact about our present understanding of cosmology. You are the one who is failing the "trust" test here.

 

[tevans9129]

You don't appear to like the answers.

I love this and I have heard it at least 1701 times, more or less. I even tried it on a class instructor once when I was given a failing grade on a test. I asked him why and his response was that I did not answer the questions, to which I responded, I answered the questions, you just did not like the answers and his response was, you are correct, I did not like your answers...and you still failed the test.

It seems to me that it would be much more credible if one would quote the question asked, then quote their answer for the question which would prove what they claim is true, would it not?

Of course, that would have the opposite effect if there really was no answer as the question was asked, would you agree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, well, so far he has given a number of different answers, such as this one...



To this question.



It had previously been clearly stated, "in the beginning", do you see an answer to that question as it was asked? Nothing more required than, not known, so why try to deflect and avoid the question? Could it be because "belief" does not go with science when one is scoffing at "belief" and trying to pass off unknowns as science?

Even science admits...

"It's one of several scientific models that attempts to explain why the universe is the way it is. The theory makes several predictions, many of which have been proven through observational data. As a result, it's the most popular and accepted theory regarding our universe's development."

"models...attempts...several...most popular...theory"

Which means there are other "theories" coming from the scientific community, BB is the most popular one but it does not claim to be a provable fact, does it?

In addition, it only attempts to explain the "universe's development" not its beginning which my question clearly stated, is that correct?

Yes, you can quote out of context and think that you have made a point.

So what?

Now would you like to work on your lack of science education? Would you like to learn why we know that Genesis is mythical?

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you like to learn why we know that Genesis is mythical?

Because you believe it is saying a 6'3½" invisible rabbit did it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I love this and I have heard it at least 1701 times, more or less. I even tried it on a class instructor once when I was given a failing grade on a test. I asked him why and his response was that I did not answer the questions, to which I responded, I answered the questions, you just did not like the answers and his response was, you are correct, I did not like your answers...and you still failed the test.

No, you have to be giving correct answers to be able to make that statement. How can you get a failing grade in a science class anyway? The only way to do that is to actively try not to learn.

It seems to me that it would be much more credible if one would quote the question asked, then quote their answer for the question which would prove what they claim is true, would it not?

Sure, but if someone cannot ask proper questions one has to do the best that one can.

Of course, that would have the opposite effect if there really was no answer as the question was asked, would you agree?

Just try to ask proper questions in the future.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because you believe it is saying a 6'3½" invisible rabbit did it?

Just as valid as your belief.

 

[tevans9129]

No, I can demonstrate that empirical laws exist. I doubt if you can demonstrate that any of your beliefs exist.

You really like to ignore the phrase, "in the beginning" don't you? Did I ask if natural laws exist or, did I ask when, where and how did they come into existence?

Oh but I can, I have the belief that Scriptures that were written approximately sixth century BC claimed that the Jewish people would be scattered from their homeland throughout the nations but would be gathered back to that homeland in the latter years.

They were scattered, starting in 70-135 AD and on May 14, 1948 was once again back in their homeland as a nation and speaking their original language after almost 2k years an event never before or since, done in history.That is a written record proven with scripture and secular records.

That is one example, would you like a few hundred more?