Question.

megajune · Mar 31, 2004

Wadda' you guys N gals think?

Before the 'Big Bang', there was a void. There was nothing - no matter, energy, gravity, or time as we know it. Out of this void, for no reason, comes a everything. The laws of physics and ignored and matter and energy are created out of nothing.
- POOF -
By pure luck, stars are made, planets are formed, and the first life-form crawls out of the mud. The first lifeform develope into everything alive today.

Just a thought - Has anyone EVER, seen, touch, heard, tasted what I've described here? Sounds to me that science has become every bit as religous as we are. I was talking to a guy who said 'people who believe in things they can't see are ignorant'. I suggested it takes as much faith to believe in the big bang as it does to believe in Jesus.

What do you think? Try from a objective point of view. Can you justify the Big Bang, and everything afterwords, without devine will? Also, is it easier to belive in Jesus of no God at all?

Ark-Guy · Mar 31, 2004

You are sooooooo right. Evolution is religion.

Bushido216 · Mar 31, 2004

First off, Ark Guy, by using that definition of a religion, you have just invalidated Christianity to a series of ignorant people.

Secondly, we cannot directly observe the Big Bang, but we can observe its effects, much like Forensic Scientists do (or would you try and invalidate Forensic Science?).

Ark-Guy · Mar 31, 2004

Bushido216 said:
First off, Ark Guy, by using that definition of a religion, you have just invalidated Christianity to a series of ignorant people.

I think not. A Christian would understand that the bible is true, I.E., Adam was formed from the dust and Eve was formed from Adams side...a follower of evolutionism disagrees with the bible.

Bushido216 said:
Secondly, we cannot directly observe the Big Bang, but we can observe its effects, much like Forensic Scientists do (or would you try and invalidate Forensic Science?).

And we can not directly observe the fiat of creation..but we can observe its effects!!! Perhaps it is YOU that is trying to invalidate Forensic Science. Yes?

Bushido216 · Mar 31, 2004

Ark Guy, I recognize that this is going to be an exercise in futility, but I'll try and show you what I mean anyway.

megajune said:
I was talking to a guy who said 'people who believe in things they can't see are ignorant'. I suggested it takes as much faith to believe in the big bang as it does to believe in Jesus.

You agreed with that statement. Since we cannot observe the Virgin birth, or Jesus doing miracles, but can only read about them, Christians who believe in these things are ignorant by your own definition.

So, no, your first attempt at rebuttal only further goes to prove my point. That's a dumb definition to use.

Ark Guy said:
And we can not directly observe the fiat of creation..but we can observe its effects!!! Perhaps it is YOU that is trying to invalidate Forensic Science. Yes?

What effects are those? Explain red shift away, I dare you. And please explain how I am invalidating Forensic Science?

Better yet, don't.

Ceris · Mar 31, 2004

I'm confused, what are you guys debating over here?

Bushido216 · Mar 31, 2004

Six day creation versus big bang science.

Ark-Guy · Mar 31, 2004

Bushido216, stop with the ad-hom insults or I will report you.

The flood happened and we can see the results of it. (fossils, strata, etc.)
Quick movement of continents.(recumbent folds)
Instant creation happened and we can see the results of that. (radiometric halos)

Red shifts, explain them away? Easy, time slowed down after creation..any light observed prior to the slowdown would appear as red shifted.

Bushido216 · Mar 31, 2004

AD-HOMS? What are you talking about? Report these ad-homs, please. I'd like the moderators to have a good laugh at your expense after they realize that you are ban evading.

You're lucky that I haven't reported you. You're just lucky that I enjoy a good debate.

Regardless, flood geology was falsified MANY years ago, before Darwin even thought of Evolution.

And don't give me polonium haloes. Those were refuted before I was even born.

Time slowing down? What does that have to do with red shifts again? I'm curious. I'll admit that I'm not up on my physics but I could have sworn it had nothing to do with that.

Ark-Guy · Mar 31, 2004

Yes, stop the ad-homs.

As far as ban evading, I signed up with the same e-mail and the same name using their approved method.

Concerning redshifts, its about the wavelength of light and how it changed when the speed of light slowed down.
As light slows down it's wavelength will decrease. Any previous light would appear to have a longer wavelength..or a redshift.

Ark-Guy · Mar 31, 2004

Bushido216 said:
Regardless, flood geology was falsified MANY years ago, before Darwin even thought of Evolution.

If you say so.

Bushido216 said:
And don't give me polonium haloes. Those were refuted before I was even born.

Once again...if you say so.

Bushido216 · Mar 31, 2004

Ark-Guy said:
Yes, stop the ad-homs.

As far as ban evading, I signed up with the same e-mail and the same name using their approved method.

Concerning redshifts, its about the wavelength of light and how it changed when the speed of light slowed down.
As light slows down it's wavelength will decrease. Any previous light would appear to have a longer wavelength..or a redshift.

You can't show that time slowed down. Infact, it is HIGHLY unlikely, since the universe as we know it would be entirely different before this event.

As well, your redshift theory fails the "how come not everything in the universe has a redshift" test.

Bushido216 · Mar 31, 2004

Ark-Guy said:
If you say so.

Once again...if you say so.

Prove flood geology using a tactic not refuted 400 times already.

Prove halos using a tactic not refuted 400 times already.

CM6 · Mar 31, 2004

Bushido216 said:
You agreed with that statement. Since we cannot observe the Virgin birth, or Jesus doing miracles, but can only read about them, Christians who believe in these things are ignorant by your own definition.

We cannot observe them now. But people living during that time did.
No one in history has ever observed the Big Bang.

Bushido216 · Mar 31, 2004

You're right. No one also observes crimes, except the perpetrator, or else we wouldn't need Forensic Evidence.

My suggestion is not to use Ark Guy as your main source of arguements.

Ark-Guy · Mar 31, 2004

Bushido216 said:
Prove flood geology using a tactic not refuted 400 times already.

Prove halos using a tactic not refuted 400 times already.

Bushido, I believe you have been blinded and no matter what evidence is presented to you, you will not agree with what the bible teaches.

CM6 · Mar 31, 2004

Bushido216 said:
You're right. No one also observes crimes, except the perpetrator, or else we wouldn't need Forensic Evidence.

Are you suggesting that Forensic Evidence reveals what really happened 100% of the time?

Bushido216 · Mar 31, 2004

No, but it is still used anyway, despite the attempts of many defense attorney's to invalidate it.

In the same way, Big Bang theory has some problems, but it is still used as it is the best explaination of the data, despite the attempts of many creationists to invalidate it.

Bulldog · Mar 31, 2004

Ark-guy, why can't the story of the flood be taking symbolically?

Ark-Guy · Mar 31, 2004

There is symbolism in the flood account. Jesus is the ark, our means of salvation.

On the other hand, the bible in the Old and New Testament present it as a literal historical event.

The truth, it really happened and was symbolic.

To claim the flood was purely symbolic would be in error.

Question.

Junior Member

Ark-Guy

Guest

Well-Known Member

Ark-Guy

Guest

Well-Known Member

I R the Nutness (and I love sedatta )

Well-Known Member

Ark-Guy

Guest

Well-Known Member

Ark-Guy

Guest

Ark-Guy

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CM6

Guest

Well-Known Member

Ark-Guy

Guest

CM6

Guest

Well-Known Member

Don't Tread on Me

Ark-Guy

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency