Supremacy challenge part 2

[fargonic]

True or false? The chemical composition of water does not change if you lower the temperature below the freezing point.
This is chemistry.

And that doesn't change one whit what I told you about mineralogy.

I am enjoying having you tell me all about geology and chemistry. As I said, I have a PhD in geology with focus on geochemistry. I've spent the last 20 years of my career doing chemistry.

Your own link states that most gemologists have a hard time separating natural from organic diamonds. The composition and hardness are the same. Organic diamonds, done right, are jewel quality and have to be analyzed by a lab to tell the difference.

And that makes your original point that there is no difference other than time wrong. It may be difficult but there are some differences (not always present, but some differences).

Case in point, the scientific community looks down of creation scientists because they look at data differently and come to completely different interpretations.

When I read about how creationists do their data gathering I find that in many cases (say, for instance Steve Austin's dating of the Mt. St. Helens Dacite) they do it so badly it is amazing. Steve Austin, for instance, relied on measurements that were by definition below the detection limits of the equipment (that's basic analytical chemistry) and he failed to parse out xenoliths etc. It was really bad science.

Data is data. If you collect it using bad methods you can get whatever results you like. Which is apparently what many creation scientists do.

I see shifting sediment

Huh? Do you know what coal looks like?

Coal and oil are natural fuel sources which we needed at just about the same time we discovered them. The Lord takes care of His people; even those who doubt him.

Funny how He puts the rocks in such a way that the only way to make sense of them is through deep time.

God told us exactly how He created the world. it wasn't supposed to follow the laws of science. The creation intentionally broke those laws.

See, all you needed do was say "It's a miracle! Sure it looks like this but in reality God used magic to make it!"

Not my thing.

LOL! So you are going to make decrees on geology yet you have no interest in learning it?

Wow! What if an atheist were to do that with the Bible? Would you not just laugh him or her out of the room?

Geology can tell us amazing things about the world we live in.

Thankfully YOU can pick and choose which pieces you like. Mainly because you don't have any interest in geology. Thankfully for YOU those that DO understand geology can use the things you don't like to find materials which you enjoy!

Please point to the metaphor in Genesis.

Tree of the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil. A BEAUTIFUL metaphor for growing up and learning that one must take responsibility for one's actions. If you know the difference between good and evil you can no longer hide behind an innocence. You have to take responsibility for the evil you do in life.

I LOVE that reading of it. It's VERY powerful.

The idea of a real fruit tree called "The Knowledge of Good and Evil" with a talking snake in it seems pretty juvenile to me and doesn't hold any power or value.

The order of creation defies any explanation other than a miracle from God.

So why do you expend any effort trying to wave away "shifting sediments" and predators eating the fossils of certain animals only in certain areas? If God did a miracle why do you bother to explain anything ?

There is no compromise in truth. Either it's 100% true or it's 100% false.

That's your problem. I never said Genesis was 100% false.

Chapter and verse, please.

Do you have a WINDOW where you live or work? Take a look outside.

Oh, the third grade argument again. I haven't seen that one in days.
Please tell me how the computer evolved on it's own without involving external intelligence.

The majority of metals in your computer come from a mine (except the Si which is grown in a lab). They were found in the ground using standard geology which, about 400 years ago, accepted deep time and an old earth. It relies on the basics of these things to understand why ores occur in certain areas and how to dig down to exploit them. The petroleum that went into the plastics in your computer, same thing. Only now you can add in how we understand the generation of petroleum through heat, pressure and time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I read about how creationists do their data gathering I find that in many cases (say, for instance Steve Austin's dating of the Mt. St. Helens Dacite) they do it so badly it is amazing. Steve Austin, for instance, relied on measurements that were by definition below the detection limits of the equipment (that's basic analytical chemistry) and he failed to parse out xenoliths etc. It was really bad science.

Steve Austin made the sort of error that an undergrad student that had only taken a class on radiometric dating would not have made. That tells us that either he is extremely incompetent, and the schools that he went to did not tend to give degrees to incompetent people. Or he is extremely dishonest. Perhaps something happened to him after he graduated, who knows, but either way his utter failure in that simple task that he undertook shows he is not to be trusted in matters of science any more.

 

[KWCrazy]

And that doesn't change one whit what I told you about mineralogy.

You didn't answer the question.

I am enjoying having you tell me all about geology and chemistry.

I enjoy watching you dodge the question.

As I said, I have a PhD in geology with focus on geo

chemistry. I've spent the last 20 years of my career doing chemistry.

So either you don't understand the chemical composition of ice or you refuse to admit that I'm right and water doesn't magically transform to rock below 32 degrees.

And that makes your original point that there is no difference other than time wrong.

Compressed carbon is compressed carbon. You missed my point. Pressure and heat can do the same thing as millions of years; the overall flaw with your "old earth" philosophy.

Huh? Do you know what coal looks like?

I bet I know more people in the coal industry than you do.

Funny how He puts the rocks in such a way that the only way to make sense of them is through deep time.

Or you could read His book. It's a number one bestseller.

See, all you needed do was say "It's a miracle! Sure it looks like this but in reality God used magic to make it!"

The difference is that miracles are real. Magic is mythology.

LOL! So you are going to make decrees on geology yet you have no interest in learning it?

The OP had nothing to do with geology.

What if an atheist were to do that with the Bible?

That happens every day in this forum.
More later

 

[Larniavc]

Again, the fundamental problem of your questions is what they assert as a foundation.

Isn't that the case about any question about Christianity (or indeed any religion)?

They all assert as a foundation that they are correct.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I never said that. I said that since all truth is God's truth, I seek to, where I can, try to align my understanding of Scripture's claims with the evidence I am presented with science.

How is that different from what I said???
It seems to be spot on identical to what I said...

You start from the position that the bible is correct, no matter what, yet you won't deny facts of reality.

From that it follows that whenever you find facts that seem to contradict what the bible says... you just "re-interprate" the relevant bible passages and assume that it really means the correct thing.

Indeed, just like I said: "Yeah, the bible seems to say Y, but it actually really means X"

For example, when I am presented with the scientific evidence that the sun is the center of the solar system, I go back to passages like Joshua 10:13 and say, "Well, this could easily be understood as phenomenological language and not at all damage the infallibility of Scripture." I don't just say, "Science is right, so Scripture is wrong here."

Exactly. Just like I said. Again.

You start with the dogmatic belief that the bible MUST be correct and whenever reality obviously contradicts biblical passages - you just go back to the bible and retro-actively say that the bible must be meaning the correct thing instead of what it seems to be saying.

As per your own admission (eventhough you seem to not be willing to come out and say it directly), you are incapable of saying that the bible is wrong about something, when it clearly is.

Nope. To you, the bible is correct no matter what - even when it is obviously wrong. In that case, there "must" be some kind of hidden meaning or misunderstanding because it's clearly impossible that the bible can be wrong...

That's your stance summed up.

Now, there are instances where it has to either be one or the other. Either the flood in Genesis happened or it didn't, for example. That's what I mean when I say that so far no one has been able to provide scientific evidence that is irreconcilable with relevant statements of Scripture.

Newsflash: the genesis flood is scientifically impossible. It can't happen, has never happened and will never happen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

I can agree to that.

You're an atheist. Atheists pretend there is no God

Nope, that is not true. I'm an agnostic atheist. Which means that I just remain unvonvinced of the claims of theism. That does not mean that I am necessarily convinced of the exact opposite.

when, in fact, God exists.

Claiming it, does not make it so.

That means you deny reality

No. It means I only consider things to be part of reality which can actually be shown to be part of reality.

You live in a make-believe world in which the only controlling authority is the immutable laws of science.

First, there are no "laws of science". It's called "laws of nature". And by that, I mean simply the ways in which nature/reality operates. And that also includes all the laws/mechanisms/processes that we don't yet know about.

Reality works in a given way. There are things that are possible and there are things that are impossible. Science is in the business of unraveling those laws and processes and determining which things are and aren't possible.

Unlike theists, I don't start from the answers and work my way back to the questions.
I don't pretend to know the answers in advance.

Of course, since origination is impossible within the laws of science

Another claim that you cannot substantiate.
Again, you don't know what is possible or impossible in advance.

The origins of the universe (assuming that's the "origination" you refer to), are unknown. I'm fine with genuine ignorance. You don't seem to be.

you believe in a world that could not have been created and therefore doesn't exist

Your mindreading device seems broken.

No offense, but given that, I reject your opinions of reality.

All you are rejecting... is a strawman.

Some, yes.

So... your statement was false.

A global flood would have created fossils buried in all the sediment.

Let's be a little more specific here about what such a flood predicts we should find...
1. a chaotic mix of fossils in the same layer.
2. no "hot spots" of such fossils, but rather spread out evenly over the surface of the planet
3. the geological layer in which we find those fossils should be the same all over the globe, dated to the same period
4. a genetic bottleneck in ALL extant species, dating to the same period as the sedimentary layer
5. an abrupt stop of all civilisations all over the world that existed at that time.

What do we find?

Indeed... what DO we find? Let's see...

1. No chaotic mix in the same layer. Instead, fossils are sorted in different layers that is consistent all over the planet. We never find mammals next to trilobites. Anywhere.
2. the exact opposite again... we DO find hotspots near sea shores, rivers, lakes, etc. More in-land, where there are/were no such rivers, lakes and coasts, we find almost no fossils at all. A global flood would show the opposite.
3. as already pointed out in 1, this is not the case either. Instead, fossils are spread out over different layers and they date to vastly different periods. Moreover, we can't find a single example anywhere on the planet where a fossil shows up in the "wrong" layer (wrong, in terms of an evolutionary history, that is).
4. No such bottleneck exists
5. No such abrupt stops of any civilisations

Evidence of a flood? No, you say.

Indeed, no. What we find in the ground is simply NOT compatible with the flood story on ANY point.

Proof there was none.

First of all, shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy.
Secondly, I just did. Literally not a single one of its predictions check out.

There's that separation from reality again.

Indeed. But it's you that is guilty of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Everything that breathed air and wasn't on the ark died.

Again, as I pointed out, this would result in a massive, and I do mean MASSIVE, genetic bottleneck in ALL EXTANT life.

But no such bottleneck exists in any species, let alone all species.

In case it still isn't clear: that's bulletproof evidence that this flood story is false.
Even ignoring all geological evidence, that fact - by itself - is a 100% refutation of the flood story. It simple did not happen.

 

[KWCrazy]

Tree of the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil. A BEAUTIFUL metaphor for growing up and learning that one must take responsibility for one's actions. If you know the difference between good and evil you can no longer hide behind an innocence. You have to take responsibility for the evil you do in life.
I LOVE that reading of it. It's VERY powerful.
The idea of a real fruit tree called "The Knowledge of Good and Evil" with a talking snake in it seems pretty juvenile to me and doesn't hold any power or value.

So in other words, you don't understand it at all.
In the beginning, man was innocent. He had a close relationship with his Creator. He lived in a perfect utopia. He had everything he could possibly want. In the garden were two trees; one called the tree of life and the other called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There likely was nothing spectacular about these trees other than the importance they had with man determining his destiny. One offered eternal life. The other the knowledge of right and wrong and thus the responsibility for sin. By choosing to eat the fruit man became responsible for everything he did. The wages of sin are death. Adam was told he would die. The devil told Eve they would not surely die... at least that day. However, on that day they would begin to age and eventually die.

It was man's choice to know better and by knowing better man intentionally separated himself from God. Sin and death came into the world which had been made perfect. Why? Because man has always had a choice; follow God's laws or reject them. Prior to his there was no death. It's important because evolution is based on millions of years of death. The two are not compatible. If it were a metaphor what would it represent? In your opinion life had gone on for millions of years before Adam so he was just another dude to you. If there was no fall of man then man didn't need a savior and Jesus never need to come to earth.

You see once you start rejecting there is no point at which you can suddenly say "I believe this part and this part, but none of that other stuff.

If God did a miracle why do you bother to explain anything?

Shale exists.
Fossils exist.
Diamonds exist.
All can be formed in a short period of time with heat and pressure.
Without an ancient planet you have no alternative to the creation. That's why you must insist that the world is billions of years old.


That's your problem. I never said Genesis was 100% false.

The majority of metals in your computer come from a mine (except the Si which is grown in a lab). They were found in the ground using standard geology which, about 400 years ago, accepted deep time and an old earth.

According to researchers, humans have been mining for 260,000 years. I believe that pre-dates your geology degree.

 

[KWCrazy]

Another claim that you cannot substantiate.
Again, you don't know what is possible or impossible in advance.

Do you hearby disavow the first law of thermodynamics?
Matter / energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. If you start with nothing existing, the third law of thermodynamics precludes activity in absolute zero; which would be the absence of any heat producing substance.
The only way origination can happen is to violate natural law. So which is it; do the laws of nature not apply, or do they? It's not a matter of being ignorant of the method. It's simply a fact that things do not create themselves from nothingness.

Let's be a little more specific here about what such a flood predicts we should find...

Should I pray and tell God He didn't do it right?

1. a chaotic mix of fossils in the same layer.

There are fossils in the rocks on mountain peaks.
Oh, but those mountains were formed later, you say.
What? Seismic upheaval disrupts the geography of the earth? I thought it was a perfect oblate spheroid.

2. no "hot spots" of such fossils, but rather spread out evenly over the surface of the planet

Fossils only form in sedimentary rock. All living things aren't evenly spread out now. Why would they be then? Did you even think that through?

3. the geological layer in which we find those fossils should be the same all over the globe, dated to the same period

Dated by whom? In Genesis, God dates it all the same.

4. a genetic bottleneck in ALL extant species, dating to the same period as the sedimentary layer

No genetic bottleneck because life didn't evolve.

5. an abrupt stop of all civilisations all over the world that existed at that time.

Every major civilization tells roughly the same story of the ark.

First of all, shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy.

No, it's defending what you say.
It comes down to whether you have faith in the word of God or the interpretations of man.
I'll stick with the word of God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you hearby disavow the first law of thermodynamics?

No.

Matter / energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form.

Yes, that seems to be the way things work in this universe.

If you start with nothing existing, the third law of thermodynamics precludes activity in absolute zero; which would be the absence of any heat producing substance.

I just told you that the origins of the universe are UNKNOWN. So why do you state "start out with nothing existing"??

What do you even mean by "nothing"?
How have you determined that if you remove the universe from existance, that "nothing" is what is left?

I most certainly never made any such claim, either way.

The only way origination can happen is to violate natural law.

Here's something that anyone employing this kind of reasoning should understand....
When you speak about "natural law", you are talking about physics. Physics as it applies IN the universe.

The laws of physics are an integral part of the space-time continuum. If you remove the universe, then you also remove the physics of said universe.

You extrapollate the physics of this universe and pretend as if the SAME physics also applies "beyond" the universe.

So which is it; do the laws of nature not apply, or do they?

The only thing we know about the laws of nature/physics is that they apply IN THIS UNIVERSE.

It's not a matter of being ignorant of the method. It's simply a fact that things do not create themselves from nothingness.

That's not entirely true, as there certainly are particles in quantum physics which seem to appear out of nowhere/nothingness as well as disappear into nowhere/nothingness.

But even ignoring that... again... I don't think I ever made any claims concerning "nothingness". That's again you pretending to be able to read my mind.

I did not tell you that I think things started with "nothing" (whatever it is you really mean by that). What I actually said was that we do not know how things got started.

Again, I'm not afraid of genuine ignorance. If anything, I embrace it.

Should I pray and tell God He didn't do it right?

I thought you were so fond of the laws of nature/physics? Or are you only a fan of them when you think you can (ab)use them to suit your arguments?

Are you going to disagree that events of such a scale would have impact on geological and biological data??????

You are welcome to, by the way, but then why did YOU start this argument about "fossils all over the world"????

Clearly, since you made that point, you agree that such an event would leave a trail of evidence on a massive scale. I just pointed out what these effects would be in a little more detail. If you disagree about these details, you are welcome to explain and point out why they are supposedly wrong.

There are fossils in the rocks on mountain peaks.
Oh, but those mountains were formed later, you say.
What? Seismic upheaval disrupts the geography of the earth? I thought it was a perfect oblate spheroid.

You are unaware of plate tectonics, geological activity and seismic upheavel?
It's not like these processes are unobservable...

And good job ignoring the actual point that was made, concerning the chaotic mix of fossils that a flood would predict, instead of the sorted mix that we actually observe in the geological and fossil record.

Fossils only form in sedimentary rock. All living things aren't evenly spread out now. Why would they be then? Did you even think that through?

Apparantly you didn't think it through. If the flood happened, then the entire surface of the planet should have sedimentary rock.

Dated by whom?

Atomic decay. A pretty exact science.

In Genesis, God dates it all the same.

Yep. And it doesn't match the rocks in the ground. The point exactly.

No genetic bottleneck because life didn't evolve.

/facepalm

It has nothing to do with evolution (eventhough evolution actually explains the mechanisms by which such bottlenecks are formed). Bottlenecks occur within a species. Life reproduces with variation. The amount of variation is directly proportional with population sizes. Shrinking a population to a handfull of individuals means an extreme loss in such variation. This loss of variation is what we call a bottleneck. This would occur regardless of evolution being true or not.

Every major civilization tells roughly the same story of the ark.

First, that's not true.
Second, most civilisations settled near rivers or seas. Flooding is a common occurance. It's to be expected that most civilisations will have encountered "epic" flooding and told the story.

But that completely ignores the point being made.
If the biblical flood story is true, then all civilisations of that time should have been whiped out. But that did not happen.

No, it's defending what you say.

Yes, you seem to have build your defences on logical fallacies. I'm not arguing with you there.

 

[fargonic]

So in other words, you don't understand it at all.

That's probably it. I should really have worried more about how many legs the talking snake had.

The other the knowledge of right and wrong and thus the responsibility for sin. By choosing to eat the fruit man became responsible for everything he did.

Strangely that was exactly what I said!

It was man's choice to know better and by knowing better man intentionally separated himself from God.

Did you actually just read what you wrote? And you can't find an interesting metaphor in there?

Sin and death came into the world which had been made perfect. Why? Because man has always had a choice; follow God's laws or reject them

This might be where the metaphor becomes somewhat less pleasant. God's only ask was that man NOT become knowledgable about the goodness or evil of his own actions. God wished for man to be "perfect" in a form of ignorance. (I do try not to dwell too much on that bit).

It's important because evolution is based on millions of years of death.

....as evidenced by the billions of years worth of DEAD THINGS in the rock that were once living things.

If it were a metaphor what would it represent? In your opinion life had gone on for millions of years before Adam so he was just another dude to you. If there was no fall of man then man didn't need a savior and Jesus never need to come to earth.

Fair enough.

You see once you start rejecting there is no point at which you can suddenly say "I believe this part and this part, but none of that other stuff.

EXACTLY as you do with science!

Shale exists.
Fossils exist.
Diamonds exist.
All can be formed in a short period of time with heat and pressure.

Hmmmm, you aren't that familiar with shale are you? One of my jobs was to work in an XRD lab in the geology department. Shale is usually made up of clay sized minerals (some of them are actually clay minerals, a distinction). It takes a LONG time in extremely calm water to get clay minerals to settle out in those nice flat orientations that are the hallmark of a shale.

Now imaging if you go out into the real world and see this:

You are going to have to have a miracle to get that to form in a "short period of time".

This is why I'm curious about your competing claims of "miracle" vs "normal geology". Seems to me you want to make claims about normal geology that are simply not based on facts. And when faced with facts you have to rely on "Miracles". So why not just say "miracles" and accept that God made that miracle look exactly as if it happened non-miraculously over a loooong period of time.

 

[fargonic]

Every major civilization tells roughly the same story of the ark.

Why would anyone's be different? (You aren't possibly suggesting that some societies could have handed down a story and it changed over time in the re-telling or for reasons known only to the teller, are you? Are you then saying ONLY the Hebrew version was the absolute 100% perfectly right one?

It comes down to whether you have faith in the word of God or the interpretations of man.
I'll stick with the word of God.

No, it comes down to whether you accept the giant plant's worth of data vs the words written (by humans) on scraps of paper after millenia of verbal transfer.

Which is a more accurate telling of God's actions? The creation itself or the words someone wrote down about it after the fact?

 

[KWCrazy]

What do you even mean by "nothing"?
How have you determined that if you remove the universe from existance, that "nothing" is what is left?

Matter/ energy is not eternal. Thus it had to have a beginning. Before the beginning it did not exist. Before the existence of matter/energy, nothing would exist. The absence of anything = absolute zero. At absolute zero nothing happens, including the shifting of matter and anti-matter to create something out of nothing.

The laws of physics are an integral part of the space-time continuum. If you remove the universe, then you also remove the physics of said universe.

Correct. The physical laws of this universe apply to the nature of the composition of this universe. We do not, however, have reason to assume that there is any other universe.

That's not entirely true, as there certainly are particles in quantum physics which seem to appear out of nowhere/nothingness as well as disappear into nowhere/nothingness.

Of course what we see is the bonding and unbonding of subatomic particles too small to have gravitational influence. When they bond we see them, when they unbond we do not. The existence of the particles has nothing to do with out ability to detect them.

Are you going to disagree that events of such a scale would have impact on geological and biological data??????

We both know that it did. The problem is, we have no idea what the world looked like before. Was it one continent? Were there mountains or just high hills. What kind of change happened that blasted volcanoes from the sea and sent continents adrift? It would be incredible to know the before and the after condition.

 

[fargonic]

Matter/ energy is not eternal. Thus it had to have a beginning. Before the beginning it did not exist. Before the existence of matter/energy, nothing would exist. The absence of anything = absolute zero. At absolute zero nothing happens, including the shifting of matter and anti-matter to create something out of nothing.

This only moves the question off to "where did God come from?" I know the standard answer is "God is eternal" which means one replaces a mystery with a blank assertion that is equally if not more mysterious.

We both know that it did. The problem is, we have no idea what the world looked like before. Was it one continent? Were there mountains or just high hills. What kind of change happened that blasted volcanoes from the sea and sent continents adrift? It would be incredible to know the before and the after condition.

We actually do not a LOT about the early earth and why the continents "drift", etc. Only problem for you is that you don't like those explanations.

 

[KWCrazy]

This only moves the question off to "where did God come from?" I know the standard answer is "God is eternal" which means one replaces a mystery with a blank assertion that is equally if not more mysterious.

He is also apart from our universe, which He would need to be to create it. Remember how natural laws apply to THIS universe? God's universe is called heaven, and the prevailing law is His will.

 

[fargonic]

He is also apart from our universe, which He would need to be to create it. Remember how natural laws apply to THIS universe? God's universe is called heaven, and the prevailing law is His will.

This is good for people who start from a position of belief in God. Obviously as far as "information" it is very short on it, especially if one comes from a position of lack of belief.

Let us say you were presented with someone who had no experience in any religion whatsoever of earth and you wanted to tell them where the earth came from. You start off with the contention that ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing, nothing comes). And then you say that the universe could not have started from nothing but you have a better explanation for its existence and it requires that you start with a being that has always existed.

What you have told this hypothetical person is that: the idea of a being that didn't ever START to exist is ipso facto better than the idea of a universe that popped into existence from nothing by some unknown process.

Can you see how this will appear to the external viewer?

 

[Speedwell]

This is good for people who start from a position of belief in God. Obviously as far as "information" it is very short on it, especially if one comes from a position of lack of belief.

Let us say you were presented with someone who had no experience in any religion whatsoever of earth and you wanted to tell them where the earth came from. You start off with the contention that ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing, nothing comes). And then you say that the universe could not have started from nothing but you have a better explanation for its existence and it requires that you start with a being that has always existed.

What you have told this hypothetical person is that: the idea of a being that didn't ever START to exist is ipso facto better than the idea of a universe that popped into existence from nothing by some unknown process.

Can you see how this will appear to the external viewer?

Not very convincing. Your asking the person to decide whether the universe came into existence through some unknown process or by the action of some unknown being. Without further evidence there is nothing to choose between them.

 

[fargonic]

Not very convincing. Your asking the person to decide whether the universe came into existence through some unknown process or by the action of some unknown being. Without further evidence there is nothing to choose between them.

DING DING DING! Winner Winner, Chicken dinner!

The choice for "origins" ultimately becomes one of personal preference. There is nothing to say one is by definition better than the other. Both have great unknowns. So both are equally problematic from a purely a priori stand point.

 

[KWCrazy]

This is good for people who start from a position of belief in God.

I thought we both did.
We are both Christians.
I'm not the one teaching contrary to God's word.

You start off with the contention that ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing, nothing comes). And then you say that the universe could not have started from nothing but you have a better explanation for its existence and it requires that you start with a being that has always existed.

God and the Big Bang say much the same thing, only God is real and can be found by all who seek Him.

 

[fargonic]

I thought we both did.
We are both Christians.
I'm not the one teaching contrary to God's word.

I am merely pointing out how the usual "First Uncaused Cause" argument tends to break down. (I assume you have had a philosophy class and are familiar with the critiques of various arguments for the existence of God.)

God and the Big Bang say much the same thing, only God is real and can be found by all who seek Him.

I understand that critical analysis of one's own arguments is not necessarily your thing. And that's fine, but God didn't give people brains with the express goal of them not to use them. Some of us just like to use them in a different way.