Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

[British Bulldog]

When the poster mentioned that he hasn't seen inspiration, or gifts, I gave a link so all could have a boo at both.

I didn't boo at them, I enjoyed a snippet from a music concert. I didn't see any special gifts though. We're still waiting for those.

 

[dad]

I didn't boo at them, I enjoyed a snippet from a music concert. I didn't see any special gifts though. We're still waiting for those.

I see inspiration and gifts from God there.

 

[Doveaman]

The present started with the big bang. DUH.

In the beginning nothing went bang. DUH.

 

[British Bulldog]

I see inspiration and gifts from God there.

You saw a music concert, just like the one I posted.

 

[Tuddrussell]

In the beginning nothing went bang. DUH.

Well yeah, but that is the proper name of the event. (Which did happen.)

We know through the power of MATH.

 

[dad]

You saw a music concert, just like the one I posted.

In the one I posted I saw gifts and inspiration. In the one you posted I suspect I would also see inspiration from spiritual sources.

 

[British Bulldog]

In the one I posted I saw gifts and inspiration. In the one you posted I suspect I would also see inspiration from spiritual sources.

Why not watch it and find out?

 

[dad]

Why not watch it and find out?

OK. I'll try to go back and dig it out...try to watch a few seconds if I can stomach it.

 

[Doveaman]

Well yeah, but that is the proper name of the event. (Which did happen.)

So nothing went bang? Got it.

We know through the power of MATH.

Mathemagic:

 

[MoonLancer]

So nothing went bang? Got it.

Ironic how creationists named the big bang and now they want to discredit it by its name. Make up your mind.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well yeah, but that is the proper name of the event. (Which did happen.)

I don't know if "proper" is the best term to use here. Fred Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang", and he meant it as an insult. Fred Hoyle never accepted the theory, and was a critic of the theory until his last breath. The name stuck because physicists thought it was funny.

The truth of the matter is that the Big Bang was quite small, and it didn't bang.

 

[Tuddrussell]

Yes, but it is still what it is called. That's what it is taught as, and that's how it is remembered.

Yes, it is a misnomer... So what?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

Subscribing
Is anybody's?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7496252/#post58516385
The Bereans

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[driewerf]

Ironic how creationists named the big bang and now they want to discredit it by its name. Make up your mind.

Actually, no.

The name Big Bang was coined by a mocking Fred Hoyle. But Hoyle wasn't a creationist. He was an atheist who opposed the BBT because he saw it as a sneaky way christians could force creationism back in science. Don't forget the BBT was first formulated by a George Lemaître, who was a Catholic priest from Belgium. Pope Pius XII publicly endorsed the BBT.

Hoyle advanced the Steady State Theory, claiming that the niverse had always existed and that there was thus no "Creation Moment", or no "Origin of the Universe". He did this partially to oppose christianity.

You are right that it is funny that creationists forget or ignore this part of the story. That sites like Conservapedia now scream things like ATHEIST BIG BANG etc.

But the BBT wasn't named by creationists. No.

 

[dad]

Actually, no.

The name Big Bang was coined by a mocking Fred Hoyle. But Hoyle wasn't a creationist. He was an atheist who opposed the BBT because he saw it as a sneaky way christians could force creationism back in science. Don't forget the BBT was first formulated by a George Lemaître, who was a Catholic priest from Belgium. Pope Pius XII publicly endorsed the BBT.

Hoyle advanced the Steady State Theory, claiming that the niverse had always existed and that there was thus no "Creation Moment", or no "Origin of the Universe". He did this partially to oppose christianity.

You are right that it is funny that creationists forget or ignore this part of the story. That sites like Conservapedia now scream things like ATHEIST BIG BANG etc.

But the BBT wasn't named by creationists. No.

I for one don't care who named the spaghetti monster or the BB creation story.

 

[dad]

Why not watch it and find out?

OK I looked at most of it. Words that come to mind are ..hopeless, sad, drugs, meaningless, no real beat, musically uninteresting, pride, droning on......

I've seen and heard worse.

 

[Doveaman]

Hoyle advanced the Steady State Theory, claiming that the niverse had always existed and that there was thus no "Creation Moment", or no "Origin of the Universe". He did this partially to oppose christianity.

You are right that it is funny that creationists forget or ignore this part of the story.

The BBT is a mathematical model that was rejected by Fred Hoyle, a mathematician. If a mathematical model is rejected by a mathematician then it should be no big deal if a creationist rejects this same model. The mathematicians don't even agree on the mathematical model, so why should creationists agree?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The BBT is a mathematical model that was rejected by Fred Hoyle, a mathematician. If a mathematical model is rejected by a mathematician then it should be no big deal if a creationist rejects this same model. The mathematicians don't even agree on the mathematical model, so why should creationists agree?

Nobody expect creationist to agree on anything that threatens to diminish their own sense of importance. The difference is, when mathematicians disagree with a mathematical theory, they tend to have mathematical reasons.

Creationists tend to disagree with things over egocentric reasons.

 

[driewerf]

The BBT is a mathematical model that was rejected by Fred Hoyle, a mathematician. If a mathematical model is rejected by a mathematician then it should be no big deal if a creationist rejects this same model. The mathematicians don't even agree on the mathematical model, so why should creationists agree?

Hoyle was an astromomer, not a mathematician.

Hoyle rejected the BBT because it conflicted with his philosofical preconceived notions. As such his atitude is exactly the same as the creationists. What he did was bad science.

What you can learn from this is that it is always very dangerous when preconceived notions - like religious domgas - take priority over empirical testing.

 

[dad]

Hoyle was an astromomer, not a mathematician.

Hoyle rejected the BBT because it conflicted with his philosofical preconceived notions. As such his atitude is exactly the same as the creationists. What he did was bad science.

What you can learn from this is that it is always very dangerous when preconceived notions - like religious domgas - take priority over empirical testing.

Even worse is when the 'testing' is all based on preconceived present state past beliefs.