Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

I45owl Wrote:I do take exception to the following statements

DrTorch Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:And what does the supernatural tell us? What predictions can be made about what the supernatural does? How can it be tested?

I also find it ironic that you bring in requisites for science that evolutionists and cosmologists decline b/c their work does not fit either.

Whilst no-one gets to throw out 10^57 hydrogen atoms in a vaccuum and see what happens, the assertion that cosmology is not testable and that it does not make predictions rings absurd. Is that what you really said?

I don't think so. But clearly some of their work is not testable, isn't that the issue here?

No the issue was that you said that cosmologists decline predictions and testing. Now it's some of their work? That's called moving the goalposts.

Quote:They make conclusive statements which cannot, nor ever will be tested.

More than likely, many of the models proposed for the early universe will not be tested in the manner that you want (going back in time and watching what the universe does from the earliest nanoseconds), but experiements are being done at the subatomic and cosmological level which tell us a lot about the state of the universe right now. Models are proposed and as new technology is created to look deeper into space and "back in time" these models can be either strengthened by the new evidence, or proven wrong. There is certainly much scientific controversy about what the early universe was like, and to imply that the statements scientists are making are totally conclusive is absurd. But I'm guessing that you knew all of this.

So where did the stuff come form that made the big bang? In order for something to go "bang", it has to be bangable? Right?

Endzone2 Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

I45owl Wrote:I do take exception to the following statements

DrTorch Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:And what does the supernatural tell us? What predictions can be made about what the supernatural does? How can it be tested?

I also find it ironic that you bring in requisites for science that evolutionists and cosmologists decline b/c their work does not fit either.

Whilst no-one gets to throw out 10^57 hydrogen atoms in a vaccuum and see what happens, the assertion that cosmology is not testable and that it does not make predictions rings absurd. Is that what you really said?

I don't think so. But clearly some of their work is not testable, isn't that the issue here?

No the issue was that you said that cosmologists decline predictions and testing. Now it's some of their work? That's called moving the goalposts.

Quote:They make conclusive statements which cannot, nor ever will be tested.

More than likely, many of the models proposed for the early universe will not be tested in the manner that you want (going back in time and watching what the universe does from the earliest nanoseconds), but experiements are being done at the subatomic and cosmological level which tell us a lot about the state of the universe right now. Models are proposed and as new technology is created to look deeper into space and "back in time" these models can be either strengthened by the new evidence, or proven wrong. There is certainly much scientific controversy about what the early universe was like, and to imply that the statements scientists are making are totally conclusive is absurd. But I'm guessing that you knew all of this.

So where did the stuff come form that made the big bang? In order for something to go "bang", it has to be bangable? Right?

Whether you approach from science or religion, you can never get to an explanable prime source. Asking where the stuff comes from for the big bang is like asking where God comes from. No one can answer either question to the satisfaction of the opposition.

Endzone2 Wrote:So where did the stuff come form that made the big bang? In order for something to go "bang", it has to be bangable? Right?

Is this a proof that Natalie Portman = God?

Macgyver Created the Universe with a paper clip bubble gum and some duct tape. lmfao

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

I45owl Wrote:I do take exception to the following statements

DrTorch Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:And what does the supernatural tell us? What predictions can be made about what the supernatural does? How can it be tested?

I also find it ironic that you bring in requisites for science that evolutionists and cosmologists decline b/c their work does not fit either.

Whilst no-one gets to throw out 10^57 hydrogen atoms in a vaccuum and see what happens, the assertion that cosmology is not testable and that it does not make predictions rings absurd. Is that what you really said?

I don't think so. But clearly some of their work is not testable, isn't that the issue here?

No the issue was that you said that cosmologists decline predictions and testing. Now it's some of their work? That's called moving the goalposts.

Quote:They make conclusive statements which cannot, nor ever will be tested.

More than likely, many of the models proposed for the early universe will not be tested in the manner that you want (going back in time and watching what the universe does from the earliest nanoseconds), but experiements are being done at the subatomic and cosmological level which tell us a lot about the state of the universe right now. Models are proposed and as new technology is created to look deeper into space and "back in time" these models can be either strengthened by the new evidence, or proven wrong. There is certainly much scientific controversy about what the early universe was like, and to imply that the statements scientists are making are totally conclusive is absurd. But I'm guessing that you knew all of this.

So where did the stuff come form that made the big bang? In order for something to go "bang", it has to be bangable? Right?

Whether you approach from science or religion, you can never get to an explanable prime source. Asking where the stuff comes from for the big bang is like asking where God comes from. No one can answer either question to the satisfaction of the opposition.

\

Thanks, but I believe the Christian explanation is far more plausable than looking at it from a purely physical point of view. I can believe that there are some things about God that are unknowable. But, the big bang guys are only willing to consider the physical. This limited view of creation will forever make fools of them because it ignores the obvious which is where did it all come from? Regardless of how it happened in the physical, where did the physical come from? How can the physical create itself? If you do believe in the nonsense of evolution, where did the stuff come from that started evolution? Anyone with common sense ought to immediately understand that an explanation in the physical realm only (an explanation that excludes God) is impossible. But apparently people who believe in the big bang don't have common sense or else they just can't bear the tought of having to give up their fantasies and submit to God and so they're willing to be self deceived.

Endzone2 Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

I45owl Wrote:I do take exception to the following statements

DrTorch Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:And what does the supernatural tell us? What predictions can be made about what the supernatural does? How can it be tested?

I also find it ironic that you bring in requisites for science that evolutionists and cosmologists decline b/c their work does not fit either.

Whilst no-one gets to throw out 10^57 hydrogen atoms in a vaccuum and see what happens, the assertion that cosmology is not testable and that it does not make predictions rings absurd. Is that what you really said?

I don't think so. But clearly some of their work is not testable, isn't that the issue here?

No the issue was that you said that cosmologists decline predictions and testing. Now it's some of their work? That's called moving the goalposts.

Quote:They make conclusive statements which cannot, nor ever will be tested.

More than likely, many of the models proposed for the early universe will not be tested in the manner that you want (going back in time and watching what the universe does from the earliest nanoseconds), but experiements are being done at the subatomic and cosmological level which tell us a lot about the state of the universe right now. Models are proposed and as new technology is created to look deeper into space and "back in time" these models can be either strengthened by the new evidence, or proven wrong. There is certainly much scientific controversy about what the early universe was like, and to imply that the statements scientists are making are totally conclusive is absurd. But I'm guessing that you knew all of this.

So where did the stuff come form that made the big bang? In order for something to go "bang", it has to be bangable? Right?

Whether you approach from science or religion, you can never get to an explanable prime source. Asking where the stuff comes from for the big bang is like asking where God comes from. No one can answer either question to the satisfaction of the opposition.

\

Thanks, but I believe the Christian explanation is far more plausable than looking at it from a purely physical point of view. I can believe that there are some things about God that are unknowable. But, the big bang guys are only willing to consider the physical. This limited view of creation will forever make fools of them because it ignores the obvious which is where did it all come from? Regardless of how it happened in the physical, where did the physical come from? How can the physical create itself? If you do believe in the nonsense of evolution, where did the stuff come from that started evolution? Anyone with common sense ought to immediately understand that an explanation in the physical realm only (an explanation that excludes God) is impossible. But apparently people who believe in the big bang don't have common sense or else they just can't bear the tought of having to give up their fantasies and submit to God and so they're willing to be self deceived.

I think you missed my point, but i think you will always miss my point.

You could eliminate all but the third and fourth words of your response, as that is all you need.

Where did the stuff for the BB come from? It didn't come from anywhere - it just was. Where did God come from? He didn't come from anywhere - he just was. Similar positions, equally unprovable. It is like trying to reach the highest number - you can always add one more. Trying to determine the beginnings is like that - at each step, one can ask, where did that/Him/it/etc come from? If you give an answer, then you can repeat the question, ad infinitum. At some point, you say enough, this is where i stop. You can choose to stop at God, as a matter of faith, or you can choose to stop at the Big Bang, as a matter of faith, or you can choose something completely different, as a matter of faith. I see no conflict between the belief in God and the belief in the Big Bang. The conflict, if any, comes between belief in a literalist Bible and the Big Bang Theory.

Tulsaman Wrote:Macgyver Created the Universe with a paper clip bubble gum and some duct tape. lmfao

There you go...problem solved lmfao lmfao lmfao

Endzone2 Wrote:Thanks, but I believe the Christian explanation is far more plausable than looking at it from a purely physical point of view. I can believe that there are some things about God that are unknowable. But, the big bang guys are only willing to consider the physical. This limited view of creation will forever make fools of them because it ignores the obvious which is where did it all come from? Regardless of how it happened in the physical, where did the physical come from? How can the physical create itself? If you do believe in the nonsense of evolution, where did the stuff come from that started evolution? Anyone with common sense ought to immediately understand that an explanation in the physical realm only (an explanation that excludes God) is impossible. But apparently people who believe in the big bang don't have common sense or else they just can't bear the tought of having to give up their fantasies and submit to God and so they're willing to be self deceived.

You assume too much. Not all scientists are atheists and/or agnostic. Many scientists are Christian. It is possible to see how both the Big Band could be correct and the Christian God can exist.

If you didn't notice, you are rejecting the physical explanations in your post. So you are doing the exact thing that you accuse scientists of doing.

As for your evolution questions, there are a variety of hypotheses that address your questions. None of those are the theory of evolution. Evolution assumes life exists. The origins of life are still a mostly unknown realm.

Quote:You assume too much. Not all scientists are atheists and/or agnostic. Many scientists are Christian. It is possible to see how both the Big Band could be correct and the Christian God can exist.

I will assume that I know God a lot better than you do after having fellowshiped with Him for many years now. I know that he does not have to resort to violence to create something. I also know that He is timeless so what does it matter what happened how many nanoseconds after the big bang as far as God is concerned? Therefore God did not create the universe with a big bang. You either have to belive the purely physical account or the God account. God created the heavens and Earth with the spoken word and not with a big bang.

Quote:The conflict, if any, comes between belief in a literalist Bible and the Big Bang Theory.

Yes there is a conflict there. It is either one way or the other. I'll take the literal word of the Bible.

You know yesterday I was listening to a radio program that had a Christian archeologist on. He said they found the 4 anchors that were let go from the ship that the Apostle Paul was on when he was shipwrecked near the island of Malta. They said the way they found them was to simply go back and read again the Biblical account of where the ship went aground (which is well documented in the Bible) and then do the dive. They found the anochors in the spot described in the Bible and the depth described in the Bible. This archeologist said the Bible is not a book of childrens make believe stories, but is an accurate book of history of events that occured in the world. That would also include Noah's Ark.

Endzone2 Wrote:

Quote:The conflict, if any, comes between belief in a literalist Bible and the Big Bang Theory.

Yes there is a conflict there. It is either one way or the other. I'll take the literal word of the Bible.

You know yesterday I was listening to a radio program that had a Christian archeologist on. He said they found the 4 anchors that were let go from the ship that the Apostle Paul was on when he was shipwrecked near the island of Malta. They said the way they found them was to simply go back and read again the Biblical account of where the ship went aground (which is well documented in the Bible) and then do the dive. They found the anochors in the spot described in the Bible and the depth described in the Bible. This archeologist said the Bible is not a book of childrens make believe stories, but is an accurate book of history of events that occured in the world. That would also include Noah's Ark.

I heard rumors that Noah's Ark had been found, but I have yet to see any evidence of that. Have you heard the same?

Scroll down about half way on this page to see the pictures:

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/c...icleID=813

Endzone2 Wrote:Scroll down about half way on this page to see the pictures:

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/c...icleID=813

Thanks for the info. Amazing.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

Are you an east side or west side Cincinnati guy?

Endzone2 Wrote:I will assume that I know God a lot better than you do

Isn't this the same attitude that the Pharisees had when they questioned Christ?

Endzone2 Wrote:They found the anochors in ... the depth described in the Bible.

Well, that takes care of the Global Warming Theory.

Edit: Well, maybe not. I was assuming the sea level would be the same, if they were found at the same depth. But that would hold only if they dived at the same time of day, vis-a-vis the tides. Whether tides are in or out can make a difference of many feet of depth, so I am assumming from your post that the tidal position was noted in the Bible and followed precisely by the archeologist. Of course, if you have faith the diving was done at the same time of day, the point is moot. By definition it would be the same depth.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:I will assume that I know God a lot better than you do

Isn't this the same attitude that the Pharisees had when they questioned Christ?

Yeah, come to think of it maybe it is.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:They found the anochors in ... the depth described in the Bible.

Well, that takes care of the Global Warming Theory.

Indeed it does--also nonsense.

Endzone2 Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:They found the anochors in ... the depth described in the Bible.

Well, that takes care of the Global Warming Theory.

Indeed it does--also nonsense.

Check my edit on this post - did they allow for tides?