Official Divorce Agreement

[AirFlacco]

For the religious and non-religious it's Science vs the Bible. That is the
general argument and guys like Spammy and Galen will look down
on guys like Sirdowski and me who will defend the Bible and pray for
Spammy and Galen.


Some scientists regard the Bible as an antiquated collection of myths and primitive nonsense. In their worldview there is no place for intelligent design. Once they have dismissed the Bible they look down on believers as people still trapped in their outdated faith systems. The two sides appear to be locked in endless conflict.

[Galen Sevinne]

For the religious and non-religious it's Science vs the Bible. That is the
general argument and guys like Spammy and Galen will look down
on guys like Sirdowski and me who will defend the Bible and pray for
Spammy and Galen.


Some scientists regard the Bible as an antiquated collection of myths and primitive nonsense. In their worldview there is no place for intelligent design. Once they have dismissed the Bible they look down on believers as people still trapped in their outdated faith systems. The two sides appear to be locked in endless conflict.

Make sure you are also praying for the scientists that are developing the life-saving medicines that will actually improve and extend your life.

[Galen Sevinne]

Galen no one is "anti-science". What I am saying and what I see Sirdowski saying is, Science either is or it isn't, meaning it is a proven fact, or there is still work left to be done to make it a fact. It's not a consensus.

I am sure you'll attack that in some way. But, I accept science and scientific facts. Unproven theories, majority consensus etc. I am not saying they're not true or won't be proven a fact, but as of yet, they are not.

I don't think you are anti-science; I think you are science-illiterate. There is a difference. Sirdunceski on the other hand is clearly anti-science. He appears to understand what is seen as the anti-science argument and endorses it. I imagine he would openly welcome the title of anti-science and wear it like a badge of honor. This is why I am interested in what he thinks he gains from dismissing science from his life.

[Sirdowski]

I am curious as to what you gain from being so anti-science?

I appreciate intellectual integrity and verity. I'm not anti-science. I'm anti-scientific naturalist dogma. I have a huge problem in particular with the allowed elasticity of the word evolution. A shift in the relative number of dark colored moths is called evolution, and so is the creative process that produced the cell, the multicellular organism, the eye, and the human mind. The semantic implication is that evolution is fundamentally a single process, and Darwinists enthusiastically exploit that implication as a substitute for scientific evidence.

If the debate starts with those who think science can, does, will explain everything in the universe, you are starting the pro-science side of the debate at an extreme that just isn't true. This is a complete overstatement of a pro-science stance and immediately puts pro-science people in an impossible box. I know a lot of people who work at what would be described as scientists and I don't think any of them would subscribe to science's ability to determine everything. In fact, most true scientists marvel at the idea that as soon as we determine one thing, we open a dozen more questions that we don't know. Knowledge is truly infinite and we will always be chasing the questions that opens up from our previous answer. Scientists are usually more humbled by knowledge than arrogant as your premise begins.

It's fair to say I over generalized. I just fail to see what could possibly compel scientists to continually recycle vacuous theories other than a blind devotion to the humanist manifesto, the anthropic principle, naturalism, etc. Truly every field of science evolution touches, a negative trail of evidence isn't far behind.

This reeks of anger and is completely dismissive of the "peer review" that is a cornerstone of science. Any scientific experiment that yields data should be able to be replicated. I mean, c'mon, this is 7th grade science. As a grad student, I never read a single journal article without cross-referencing the peer reviews and ensuing articles. Do you understand this process? Do you completely deny it has bogus? Researchers line up to peer-review, ie. peer criticize research. You are a fool as a researcher if you publish anything that can't be defended on its merits and "withstand the toughest falsifying evidence". You publish anything of significance that can't be verified, replicated and withstand critical peer review, you are toast. Research is competitive. It isn't cooperative where we all agree to support something that comes from poor methodology.

So at what part of the peer review process is negative evidence simply equated to no evidence? How is it that over 100 years of determined efforts to confirm Darwinism have done no better than to find a few ambiguous supporting examples, and this isn't viewed as significant negative evidence? How about the the sudden explosion of complex life forms at the beginning of the Cambrian age? The difficulty of explaining the origin of the genetic code? The limits to change shown by breeding experiments? The punctuated equilibrium controversy? Or how about the importance of catastrophic extinctions? Why are these explained away?


The insults of scientific illiteracy on the part of NC and I is the same garbage many scientists use. They direct attention away from the questioned fundamentals, attempt to make the issue about the esoteric details supported by flawed fundamentals, which of course transcend our comprehension, and call us scientifically illiterate.

I ask you, empirically speaking, what is so compelling about evolution that would make me anti-science for not accepting its claims?

[AirFlacco]

Make sure you are also praying for the scientists that are developing the life-saving medicines that will actually improve and extend your life.

ABSOLUTELY. WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE GALEN.

The issue here is creation not life saving medicines although there are
some religions that don't believe in using medicines. Im not one of those.

[Greg]

Yea, Atheists are stupid. Obviously a wizard did it! That's waaaaay more logical that the evidence based belief in the big bang.

Uh, do you understand what the Big Bang is? It is the beginning of the universe, all matter, energy, space and time coming from absolutely nothing, exactly what I said. What do you think causes something like that? Well, it owuld have to be something immaterial, spaceless and timless since all of those came into existence at the Big Bang.

[Greg]

30 PROBS WITH BIG BANG.

And for Christians that try to justify it by saying God
used it to create the universe, well, that doesn't wash
according to scripture.


Earth was created before the stars.
Plants were created a few hours before the sun.
The sun was created on the fourth day after the earth.

And time is just not measurement as people think of it here. At one point there was nothing. The earth was void of form but the creator had to put the earth into something and that something was time.




http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

Trap, stop listening to those people that tell you the Big Bang doesn't square with Scripture. The original Hebrew reading works with the Big Bang very well and is amazing evidence for a timeless, spaceless, immaterial Creator. I believe in the Big Bang, it is atheists that have a hard time squaring with it.

A THEN atheist Fred Hoyle named the concept the Big Bang as a term of derision. Einstein was an atheist but was turned deist because of the Big Bang, something that first came to light from his Theory of Relativity (which is proven enough to be law). Robert Jastrow, former chariman of the Wilson Observatory in LA (Hubble was a chair before him when he discovered the expanding universe and made Einstein realize hism math in the Theory of Relativity was correct (he had put a constant in to take away this beginning away because he knew what it meant - he then called this his greatest blunder and became a diest) calle dthe Big Bang proof that a supernatural exists (he was an agnostic and also the founding diredctor of NASA Goddard). It is proof of the supernatural because NATURE BEGAN TO EXIST at the Big Bang. Its cause must be supernatural.

I believe in the Big Bang and I know who banged it.

Trap, in the original Hebrew the verb used in the 4th is not create as it is in Genesis 1:1. And if you read the English versions most of them do not say the sun, moon and stars were "created" except in terms of WHY they were created, not when. Open your mind to this powerful evidence for a supernatural Cause to the universe.

[AirFlacco]

Thanks Greg. I'm in no position to argue with you on science. I know the big bang was supposed to take place over 65 billion years or whatever.

Your Hebrew word aside, Nowhere does the Bible explicitly teach the Big Bang theory.

BTW, your Hebrew word for creation is, YOM, and means what you say,
actually more than one day and some if not many Christians believe that
1 day according to this might be millions of years. So maybe the earth
was created in 65 billion years according to that which undermines the foundation
of the Bible because it puts death, disease and suffering before the fall.

I know what you're saying that God used the big bang to create everything like boom
and there it was. A 24 hr day now does not really mean 24 hrs in a day back then,but a
thorough examination on what it means leads to the things I said above.

BACK TO YOM:

As you always say, context is everything and yom is used in different contexts of the Bible.

Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception.

Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning” 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?

In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word “night.” Outside of Genesis 1, “night” is used with yom 53 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word “light” with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.

With all due respect, I really don't think either of us are fluent enough in
Hebrew or have the theological training to answer those questions - of why?

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Many people don’t realize that the big bang is a story not only about the past but also about the future. The most popular version of the big bang teaches that the universe will expand forever and eventually run out of usable energy. According to the story, it will remain that way forever in a state that astronomers call “heat death.”

But as you know the Bible teaches in Revelation that the world will be judged and there will be a new heaven and new earth. Paradise will be restored with those of us who believed.

The big bang denies this crucial biblical teaching.

And scientists are beginning to abandon the theory so what happens to Christians that
compromised their position on it?

Thanks for the comments.

[Greg]

Thanks Greg. I'm in no position to argue with you on science. I know the big bang was supposed to take place over 65 billion years or whatever.

13.7 billion years ago. That can be squared with Scripture any nuimber of ways. Most importantly, even if we accept that the genealogies in the Bible truly mean X is the father of Y when it say he begat him (in reality the Hebrew word should have been translated to ancestor instead of father) it still only tells us when HUMANITY was created, not the universe and earth.

Your Hebrew word aside, Nowhere does the Bible explicitly teach the Big Bang theory.

"In the Beginning . . . "

The Big Bang shows there is a BEGINNING, which is exactly what the Bible says. The Big Bang teaches us the cause of the universe is outside of time and space, as does the Bible. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that disagrees with the Big Bang. The issue is only of concern to religious people leery of the lengthy time frame such that maybe evolution could be true. Evolution can be challeneged on any number of fronts, including time granting an old universe.

To deny the Big Bang is just foolish and HURTS our position. The Big Bang is inexplicable from the atheist's point of view.

BTW, your Hebrew word for creation is, YOM, and means what you say,
actually more than one day and some if not many Christians believe that
1 day according to this might be millions of years. So maybe the earth
was created in 65 billion years according to that which undermines the foundation
of the Bible because it puts death, disease and suffering before the fall.

No, the Hebrew word for "create from nothing" is bara, the word yom can be translated as 24 hour day, the period of daylight, or a long period of time.

As for suffering and disease before the fall, only if you consider animals death what is referred to in the fall causing death. I would contend it means spiritual death and not physical death, and animals do not have spirits. The curse of the fall killed humans spiritually, which is how and why we must be born again. The removal from Eden and no longer having access to the Tree of Life is why we physically degrade and die.

In many cases of Scripture the death from the curse is clearly a spiritual death and not a physical one. And even if it meant physical death there still is no issue with animals dying.

Tell me, was there plant death before the Fall?

Tell me Trap, if the sun and moon were not created until day 4 how was there an evening and morning on days one, two, and three?

There are other places where yom is used with a number and it means long period of time. For example, Hosea 6:2 is about the healing of Israel and the time frame it will take. It mentions 2 or 3 "yoms." It does not mean 2 or 3 literal days. Another problem with t his point is that the Hebrew langauage in Moses' day (see how day can be used to mean a long time in English as well) the Hebrew langauage was much less developed and the word for long period of time was yom and only yom.

Many people don’t realize that the big bang is a story not only about the past but also about the future. The most popular version of the big bang teaches that the universe will expand forever and eventually run out of usable energy. According to the story, it will remain that way forever in a state that astronomers call “heat death.”

But as you know the Bible teaches in Revelation that the world will be judged and there will be a new heaven and new earth. Paradise will be restored with those of us who believed.

So what? God will intervene and stop the degradation of the universe into a heat death. What is the problem?

The FACT is the universe is expanding and the inevitable heat death is going to happen REGARDLESS of how the universe began. That is, unless the Creator intervenes.

And scientists are beginning to abandon the theory so what happens to Christians that
compromised their position on it?

First, I find your conclusion I have compromised insulting. I have compromised nothing. This is the problem with young earthers, they are incredible insulting to anybody that holds a differeing view. I suggest a lengthy study on Romans.

Second, no scientists are abandoning the Big Bang, they are trying to escape the conclusion that IT POINTS TO A CREATOR! There are all kinds of explanations of how it could have happened, etc, all that try to explain how it could have happened without a non-natural or supernatural cause, but none work because the math says nature began to exist.

Do you deny that the universe began to exist in the past at some point in time? If you do you have the problem with Genesis, not me.

Oh, and by the way, most Rabbis and Jewish religious leaders have no issue with the Big Bang or lengthy time frames. It is a Christian thing, not a Jewish one. And I am pretty sure they know a bit about Hebrew.

[AirFlacco]

Thanks Greg. I'm in no position to argue with you on science. I know the big bang was supposed to take place over 65 billion years or whatever.

13.7 billion years ago. That can be squared with Scripture any nuimber of ways. Most importantly, even if we accept that the genealogies in the Bible truly mean X is the father of Y when it say he begat him (in reality the Hebrew word should have been translated to ancestor instead of father) it still only tells us when HUMANITY was created, not the universe and earth.



"In the Beginning . . . "

The Big Bang shows there is a BEGINNING, which is exactly what the Bible says. The Big Bang teaches us the cause of the universe is outside of time and space, as does the Bible. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that disagrees with the Big Bang. The issue is only of concern to religious people leery of the lengthy time frame such that maybe evolution could be true. Evolution can be challeneged on any number of fronts, including time granting an old universe.

To deny the Big Bang is just foolish and HURTS our position. The Big Bang is inexplicable from the atheist's point of view.


It just sounds like you're defending the atheists point of view. Whatever the original word was,
it ended up in our Bible as day. If God had meant years, it would say years - 13B of them as you
say. To speculate is completely conjecture.


No, the Hebrew word for "create from nothing" is bara, the word yom can be translated as 24 hour day, the period of daylight, or a long period of time.

As for suffering and disease before the fall, only if you consider animals death what is referred to in the fall causing death. I would contend it means spiritual death and not physical death, and animals do not have spirits. The curse of the fall killed humans spiritually, which is how and why we must be born again. The removal from Eden and no longer having access to the Tree of Life is why we physically degrade and die.

God told Adam he would die if he ate the forbidden fruit. Adam told Eve they would die. He
thought he meant a physical death. When they sinned there was a spiritual death as you say.
There was an immediate dis-communication with God. It still happens today when we sin. If
we look at porno or as Christians we will not have the same fellowship with God until we repent
and he forgives us. God forgave Adam and Eve and even sacrificed animals with their blood
symbolizing the shedding of Christ's blood on the cross thousands of years later.
Satan thought God meant a physical death and thought Adam would end up with him in
hell but God gave man a second chance. Yea, Adam did experience a physical death too but
God sent his son to die for our sins. So death has a two-fold meaning in the fall - both
spiritual and physical. If we believe that death has always existed, then we make a mockery of the death of Christ. This is exactly what evolution means.

In many cases of Scripture the death from the curse is clearly a spiritual death and not a physical one. And even if it meant physical death there still is no issue with animals dying.

Tell me, was there plant death before the Fall?

There wasn't any death before the fall. Everything was perfect. God intended man to live
forever but when he sinned, that ended it. God made the ground harder to harvest the plant life
died, animals became dangerous. Adam named all the animals before that. They came up to him
and lions and tigers were like little kittens but all that changed after the fall.

Tell me Trap, if the sun and moon were not created until day 4 how was there an evening and morning on days one, two, and three?

There wasn't an evening til Genesis says there was.


There are other places where yom is used with a number and it means long period of time. For example, Hosea 6:2 is about the healing of Israel and the time frame it will take. It mentions 2 or 3 "yoms." It does not mean 2 or 3 literal days. Another problem with t his point is that the Hebrew langauage in Moses' day (see how day can be used to mean a long time in English as well) the Hebrew langauage was much less developed and the word for long period of time was yom and only yom.



So what? God will intervene and stop the degradation of the universe into a heat death. What is the problem?

Because the bang doesn't fit with the new heaven and new earth. The universe expands and
that's it.

The FACT is the universe is expanding and the inevitable heat death is going to happen REGARDLESS of how the universe began. That is, unless the Creator intervenes.

Again he does intervene according to Revelation.

First, I find your conclusion I have compromised insulting. I have compromised nothing. This is the problem with young earthers, they are incredible insulting to anybody that holds a differeing view. I suggest a lengthy study on Romans.

Second, no scientists are abandoning the Big Bang, they are trying to escape the conclusion that IT POINTS TO A CREATOR! There are all kinds of explanations of how it could have happened, etc, all that try to explain how it could have happened without a non-natural or supernatural cause, but none work because the math says nature began to exist.

Do you deny that the universe began to exist in the past at some point in time? If you do you have the problem with Genesis, not me.

I believe the universe began with Genesis says it began. I see no evidence where the bang
is explicitly mentioned in the Bible.

Oh, and by the way, most Rabbis and Jewish religious leaders have no issue with the Big Bang or lengthy time frames. It is a Christian thing, not a Jewish one. And I am pretty sure they know a bit about Hebrew.

I'm sure they do. They disagree so much with Christians even in the Old Testament. They
don't believe their Messiah has come yet even though Christ came exactly the way OT scriptures
say he would come and there are plenty of Christian scholars who are fluent in Hebrew and Greek
that believe as I do. I also listed a link with 30 problems with the bang with scientific data and
facts.


Im sorry if I offended you. I meant that it seems that Christians are arguing the same as the
atheists when they agree with the Big Bang Theory. I wasn't calling you ignorant like the others
call us. It just seems like you're compromising but I'll relent on that.

It's always a pleasure Greg. I always learn from you.

God Bless.

[Greg]

I'm sure they do. They disagree so much with Christians even in the Old Testament. They
don't believe their Messiah has come yet even though Christ came exactly the way OT scriptures
say he would come and there are plenty of Christian scholars who are fluent in Hebrew and Greek
that believe as I do. I also listed a link with 30 problems with the bang with scientific data and
facts.

I was talking about their interpretation of Genesis and the age of the universe. And they do agree wth some Christians, like me. Or more accurately, I agree with their view. They understand the Hebrew better than Christians that have some odd ideas in regard to this.\

Trap, have you noticed the atheists have gone quite in regard to the Big Bang since I pointed out the absolute beginning they can not account for?

I am not compromising.

Let me ask you again, do you believe Genesis 1:1 teaches the universe had a beginning? Because that is all the Big Bang says.

[AirFlacco]

I was talking about their interpretation of Genesis and the age of the universe. And they do agree wth some Christians, like me. Or more accurately, I agree with their view. They understand the Hebrew better than Christians that have some odd ideas in regard to this.\


Trap, have you noticed the atheists have gone quite in regard to the Big Bang since I pointed out the absolute beginning they can not account for?

Yes sir, but that's true of all the threads, especially you know who.
I'm still here. Like I said I'm learning from you but I've given scientific data and
a great answer on the fall and answered your question on plant death. I thought I
gave a great answer on the YOM statement. You may disagree but I'm still here.

Let's face it bro, we're just gonna disagree because it's one of those mysteries we won't
know for sure til we get up there and it won't matter then.


I am not compromising.

Ok, man. I agree.

Let me ask you again, do you believe Genesis 1:1 teaches the universe had a beginning? Because that is all the Big Bang says.

Not the universe but the earth first, then the rest according to my original link on the
30 PROBs.

[Greg]

Not the universe but the earth first, then the rest according to my original link on the
30 PROBs.

How was the earth created before matter, time and space?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. What do you think the heavens means?

You are telling me to read somebody else's thoughts, which I have done many times. What are you thoughts? You need to do your own studying and not let somebody tell you what to think.

The earth could not have been created before time and space as there was no matter which the earth is made from and no space and time for the earth to exist in.

Again, have you noticed that the beginning of matter, time, space and energy is something atheists can not address?

[AirFlacco]

How was the earth created before matter, time and space?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. What do you think the heavens means?

OK, that's right but the earth was w/o form.
Genesis one says he created the earth and then said
let there be light and then there were the sun and stars. The stars are light. The magi used followed the star to the baby Jesus.


You are telling me to read somebody else's thoughts, which I have done many times. What are you thoughts? You need to do your own studying and not let somebody tell you what to think.

I just posted a link as you always said to do. It
gave 30 probs with scientific data. Nobody commented on them.

The earth could not have been created before time and space as there was no matter which the earth is made from and no space and time for the earth to exist in.

I agreed and said above that God needed something to put the earth and universe in and that was time. Spammy made a big stink about that but said nothing else after our explanations.

Again, have you noticed that the beginning of matter, time, space and energy is something atheists can not address?

Yea. I brought that point up on Sunspot last year and
guys got bent out of shape saying time as just
measurement but the earth was void and God needed
to put it in something and that something was time. You're right. I have to do my own thinking but I
need to read what others are saying, others that I
respect.

[Greg]

I take no issue with you listening to others you respect, but any Chrisitan that rejects the Big Bang is usually a Chrisitan that is in fear of hihs beliefs being proved incorrect. I have no such fears. And I know the Big Bang is in incredible agreement with Genesis 1.

Keep this in mind the Big Bang is not a story abuot how the universe came into existence (if you see this description ignore the take), it is a description of the early universe as far back as science can go. Science and the Big Bang only describe the results of the beginning of the universe, neither can tell anything about the cause, or Cause.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/resp...d-the-big-bang

The scientific content of Genesis and the Big Bang reflects scholarly integrity, as does that of Schroeder’s more recent books, The Science of God and The Hidden Face of God. In Genesis and the Big Bang Schroeder quotes from a number of Jewish theologians and philosophers of the middle ages and earlier to document that Bible scholars living about a thousand years ago recognized that the Tanakh (the Old Testament) taught the fundamentals of big bang cosmology. These fundamentals included the continuous expansion of the universe from an actual beginning of matter, energy, space, and time. As Schroeder points out, no one can claim that modern-day Christians and Jews are force-fit reading big bang cosmology into the biblical texts based on hind sight. Jewish theologians had discerned the big bang from the Old Testament more than seven hundred years before any scientist had discovered these cosmic features. Consequently, the Bible is on record as having accurately predicted major future scientific discoveries about the universe.

[Greg]

In response to the 30 roblems with the Big Bang.

(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.

First off, the statc universe model is what Einstein and other atheists were looking for and why Einstien made his greatest blunder, an attempt to keep the universe static. A static universe makes no sense, are we to believe that it has always existed? If so, how far back does time go? Are these people proposing an infinite amount of time? If so, how do we get here from a backwards infinite?

The Judeo Christian view is that the univese has a beginning.

But most importantly, this is asserted but NO EVIDENCE IS OFFERED. The linked notes 2 and 3 in the assertion just reopen the same page.

(2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

Complete nonsense. The background radiation was predicted by the mathematics of the Big Bang as Einstein developed in his Theoiry of Relativity. It was predicted BEFORE it was found, a powerful indicator of the truth of his ideas.

(3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

This assertion cites Hoyle and once again our footnotes go nowhere. Hoyle was originally derisive of the Big Bang because of his objection to a beginning as the Bible noted. He later changed his mind and became a believer in the Big Bang.

4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

These "scientists" are not very well educated apparently. They mentioned the speed at which galaxies move and ignore the biggest part of the idea, THAT SPACE IS EXPANDING! The math clearly indicates that space is expanding at a rate greater than the speed of light, which is why the universe and the objects within can be further apart than time would apparently allow. It isn't just that objects are moving, the very space they are in is expanding. Even sub-atmoic particles are moving away from each other, which means that even atoms will not exist in the future if the universe continues as it is.

Just addressing a few more.

(10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059 (that is 1 part in 10 to the 59th power - it is actually the 60th power). Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

Indeed, the universe is HIGHLY fine-tuned. It is evidence of an intelligent and specific Designer and Creator. The notes speak of the expansion rate as well, which is incredibly fine-tuned (10 to the 120th), as well as dozens and dozens and dozens of other things.

TRAP, YOU ARE REFERENCING AN ATHEIST'S WEBSITE TRYING TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE ABSOUTE BEGINNING AND DESIGN OF THE UNIVERSE! LOL.

These people claim it does not make testable predictions but this is nonsense. Background radiation was predicted before it was found, for example. The Theory of Relativity (of which the math points to a Big Bang) predicted that gravity could bend light and it was shown to be true.

Trap, you are using evidence atheists use in debates with Christians.

[ActualSpamBot]

I will admit I came off very condescending in my initial response. I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know what precipitated the big bang or even rule out that a god or godlike being is responsible. I doubt it very much but I know its not impossible. My derision was wrongly aimed at Greg who's faith is grounded in an understanding of the nature of the newly formed universe.

I do think Trap's creationism in which the universe was created after the Earth is utter hogwash. That sort of thinking was what I was mocking with my wizard joke.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.368050,-76.729313

[NCRAVEN]

I will admit I came off very condescending in my initial response. I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know what precipitated the big bang or even rule out that a god or godlike being is responsible. I doubt it very much but I know its not impossible. My derision was wrongly aimed at Greg who's faith is grounded in an understanding of the nature of the newly formed universe.

I do think Trap's creationism in which the universe was created after the Earth is utter hogwash. That sort of thinking was what I was mocking with my wizard joke.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.368050,-76.729313

And that is what I was trying to get at in my post. I thought you were saying the big bang was the start of everything. Which is why I said it's a "theory".

[AirFlacco]

Of course Spammy would could it hog wash, but Spammy posted before I did on this subject. I wasn't in on the discussion yet. My beliefs are based on scripture, his are not. My Bible says as I told Greg, the earth was created in 6 days and God said let there be light. It's what the Bible says.



I respected Greg's beliefs and said I learned from them but disagree that there's no room for science and God's own teaching of creation.

[AirFlacco]

And that is what I was trying to get at in my post. I thought you were saying the big bang was the start of everything. Which is why I said it's a "theory".

And that's all it is, a theory. Today's scientific theory is tomorrow's hog wash. I stated above that scientists have left the bang theory. Greg said they have not but I keep reading where they have.

And Spammy's acceptance of Greg's position again shows where atheists are co-existing with Christians. Spammy likes Greg's position because it includes the bang so both the atheist and Christian appear in accord here.
They seem to be co-existing. That is compromise.

That's why I can't except the Bang. The Bible says the earth was created in 6 days. Then there was light.

Greg said above that the scientists I used didn't have much education, they were nonsense and don't listen to them. That's what atheists are telling me. I know the guy argued the 30 probs but he didn't do so hot. At least he
listed the 30 problems. None of the atheists in here knew there were 30 probs.

Hoyle is the one who coined the term "Big Bang" as a joke in an interview during the 50s I believe, and as more people begin to believe in it during the 1960s the name stuck. It gives the impression of a bang which wasn't the case.

Greg is arguing for something an atheist dubbed as a joke and later believed in.