@Magoroth
One being wrong does not imply the other is correct, which is what he seems to be missing
The belief that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago has even less support than the Big Bang.
Two excellent points. Well done
One being wrong does not imply the other is correct, which is what he seems to be missing
The belief that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago has even less support than the Big Bang.
Two excellent points. Well done
We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.
- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University
Notwithstanding that BIG BANG is a contradiction in an earless universe...BIG BANG now exceeds it's theoretical basis, and has become in some heads more than it was intended to be...Sort of the Anti-Christ...Perhaps it should be renamed PERHAPS.
The Big Bang confirms that creation had a beginning and was spread over time, just like the Bible describes it.
@Debby wrote in post #191: The BigBang theory is not an act of faith because it is backed by science. Just like God’s. creation of the world is backed by the Bible. Both theories use time to determine the elements of creation.
You present zero scientific method fact, so your Big Bang belief is your faith foundation. Lord Jesus Christ says “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.” (Matthew 7:26-27).
For us Christians, Christ is our glorious foundation. Lord Jesus Christ says “everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.” (Matthew 7:24-25).
If you are a Christian, then you believe that all occurrences of six days in the fourth Commandment exclusively refer to 24 hour per day literal six days. Lord Jesus Christ is the Word of God (John 1:14), and the Word of God commands:
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
If you are a Christian, then you believe that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation when the six days of making all the stars and planets and Earth culminated with God creating man (Genesis 1:1-31). Lord Jesus Christ is the Word of God (John 1:14), and the Word of God declares:
He who created them from the beginning “made them male and female”
(Matthew 19:4).
Your writing, there, is concurrent with unbelievers, that is, you reject the Word of God.
Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest, is essentially credited as a father of the Big Bang Baby by @Sidewalker a few posts ago in post #189. Roman Catholic Church (RCC) priests are called father by RCC church members and even some non-church members. Lord Jesus Christ says “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9), so the Roman Catholic Church rejected Christ’s Commandment; therefore, Lemaître was not a Christian by that account. Lemaître’s sins includes leading fools into believing things like “According to our best science, six days is 14 billion years”. (see post #20 and post #87 for more details).
Lemaître was an unbeliever.
The Apostle Peter warned us Christians about people like Lemaître by writing:
false prophets also arose among the people, as false teachers will also be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1)
Many will follow their immoral ways, and as a result, the way of the truth will be maligned. (2 Peter 2:2)
this is hidden from them willingly, that the heavens were long ago, and the earth, out of water and through water having been composed by the Word of God, (2 Peter 3:5)
You therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware, lest being carried away with the error of the wicked, you fall from your own steadfastness. (2 Peter 2:1)
I remind you of your writing “Scientists are still sorting out the inconsistencies in the BigBang theory. Use the Bible to fill in the gaps.” recorded in post #159, so you represented yourself as a Big Bang believer.
You, Debby, willingly yoke yourself with Lemaître.
You leave out facts, but you desperately try to sound like you speak with fact with your “The BigBang theory is not an act of faith because it is backed by science” which is truly your leap of faith!
You failed to “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”, again.
If as you say, a dishonest God created the entire Universe to be a lie, then he could certainly inspire the Bible to be a lie too.
I guess with your belief in a dishonest God, what it really comes down to is which lie do you want to put your faith in, the Bible lie or the universe lie.
Unfortunately, your argument that Christianity is based on lies hurts Christianity much more than the Big Bang could hurt it.
You're not really a Christian; I think you are an atheist who logged on pretending to be a Christian to denigrate Christianity and make it look bad
Good job at that.
@FLRW wrote in post #193: The Big Bang theory is not a leap of faith
You throw out your unsupported faith right there instead of presenting scientific fact. Your science is sloppy, and your debate tactics are abysmal.
@FLRW wrote in post #193: because it relies on mathematical models,
I showed you the Minkowski spacetime model fault in post #199, so you crying “we have models” is nothing more than your leap of faith.
@FLRW wrote in post #193: testable predictions,
That’s impossible (see post #82 for detailed explanation).
@FLRW wrote in post #193: and hard physical evidence.
You presented absolutely no good evidence up to this point. You produced summary instead of detail.
@FLRW wrote in post #193: Unlike faith, which accepts unproven beliefs, the scientific model of the universe changes and updates when new data arrives.
You pronounce yourself MIT science man, but you don’t practice the scientific method, here anyway.
The Big Bang violates the scientific method as shown in post #53, so that leaves the Big Bang as a leap of faith.
@FLRW wrote in post #193: Isn’t children dying from leukemia proof of no God.
Leukemia is proof of evil man.
You failed, AGAIN, to “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.
@Debby wrote in post #196: @Kermos The Big Bang theory is not a leap of faith because there are no other theories competing with it. The Bible also says the universe was created spread over time. The Big Bang supports the Bible story of creation because there are no universe came from nothing.
There you go again with your unsupported by fact statement of “The Big Bang theory is not a leap of faith”; therefore, your statement is a leap of faith!
You are not a believer in Christ because you do not believe “All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:3)
Your “no universe came from nothing” rejects the “All things” of the Apostle John.
This post stands with post #214.
You failed, AGAIN, to “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.
@Magoroth wrote in post #200: Wtf does relativity have to do with anything?
You requested schooling about the Big Bang’s relationship with Einstein’s relativity theories, so I’m assigning for you to read the content of the following list of posts in order to comprehend the subject matter as well as the current state of this thread, provided your mind can handle it:
@Magoroth wrote in post #200: If relativity is just fictional fantasy why is it that it explains the motion of planets better than Newton’s theory of gravity?
See the above list for content which emblazons the error embedded in your question.
@Magoroth wrote in post #200: Also energy-matter equivalence is not a myth you can literally turn energy into matter or vice versa.
I don’t find the word “myth” in the post to which you quoted, but I’m not skipping this.
As you can see in post #149, the MIT scholar scientist, @FLRW, wrote “At time=0 the Universe was at zero size” based upon his presentation of the Friedmann equations; therefore, your formula E=MC2 (energy-matter equivalence) existed not according to your nonscience scientist buddies.
Regardless of which formula that you employ, you end up with an irrationally illogical universe beginning. Your Big Bang is a leap of faith.
The Big Bang is supported by a large amount of observational evidence. It is a scientific theory therefore it is not subjected to religious faith. The Big Bang and creation are fundamentally compatible as viewed by scientist and theologians.
@Magoroth wrote in post #201: What’s the point in you posting any of this if you’re wrong?
THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT
You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.
The Big Bang and creation are fundamentally compatible as viewed by scientist and theologians.
@Sidewalker wrote in post #205: LOGIC HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT You failed to address the thread topic with logic, reason, or anything resembling knowledge of the subject matter.?
THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT
You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.
If you don’t believe in science or understand it, the Big Bang will be difficult to accept.
Kermos wrote:
@Sidewalker wrote in post #205: LOGIC HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT You failed to address the thread topic with logic, reason, or anything resembling knowledge of the subject matter.?
THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT
You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.
INTELLIGENCE HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT
You failed to use intelligence in your posts.
He hijacked his own post.
Nope "The Big Bang" is a loose scientific theory that is unable to confirm anything.
The trouble is, BIG BANG has become a hang up for the hung up.
And for sure, religion is an evolutionary phase of the intellectual primate period...Which is very a recent phase and not genuinely comparable with a universal creation event.
So are RC Inc now trying to hijack BIG BANG theory...I wouldn't put it past them...They will probably build a shrine and a tourist complex, where they will supply tacky plastic Chinese made BIG BANG trinkets and miracle cures to the gullible.
Yes...GOD FART for sure.
The Big Bang has not change the way we view life because it happened so long ago. And out belief system was already fixed when we discovered it.
Debby wrote:
The Big Bang has not change the way we view life because it happened so long ago. And out belief system was already fixed when we discovered it.
Hmmm...I'm guessing that the above was written in a hurry Debs, as it is neither coherent nor sensible.
@fauxlaw wrote in post #209: @Kermos In your #181, you criticized FLRW
THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT
You may sit on your own “stool in a corner”. You mentioned the Minkowski spacetime model diagram of post #199, yet you failed to mention the diagram’s “scientifically” recognized name, so you simple-mindedly referred to the diagram as “a double-cone illustration” by which you demonstrated your scientific ineptitude.
You can keep your “proper respect” for the Big Bang Evolution Religion because it’s abbadon (destruction). You didn’t know that because you think it’s creation. Big Bang adherents are against Christ. The Big Bang is not of the scientific method.
You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.
It’s your reading comprehension that you are struggling with. My post was a factual observation.
@Debby wrote in post #198: @Kermos The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory. Science is not based on faith but evidence.
@Debby wrote in post #219: @Kermos The Big Bang is supported by a large amount of observational evidence. It is a scientific theory therefore it is not subjected to religious faith. The Big Bang and creation are fundamentally compatible as viewed by scientist and theologians.
@Debby wrote in post #221: @Kermos The Big Bang and creation are fundamentally compatible as viewed by scientist and theologians.
@Debby wrote in post #223: @Kermos If you don’t believe in science or understand it, the Big Bang will be difficult to accept.
THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT
Your posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence.
Post #214 shows that your emotions are incorrect.
If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.
You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.
@Sidewalker wrote in post #215: @Kermos If as …snip
THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT
Poor lost and confused Sidewalker.
You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.
The Big Bang already makes a scientific case for its theory based on science and observation. It has already been reviewed by the scientific community and approved. Theologians find the BigBang compatible with the creation of the universe with a starting point and spread over time. This makes the Big Bang Theory and established theory and not a leap of faith.
@Sidewalker wrote in post #224: @Kermos INTELLIGENCE HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT You failed to use intelligence in your posts.
THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT
You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence.
Post #87 details your unintelligent thoughts that 6=5,110,000,000,000. You called that equation your “best science” (your best knowledge).
If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.
You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.
@Debby wrote in post #233: @Kermos The Big Bang already makes a scientific case for its theory based on science and observation. …snip
THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT
You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence.
Post #214 shows that your emotions are incorrect.
If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.
You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.
See: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/140103-show-me-how-the-big-bang-theory-is-not-a-leap-of-faith/
@FLRW wrote in post #236: See: ht …snip
Mr. Scientist, that link demonstrates the fear of exposure inside of you nonscience Big Bang adherents. Your Big Bang Belief system falls apart under logic, linguistics, and spiritually. The moderator at that site closed the thread before I could issue a response to posts 2, 3, or 4.
However, over on Science Forums ( https://www.sciforums.com/threads/show-me-how-the-big-bang-theory-is-not-a-leap-of-faith.167184/ ), the conversation exceeded 1,000 posts.
Cowardly or condescending or courageous.
I remind you of post #199 regarding Einstein’s Relativity with the Minkowski spacetime model to which you have failed to respond as of yet.
C’mon MITman, YOU ARE HERE, NOW, so show who your are. Respond to post #199!
I like Pinball1970's last comment on the site you just mentioned: It looks Kermos has finally left the building. Since he has had his lying arse handed to him on Cosmology in the religion section, perhaps he may try his hand at Evolution? "Why stupid Evolution is a leap of faith because science is stupid."
The Big Bang predicted an expanding universe which has been confirmed . There are other factors predicted as an outcome has also been confirmed. Thus gaining acceptance by the scientific community.
Did you know that Stephen Hawking accepted the scientific evidence for the physical Big Bang theory and also happily approved of and appeared on the TV show The Big Bang Theory.