Big Bang theory.
Ok what do you think about it?
Things swirling in the atomsphere and then an explosion and then some other stuff happened and here we are?
If so, where the stuff floationg in the atmosphere come from? Then where did that come from?
Or, did a supreme being create all this stuff and then stop caring about everything?
its about as likely as virgins being impregnated and bodies resurrecting... but my personal take is divine intervention of sort but not what man has become to believe.
Originally Posted by admin
Maybe I missed it but did you dodge the question? How did Earth and all the planets get here? Cosmic explosion, a supreme being, something else?
Somebody answer that question or give it a shot at least.
i didn't dodge the question i answered it. if you want a better explanation ask a more indepth question. divine intervention starts the cycle and evolution/science has done the rest. BAM KICK THAT UP A NOTCH! we are here.
ps. i still dont' belive in your GOD so dont' mistake my answer.
What? Do you know me or my God?
Divine intervention. Interesting. Who do YOU think did that? (Just asking, I'm not implying shit)
Have you ever read The Phenomenon of Man by Teilhard De Chardin?
I also believe it was started on a path and it evolved into other things.
Anyway to your assumptions of my beliefs, I'm not a bible thumper, I'm educated and I'm asking other educated people questions. I think you have me all wrong.
i didn't assume anything... all i said is dont believe in your god... so if you do/don't have one my image of GOD (a god) mine is different then yours. if anyone is making assumptions you are assuming that you believe in the image of god that i have. the last line was added b/c you made me restate my answer b/c you said i dodged your question.
NO GODS NO MASTERS , CHOOSE YOUR HEAVEN
Aha you added a line since I last saw this. I see what you're saying but isnt that self explanatory about everybody has their own image of God? Like reading a book. 2 people read the same thing but think the characters look different.
its more likely than a woman being less equal than a man, a woman being made from a rib, a talking snake, a man separating the red sea
but thats my
Val for President
Again with "likelyhoods" based upon human reasoning....good luck with that.
The EVIDENCE on the other hand...as stated and pointed out numerous times on this board....would lead one to think that Creation is quite plausible...and even likely.
evidence....The EVIDENCE on the other hand...as stated and pointed out numerous times on this board....would lead one to think that Creation is quite plausible...and even likely.right buddy
Val for President
Thats whats interesting about this subject. You and the other naysayers have presented NOTHING in the way of physical evidence in favor of your position. No actual EVIDENCE of any kind. Only disbelief and reasoning, no PHYSICAL evidenceevidence....
Creationists here however have presented UNREFUTED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of Creation in our discussion on the subject. I can mention several things that have NEVER been refuted even slightly.
As you know, I am all about freedom, believe whatever you wish, I am completely okay with that, youre an allright dude for the most part but you LIE if you say evidence for creation has not been given. Its been given, and plenty of it.
NEVER EVER?
if we havent "presented" any evidence than neither have you
you say look around, test the bible, you can do the same for science
Creationists here however have presented UNREFUTED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of Creation in our discussion on the subject. I can mention several things that have NEVER been refuted even slightly.
unrefuted? thats a good one
using god as an answer is only plausible to the believers because god can do anything according to you
let me say again there is no UNREFUTED evidence, thats only in your eyesAs you know, I am all about freedom, believe whatever you wish, I am completely okay with that, youre an allright dude for the most part but you LIE if you say evidence for creation has not been given. Its been given, and plenty of it.
believe waht you want i dont care but do go saying that you have presented UNREFUTED evidence because evidence for all sides can be refuted
Val for President
Okay. Why dont you undertake a discussion of pulonium halos. These nano second lasting "bubbles" are physically present in rock that forms the foundation of the earth. There is no way they can be there in the theory of evolution. That leaves us with the only other possibility on the table....instant creation by a God.if we havent "presented" any evidence than neither have you
you say look around, test the bible, you can do the same for science
unrefuted? thats a good one
using god as an answer is only plausible to the believers because god can do anything according to you
let me say again there is no UNREFUTED evidence, thats only in your eyes
believe waht you want i dont care but do go saying that you have presented UNREFUTED evidence because evidence for all sides can be refuted
We have this physical evidence. So now what?? The only possible theory we have that can fit it at all is CREATION.
So...go ahead, get started on that, try to refute it. No one has yet. No geologist, no scientist. Those who have tried have only shown that they havent even a complete understanding of the subject. So what is the approach of "science" now? Censorship. Now thats real scientific!
So then, why dont you undertake this subject. And when youre finished with that one we can move on to several other physical evidences we have, such as the SUDDEN INSTANTANEOUS appearance of complex lifeforms in our fossil record etc etc
As I have said, the evidence is there. If you wish to ignore it thats your choice and fine with me...but the evidence is still there.
wow science to disprove science. hulud there is a previous discusstion on this in hereOkay. Why dont you undertake a discussion of pulonium halos. These nano second lasting "bubbles" are physically present in rock that forms the foundation of the earth. There is no way they can be there in the theory of evolution. That leaves us with the only other possibility on the table....instant creation by a God.
We have this physical evidence. So now what?? The only possible theory we have that can fit it at all is CREATION.
So...go ahead, get started on that, try to refute it. No one has yet. No geologist, no scientist. Those who have tried have only shown that they havent even a complete understanding of the subject. So what is the approach of "science" now? Censorship. Now thats real scientific!
So then, why dont you undertake this subject. And when youre finished with that one we can move on to several other physical evidences we have, such as the SUDDEN INSTANTANEOUS appearance of complex lifeforms in our fossil record etc etc
As I have said, the evidence is there. If you wish to ignore it thats your choice and fine with me...but the evidence is still there.
thank you Dr. Metalman for that scientific explanation.
it all makes sense now, now i suddenly believe in creationism
since scientists dont know the answer YET it must mean god did it. hmm the common answer to the unknown
there is evidence but its how you interpret it, as i have told you before, you can indterpret it as god and i can as science. if you want to argue that (which you seem to do) you will look like an ignorant personSo...go ahead, get started on that, try to refute it. No one has yet. No geologist, no scientist. Those who have tried have only shown that they havent even a complete understanding of the subject. So what is the approach of "science" now? Censorship. Now thats real scientific!
So then, why dont you undertake this subject. And when youre finished with that one we can move on to several other physical evidences we have, such as the SUDDEN INSTANTANEOUS appearance of complex lifeforms in our fossil record etc etc
As I have said, the evidence is there. If you wish to ignore it thats your choice and fine with me...but the evidence is still there.
Val for President
Again with "likelyhoods" based upon human reasoning....good luck with that.
The EVIDENCE on the other hand...as stated and pointed out numerous times on this board....would lead one to think that Creation is quite plausible...and even likely.
bahhhh ok evidence from what your HUMAN REASONING... good call
I believe that God created all things.
Rad.
Hey you were asking what we believed happened. I dont believe in the big bang theory at all.
Uh huh. Your name is biblethumper and have been here for how long with how many posts?
I'm looking for open minded arguments. Why do YOU not believe in the big bang theory?
On a side note, I question everything and everybody. If somebody thinks they know me or my beliefs from the internet alone, they are the furthest from it.
I dont think I'm overtly biased I just play the advocate for a God most of the time when there is none.
I understand that. I was told that there was a religion forum on this site and came to see what was up with it and give my opinion like everyone else. I was brought up in a Christian home. My Grandparents are preachers and so I have been born into the religion. I myself went away from the church because I felt that I was being pressured into believing. But certain things in my life brought me back to God. Everyone has their right to believe what they want to and I am not here to push my beliefs onto anyone.
this same subject kinda came up before in the evolution thread. the whole God versus science thing is an interesting argument...
on the one hand, in the absence of technology, you find that man credits everything to the creator. from rainfall to crops growing, etc. but as man understands the workings of the universe more and more, less and less is attributed to the "magical powers" of God.
in studying philosophy and the evolution of thinking throughout the centuries, it seems that the advent of western philosophy (started largely by the greeks) pretty much signaled beginning of the rift between science and religion/spirituality. and now that rift is like a chasm, lol.
what's interesting though is that the original greek philosophers like pythagoras (sp), etc, actually were taught in the mystery school systems in Egypt. it seems that the ancient egyptians (actually eastern thought in general) didn't have this issue with believing in God AND the scientific method like we do today.
their ideas about the nature of God, etc are different from ours, but they were able to reconcile it into one big picture. as a matter of fact, before you could even start to LEARN about metaphysical/spiritual concepts...you had to demonstrate a mastery of math and science first.
personally i think those guys were on the money, and the greeks kinda lost that in translation. the bible says God is a God of order and not the author of confusion...the universe is a system that was obviously designed by a set of rules, and the scientific method is the tool we as humans have to discover how it all works, so we can use it to our benefit.
but just because we're smart enough to see how God did it, and even duplicate it on a smaller scale (we're made in God's image, so this is natural), doesn't mean we should run and leave God out of the equation. i think that's just pretentious. but at the end of the day, it all starts with an assumption, so you have to make your own choice...
I get your drift. I look to my God as a supreme being and you dont believe in Him at all. I am not going to hold it against you at all. I am not here to judge.
exactly... i personally just like to invoke thought... discussing religion is like taking a knife to a gun fight... your not going to win but hey you gain perspective... next time take a gun
Right Right. Religion will ALWAYS be a matter of debate. There will always be the believers and nonbelievers. But I think we can coexist as long as we dont push our religion on those we know dont share the same opinion. Like I hate it when JW's come knocking on your door and basically shoving their lil pamphlets in your face.
lol actually i enjoyed it... my father is disfellowshiped and always had an earful for those wanting knock on the door and discuss the end of the world
I can understand that. But I dont like the whole let me knock on your door and tell you about God even though I have no idea if you believe in Him or not.
^ what kills me is the children they brainwash into doing this... seriously i believe its as bad as prostitution
Yeah I really do hate the whole pushing religion upon kids. If my children tell me they dont want to go to church anymore I will not make them go. That is their choice. Right now they love it and I pray that that attitude continues.
Paul here is the twist to my story.....
My ex (kids dad) is an atheist. I never pushed my religion on him and he never gave me crap about it either. I took the kids to church with me, but promised him that if the kids decided that they did not want to go to church anymore I would not make them.
that is cool... this is why i would never marry a christian... b/c its such a sensitive subject... its good though you allow your children that right, i will do the same when if ever i have kids.but promised him that if the kids decided that they did not want to go to church anymore I would not make them.
anyways lets get back on topic cause i dont want to lock this
Val for President
^^^hey smartass, who created the 1st law of thermodynamics? think about that one for a minute
^well, it's better than being a dumbass^ isn't it.
I made the refrence and you think asking me when discovered it is a witty response? and he didn't "create" it. it was more of a discovery, since it already exsisted. it's just that no one knew about it or had a name for it before.
btw:
yeah, you're right there. b/c believing there was a "Big Bang"(no matter how intellectual that may sound) isn't an "easy way out". espically after having knowalge of the Laws of Thermodynamics....not to mention other scientific fact. but lets not get this thread To off track
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/1law.html
wouldn't know about being a dumbass, u on the other hand i cannot speak for because...
in ur lame attempt at being witty w/the whole bold letters and shit, u failed to identify who really discovered the 1st law of thermo...yeah, not newton genious (yes, with an "O"), try robert mayer.
lastly, who ever said i believed in the big bang theory? u know what they say about ppl who assume...yeah, you're right there. b/c believing there was a "Big Bang"(no matter how intellectual that may sound) isn't an "easy way out". espically after having knowalge of the Laws of Thermodynamics....not to mention other scientific fact. but lets not get this thread To off track
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/1law.html
Last edited by ShooterMcGavin; 07-27-2006 at 06:32 PM.
O-Snap! now That was witty.
your pathetic attempt @ google shows what a weak mind you really have.
mayer helped to lay some ground work for future scientists later. He did Not devepole it him self. here I goolgled something so maybe you could understand.http://www.geocities.com/Axiom43/sciencelaws.html
lastly, who ever said i believed in the big bang theory? u know what they say about ppl who assume...
yeah, I heard that one, like 12 years ago.
ok, what's your theory? Romuls & Remus? an 8 legged elephant? a cosmic mother cow? elighten us Master Yoda.
damn right that was witty, i would say game recognize game but i'm not sure that you've got the game...
pathetic attempt at google? that's pretty funny right there. are you really retarded to point where you cannot differentiate between the laws of MOTION and the laws of THERMODYNAMICS? i hear southern poly has some good engineering classes, maybe you should pick a few up if you can manage to get in...
heard it 12 yrs ago? didn't realize you could hear anything while still in your dad's left nut.yeah, I heard that one, like 12 years ago.
ok, what's your theory? Romuls & Remus? an 8 legged elephant? a cosmic mother cow? elighten us Master Yoda.
and who said i had a theory? this isn't the first thread where i've pointed out that we as humans very well may not have the ability to cope with the idea of creation, or crazy ass theories such as the big bang. does it mean they didn't happen? no, but it also does not mean that we'll ever find enough evidence to satiate our quest for proof of one or the other.
nice star wars reference asshat, and yoda told me to tell you: "learn to spell you should young padawan."
scroll down the link pal. mayer was a "catalyst" not the result.
nice star wars reference asshat, and yoda told me to tell you: "learn to spell you should young padawan."
Now I know you're full of shit! no way in hell Yoda would've said that.
he would've said something more like, "learn to spell you should my young padawan."
I have a belly button
that makes more sense that Sahmmi ever will.
Posting Permissions
(lol)
