Creationism: Last Debate of 2010 on the subject.

Here is the modeling for dark matter on galaxies...

Creation is the correct word there foss - religion and religious overtones are what you insert - but, in this case - it refers to development of entity, all mysticism of religion set aside.

And yes - there are could's and maybe's in science - these are theories that we are discussing. Creationism is also a theory.

So, now that we have the computational power to mathematically prove (soon) on how the big bang worked - we also have quantum geometry as well -

So, as scientists and mathematicians make fairly exact models of how the big bang worked - the question is will a 'reasonable man' defense be able to be made of it? We weren't there - just as we weren't there during all the steps of evolution - but, do you take the body of evidence, and say 'a reasonable man' would conclude...

Does a reasonable man believe in young earth - or does a reasonable man believe in evolution?
And what happens when their model fails to prove their case? Will they tell us? Will they go find new jobs? Given all the factors that I've presented, it speaks to the arrogance and desperation of the evolution crowd that is bending itself into pretzels, keeping any exculpatory discoveries OUT of the PUBLIC limelight, in order to maintain the facade so they can continue getting their money. The same thing happened with the so-called global warming 'settled science', and it was exposed and discredited. We found out later that the amazing 'models' had falsified data in them.

One of the foremost advocates and workers in human evolution is Richard Leakey. In an interview, he once said, “I think the study of early man (physical anthropology in a paleoanthropological sense) is a science that is just reaching its adolescence. I do not think the science has matured. I think we are still doing a great deal of guessing.”

This is a remarkable admission, quite different from the typical evolutionist’s assertion that evolution is both science and fact. Another ardent evolutionist, Carl Sagan, said this about how science works: “The most fundamental axioms and conclusions may be challenged . . . (and the prevailing hypothesis) . . . must survive confrontation with observation . . . Appeals to authority are impermissible . . . (and) experiments must be reproducible.”

Evolution does not act much like a science at all. Donald Johanson, the discoverer of “Lucy,” once commented that “. . . only those in the inner circle get to see the fossils; only those who agree with the particular interpretation of a particular investigator are allowed to see the fossils.” This is evident from the way that human fossils are kept in vaults and restricted from viewing. “Researchers” typically have to work with plaster sculptures, drawings, and photographs. Is there any other “science” that is so protective of its evidence?

A scientific theory must be consistent with observational evidence. The only physical evidence available for speculations in human origins must be in the fossil record. There are thousands of ancient human fossils. So there is, in fact, data to be observed. What might contradict evolutionary theory? If two different types of fossil humans are found at the same place and at the same stratigraphic level, it falsifies human evolution. There are a number of examples of this. Do the textbooks get rewritten? Do human evolutionists go find an honest job? Of course not. Evolution is a philosophy that supersedes any evidence.

Consider the quote from Mark Ridley, an evolutionist at Oxford University: “. . . no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to creation. This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.” The heading of Ridley’s article reads: “The evidence for evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record.”

Wow! Then what does it depend on? I guarantee that the public perception of the “fact” of evolution has missed the point that you don’t have to depend on the fossil record.

But Darwin, himself, was aghast at the gaps in the fossil record. He wrote that “the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?” He was aware that the gaps are “the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

But evolutionists have been preaching for a hundred years that fossils are the basis of evolutionary evidence. In the decades following Darwin, true believers hoped that additional fossil finds would fill in the gaps. But presently, it is clear that fossils are in abundance on this planet. There are plenty of fossils. They just don’t support evolution.

The famous evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane noted in 1949 that “various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect,” could never arise through evolutionary mutation and natural selection. He was taking a rare gamble by actually identifying the type of evidence that would falsify evolution. This isn’t done much in the field because of the obvious dangers.

Haldane would have been crushed at more recent discoveries of both wheels and magnets. A perfect rotary motor drives the flagellum of a bacterium. A wheel is also found in the vital enzyme responsible for manufacturing ATP, the energy-carrying molecule used by all living creatures. Regarding magnets – turtles, monarch butterflies, and bacteria use magnetic sensors for navigation. These involve more than “simple magnets,” but rather complex systems in which magnets are integral components.
 
So, fox, are you going to hit me with the 'inflation theory' next? ;) One of my favs...

So - chaotic inflation Foss?

Did you pull most of your stuff from 'Origins: List of Evidence'?
 
So - chaotic inflation Foss?

Did you pull most of your stuff from 'Origins: List of Evidence'?
I interpret by your taunting, empty, childish response that you have a) no answer for me b) no interest in a real debate.

And it's not like I haven't given you ample opportunity to discuss this in a reasonable, rational way. You default to the ad hominem out of reflex, Miss Alinsky.

Buh-bye, fox. :rolleyes:
 
And what happens when their model fails to prove their case? Will they tell us? Will they go find new jobs? Given all the factors that I've presented, it speaks to the arrogance and desperation of the evolution crowd that is bending itself into pretzels, keeping any exculpatory discoveries OUT of the PUBLIC limelight, in order to maintain the facade so they can continue getting their money. The same thing happened with the so-called global warming 'settled science', and it was exposed and discredited. We found out later that the amazing 'models' had falsified data in them.

Yes - it is possible that theories brought forth in science are wrong - and often they are just building blocks for later thought. Science isn't static - as we find new ways to look at the world, better microscopes, better telescopes - more powerful modeling computers - things are disputed, discredited, or proved and verified. Atoms were just a concept until we had the means to 'see' them.

Science knows that our view of the universe and all that is in it will be constantly changing, as we expand our knowledge. Religion has a bad habit of 'stopping' knowledge.

One of the foremost advocates and workers in human evolution is Richard Leakey.
<snip>
These involve more than “simple magnets,” but rather complex systems in which magnets are integral components.

Give credit where credit is due foss - Truth Really Matters: Biblical Christianity – Evangelism and Discipleship Mr and Mrs Doctor Dave...
 
Ah, the false dichotomy between religion and science rears it's ugly head again.
 
I interpret by your taunting, empty, childish response that you have a) no answer for me b) no interest in a real debate.

And it's not like I haven't given you ample opportunity to discuss this in a reasonable, rational way. You default to the ad hominem out of reflex, Miss Alinsky.

Buh-bye, fox. :rolleyes:

Foss - you haven't even tried - come on - lets look at dark matter when it comes to the formation of galaxies - and the reason that the spiral galaxy 'defense' when it comes to debunking the big bang theory doesn't hold water.

I, in good faith, gave the common answer - that the spiral galaxies didn't start out that way. What is your answer to that Foss - you are the one here without a rebuttal to a very common sense solution to your "problem" (i.e. #5 in your list). How do you know that they started out as a spiral galaxy, and therefore don't fit within the time line?

Get your head out of the biblical sand foss - why couldn't they have started as non-spiral galaxies, and therefore work very well within the time frames of big bang theories?
 
I interpret by your taunting, empty, childish response that you have a) no answer for me b) no interest in a real debate.

And it's not like I haven't given you ample opportunity to discuss this in a reasonable, rational way. You default to the ad hominem out of reflex, Miss Alinsky.

Buh-bye, fox. :rolleyes:

Oh - Foss - there is a big difference between regular 'inflation' theory, and 'chaotic inflation' theory - sort of silly to go down one path, when in reality, you wanted to go down a different one.

And yes, I was interested in where you get your ideas - that is why I asked about "Origins", if I know where your thoughts are based, then it is easy to figure out what your responses will be. Just as I discovered that you like to use Truth Really Matters - canned responses are easy to confront with canned rebuttals - not much fun -
 
Of course, RELIGION is simply dogmatic, science is unquestionable truth. :rolleyes:

Science isn't unquestionable truth - no where near shag - what science does is ask questions - what religion has is all the answers... :)

Sarcasm there - just in case...
 
The big bang is bad science. It's not the same science that put men on the moon or allows your computer to function. It isn't testable, repeatable lab science. It doesn't make specific predictions that are confirmed by observation and experimentation.

Furthermore, the big bang should have produced monopoles, population III stars, and an equal amount of antimatter to matter. But none of these conditions exist anywhere.
So, medical science is bad science, by your logical foss.
Math put us on the moon and allows your computer to function - not science - you are getting the two mixed up.

And as far as your second paragraph - why would you think there is only one universe? You think 'small' foss...
 
So, medical science is bad science, by your logical foss.
Math put us on the moon and allows your computer to function - not science - you are getting the two mixed up.

And as far as your second paragraph - why would you think there is only one universe? You think 'small' foss...
Red herring, fox...tsk, tsk...this is yet again another example of you not debating honestly. Medical science can actually achieve results - helping people get well. You're the one deliberately mixing things up. Funny - I thought you'd have to observe the orbit of the moon to make the trip, but hey, if it's just math...:rolleyes:

When you actually make a case for evolution using evidence and not blind faith, I'll respond. Your little 'what if' speculations coupled with insults is tiresome and I have no use for it. Frankly, I've presented a ton of evidence in this thread and you're trying to play a semantics game, as usual muddying the waters.

You can't imagine God but you can imagine another universe? 'Thinking small' indeed. :rolleyes:
 
Science isn't unquestionable truth - no where near shag - what science does is ask questions - what religion has is all the answers... :)

Sarcasm there - just in case...
Really, so evolutionary scientists just ask questions, and they don't give answers? :rolleyes:
 
Give credit where credit is due foss - Truth Really Matters: Biblical Christianity – Evangelism and Discipleship Mr and Mrs Doctor Dave...
I don't have to cite a source when a) I'm a contributor and b) I have permission to use the material. Unlike you, I don't pretend to cite myself.

Are we going to get into using real names again? :rolleyes:

Do you want to meet and discuss this in person with a real, live PhD, nuclear physicist?

Care to debate the merits, or are you just interested in ad hominem?
 
The "big bang" is outside of the limits of true science. There is the problem of the limits of science that secularists today don't even realize.
 
Yes - it is possible that theories brought forth in science are wrong - and often they are just building blocks for later thought. Science isn't static - as we find new ways to look at the world, better microscopes, better telescopes - more powerful modeling computers - things are disputed, discredited, or proved and verified. Atoms were just a concept until we had the means to 'see' them.

Science knows that our view of the universe and all that is in it will be constantly changing, as we expand our knowledge. Religion has a bad habit of 'stopping' knowledge.
You bandy these terms about loosely without really understanding what you're saying.

"Science" doesn't "know" anything, nor does "religion" "stop" anything.

And I see that you just sidestepped the quotations I supplied.

Your side has a credibility problem. Until you deal with it, you have a credibility problem. Well, outside of the fact that you're a proven, admitted liar.

So, get your head out of the evolutionary sand, fox...It is a circular argument to require a naturalistic answer to explain a supernatural event.
 
This is clearly against the "no cut and paste" rule established on page one, but I think things have run their course here. This is a something I've excerpted from Dinesh D'Souza's book and I thought it was very interesting:
In a stunning confirmation of the book of Genesis, modern scientists have discovered
that the universe was created in a primordial explosion of energy and light. Not only did the universe have a beginning in space and time, but the origin of the universe was also a beginning for space and time. Space and time did not exist prior to the universe. If you accept that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause. This spiritual cause brought the universe into existence using none of the laws of physics. The creation of the universe was, in the quite literal meaning of the term, a miracle. Its creator is known to be a spiritual, eternal being of creativity and power beyond all conceivable limits. Mind, not matter, came at the beginning. With the help of science and logic, all this can be rationally demonstrated.

The story begins about a century ago, as scientists began to look for evidence that our universe—not just our planet or our galaxy but all the matter that exists—had a beginning. The reason for the search is that one of the most universal laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, predicts such a beginning. The law simply states that, left to themselves, things break down. We see this all around us: highways and buildings decay and collapse, people age and die, metals rust, fabrics become threadbare, rocks and coastlines suffer erosion. If you haven't studied physics, you might think that the second law is refuted by the evidence of people who build new highways and buildings, but this is not the case. Materials and power are used up in the construction process. More resources and energy are required to maintain these highways and buildings. So even here things are running down and wearing out. Scientists use the term entropy as a measure of the level of disorder, and the second law shows that the total entropy in the universe is continually increasing.

The second law has a startling implication. Consider the example of the sun. As time passes its fuel reserves decline, so that eventually the sun will run out of heat and go cold. But this means the fires of the sun must have been ignited at some point. The sun has not been burning forever. And this is also true of other stars. They too are gradually burning out, suggesting that they too were set aflame some time ago. As the great English astronomer Arthur Eddington once put it, if the universe can be compared to a clock, the fact that the clock is continually running down leads to the conclusion that there was a time when the clock was fully wound up. The universe originated with its full supply of energy and that is the fund that has been dissipating ever since. These facts were known as far back as the eighteenth century, but scientists didn't know what to make of them.

In the early twentieth century, Albert Einstein published his equations of general relativity and a Dutch astronomer, Willem de Sitter, found a solution to them that predicted an expanding universe. This, too, was a highly significant prediction because if the universe has been expanding and if galaxies are moving farther apart, this implies that in the past they once were closer together. If the universe has been "blowing up" for the duration of its existence, that means that it must have had an actual beginning.

Einstein, who didn't realize that his equations suggested an expanding universe, was distressed to hear about this implication of his famous theory. When Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann tried to persuade him, Einstein sought to prove Friedmann wrong. Actually Einstein was wrong. The great physicist was, by his own account, "irritated" by the idea of an expanding universe. He went so far as to invent a new force, the "antigravity" force, as well as a number called the "cosmological constant:' to try to disprove the notion of a beginning. Later Einstein admitted his errors and called his cosmological constant the biggest mistake of his life.

In the late 1920s, astronomer Edwin Hubble, peering through the hundred-inch telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory in California, observed through the "red shift" of distant nebulae that galaxies were moving rapidly away from each other. The number of stars involved in this galactic dispersal suggested an astoundingly vast universe, much bigger than anyone had thought. Some galaxies were millions of light years away. The impression that many people had long held of the stillness and changelessness of space was an illusion. Hubble noticed that planets and entire galaxies were hurtling away from one another at fantastic speeds. Moreover, space itself seemed to be getting bigger. The universe wasn't, expanding into background space, because the universe already contains all the space there is. Incredibly, space itself was expanding along with the universe. Hubble's findings, subsequently confirmed by numerous others, generated great excitement in the scientific community.

Scientists realized right away that the galaxies were not flying apart because of some mysterious force thrusting them away from each other. Rather, they were moving apart because they were once flung apart by a primeval explosion. Extrapolating backward in time, all the galaxies seem to have had a common point of origin approxi- mately fifteen billion years ago. Scientists projected a moment in which all the mass in the universe was compressed into a point of infinite density. The entire universe was smaller than a single atom.

Then in a single cosmic explosion—the Big Bang—the universe we now inhabit came into existence. "The universe was filled with light," Steven Weinberg writes. In fact, "it was light that then formed the dominant constituent of the universe." The temperature was about a hundred trillion degrees Centigrade. Then, in a process vividly described by Weinberg in The First Three Minutes, the first protons and neutrons began to form into atoms. Once matter was formed, gravitational forces began to draw it into galaxies and then into stars. Eventually heavier elements like oxygen and iron were formed and, over billions of years, gave birth to our solar system and our planet. Crazy though it may seem, our terrestrial existence, indeed the very matter of which we are made, owes itself to a "creation event" that occurred around fifteen billion years ago.

This theory of an expanding universe was consistent not only with the second law of thermodynamics but also with Einstein's theory of relativity. Hubble found that the farther away a galaxy is from us, the faster it is receding from us. This is now called Hubble's Law, and it fulfills a prediction that was made on the basis of Einstein's theory. The expanding universe theory also solved an old conundrum that had been frustrating scientists for decades: why the galaxies continued to stay apart from each other. Why had the force of gravity not pulled them together? The reason was that they had been hurled apart in a primordial explosion whose force continued to thrust them farther and farther away from each other. Astronomer John Barrow calls Hubble's finding "the greatest discovery of twentieth-century science."

Even so, many scientists were visibly upset by the concept of a Big Bang. Robert Jastrow cites a number of examples in his book God and the Astronomers: Astronomer Arthur Eddington called the concept "preposterous ... incredible ... repugnant." Physicist Philip Morrison of MIT confessed, "I find it hard to accept the big bang theory. I would like to reject it." Allan Sandage of Carnegie Laboratories said the idea was "such a strange conclusion" that "it cannot really be true." Like Einstein, prominent scientists began to advance theories that would eliminate the need for a beginning. They worked very hard to find a scientifically credible way for the universe to have existed forever.

Jastrow argues that the reason several leading scientists were troubled by the notion of a big bang is because, if true, it would imply that there was a "moment of creation" in which everything—the universe and its laws—came into existence. It is very important to recognize that before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics. In fact, the laws of physics cannot be used to explain the Big Bang because the Big Bang itself produced the laws of physics. The laws of science are a kind of grammar that explains the order and relationship of objects in the universe. Just as grammar has no existence outside the words and sentences whose operations it defines, so too the laws of science cannot exist outside the universe of objects whose relationships they describe.

Scientists call the starting moment of the universe a "singularity" an original point at which neither space nor time nor scientific laws are in effect. Nothing can be known scientifically about what came before such a point. Indeed the term before has no meaning since time itself did not exist "prior to" the singularity. Once upon a time there was no time. Jastrow's implication was that such concepts, which border on the metaphysical, give scientists a very queasy feeling. If the universe was produced outside the laws of physics, then its origin satisfies the basic definition of the term miracle. This term gives scientists the heebie-jeebies.

Imagine the relief of these scientists when astronomers Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle advanced what became known as the "steady state" universe. Their theory was that the universe was infinite in age. Basically Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle hypothesized that as energy burns up over time, new energy and new matter are somehow created in intergalactic space. So despite entropy and the second law of thermodynamics, everything remains in balance and on an even keel, and thus it is possible that the universe has always existed. Space and time are also eternal. The steady state theory quickly gained popularity and became the most favored explanation for the universe among scientists in Europe and America. As late as 1959, it commanded the support of two-thirds of astronomers and physicists.

In a way, the steady state theory built on a very old foundation. The notion of an eternal universe has been around since the ancient Greeks. Greek philosophers and natural scientists had a wide range of views on the origin of the world, but they all generally agreed on the principle that something cannot be produced out of nothing: ex nihilo, nihil: "out of nothing there is nothing." It takes matter to give shape to matter. Therefore, as the material universe could not possibly have arisen out of "thin it has always been there. Matter is forever. Newton's discoveries in the eighteenth century generally supported the idea of an eternal universe. For Newton, space was a three-dimensional volume stretching without limit in every direction, and time was a single dimension extending indefinitely into the past and into the future. It was this concept of the eternal universe that the steady state theory sought to confirm, as an alternative to the Big Bang theory.

The implications of the steady state theory, its advocates freely conceded, were largely atheistic. If the universe has always existed, then no one created it. It has simply been there all along. Newton himself sought to avoid this implication. While the universe may operate according to mechanical laws, perhaps even laws that have always existed, Newton argued that there was an external creator of those laws and he "certainly is not mechanical" but rather "incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent." But by the early twentieth century most scientists viewed Newton's argument as the special pleading of a religious man who simply could not abide the full significance of his own laws. The scientific consensus seemed to incline toward the view of Pierre-Simon Laplace, who was asked by Napoleon what place his nebular theories had for God and reportedly replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis." The steady state theory had the virtue for many scientists of dispensing with the God hypothesis.

In the 1960s, however, the steady state theory suffered a devastating blow when two radio engineers working at Bell Labs, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, discovered some mysterious radiation coming from space. This radiation was not coming from a particular direction; rather, it was coming equally from all directions. In fact, it appeared to be coming from the universe itself. Penzias and Wilson soon learned that scientists had been predicting that, if the universe began in a single explosion around fifteen billion years ago, then some of the radiation from that fiery blast would still be around. This radiation was expected to have a temperature of around a few degrees above absolute zero. Penzias and Wilson's radiation measured slightly less than this number, and they realized to their astonishment that they had encountered a ghostly whisper from the original moment of creation.

Numerous other findings—including data from NASAs Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite—have now confirmed the existence of this primordial background radiation. Based on the Big Bang theory, scientists are able to predict how much hydrogen, lithium, deuterium, and helium should exist in the universe. These predictions are in remarkable congruence with the actual amounts of those elements that we find today. In 1970 physicist Stephen Hawking and mathematician Roger Penrose wrote a famous paper that proved that, given general relativity and the amount of matter in the universe, the universe must have had a beginning. As Hawking states in A Brief History of Time, "There must have been a Big Bang singularity." Astronomer Martin Rees notes that numerous lines of evidence have now converged that have discredited the steady state theory and confirmed the Big Bang theory."

"In the beginning," the Bible says in the book of Genesis, "God created the heavens and the earth:' The Bible is unique among the documents of ancient history in positing an absolute beginning. In Buddhism, we learn from the Dalai Lama that "there are multiple world systems ... in constant state of coming into being and passing away."12 The Bible also asserts clearly that time is finite. By contrast, Hinduism and Buddhism posit endless cycles of time stretching into the indefinite past. The Greeks and Romans, like other cultures of antiquity, believed in the eternity of history. As Leon Kass notes in his study of Genesis, the biblical writers didn't need to venture into this territory. They could have started with the Garden of Eden and left out the account of creation. Instead the biblical narrative brazenly insists that the universe came into existence at a particular instant in time as an act of voluntary creation by an already existing supernatural being.

It is important here to clear up a common misunderstanding. Many secular writers seem to think that the orthodox Christian position is that the universe and the earth were literally made in six calendar days. But the Bible uses a Hebrew term that could mean a day or a season or an era. We also read in 2 Peter 3:8 that "with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." From earliest Christian times, the leading church authorities from Irenaeus to Origen to Augustine gave a figurative interpretation to the "days" in the book of Genesis. Most traditional Christians have no problem with a creation account that extends over millions, even billions, of years.

Remarkably, Jews and Christians have always believed not only that God made the universe, but also that He made it out of nothing "in the beginning was the Word." With this the Bible implies that the universe was literally spoken into existence. For nearly two thousand years this made no rational sense. We experience time and space in such a way that we cannot imagine them having a beginning or an end. Nature suggests no beginning or end in itself. In the creation myths of most other religions, gods typically fashion the world out of some preexisting stuff. Logic would seem to be on the side of the ancient Greeks: ex nihilo, nihil. But now modern science tells us that the Bible is right. The universe was indeed formed out of nothing. And how was it formed? We do not know and may never know, because the creator used processes that are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe.
Even more strange is that Jews and Christians have long held that God made space and time along with the universe. We have seen how the church father Augustine, when confronted with the question of why God sat around for such a long time before deciding to create the universe, answered that the question was meaningless. There was no time before the creation, Augustine wrote, because the creation of the universe involved the creation of time itself. Modern physics has confirmed Augustine and the ancient understanding of the Jews and Christians.

The Big Bang resolves one of the apparent contradictions in the book of Genesis. For more than two centuries, critics of the Bible have pointed out that in the beginning—on the first day—God created light. Then on the fourth day God separated the night from the day. The problem is pointed out by philosopher Leo Strauss: "Light is presented as preceding the sun." Christians have long struggled to explain this anomaly but without much success. The writer of Genesis seemed to have made an obvious mistake.

But it turns out that there is no mistake. The universe was created in a burst of light fifteen billion years ago. Our sun and our planet came into existence billions of years later. So light did indeed precede the sun. The first reference to light in Genesis 1:3 can be seen to refer to the Big Bang itself. The separation of the day and the night described in Genesis 1:4 clearly refers to the formation of the sun and the earth. Day and night— which we experience as a result of the earth's rotation—were indeed created much later than the universe itself. The Genesis enigma is solved, and its account of the creation is vindicated not as some vague parable but as a strikingly accurate account of how the universe came to be.

Let's remember that the Old Testament was written more than 2,500 years ago by people who essentially contended that God told them what He did. Gerald Schroeder notes, "These commentaries were not composed in response to cosmological discoveries as an attempt to force an agreement between theology and cosmology.... Theology presents a fixed view of the universe. Science, through its progressively improved understanding of the world, has come to agree with theology."

I am not citing the Bible to prove that God created the universe. I am citing it to show that the biblical account of how the universe was created is substantially correct. The Bible is not a science textbook. It does not attempt, as science does, to give a detailed account of how the universe and the earth were formed into their current shapes. But what it does say about creation—about the fact of creation and about the order of creation—turns out to be accurate. In a manner that once would have seemed impossible, the Bible has been vindicated by the findings of modern science.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This point cannot be stressed enough. Until the secularist side can disprove it, their argument fails to hold water:

If you accept that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause
 
If you accept that everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the material universe had a nonmaterial or spiritual cause
This point cannot be stressed enough. Until the secularist side can disprove it, their argument fails to hold water:

But, why can't it have 'always been'.

God has always been, he doesn't have a 'beginning'. Why does the universe have to have 'beginning'? The material necessary to create the universe, whether 'big bang' or 'ray' or whatever road you want to go down, has always been.

You can understand God has always been - correct? No beginning, no end. The material in the universe also has 'always been'. Same concept.

Why can you accept one, and not the other?

Foss stated in post #13 -
Big bangers assume no center and no edge – get your head around that!

People who believe in God (I am one) assume God has no beginning and no end - is everywhere all at once, no 'center' no 'edge'. If you can 'get your head around that' why is the big bang so difficult.
 
Red herring, fox...tsk, tsk...this is yet again another example of you not debating honestly. Medical science can actually achieve results - helping people get well. You're the one deliberately mixing things up. Funny - I thought you'd have to observe the orbit of the moon to make the trip, but hey, if it's just math...:rolleyes:

When you actually make a case for evolution using evidence and not blind faith, I'll respond. Your little 'what if' speculations coupled with insults is tiresome and I have no use for it. Frankly, I've presented a ton of evidence in this thread and you're trying to play a semantics game, as usual muddying the waters.

You can't imagine God but you can imagine another universe? 'Thinking small' indeed. :rolleyes:

Well, first of all - I totally debunked your silly spiral galaxy thing - and until you answer that, I see no reason to continue on with the rest of your little list. If you actually want to debate - lets start with that one (it is one of the easiest for most people to understand - why the spiral galaxy axiom doesn't disprove the big bang theory).

But, since you have no answer to that little point - you will just continue with the false idea that I haven't debated in good faith. I took the easiest point - lets debate that one foss - then when we settle that point, I will address the others.

And then we will get onto evolution - but in post #13 in this thread you had 7 points before you got onto evolution, I was debunking those first - in order of 'ease of debunking'.

And what got us to the moon is math foss - without the math to run the computers, to figure out things like fuel/mass ratios, trajectories, and more, the moon missions would have continued to be just a dream. Rocket science will only get you so far - you need the math.

Now for the whole 'Thinking Small'....

I know God fairly well foss - but, I can also imagine other universes, the 'big bang' etc. My faith in God doesn't preclude shutting off my brain and not looking at viable, scientific ideas regarding the beginning of space and time, as well as how humans came to be.

However, your God (or at least 'you') seems to be threatened by looking at new horizons.

My God isn't diminished by the Big Bang, evolution, or any scientific theories - yours obviously is.

Talk about small thoughts...

God is in everything, and is with everything - including the big bang and evolution, they are not mutually exclusive.
 
But, why can't it have 'always been'.
Because the scientific evidence AND the religious theory demonstrate that it hasn't. It would appear to have a starting point.

God has always been, he doesn't have a 'beginning'. Why does the universe have to have 'beginning'?
Those are two vastly different concepts and there's no reason to confuse the two. Honestly, I broke the cut and paste rule to post that book excerpt because I thought it was very well written and addressed all of the points you're making right now more eloquently and concise than I would have been able to do have done trying to paraphrase it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You bandy these terms about loosely without really understanding what you're saying.

"Science" doesn't "know" anything, nor does "religion" "stop" anything.

And I see that you just sidestepped the quotations I supplied.

Your side has a credibility problem. Until you deal with it, you have a credibility problem. Well, outside of the fact that you're a proven, admitted liar.

So, get your head out of the evolutionary sand, fox...It is a circular argument to require a naturalistic answer to explain a supernatural event.

What quote - the silly tome from Dr and Mrs Dave - that you forget to credit? I thought there was a 'no cut and paste' rule here.

It is your credibility that is at risk here foss - as you cut and paste without giving proper credit... Those aren't your thoughts. However, it is good to know that on this subject, you have apparently been spoon fed ideas, and are good at spouting them verbatim.
 
I thought there was a 'no cut and paste' rule here.
Are you here to take issue the use of cut and paste, essentially in an effort to launch a personal attack, or are you actually taking issue with the substance of what was said? Because, efforts to hijack the thread are still being "moderated."
 
Because all of the scientific evidence, AND the religious theory, demonstrate that it hasn't. It would appear to have a starting point.
No cal - many quantum physicists are going with 'always been'. A cycle of universes, or perhaps a myriad of universes feeding off each other. 'Big Bang' is more about the initial conditions than telling us where all the matter came from.

Those are two vastly different concepts and there's no reason to confuse the two. Honestly, I broke the cut and paste rule to post that book excerpt because I thought it was very well written and addressed all of the points your making right now.

I don't really care about your cut and paste thing cal. Dinesh D'Souza has been debunked many, many times (just google it).

However, want to explain to me how do the sun and stars come after the creation of the earth (creation of plants on day 3 - but the sun doesn't get created until day 4) - it doesn't work....

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

But, Cal - here is a more interesting question - does acceptance of the Big Bang theory, or evolution, or any science that seems to contradict the Bible, really make you either a non-believer or a bad Christian - as Foss seems to indicate. To be good christians we had to believe that the earth was the center of the universe for a long time - we got over that. So, why would it seem so odd that evolution or the big bang would be any different. God reveals things to us all the time.

Genesis is about symbolism - easily understood by the people of that time. It is about a relationship with God. Just because modern science has given us new ways to view the creation of the universe shouldn't change our relationship with God. He isn't less because Genesis is a great story, but hardly fact.
 
Are you here to take issue the use of cut and paste, essentially in an effort to launch a personal attack, or are you actually taking issue with the substance of what was said? Because, efforts to hijack the thread are still being "moderated."

Not a personal attack - but I do think it is in very bad form when you cut and paste and don't credit source.

And - I did really think that there wasn't going to be 'wall of text' or 'cut and paste' in this thread - it interests me more to discuss things as individuals, rather than cutting and pasting something that someone else wrote.
 
But, Cal - here is a more interesting question - does acceptance of the Big Bang theory, or evolution, or any science that seems to contradict the Bible, really make you either a non-believer or a bad Christian - as Foss seems to indicate.
I don't think so, nor do I think the actual science necessarily contradicts the bible-
And I don't think it's appropriate to put any words in Fossten's mouth. I haven't seen him express the sentiment you stated.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top