[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Originally Posted by StarrKingGrad

So why did He bother stretching creation out over six days? He could have created it all, exactly the same, in the blink of an eye, right?

God does not have a time and motion man standing over His Perfect Shoulder with a grubby clipboard. God owes you no explanation whatsoever. Although, I feel from your persistent and unwelcome posts, dripping with arrogance and self-righteousness, that you some how do deserve one.

As it happens, it is more than likely that He was thinking about things that we (and you in particular) will never comprehend but, which nevertheless are essential to the wealth and well-being of all True Christians.

[enclave2k7]

Originally Posted by Warrior of God

OK..
so help me out here science fan...
I have no real experience of science as such...

But...I have had a fairly detailed grounding in blowing stuff up.

Out of all the explosions I have brought about , I have never seen one that made anything,except maybe a hole.

Explosions do not create form , they dismantle it.
etc..

I think I can help explain a little. The big bang does not suggest it is an explosion in the sense you are familiar with, the big bang is a rapid expansion of space/time. To claim otherwise would be a strawman attempt or just ignorance.

As for the video... here is my refutation:
First, he asks for a reasonable and logical debate. I assume this type of discourse is welcome here; if it is not please ban me so I do not waste my time.

His first claim, "The big bang theory claims, in the beginning there was nothing and then there was a huge explosion."

1. The big bang theory (Ill just refer to as BBT) does not claim in the beginning there was nothing. In fact the BBT claims that the universe expanded from a hot dense state, commonly referred to as a singularity.
2. As I explained above, the term explosion is inaccurate.

Next, he says that based on what JFK said in a speech, no scientist can be trusted as he may be involved in a conspiracy. Not only is this hearsay, but its completely unsupported by factual evidence. Unlike the BBT, which actually has factual evidence which supports it, of which I will describe at the end.

He then goes off on an unrelated tangent (red herring) and relates an anecdote in which he has a conversation with his scientist friend. On this point his friend is right, whether a hypothesis is true or not, as long as it is falsifiable it can be considered to aid science. Here's why. If we can show that an idea is wrong (all hypotheses must have a way in which they can be wrong) then this adds to our knowledge, as it shows us what is not true.

The BBT is more than a hypothesis however, it is a theory, and makes all of this, while interesting, quite irrelevant.

He continues to expose his ignorance on what the BBT actually claims for the next few minutes. I have addressed these issues above.

The next point he makes is again irrelevant because it is based on a false premise, but I feel I must address it. That is, he mentions that the explosion necessary would be so great that it would 'vaporize' any matter present. Well, he's partially right. The state of the early universe was so hot and dense matter did not exist as it does now, atoms were not present, only parts of atoms.

So then he asks, "how did it form back into rocks?" Well when the universe expanded and cooled, atoms were able to form and coalesce in to clumps of gas via gravity, which formed stars, which formed higher elements via fusion. This is too much to explain all in one post, but I would suggest reading any book on the subject before claiming something cant happen. I wouldn't say the bible is untrue if I had not even read it.


Evidence for the BBT is as follows:

• 3.1 Hubble's law and the expansion of space
• 3.2 Cosmic microwave background radiation
• 3.3 Abundance of primordial elements
• 3.4 Galactic evolution and distribution

If anyone wants further explanation I will be glad to do so to the best of my ability.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Originally Posted by enclave2k7

I think I can help explain a little.

Basically, this is an all-or-nothing church – Jesus or you’re damned. A little is not going to get us far

As for the video... […]The big bang theory does not claim in the beginning there was nothing. In fact the BBT claims that the universe expanded from a hot dense state, commonly referred to as a singularity.

No, no, no! Ge:1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Next, he says that based on what JFK said in a speech, no scientist can be trusted as he may be involved in a conspiracy.

Do scientists get paid? Who pays them?

He then goes off on an unrelated […] Here's why. If we can show that an idea is wrong (all hypotheses must have a way in which they can be wrong) then this adds to our knowledge, as it shows us what is not true.

Are those the scientists involved in the conspiracy?

The BBT is more than a hypothesis however, it is a theory, and makes all of this, while interesting, quite irrelevant.

A fine distinction between man-made words

he mentions that the explosion necessary would be so great that it would 'vaporize' any matter present. Well, he's partially right. The state of the early universe was so hot and dense matter did not exist as it does now, atoms were not present, only parts of atoms.

Do you not think that was God’s Plan? I don’t know how He did it but it looks good to me – and as you say, it’s all theory.

[…]when the universe expanded and cooled, atoms were able to form and coalesce in to clumps of gas via gravity, which formed stars, which formed higher elements via fusion.

mumbo-jumbo – God made the stars, case closed.

This is too much to explain all in one post,

Yeah, I know, inventing this stuff probably hurts your brain

but I would suggest reading any book on the subject before claiming something cant happen.

I recommend Young Earth by John D Morris – have a look at it…

I wouldn't say the bible is untrue if I had not even read it.

So, to take the converse, if you had read it, you would say that it’s true?

Evidence for the BBT is as follows:

• […]

If anyone wants further explanation I will be glad to do so to the best of my ability.

Demonic, anti-God websites deleted

[enclave2k7]

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

Basically, this is an all-or-nothing church – Jesus or you’re damned. A little is not going to get us far

I can appreciate that, Ill do my best to explain all that I can.

No, no, no! Ge:1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

I'm unclear on the relevancy of this, perhaps you could elaborate?

Do scientists get paid? Who pays them?

I suspect they have some way of sustaining themselves, I fail the see the relevancy of getting paid for work.

Are those the scientists involved in the conspiracy?

Which conspiracy? It seems to be 100% conjecture.

A fine distinction between man-made words

What other words are there?

Do you not think that was God’s Plan? I don’t know how He did it but it looks good to me – and as you say, it’s all theory.

What you see and what I see are very different things. This is what intrigues me about this forum. In any event, yes it is a theory, as is Newton's theory of gravity.

mumbo-jumbo – God made the stars, case closed. Yeah, I know, inventing this stuff probably hurts your brain I recommend Young Earth by John D Morris – have a look at it…

I have not made one thing up thus far. I will look into the book you mention though.

So, to take the converse, if you had read it, you would say that it’s true?

Actually, the converse of my statement would read:
"If I had not read the bible, I would not say it is untrue"

You tried to express the contrapositive of my original statement, but made an error. It would read:
"If I had read the bible, I would say it is untrue"

[Mister Brasil]

Originally Posted by enclave2k7

Actually, the converse of my statement would read:
"If I had not read the bible, I would not say it is untrue"

You tried to express the contrapositive of my original statement, but made an error. It would read:
"If I had read the bible, I would say it is untrue"

I think you need to go back to school. I know of an excellent university that has some unanticipated openings. Can you pass a background check? You're not too much of an invert to handle seminar, are you?

[enclave2k7]

Originally Posted by Mister Brasil

I think you need to go back to school. I know of an excellent university that has some unanticipated openings. Can you pass a background check? You're not too much of an invert to handle seminar, are you?

Ad hominem, irrelevant, and pointless. Stay on topic if you wish to discuss anything I have posted, or the OP has, do so.

[Sister Rebecca]

So why did he bother stretching creation out over six days? He could have created it all, exactly the same, in the blink of an eye, right?

Why are you questioning Him? He did it that way because HE WANTED TO! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is the exact same reason He even allows idiots like you to be born, much less live (if you can call it that) until adulthood with your stunted brain capacity. It is simply His whim. When He gets tired of laughing at you falling all over yourself in your own stupidity, He will crush you like a bug.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Originally Posted by enclave2k7

[lots of words deleted]

Look son, are you going to get your head round KJV1611 or not? All that is required is faith.

[enclave2k7]

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

Look son, are you going to get your head round KJV1611 or not? All that is required is faith.

I don't think i will ever view the Bible as you do. So, I don't think I should contribute if this is all that is expected. The original video asked for reasoned/logical discourse, which is what I attempted to engage in.

Faith and logic are incompatible, while you have a right to your faith of course, there is no room for debate. Faith hinges on an unshakable belief devoid of empirical evidence.

As such I will stop posting in this thread unless someone would like to discuss the topic rationally.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by enclave2k7

I don't think i will ever view the Bible as you do. So, I don't think I should contribute if this is all that is expected. The original video asked for reasoned/logical discourse, which is what I attempted to engage in.

Faith and logic are incompatible, while you have a right to your faith of course, there is no room for debate. Faith hinges on an unshakable belief devoid of empirical evidence.

As such I will stop posting in this thread unless someone would like to discuss the topic rationally.

Who needs logic when we have Jesus?

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Originally Posted by enclave2k7

What other words are there?

Words created by God, of course. Haven't you heard of the Tower of Babel?

Faith hinges on an unshakable belief devoid of empirical evidence.

That is true. But that's what science is, too. When I was young, geologists had faith that the continents were fixed on the surface of the Earth. Now they say the continents move around on plates. So, what exactly was the new empirical evidence available between 1960 and 1980 that caused the geologists to change their minds? The answer is there wasn't any. Volcanoes and earthquakes aren't exactly new. So much for science being empiricism rather than faith.

In another 25 years, they'll probably going to say that the continents float around on helium balloons.

BTW, if science is really based on empiricism, why are you science types so set against the teaching of creationism? What in Heaven's name is wrong with presenting all hypotheses, and all of the evidence, and letting children make up their own minds? Isn't that what your precious empiricism is all about?

[Mister Brasil]

Originally Posted by enclave2k7

I wouldn't say the bible is untrue if I had not even read it.

The contrapositive of my original statement [...] would read:
"If I had read the bible, I would say it is untrue."

The contrapositive of your original statement is, "If I said the bible was true, then I would have read it."

Ad hominem, irrelevant, and pointless. Stay on topic if you wish to discuss anything I have posted, or the OP has, do so.

You must be fond of studying logical fallacies. Indulge me for a second, if you will:

Have you traveled to the Leaning Tower and dropped your balls over the edge? No? Then how do you know that gravity exerts an effect proportional to mass?

I suspect that you read it in a book somewhere. But wouldn't that be an appeal to authority?!?

I bet that you read some things that you believe, and some that you do not. May I ask how you distinguish between the two?

I'd like to share one method that I use. If an author claims to fully know about something that I also know a bit about, and gets it wrong, then it sets off an alarm in my head. I double-check, of course, so as not make a fool out of myself. Then I write the errant author off.

This thread is now about much of a fool you are. Remember, ad hominem isn't fallacious if your argument is genuinely to the man.

[Mister Brasil]

Originally Posted by Mister Brasil

The contrapositive of your original statement is, "If I said the bible was true, then I would have read it."

Please allow me to correct my typo. The contrapositive statement would be, "If I said the bible was untrue, then I would have read it."

[Warrior of God]

Originally Posted by enclave2k7

I think I can help explain a little. The big bang does not suggest it is an explosion in the sense you are familiar with, the big bang is a rapid expansion of space/time. To claim otherwise would be a strawman attempt or just ignorance.

1. The big bang theory (Ill just refer to as BBT) does not claim in the beginning there was nothing. In fact the BBT claims that the universe expanded from a hot dense state, commonly referred to as a singularity.
2. As I explained above, the term explosion is inaccurate.

.

So...science me this....

When it suits scientists the BBT is a huge explosion...
but it isn't when the dynamics of an explosion contradict their needs...

This, singularity , this rapid expansion of a hot dense state...

1...where in CREATION did that hot dense state come from...
science always avoids that one...Even if we accept any of the science way of it, that hot dense state had to be CREATED for it to be there to expand...
For that to be CREATED it needed a CREATOR...

2...this hot dense state going into such rapid expansion...
something had to generate that expansion, if you sciency types are right.
Also some force, energy ,, whatever , would have had to keep it going...This generation of impetus would have needed to be self-feeding...it would have been necessary for it to fuel and power its own expansiion...That means some form of perpetual motion style input...

and that would mean it would just keep on going.

Indeed your sciency types say the universe is still expanding...
BUT...that creates problems for the science theories, because if they are right about the BBT , the universe is not expanding fast enough is it...
The top dogs of science and the BBT agree on that...

So , HOW COME...
Well they say,,," there is a big old huge negative energy mass hanging around out there somewhere that counteracts the positive expansion of the universe and slows down the universe's rate of expansion..."

problem... when we say God created everything... they all say
" show us God " , then when no-one can they say
" see you claims are false as you can't show us poof in a solid form."

BUT...when they need a big old negative energy mass to prove their theory is workable in any way , they can't show us one anywhere near enough big enough to cause the slowing of expansion that has supposedly happened....Then they reckon it has to be out there just because they need it to be to let their BBT theory work....
and we should accept that on their say so alone...

That's not too solid a case for some folks who claim they only deal in logic and proof now is it...

I reckon BBT sounds liike a sandwich....

More chance of proving that....

Hey....didn't that Einstein fellow say
"science without God is nothing" or some such...
he may have been a heathen heading for hell, but it sounds like he at least had some inkling of God's hands at work....
Even if he did ignore it and choose a heretic's way...

[Kyeb20]

This video is from the same guy who said the collider is a santic machine and a load of other utter trash! Woah....

[Squidward]

The bible is Un-scientific, what gives?!

[Squidward]

Originally Posted by Brother J.H.

The Big Bang Theory is nonsense! We know from the scripture that God created the earth and everything else in 6 literal days and then he rested on the 7th. That's how it happened folks.

Here, this video is a PERFECT example of God's creation

Are you people ignorant or what?! Bananas were actually genetically Engineered to be that shape.

[Kyeb20]

You know what is also incredible about this thread? Is the tag that says "science is evil" Really funny, seeing as the p.c and internet was invented using science.

[Talitha]

You only need to look at the word SCIENCE

[eliot mayfield]

Originally Posted by Kyeb20

You know what is also incredible about this thread? Is the tag that says "science is evil" Really funny, seeing as the p.c andinternet was invented using science.

Homeschool my friends! Look at this grammar!!!!