Originally posted by Surtur
It's possible scientists are wrong about how the universe began, but that doesn't mean it was God. It could have been through some process we have yet to understand.I'd want evidence before saying it was willed into existence.
And then what willed God into existence and also if you will say God has always existed why is that possible but it the big bang is not?
Originally posted by Blakemore
the big bnag theory was disproven by Hawking himself. It was bosons, positrons and electrons creating a lot of fire and rapidly expanding. The universe has been expanding and contracting for all eternity.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
The Big Bang and Darwinian macroevolution and abiogenesis are NOT science though.
It's still being researched and we might discover something else, but folks really need to prepare themselves for the idea that life can arise from natural processes. It's looking increasingly likely from evidence.
I mean, at one point, we thought gods like Poseidon or Namazu or Tepeyollotl caused earthquakes. We had no idea what plate tectonics were, and it would have seemed absurd to suggest it at the time. We may be at that point now with the formation of life.
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment for reference.
Stop, nope, Stop. I get it, science "has unanswered questions", but to say that "science has unanswered questions, so it's just as unfalsifiable as thousand-year old geocentric myths" is a whole bunch of crap. The whole problem with "religious" people is that they claim to want to find God, but do not realize that logic and empiricism IS THE METHOD for finding God. While science may be used for profit and violence, it's PRIMARY purpose is to understand the universe for the moral and intellectual benefit of all AKA THE EXACT SAME thing as religion. It really is the parable of God sending a rescue team to a drowning man, and the drowning man shooing away the rescue team because he's waiting for God to save him. Ya'll need to get wit it.......
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I as well certainly believe in small changes which is mistakenly called "microevolution" by many people. When I refer to Darwinism though as being wrong I'm talking about the theory overall. Which says that those easily provable small changes eventually add up to big, crazy changes like a land creature turning into a whale lol or a monkey/ape turning into a human (yes, that's quite a big change despite what Darwinists may think).As for the Big Bang, I certainly don't think of that as being actual science. Yes, I believe the universe was created from nothing but I don't believe God used a big bang like event. I believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis which says that God spoke everything into existence (except for man, which He actually took the time to mold with His hands; which is why we are special to Him) and He didn't do it all instantly, though He certainly could have.
He created the universe over the course of 6 days and then rested on the seventh for our (humans) benefit. It is where our 7 day week truly comes from.
I'm not against science at all. I actually love science because it proves the existence of an omnipotent intelligent designer or at least suggests that there is one. It's certainly much more logical to assume there is one than to think pure randomness created all the order and natural laws we have in the universe.
The Big Bang and Darwinian macroevolution and abiogenesis are NOT science though.
So you only agree with science if it strengthens a religious belief that you hold? Sounds fair.
When you consider how similar our DNA is with several of the other things found on this planet, I don't see how it would be hard to accept that the small changes lead to massive differences.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Stop, nope, Stop. I get it, science "has unanswered questions", but to say that "science has unanswered questions, so it's just as unfalsifiable as thousand-year old geocentric myths" is a whole bunch of crap. The whole problem with "religious" people is that they claim to want to find God, but do not realize that logic and empiricism IS THE METHOD for finding God. While science may be used for profit and violence, it's PRIMARY purpose is to understand the universe for the moral and intellectual benefit of all AKA THE EXACT SAME thing as religion. It really is the parable of God sending a rescue team to a drowning man, and the drowning man shooing away the rescue team because he's waiting for God to save him. Ya'll need to get wit it.......
If by "STOP" you mean quit believing in biblical creation and start believing in crazy ass nonsense like the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution, nope, not gonna happen bud. I don't need to find God, dude, I've already found Him. I even know His name: Jesus Christ. I'm sorry it upsets you so that I think the idea of God creating the universe is much more logical than the universe creating itself. You re the one who denies science, not me. There is evidence of intelligent design all around us. A human cell, for instance, is strong evidence for design.
If you think you are gonna get me to convert to believing in the Big Bang or Darwinism then you are living in fantasy land, kid. Maybe your sad tactics would work on other Christians who have weaker faith but I promise you will just end up wasting your time with me, bruh. I suggest you look for easier targets to deceive, Satan minion. 👆
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
[B]If by "STOP" you mean quit believing in biblical creation and start believing in crazy ass nonsense like the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution, nope, not gonna happen bud.
Lol. Are you serious? I get how you don't believe in the science, but to have the gall to act like the creation story is so much more plausible is amusing to me.
Originally posted by socool8520
So you only agree with science if it strengthens a religious belief that you hold? Sounds fair.When you consider how similar our DNA is with several of the other things found on this planet, I don't see how it would be hard to accept that the small changes lead to massive differences.
You're a little disingenuous piece of dog shit. I never said I only believe in science that only supports my beliefs so stop with your trolling BS. I believe in science, period, and real science points to the existence of an intelligent designer. I could just as easily say that you only believe in science that supports what you believe and that would be every bit as true.
Similarities in DNA are just as easily explained by the idea of a common designer (the same being creating them) as they are a common ancestor. The "similarities" that species may have with one another is an old argument I've heard probably 200 times already from evolutionists. It's weak evidence for a common ancestor. Trust me, I have seen all the so-called "evidence" for Darwinist crap and it is extremely lacking. Much more evidence for intelligent design.
There is no "new evidence" you are gonna show me for Darwinism that I haven't already heard before. I've watched several dozen debates between evolutionists and creationists and the creationist wins everytime unless the creationist is one of those crazy flat-earthers but they don't represent my beliefs.
Kent Hovind and Matt Powell wreck the so-called "evidence" for Darwinism on a daily basis. Hovind once shredded 3 evolutionists at once in a debate back when he was much younger and at the top of his game. Video is still up.on You Tube, and I believe I even posted a link to it in another thread here in religion forum.
Originally posted by socool8520
Lol. Are you serious? I get how you don't believe in the science, but to have the gall to act like the creation story is so much more plausible is amusing to me.
And it's amusing to me that you think that it's much more plausible to believe that all the order and natural laws of the universe came about thru pure randomness than it is to believe than an intelligent being designed it all.
Originally posted by BackFire
Your feelings do. There is no scientific evidence of such and to suggest there is shows an impressive ignorance of the scientific method.
Nah, I'm not the one who is ignorant, of the scientific method, dude. You're the one who is letting his fee fees determine what he believes. But then, you are a looney leftist, after all, so I understand and won't judge you too harshly for it.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
And it's amusing to me that you think that it's much more plausible to believe that all the order and natural laws of the universe came about thru pure randomness than it is to believe than an intelligent being designed it all.
Nope. I don't think that either is any more likely than the other until it can be proven. I just find it funny that you do with such arrogance.
I've already talked about the cell which is infinitely more complex than the most cmplicated of human creations. That alone is steong evidence for design. And, I've also pointed to all of the natural laws of the universe that always work. It is much more logical to believe that those things are the result of an intelligent designer than pure randomness.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
You're a little disingenuous piece of dog shit. I never said I only believe in science that only supports my beliefs so stop with your trolling BS. I believe in science, period, and real science points to the existence of an intelligent designer. I could just as easily say that you only believe in science that supports what you believe and that would be every bit as true.Similarities in DNA are just as easily explained by the idea of a common designer (the same being creating them) as they are a common ancestor. The "similarities" that species may have with one another is an old argument I've heard probably 200 times already from evolutionists. It's weak evidence for a common ancestor. Trust me, I have seen all the so-called "evidence" for Darwinist crap and it is extremely lacking. Much more evidence for intelligent design.
There is no "new evidence" you are gonna show me for Darwinism that I haven't already heard before. I've watched several dozen debates between evolutionists and creationists and the creationist wins everytime unless the creationist is one of those crazy flat-earthers but they don't represent my beliefs.
Kent Hovind and Matt Powell wreck the so-called "evidence" for Darwinism on a daily basis. Hovind once shredded 3 evolutionists at once in a debate back when he was much younger and at the top of his game. Video is still up.on You Tube, and I believe I even posted a link to it in another thread here in religion forum.
You're a testy one. You yourself have and are discounting anything that doesn't support your belief of how things were created, so yes, you are picking and choosing what backs your religious belief system. Not need to get all pissy pants about it. You believe what you believe.