neil_

   What does it matter if I don't?  

Because you’re using the big bang theory to exclude God, that’s why.

   Again, you're setting up a false dichotomy. If I don't prove the big bang, that doesn't immediately prove God.  

I didn’t say otherwise. So you’re the one setting up “false dichotomy”.

   You lump everything into two groups of "God" and "everything else", and act like if anything that falls into the subset of "everything else" is proven wrong, that suddenly, somehow, the entire subset is proven wrong. That doesn't logically follow.  

Yes it does. Your entire set is this and this alone: chemical evolution, cosmic evolution, geological evolution, biological evolution.

If you wouldn’t have those, you wouldn’t be an atheist – because you claim “science” to be an atheist. But if it’s not “science” the reason for your atheism, then what is it?

  Now, if you prove that B is false, that doesn't automatically make A true. You also have to prove C, D, and E as false.   

Let’s do that. What are they?

 You haven't done that. 

Because you didn’t tell me what they are…

  Trying to say that an unanswered question proves God   

When have I ever said that? I think that you now showed repeatedly that you don’t reply to what I actually say, but to what you imagine that I say.

   Fleems are completely non-falsifiable.  

Therefore are not science, as defined by YOU, atheists.

  You cannot prove to me that they do not exist.   

No, but I just proved they are not science.

   So, if you disprove the big bang, now you have to prove to me that it was God (and by God, I mean your God YHWH, and not some other god like Allah or Odin) and not fleems that created everything. You cannot do that.  

If we use reason we can easily exclude improbable explanations. Such as yours.

 Stop with the false dichotomies.

I think that refers to you, not to me – as shown above.

   That being said, regardless of whether or not they are or are not widely accepted, I don't see how that proves Jesus. Especially if you're exlucing the parts about Jesus.  

Indeed, you don’t read what I actually write, but instead you imagine all sorts of things and then wrongly attribute them to me.

  The Quran posits that Jesus is a prophet (and cannot lie, by your own words), and that he is not the son of God or "the way".   

Therefore, the Quran is wrong (severe contradiction; moreover internal).

  Ergo, the Quran just proved itself right.   

No, that’s the point: it just proved itself wrong.

By the single fact that Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet, the Quran falls.

   No, you haven't. It's been primarily falss dichotomies, changes of subject, cherry picking, and incorrect boolean algebra.  

Those “falss dichotomie” are entirely yours, as shown. As for “changes of subject”, how could you possibly acuse me of that since you DIDN’T EVEN KNOW WHAT I WAS ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT?

As for “incorrect boolean algebra”, I leave abstract conditions to you, and instead focus on reality.

But as I already said, I’m looking forward for you to identify those conditions, in order for me to prove them wrong. However, make sure you claim only things by which your atheism stands or falls. I don’t talk for the sake of talking.

  Why would a book being widely read make it true   

I didn’t say that. All I said is that there is a reason for that. And not an easy reason, because:

  All that proves is that it is liked   

No, buddy, that’s the point.

  You have no case that the Bible is the "ONLY" book that people don't like, or that not liking a book + a large audiance = truth.   

I didn’t say that.

   There is no evidence for God that doesn't assume he exists in the first place.  

Let’s settle this once and for all: who or what made the universe?

   If you assume some other deity exists, suddenly, all of that "evidecne" starts to point to something other than God.  

And if you assume no god exists then suddenly all evidence points to that…

Well, we’ve had our laugh, now let’s get serious again: you still haven’t explained how is it that cosmic expansion is mentioned in the Bible…

  And no, I am not trying to convince myself I am right. That's just you dismissing my point of view for your own comfort.  

Yes, you are. Only that you’re not willing to admit it. There are even several sentences written by you that clearly support that idea. But if you’re not willing to admit it now, you won’t be willing to admit it then, so let’s drop this.

And no, I’m not dismissing your point of view. I’m only saying WHY you have that point of view (which I don’t contest).

 the Bible does not give an age for the earth, any age estimation is based upon assumptions of meanings of words and phrases  

That’s the point: that you don’t interpret any words. You simply add up numbers…

  One does not need to be an evolutionist to believe in an old earth 

Of course he does. How else to claim an old Earth?

  The Bible makes no claims of the age of the Earth 

Indeed. Instead, The Bible makes a claim about the age of the whole Creation…

 The major problem with "theistic evolution" is that every aspect of the theory is exactly the opposite of the Bible. Evolution is designed to contradict the Bible and destroy it's credibility. Trying to reconcile the two world views is a fool's errand. It cannot be done. That doesn't stop people from trying though.  

I completely agree.

   If you believe the world is billions of years old, you have a weakness in your defense from the get go.       

I agree yet again.

  The truth is not complicated robby, it is quite simple. The truth is in the Bible. If you are not for Jesus, you are against Him. I have divided no one into any group. Jesus did that and He was quite clear. 

So true…

  You would like people to think the world is complicated, when it is very simple. 

Indeed it is. Now you’ll have to find a cosmology matching that description…

   Of course we need common language to communicate, but it is also good to understand how these words may affect our experience of reality 

Indeed. Very intelligent remark by the way.

 I hope this does not cause even deeper blocking into two separate camps as believers don't want the scientific language affect their mind and nonbelievers want keep their intellect untouched by the religious/spiritual impact. Is there a chance for some mutual understanding in any way?

Well, I disproved big bang based on science alone – so I guess the answer is that it depends on each person.

  What I mean to say is, the Truth cannot be changed by us. 

And yet, that’s exactly what evolutionists are trying to do…

 If your hangup is on the term "eternity", then pick something else.   

No, Gerald, that’s your “hangup”, not mine.

  You can use whatever term you prefer, but the point remains 

No, it doesn’t. Simply because we both agree that time had a beginning. And we both agree that there will be an ending. Therefore no eternity. The only eternity we can speak of must therefore reside outside time. And you know what that means, don’t you?

 thus the fallacy of false dilemma is proved.  

Far from it.

 I understand that's what you believe.  

Indeed, I believe the Bible. In other words, I believe God, while you believe Hawking. I guess this says it all, don’t you agree?

  First, why is atheism/theism the line between who can't use the other's work, and not something else (e.g., major religion or denomination)? 

Because of 2 things:

- atheism runs against theism

- all the science that I referred to was built by people who wanted to find out how God created the universe, not to exclude God from it.

  Second, why can't an atheist use a theist's scientific work? 

See above.

  The “current data” claims an accelerated expansion. So could you possibly reach the conclusion that big bang theory is true? 

  Yes. 

I already know the endless evolutionary ability to make empty claims. So I’m not interested in that. Looking forward for the “how”. So if you have any scientific arguments (not empty claims), post them. And don’t worry, you’ll get your Nobel prize if you’ll manage to do that…

 Sorry, but I'm not going to play this game where I ask you a question, you dodge it, ask me a question, then demand I answer your question first  

I already somewhat answered it, only that you didn’t like the answer. I implied that you most likely understand by “scientific community” only evolutionists.

That’s why I asked you and I’m asking you once again: is Robert Gentry a part of the “scientific community” or not, is he a scientist or not?

But I understand WHY you keep avoiding that question: because once you answer it, you can’t go back… And actually the situation is even worse for you: no matter which way you answer (yes or no), that would constitute evidence against your worldview.

  Another interesting fact that is often overlooked is that none of the Gospels ever mention the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD.  If they were written after 70 AD, this would of been mentioned for historical evidence and fact.   

Very nice thought indeed !

Robby, my previous replies (two consecutive posts) were inserted mid-page (among answers actually posted afterwards). Please don’t miss them.

   You're changing the topic. 

I only gave you an example. One that you obviously didn’t like…

 My point is, hundreds or thousands of copies of manuscripts in various conditions, most of which are copies 

ALL OF WHICH are copies – as you yourself just said…

  are evidence that the events in the New Testament happened 

No, that was not what I was saying. You obviously didn’t take enough time to think about all that. See below.

     then copies of the Iliad must be evidence that those stories happened.      

No. Just as millions copies MORE of Harry Potter than of ANY scientific book doesn’t mean that Harry Potter events were true (or more true than those in the scientific book).

Now, the Bible is the most circulated book EVER. But the reason for that is NOT that it speaks about things people want to hear (that’s the reason only for crime books, mystery books, science fiction books etcetera). On the contrary, the Bible is actually the ONLY book in the world talking about things that people DON’T WANT to hear.

People of the world want to hear how smart they are. How beautiful they are. How rich they are – and so on. The Bible actually teaches them to say how fool they are. How ugly they are. How poor they are – in other words, how humble they SHOULD be. And how they should give their entire fortune to the poor, how they should love their enemies, and many other things that nobody wants to hear about, let alone actually do them.

So I’m letting you to find an explanation for why the Bible is most read book ever (many orders of magnitude more than any other book in mankind history), while all the time containing things that nobody wants to hear about…

   Those, too. Matthew was written anonymously by a Jewish Christian.  

Let me guess: your source of information is talkorigins or wikipedia. Well, they will always tell you what you want to hear, won’t they?

      John was the last of the four written (around the year 90). Neither of these directly point to being penned by anyone who met Jesus.    

How exactly what you said excludes John of being the actual author?

       How so?   

Because this is what you previously said:

   and I'm not even saying he's not the son of God, but I am saying that there is no compelling evidence to assert that God exists.    

If you exclude God, you obviously exclude the Son of God, so there’s no reason for you to state:

“I'm not even saying he's not the son of God”.

     I'm adhering to the notion that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence".    

Despite the fact that I said that the entire universe is actual evidence for God...

The irony is that even you are evidence for God (and I mean that beyond matter, although the material you is yet again evidence for God): because you’re not engaging in these discussions to convince others that you are right, instead you at all times try to actually convince yourself that you are right…

   there is no compelling evidence that God does exist.       

Oh, dear…

  You're changing the topic again.  

No, I’m not. I’m personally AT ALL TIMES talking about God. Even when proving big bang wrong. Simply because atheists embrace the big bang theory (and all other mainstream theories) purposefully to exclude God…

 let's say you prove beyond a doubt that the big bang didn't happen  

Already done.

  and I accept your proof 

Why don’t you? Let me guess: because at this point you don’t have another theory that purposefully excludes God… I mean, you wouldn’t switch to steady state after mainstream claiming for decades that steady state is a stupid teory, would you?

   How does that prove God? You're setting up a false dichotomy.     

Absolutely not. You seem to consistently miss the main point of everything that we’re talking about.

In the largest frame (viewing things at the largest scale possible), it doesn’t matter HOW the universe got here, it only matters that it’s here. You atheists don’t have a logical explanation for the universe existing by itself – that’s the point.

Now, me going against big bang is another story. I do that because many atheists ingurgitate the big bang story in order to exclude God. In other words, they claim a continuously naturalistic explanation of things. So me taking away their big bang universe is meant to make them aware that their entire paradigm of viewing the world and therefore understanding things can be wrong (it is wrong, but I would settle for them admitting that it can be wrong).

   You are bringing up his writings to reinforce the historicity of Jesus.       

Absolutely not. That was only a COMPARISON.

Here it is again, perhaps this time more plainly: you believe Josephus as an account of historical events (mostly the Jewish-Roman war). Despite the fact that that account IS NOT consistently reinforced by other reports. And yet you exclude the veracity of Biblical accounts of Jesus, despite the fact that they ARE reinforced by other reports (including from ADVERSARIES of Christianity…).

Hopefully, now you’ll understand.

This is for Robby, but I’d also like D-9’s and Gerald McGrew's input, as well as (why not) JDavis’ and others. Thanks.

Once was a group of people that started to study a certain something. And then developed a theory. And they looked happy and congratulated each other, and gave each other diplomas and other recognitions. But then they started to study things closely. And it turned out that that certain something doesn’t actually work according to the theory – until they multiply that particular something by 19. But it’s not only a simple multiplication. The reality is what it is. So they were forced to claim that the reality is itself multiplied by 19 – the only way their theory would work. So they did that and, yet again, they looked happy and congratulated each other, and gave each other new diplomas and new recognitions.

My question is this: is their theory scientific (can it be)?

Now on to another group of people. They went into a trip of understanding a particular something – or so they claimed. But they had to formulate, from the start, the basis for such a trip. They reviewed all the evidence available, and then concluded that they have no evidence for that basis (in other words, it’s only faith). But they nevertheless kept on with their (baseless) theory.

My question is the same: is their theory scientific (can it be)?

I’m waiting for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to both questions – and then you can expand if you want.

And it doesn’t matter what that “particular something” was in either case – not for now. I’m looking for a rule here, a criterion.

  When it comes to God (and really most things) there comes a point where faith has to take over 

 Fair enough, JDavis. Thanks. 

But that goes both ways, doesn’t it, Robby? In order to postulate an exclusively naturalistic view of the universe, you must have FAITH in nature, don’t you? And that’s not all: you must also have faith in yourself.

Because I still didn’t receive any answer to one of my old questions in this forum: why does any atheist think (s)he will EVER understand the universe (let alone now)? What’s the basis for such an expectation? Until you have an answer to that question, please don’t claim you DO understand the universe: because you have no basis for that. You must reasonably conclude if the universe is understandable in the first place.

Robby, I asked you to take your time to think about all that. And you didn’t. You didn’t even take an hour… (and make sure you understand it took me several hours to wrote all that – verify things etcetera)

So if you’re not even willing to consider, I think I will stop talking to you – at least on this. Now you tell me if I should do that or not.

    Actually, the oldest surviving portion of the New Testament is a fragment from John, referred to as P52. It is from the second century at the earliest, and is also such a small fragment that the only full word which can be read is "and". The next oldest surviving fragments are known as the Egerton Papyrus 2, and are from a completely unknown gospel.   

What I wrote is correct. So the oldest is a manuscript from about year 70 – meaning that some of the Apostles were still alive. John for certain, for example.

    As for the number of manuscripts, that count is inflated   

Of course you would say that. But the fact remains that books from New Testament were the most circulated documents in those times – by far…

And if we are to adjust numbers, then let’s adjust that number upward (not downward). How about that…

   and includes copies of the original manuscripts. You can understand why a copy of an original isn't good evidence for authenticity.   

ALL the manuscripts that we have are COPIES “of the original manuscripts”. Do you think we have any Gospel in its original (as written by John’s hand, for example)? I would be very surprised if that’s true.

   Of the original manuscripts, there are 720.    

What exactly do you mean by “original manuscripts”? And source, please.

   Many of those are not complete books and/or were not written in the original language.   

Now this is funny. Because I’m not sure how many complete fossils there are in the world, and yet you claim what you claim in regard to those…

   If we compare that to the more than 600 extant copies of Homer's Iliad, should we conclude the Iliad is more historically reliable?    

You have no doubt that Homer wrote it (regardless of content). That was my point…

   Also, not a single word of the New Testament was penned by someone who actually met Jesus. They are, at best, second hand accounts.    

How about John and Matthew?

I told you didn’t take the time to think about all that I wrote – not even read it entirely actually…

   and I'm not even saying he's not the son of God, but I am saying that there is no compelling evidence to assert that God exists.    

Are you aware you’re contradicting yourself?

As for evidence for God, sure, how about this: the entire universe…

Now you tell me: is the universe compelling or not? If it’s not, why exactly would you make a theory about it (big bang) and then believe it?

   That is certainly not true. There are two mentions Josephus gives regarding Jesus:    

Indeed, you didn’t take the time to think about what I wrote. Because I didn’t mention Josephus in regard to Jesus, I mentioned Josephus in regard to his accounts of worldly historical events.

 The work of Josephus is definitely disputed.  

You mean, you doubt his account of the war between the Jews and the Romans? Surely he would lean in favor of the Jews (being one himself), but that doesn’t mean that his work isn’t the most important historical account of that war.

Don’t you already know that we rarely (if at all) have unbiased reports of events throughout the history? You tell me: if we remove all Greek historian accounts from history, how much of the history of those times we’d lose? And surely you’d admit that the Greek historians, just like all the others in the world, were more or less biased, wouldn’t you?

   Are you saying the Quran states that Jesus is the way to salvation    

Of course not. What are you talking about? I really don’t understand.

 "Eternal" and "always" are terms that require time.  

No. That’s the very point: if time is limited, then you can’t have eternity.

  If time didn't exist until the moment of the big bang, then there was never a point in time in which the universe didn't exist, which means it has "always" existed.  

Your persistent try to claim eternity is naive. The only eternity can be outside time (because we both agree that time had a beginning). So if you want to know about eternity, stop reading Hawking’s books, and instead read the Bible…

  You dodged the question.   

No, I didn’t. That’s the very point, actually.

  You asserted that atheists shouldn't "use" work produced by theistic scientists.  My question is whether that reasoning applies to denominations as well.  Should Christians not use algebra since it was produced by Muslims?  Should Christians not use the work of Jews?  

I’m not sure how you could NOT see the point: all those people claim God. Now, what god they claim that’s a different question, and it doesn’t concern you, since you’re an atheist.

  Because it is the best explanation for the current data.  

The “current data” claims an accelerated expansion. So could you possibly reach the conclusion that big bang theory is true?

  Again you're dodging the question.  If the "scientific community" is not the world's professional scientists, what is it?  

No, I’m not. It is actually you dodging it. So, again, is Robert Gentry part of “scientific community” or not? We can’t move forward until you answer this.

RobbyPants, this is for you (and all the other atheists here, but especially for you):

 with the little amount of recorded early ancient history we have.  

I’m sorry but I would have to disagree. Let me address that in multiple ways. I will start from something else (for a good reason), but I will eventually get there.

In the late 1960s or early 1970s, in his book “Science Speaks”, Peter Stoner showed that for one single man to fulfill only 8 of more than 300 prophecies about Jesus in the Old testament is a chance of only 1 in 10¹⁷ (10 to the 17th power).

Later, the prophecies have been considered to actually more than 450, which further decreased even those tiny odds. Moreover, when later Stoner used 48 prophecies (instead of just 8) he arrived to this number, as a chance of one single man fulfilling all those 48 selected: one in 10¹⁵⁷ (ten to the 157th power). Let me remind you that the number of all the atoms in the universe is considered to be only aprox. 10⁸⁰ (ten to the 80th power)…

[And that’s the formal universe, in which all numbers are exaggerated; in a universe much closer to the real one, for example in a universe with both positive and negative stellar parallaxes, such as actual observations show, that number will be orders of magnitude smaller, thus furthermore stressing the even lower chance of one man fulfilling all those 48 prophecies, let alone all 456…]

Confronted with these odds, skeptics have claimed that the prophecies were redacted after the events (i.e. after Jesus). Only that there’s a problem: the Old Testament was already translated into Greek about 200 years prior to Jesus.

Confronted with that fact, skeptics have then claimed that Jesus was instead “redacted” to fit those prophecies. Well, there have been found many copies of the New Testament. Examples of the oldest: Chester Beatty Papyri (apparently written before year 300 after Christ), Diatessaron (apparently written before year 170 after Christ), the Magdalen papyrus (apparently written before the war of year 70).

Compared to that, earliest copy we have of Caesar’s Gallic Wars dates apparently from year 950 – that’s a full millennium from the actual events. But who doubts the veracity of “Commentarii de Bello Gallico”? Nobody…

How about Aristotle works? Well, the earliest manuscript we have as a copy of his writings is 1400 years from when Aristotle actually wrote his works. Now you tell me, have you ever doubted that what you read was actually written by Aristotle?

Buddha’s teachings didn’t appear in written form until half of millennium after his death, while Confucius’s teachings about 4 centuries after his death.

Also please note that both those fellows are DEAD. All the other religion-starters of the world are also dead – with one major exception (Christ). Moreover, neither Buddha nor Confucius (nor Lao Tse, Zarathustra, Muhammad, etcetera) did ever claim divine origin, let alone to be The Son of God.

The irony is that people like Confucius and Lao Tse had nothing to do with religion (but instead with morals, philosophy), but they were deified after their death, by their followers. The irony is even more extreme: Lao Tse didn’t even believe in a personal god, so how can he be one? But, contrary to his teachings, that’s exactly what his later followers made of him: a god…

The total number of copies (manuscripts) of (books from) the New Testament (Gospels and Letters) we have found until now is more than 22000. Compare that with the number of copies (manuscripts) of The Gallic Wars (10), with the number of copies (manuscripts) of Aristotle‘s works (5), or the number of copies (manuscripts) for the chronicles of Cornelius Tacitus (2).

There must have been a reason for the New Testament to have been that much circulated… Its importance is orders of magnitude greater than any other manuscripts we have from those times.

Moreover, 2 of the Gospel writers (Matthew and John) were direct witnesses of the events they wrote about. Another (Mark) was in the company of Peter (direct witness of the events), and the last one (Luke, the only non-Jewish writer from the Bible) accompanied Paul in his travels and talked personally with direct witnesses of the events he wrote about.

Now, nobody doubts the authenticity of Josephus Flavius’ writings, isn’t it so? Regardless that they (mostly if not fully) AREN’T reinforced by other historians – while Jesus WAS historically reinforced by early historians having nothing to do with the belief in Him (and other historical figures, even during His time on Earth). So those early reports cannot be accused of being biased - some, if not most, even came from enemies of Christianity…

Now, if you’ll take the time to take a look into the religions of the world, you would find out that not a single one stands - except for the Christian belief.

For example let’s take a look at what the Hindus believe. They believe in reincarnation. But there’s more to it: all the animals and plants in the world are actually people being punished for their bad deeds in their previous life, and thus now incarnated as a flower, or as a cow. Now, you tell me: how can a flower or a cow do any good deeds, in order to return in the next life back as a human? Moreover, the Hindus claim the cow is holy. But how can it be holy, if it’s only a (wo)man punished for his (her) bad deeds from previous life? Moreover, if man is the highest form of (material) life, why is there suffering in the world? Why is there death? No explanation. The Hindu gods seem to keep to their own “business”, and not care much about humanity.

I once spoke with a Buddhist. I asked him to state briefly his religion. He said that his religion is two things. The first: actions have consequences. I told him that one mustn’t be a Buddhist to know or believe that. The second: do good, meditate. I told him that people used to do that long before Buddha. Moreover, Buddhism claims that humans following (the) Buddha (way) would RETURN to the initial spiritual condition. But why to put all those spiritual beings (now people, or animals or plants) to such a terrible ordeal as in this world? Why not keep them spiritual? To my knowledge, Buddhists don’t have an answer. Moreover, since they also believe in reincarnation, Buddhists inherit the problems from the Hindus (some mentioned in the above paragraph). They also claim there were several Buddhas (or several incarnations of Buddha), and they say the more the better: thus they could do more good to the world. Well, Jesus was (is) only one – and enough for the entire mankind…

Now on to the Islam. They claim Jesus was a prophet. That means He spoke the Word of God. That means he couldn’t possibly lie. But Jesus said that only He is the way to salvation – there is no other. That simply means no Muhammad (therefore no Baha'i either). Therefore, no Quran (part of it was taken from the Old Testament anyway). Therefore, no Allah either.

I think I gave enough examples. Bottom line: there is only one religion that stands: the Christian belief. Moreover, that one is in fact the only religion in the world (re-ligare: to tie back, to bind again - Latin), since it’s the only one in which there is a severe (deadly) separation between man and God (because of sin). And since there is about REligare, it’s all about Jesus: the only way to bring man back into the presence of God.

  Do note that the Koran states Jesus to be a prophet, and not the son of God.   

Referred to above.

I hope you’ll take time to seriously think about all that.

  If you are wondering how the Bible could have been created in 6 days and 6000 years old, as well as it appears to be "millions" of years old.  

I’m sorry, George, but that’s not what Gerald Schroeder says in that film (by the way, it’s about the age of universe, not of the Bible). He instead says that Creation took 6 days, but the universe is billions (not millions, but billions) years old.

Moreover, all that Schroeder does in that movie is playing Hebrew semantics – it’s not a scientific theory in any amount.

Now, I’m a YEC, so I’m sorry too, but that’s how it is.

But there is a scientific theory that says pretty much the same basic thing as Schroeder (different perception of time). It’s the galactocentric cosmology of Russell Humphreys. It’s heavily relativistic (it makes heavy use of general relativity). Now that you could say is a scientific theory – Schroeder’s isn’t.

Humpreys’ theory was obviously much criticized by mainstream, but the sad part is that one of the most fierce critics was Hugh Ross, who claims to be a Christian. But don’t take Ross’ critics too seriously, because I caught Ross saying very stupid things, so…

But don’t buy too much into Humpreys’ theory either, because that’s wrong too. Simply because Einstein’s relativity is wrong (multiple evidence: the non-existence of gravitational waves, the GPS operation, the non-obedience of celestial bodies, like the Moon, to the theory, the existence of ether, etc.).

Moreover, Schroeder’s view is very old. Many times before theistic evolutionists have tried to fit the claimed billions of years of evolution before Adam (and many more times others have tried to read the 6 Creation days as billions of years). So really nothing new here.

As for the only scientific part in the movie, the one with the ratio of 0.015, well there’s a huge problem with that: the big bang universe is not 15 billions old, as Schroeder claims. It’s more than a billion years less old than that. So this doesn’t work either.

But I admit I didn’t watch the second movie, only the first.

Now don’t be sad that this didn’t work. Because the universe is not billions of years old, so you, just like me, don’t have a problem with that. The universe is ONLY billions of years old if the big bang theory is right. And by now we know that it is actually wrong (I addressed this in multiple threads in “Faith vs. science” section of the forum).

Moreover, in one of those threads I also presented my personal way to match a billions of light years universe (that is radius, not age) with a thousands of years timeframe.

So we YECs are on solid ground, while they OECs aren’t.

  From reading what people write it is clear that people know what they believe

Actually, in my opinion it’s not clear at all. To the contrary, it’s clear that many don’t know what they believe in.

For example, I doubt there is a single one among all the big bang supporters on this forum who can present the actual theory of big bang. Been there, done that.

Evolutionists are also taken by surprise when asked what is it exactly that they believe in: gradualism or p.e. And many other things.

  and why they believe it.    

That’s indeed clear.

  Second, in a different thread Candice mentioned the "backfire effect".  This is a rather fascinating theory.  In short this is the backfire effect, "in the face of contradictory evidence, beliefs get stronger. Hence, most refutations are useless"  (taken from rationalWiki)  

If that would be true, in my opinion the world wouldn’t be full of evolutionists. Instead it would be full of Creationists - and in general exactly the opposite of what’s taught in schools (for example you would have a hard time finding a fan of Einstein).

As for “rationalWiki”as a source, well, why don’t you see what “rationalWiki” has to say about Jesus:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus

So next time you rush to see what “rationalWiki” thinks about a topic (or even use their definitions), think about that…

  One of my favorite Christian apologist likes to say that his goal is to "put a stone in your shoe", not to convert you.  He wants to give you something to think about, something that you will keep thinking about for weeks and months to come.  

Cool.

  As I said in a different thread, I am about to turn 50 and I have never met nor spoke to anyone that believed in a geocentric model.   

Well, you met me. And in my opinion you quickly dismissed me (not specifically regarding geocentrism, but instead my questioning of the big bang) with words that sounded pretty much like this: "Who on earth do you think you are, to put under question what most people say?"

But I believe the problem is not me. It doesn’t matter in my opinion who believes in geocentrism, me or another. It only matters how could you possibly dismiss (not on philosophical grounds, but exclusively scientifically) all the evidence in that regard. That’s indeed the only question I have.

 There are too many locked threads in this forum, that means we are not learning from each other, we are just talking down to each other.   

That was not my intent, at any given time. However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true – I can only apologize yet again.

But try to look at it my way (not to excuse me, but to understand me). So here I am, putting under close scrutiny each and every claim mainstream has ever made (especially those currently in classrooms). And I'm finding them to be false. And then trying to say that to the others, and find them disconsidering me.

  In college, I was exposed to some "hard questions", and for the most part, brushed them off.   

I wonder what it was that you couldn’t brush off?

Regardless, indeed that’s what’s happening in my opinion . People growing into God leave God when they’re at college. Statistics don’t lie. And yet there are people, even on this forum, claiming that evolution is NOT against God…

  So, I'm sure my answer is even more puzzling than enlightening   

No, it’s not. It’s actually pretty clear in my opinion . And I’ll even make claim that you still believe, only that you don’t realize it anymore.

Meanwhile, I would like to help with those questions that troubled you and led you away from God...

  As I explained, one of Hawking's models posits that time itself came into existence at the moment of the big bang.  Thus, there is no "before the big bang", which means in terms of time, the universe "has always existed" (IOW, there was no "time" in which the universe didn't exist).   

That logic is flawed. Nothing that has a beginning (and an ending – see the mainstream theories in regard to that) can be eternal, regardless how hard you try to make it look that way.

  That's a rather bizarre argument.  Does that also apply to the level of specific religion or denomination?  Can a Protestant "use" Einstein's work? 

He shouldn’t - since Einstein in my opinion is wrong…

 No, the fallacy of argument via authority would be "The big bang is true because a majority of cosmologists say it is".  I've made no such argument.  

Funny - that’s exactly how it is, in the view of most people on Earth (the big bang is true because a majority of cosmologists say it is), whether you made that argument or not.

But if you’re not among those people, then why is big bang true for you? I’m looking forward for an answer that has nothing to do with the “majority of cosmologists”.

 Who is the "scientific community" if not "the world's professional scientists"?  

Would a fellow like Robert Gentry qualify into what you understand by “scientific community”?

   They pretty much are, other than the differing order listed for when Adam, Eve, and the plants and animals were created.  

There is no contradiction. Some plants and some animals were created in the Garden of Eden (some even from different material than in the general Creation from Genesis 1). But again, that regards the Garden of Eden only.

Some Creationists (Hovind, for example) claim that God did that even in front of man (Adam), so that he could see who the Creator is. In support of that comes the fact that the serpent went to tempt Eve, not Adam. Other than that, I couldn’t find any arguments for this thesis. Sounds good, but I don’t know if it’s really true.

  Well, they can, they just can't do it with a literal interpretation of the Bible.     

There is no “literal interpretation” of the Bible. Either it’s literal, or it’s interpreted – to mean whatever you’d like it to mean.

As a general idea, people who distort the literal Bible do that because they find differences between what the Bible says and what the mainstream paradigms say.

For example, the cosmic space. Every single student in the world learns that the cosmic space is empty (void) – there is nothing in the interstellar space. On the other hand, the Bible says, for example in Job, that what’s out there is rather solid.

At this point, all Christians would distort the Bible (they, instead, would never question the validity of what they have been taught in schools; because man can never get it wrong, while God can get it wrong many times, right?). So they would say that Job 37:18 (sky “hard as a mirror”) is only a metaphor and it couldn’t possibly be literal.

But is that how the universe really is, or is it just another empty claim in the endless series of mainstream claims?

Well… (I will quote a Nobel laureate in physics, because I’m sure if I’d quote anyone lower than that you’d simply dismiss them):

“Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part.”
 

The Bible is right – yet again. And mainstream paradigms are proven wrong – yet again…

So different is the real universe from the universe taught in schools that the quoted fellow, Robert Laughlin, had to name his book:  “A different universe: reinventing physics from the bottom down”.

Bottom line: science, the real science (science with no hidden agenda) has nothing against a literal Bible. Only the evolution (which is not science) has everything to do against the Bible – because that’s why it was conceived: to provide an “escape” from God (an exclusively naturalistic view of things).

You can find a more extensive quote from Laughlin’s book here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

The extreme irony is that, even though the claim that the cosmic (interstellar) space is empty (void) has never left the schools (as I’m sure anyone in this forum can testify), mainstream itself claims differently – in fact, SO DIFFERENTLY. Not only the empty space is not empty, but what’s out there is actually, in the mainstream cosmic paradigm, 95% of the entire universe. How about that…

  The only things that say the Bible needs to be interpreted literally are:

1. The Bible (which is circular reasoning)    

That’s really enough – no need for other reasons at all. If one is going to believe the Bible, then (s)he should obviously believe the Bible on how the Bible (and not other people) says it should be believed.

And no, it’s no circular reasoning at all. For example, you use DNA to understand DNA, don’t you?

   If you want a "good" answer, you'd have to directly ask people who hold that world view.  

No, I wouldn’t. I already know why. Even better than them…

  So, we'll chalk this one up as agree to disagree, and move on then, huh?    

Your problem isn’t that we two disagree. You should have expected that form the start, since I’m a Creationist and you an evolutionist. Your problem is that evolutionists themselves disagree between themselves (and with you).

How many quotes from hardcore evolutionists do you want me to give you? A few examples:

"The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."

John Adler, John Carey, “Is Man a Subtle Accident”, Newsweek, Nov. 3, 1980, p. 95


“One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a creator."

Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer Anthropology, Sydney University, Quadrant, Oct. 1982, page 44


"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." 

Mark Ridley, Oxford Univ., “Who doubts evolution?”, New Scientist, 25 June 1981, p. 831


"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."

D.S. Woodroff, University of CA, San Diego, Science, Vol.208, 1980, p.716
 

"A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"

Tom Kemp, Oxford, New Scientist, Dec.5 1985, p. 67
 

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."

J. E. O'Rourke, American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, p.51

 

"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found - yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."

David M. Raup, Univ. of Chicago, "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289
 

"And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.... The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation..."

Richard Dawkins, Cambridge Univ., “The blind watchmaker”, 1986


“We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation…”

professor Jerome Lejeune, famous geneticist, lecture in Paris, March 17, 1985


"As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..."

William R. Fix, “The Bone Pedlars”, New York, 1984, p.150

 

Indeed, evolution is such a cool theory (??), if only there could be some evidence for it…

Now you tell me, are those quotes enough, or do you want more?

I find it curious that ordinary evolutionists don’t really know what top evolutionists say in their few moments of honesty…

 You didn't answer either question.   

I didn’t. And I’m still not. Simply because it was not my argument.

Robby, thanks for your honesty.

I'm curious though, why did you stop believing?

    Genesis 1 has the world created in six days, with man and woman crated simultaneously after the animals. In Genesis 2, God creates man, then the plants and animals, and finally woman.  

For the most part it’s the same account. Only that Genesis 2 gives more detail to the general Creation and also some things are now created differently (not man, neither woman) - but it regards only the Garden of Eden.

    If a Christian is willing to accept those stories as metaphorical,   

That’s the problem – right there. In the end one cannot believe both in men and in God. He (she) has to choose. One cannot have two masters. And his (her) decision will stand for eternity…

Moreover, such a position is clearly undefendable, since if one is willing to understand whatever (s)he wants from the Bible (for example “adjusting” it to current formal paradigms), then what could be the purpose of reading the Bible at all?

    then it's pretty easy for them to merge both world views together.   

Unfortunately I have to agree.

     If you're going to ask for evidence, then summarily dismiss it without so much of a reason, perhaps we should both save our time, drop the discussion, and agree to disagree.  

If you only consider evidence how you’d like it, then why are you surprised that I do the same? And by the way, since I’m the one excluding imagination (you know, what you can’t directly observe: macroevolution) from this game, then I’m the one most probably right and you the one most probably wrong…

  What type of system is the earth? Isolated/Closed/Open?      

That discussion was not about Earth…

    these four insinuations about me behaving   (1) You’re really trying hard to not see.   

I stand behind that. And I gave in my thread (‘the real universe’) Biblical evidence. So if you claim you already read the Bible, how exactly did you skip those verses (and many more)?

      (2) you simply claiming that all you were taught in your schools is true [...]    

Read the entire paragraph. Here it is, again:

“Moreover, one simply waiting to be fed things is not scientific at all. Science is a continuous search. So you simply claiming that all you were taught in your schools is true (instead of personally verifying each and every of mainstream’s claims, as I have done) doesn’t make you scientific at all. Instead it only makes a blind believer. And what is it exactly that you blindly believe in? Well, other people JUST LIKE YOU…”

     (3) And what is it exactly that you blindly believe in? Well, other people JUST LIKE YOU…     

See above. Perhaps I should have been more clear and put it like this: “so if you claim that all you were taught…”

      (4) This is about those people who WILLINGLY make mistakes. Like those who have started to build an entire universe (actually more than one) that has nothing to do with the real universe.    

This time it’s clear that this has nothing to do with you, I don’t know how you could possibly think otherwise.

      .... and these three direct offenses (I added numbers):

(1) Instead it only makes a blind believer.  

Already addressed further above.

    2) willingly ignorant, or as Hovind puts it: (3) dumb on purpose!.     

Again, just like no. 4 above, it’s clear that this too has nothing to do with you. Instead, it’s about those people, like Hubble, who built an entire universe from their imagination.

Bottom line: if you think I offended you I deeply apologize, although for me it remains unclear where and how exactly did I do that…

  Me personally believing or not believing something doesn't make it so. 

I agree. However, that’s not what you previously said: “It doesn't matter what I believe.”

   Says who? You? Do you have any proof, or is this just an underlying assumption you have to make to come up with an exception?     

God is not only an exception, He is THE exception.

And yes, that’s faith.

   Based on what evidence? Again, it seems like an assumption you are making so you can fill in the gaps of the cosmological argument.     

Based on:

1. faith (in other words, even without any evidence I will still believe that)

2. the logic: any UNIVERSal law can only refer to the UNIVERSe

And no, I don’t use God to prove the cosmos, instead I use the cosmos to prove God.

You claiming that the entire universe is an accident is not a defendable position.

   Really? When did I put words in your mouth? Quotes would be nice.     

Whenever you misstated my position or misinterpreted what I said and thus you wrongly replied. However, I’m too tired right now to look for examples, so if you think that’s not the case I will simply cave in and apologize. Sincerely.

  Also, what's with all the hostility? 

I apologize for that too. However, answer me this: why are you, an atheist, here, on a Christian forum? What’s your purpose? Because if you’re here to lose other souls, alongside yours, then I’ll take my apologies back.

    No, you're putting words in my mouth.   

I don’t think I am. But if I take the time to check that and if I find it, will you admit it and apologize accordingly?

    In the other thread, I said that proving the big bang wrong wouldn't disprove evolution  and vice versa 

Big bang is nothing other than cosmic evolution. So IT IS EVOLUTION, after all…

   It's common for creationists to mix them together because they are both separate theories that don't agree with the two creation stories in Genesis.    

You mean two separate stories that don’t agree with the ONE creation REPORT in Genesis.

Regardless, you should tell this not to me (I already know it), but to the theistic evolutionists (or evolutionary Christians, or whatever you’d like to call them). Because those fellows are somehow convinced that, when reading Genesis, they’re reading the big bang theory…

Or Darwin’s theory…

Now, in regard to your extensive list of nothing: I ask you one more time: let’s settle on ONE clear example of macroevolution (not a hundred and not a thousand). One by which, to BOTH of us, macroevolution will stand or fall. And I really want your solemn promise that indeed you will quit believing in evolution if you can’t give that one example. Meanwhile, you have my solemn promise that indeed I will believe in evolution if you CAN give me that one example. An example that we can all see, with our own eyes (careful: not your IMAGINATION). So show me an animal producing a different kind of animal. Moreover, an improved animal. Deal?

    Well, I really can't explain it any more simply, than that. You're misusing the law.   

No. I didn’t do any such thing. I only made some comments on the arguments belonging to others. And I only told you that the discussion was indeed about the universe. That’s all I did.

  I myself don't have the time to read a dozen or two articles and papers  

Of course you don’t. You had all the time in the world to be spoon fed an imaginary universe (the formal universe), but you don’t have the time to find that universe wrong. I can understand that. But please don’t think you’re either logical or scientific in any amount.

  and what little bit I did read from your posts I am having a hard time figuring out how any of it demonstrates geocentricism.   

Of course you do. I would be very surprised otherwise. I mean, that would show you to actually be scientific and follow the evidence where it leads you, and you wouldn’t want that, would you?

  Can you help me, and probably many others here as well, by summarizing what you mean by geocentricism and the basic evidence you use for it?   

I personally support this geocentric model:

http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com

http://galileowaswrong.com/

I strongly suggest you buy that book (the first volume only; the second deals with Catholic theology) and also the DVD – it includes an animation that should settle all astronomical misunderstandings that you might have.

I tried to find that animation free somewhere on the web, and I failed (I wanted to show it to some of my friends). I’m sorry for that. While there have been some other free animations on the web (and I can’t remember now any one of them – sorry for this too), not a single one comes close to the one included on the DVD.

I am trying myself to put some money aside to get that book (actually many others, because I can’t decide between them, hence the long wait: a few years now). I read somewhere a few chapters (I can’t remember where, it was several years ago), and it’s certainly a good investment. I also saw, back then, a part of that animation.

Having said all that, I don’t completely agree with what I read from the book. For example, the authors keep, just like mainstream, gravity in play. And they shouldn’t do that: the universe is not gravitational. So they should look for alternative explanations.

However, even if you don’t agree with the science in that book (and I’m sure you won’t, for different reasons than mine), it’s nevertheless the most compelling volume EVER published about the history of science. Especially things behind the curtain (like what I showed here in this thread with the quotes from Hubble).

As for the basic evidence you asked about, I can’t be more basic than this:

I look at the sky and I see the Sun rotating around Earth. What do you see? And at night I see the stars (the entire universe) rotating around Earth. What do you see?

  In the other geocentric thread you mentioned the idea that the planets revolve around the Sun and the Sun revolves around the Earth, is this your view?  

Yes.

   Do you think the galaxy revolves around the Earth or Sun? 

Neither. I think you should really try to think outside the constraints of your (wrong!) cosmology.

  What about other galaxies and large-scale structures; do they revolve around the milky way, the Sun, or the Earth?  

The entire universe rotates around Earth.

Now that’s it. I won’t say to you anything more until you read those links I already gave. I find your laziness inexcusable. Moreover, before you’re going to attack my universe (as I’m sure you will), make sure you have for yourself a defendable universe.

  Does the Bible teach geocentrism?No.Nowhere in the Bible are we told that the Earth is the center of the Universe.

As shown in this very thread, science speaks loudly about the importance of Earth. So important that the entire universe rotates around it. Also the Bible speaks loudly about the importance of man (who lives on Earth, by the way). So important that the only way to save him was for God Himself (through His Son) to die to pay for his sins.

So not sure what kind of bible you’re reading. Because obviously your bible says that you’re nothing. A speck of dust that accidentally happened to come to life – a minor accident in a very large accident: the universe itself. So, apparently, you really want to be NOTHING…

But for you and all the other lazy & misdirected people, here’s what the real Bible says:

Gen.1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

So Earth is important: not just a place among trillion others. Moreover, it is differentiated from the rest of the universe. Still moreover, the Earth was created IN THE BEGINNING; so not only NO EVOLUTION WHATSOEVER, but Earth was among THE VERY FIRST things created – even prior to light…

Also Earth was created BEFORE the Sun, so you tell me: if Earth orbits the Sun, what did it orbit for 3 days in a row, before the Sun was created?

Genesis 1 also clearly says that the only purpose of stars and the sun and moon is to give light on Earth and to tell seasons etcetera. If that’s not geocentric I don’t know what is. Certainly not the formal universe, where not only Earth doesn’t matter but YOU don’t matter. At all.

More from the real Bible:

“And when the sun was going down” (Gen.15:12)

“where the sun goeth down” (Deut. 11:30 and Deut.24:13)

“and the sun went down” (Judges 19:14)

“the sun went down” (2 Samuel 2:24)

“The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

“when the sun ariseth” (Nahum 3:17)

“from the rising of the sun” (Malachi 1:11)

Now you tell me: if the Sun doesn’t (a)rise, how can the Sun of righteousness arise

(Malachi 4:2)? You are simply claiming that Jesus would never rise…

Joshua 10:12-13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

Habakkuk 3:11
The sun and moon stood still in their habitation.

We both agree that the Moon rotates around the Earth. However, these verse clearly say that the Sun also does that (the verses especially mention the Moon to reinforce the idea that the celestial bodies orbit the Earth, not the other way around).

Moreover, if the Sun doesn’t move, how can it then be made to stand still? It’s already standing still!

The Earth doesn’t move:

1 Chronicles 16:30

tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalms 93:1, 96:10

Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved

1 Chronicles 16:30

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Now you tell me: does the Earth move? Because the Bible says that it doesn’t!

  Scripture is not science

Indeed. However, it can only speak the truth WHEN dealing with material things (as with the spiritual things). So the Sun orbits the Earth, not viceversa. Just as when the Bible says that Jesus went to Jerusalem, then He went to Jerusalem (not an illusion !). Now you tell me: did Jesus go to Jerusalem, or not?

  but the ultimate test of all truth. 

Exactly. So why don’t you believe it?

  I did not see one Bible verse supporting your claim.  

Well, you’re trying hard not to. You’re trying hard to believe in men, instead of God. But why would you do that? Didn’t you read what Hubble said? So he WILLINGLY lied to us and constructed an imaginary universe (the big bang universe) to hide the truth from us. Just as the Bible says: willingly ignorant…