Paradox Posted July 13, 2014 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 75 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted July 13, 2014 The Big Bang theory is a product of a particular mentality which Christians cannot afford to share or have, even if they believe this kind of indiscriminate violence is the way that God bought things in to being. God is looked upon as powerful, and so many imagine that any creation involves overt and dramatic energies, when this is not the case at all. Everything came into existence through His wisdom and discretion, but never brute force. He is far too intelligent to act like that. Creation cannot exist with God unless He makes an allowance for it. Notice that all His commands begin with "Let there be..." Eternal Power does not allow for anything else to exist, for God is a consuming fire. His power replicates and multiplies to any degree, and nothing can exist with it. However, only One equal with God could make an allowance, could make a place, where those eternal powers are at rest, and that happens to be the Son Jesus Christ. He would only have to do it once, and the result would be established for eternity. So creation happens through the subjection of power, the relinquishing of energy (for lack of a better term), and not an explosion. Meekness, gentleness, and wisdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schouwenaars Posted July 18, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 153 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 44 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/04/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/05/1997 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Unless you one takes every word in the bible litterally, one can perfecly believe in the Big Bang AND being christian at the same time. Because then it's only a matter of what YOU believe god has done, how and when. And one can be a christian without taken the hole bible litterally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted July 18, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Unless you one takes every word in the bible litterally, one can perfecly believe in the Big Bang AND being christian at the same time. Because then it's only a matter of what YOU believe god has done, how and when. And one can be a christian without taken the hole bible litterally. ================================================================================== Unless you one takes every word in the bible litterally Strawman (Fallacy). We do unless it's unwarranted.... There are over 200 Rhetorical Devices (Metaphors, Allegories, Idioms, Types, Simile's, Similitude's, Synecdoche's, et al) in Scripture and are easily identified. Zero in the First Chapter of Genesis; Ergo....Literal Historical Narrative. Do you suggest we pick and choose Carte-Blanche what we deem as literal or not without restraint? We are admonished to.... (2 Timothy 2:15) "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." one can perfecly believe in the Big Bang AND being christian at the same time Factually Incorrect. The Tenets of The Big Bang (demonstrable fairytale postulate) and The WORD of GOD are diametrically opposed: Big Bang: Light before Water GOD'S WORD: Water before Light Big Bang: The Sun and Stars Before the Earth GOD'S WORD: The Earth First Big Bang: Sun/Stars before Life GOD'S WORD: Life First Note: Please explain in a 2LOT context, the Sun wickering itself together (Nebular Hypothesis Style: SEE ) touching on Boyle's Gas Law and Jeans Mass? Big Bang: By Proxy, Life Spontaneously Generated via "Naturalistic" Process. Stupid Atoms Writing "CODE". GOD'S WORD: Designer in TOTO. We let GOD be GOD... and let Scripture define Scripture and under no circumstance use "science" as our Hermeneutics filter. Because then it's only a matter of what YOU believe god It's What GOD Plainly Said...that is @ issue. Not what we "believe". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schouwenaars Posted July 20, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 153 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 44 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/04/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/05/1997 Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) Do you suggest we pick and choose Carte-Blanche what we deem as literal or not without restraint? I suggest you don't take anything literal at first, but that you start with interpreting all. Do you say that everyone who doesn't take the bible totally literal, isn't a christian? Because then there is only a tiny fraction left of everyone who calles themselfs christian in the world, especially europe. My parents, for exemple, are one of the most religious people i know personally. But they absolutely don't take the bible totally litteraly and they believe in the big bang and evolution. Even our priest does. And it is hard to say a priest is less christian than you. Because that's the only thing that matters in his life. He has totally sacrificed his life to god. More then 70 now. Btw: i can give some verses from the bible who can cause trouble when taken literal. Like this: http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/Dr_Laura_and_Leviticus.html Please neglect the sarcasm in the letter. And don't start with saying: 'you should see that different' or 'he meant that different'. Edited July 20, 2014 by Schouwenaars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted July 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Do you suggest we pick and choose Carte-Blanche what we deem as literal or not without restraint? I suggest you don't take anything literal at first, but that you start with interpreting all. Do you say that everyone who doesn't take the bible totally literal, isn't a christian? Because then there is only a tiny fraction left of everyone who calles themselfs christian in the world, especially europe. My parents, for exemple, are one of the most religious people i know personally. But they absolutely don't take the bible totally litteraly and they believe in the big bang and evolution. Even our priest does. And it is hard to say a priest is less christian than you. Because that's the only thing that matters in his life. He has totally sacrificed his life to god. More then 70 now. Btw: i can give some verses from the bible who can cause trouble when taken literal. Like this: http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/Dr_Laura_and_Leviticus.html Please neglect the sarcasm in the letter. And don't start with saying: 'you should see that different' or 'he meant that different'. ========================================================================================= Do you say that everyone who doesn't take the bible totally literal, isn't a christian? No, as I said......There are over 200 Rhetorical Devices (Metaphors, Allegories, Idioms, Types, Simile's, Similitude's, Synecdoche's, et al) in Scripture and are easily identified. My parents, for exemple, are one of the most religious people i know personally. Religion--- is man's attempt to reconcile himself with GOD. Quite the Preposterous Supposition. I can only speak for myself....a Delusion of Exponential Magnitude. I'm such a wretch and wicked to the Core. Praise The LORD Jesus Christ who Loved me so much despite that very fact. Jesus Christ was the most Anti-Religious person to ever walk the Earth; Ergo....technically, Christianity is not a Religion. But they absolutely don't take the bible totally litteraly As mentioned above, there are places in Scripture that are clearly identified as Historical Narrative/Literal Reading and Figures of Speech (SEE: Rhetorical Devices). It's a case by case and Exegetical basis. they believe in the big bang and evolution. Even our priest does. Sir, I will tell you this from personal "painful" experience. Don't believe in because somebody else believes in....No Matter Who They Are! Search these matters for yourself. And it is hard to say a priest is less christian than you. I would never even consider an Attempt in the irrelevant futility of comparing myself with Anybody....just and only Jesus; That's my measuring stick. (And personally, It ain't looking good @ this particular moment in time) Btw: i can give some verses from the bible who can cause trouble when taken literal. Sir, this is in Leviticus; Ergo...Jewish Law. For the Jews then and Jews only, for a purpose. As a Christian, they are null and void. SEE: Jesus Christ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjp34652 Posted July 23, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 17 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 448 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 156 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/19/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted July 23, 2014 What kind of evidence would you need to believe that theory of the big bang doesn't cut it? What if a discovery has been made that will require us to change our entire view on the creation of the universe? Such a discovery has been made. A quasar with an enormous redshift has been found embedded in a nearby spiral galaxy with much lower redshift. This changes the whole view of the universe—big bang astronomy will never be the same. http://creation.com/bye-bye-big-bang The atheist agenda would have us believe that scientific evidence for the Big Bang is inconclusive. Why? Because such disproof would disprove the creator. Logically, if there is an effect there must be a cause. Nothing exists without a cause. Tracking the red shift backwards in time proves two things; one, that the universe is finite in size, and two that there was a cause to the universe. The initial cause must be independent of causal factors - not itself created. When the Big Bang theory was proposed, the atheist community rallied behind it thinking that it would disprove the Biblical assertion of the creator God. They didn't think...... And when they did think about it, they realized that they couldn't support any evidence of God, however astronomically proven it might be. It isn't the lack of evidence for God we're dealing with here, it's the suppression of it. and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warrior Posted July 30, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 8 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2014 If this was actual credible science. It would not be appearing on some "creationist science website". The number one golden rule of science is, no matter what your personal feelings are or what common sense tells you. If the evidence shows otherwise, that is how things are. If you Christians had a single bit of "actual" evidence to discredit, disprove, or prove anything. Scientists would give you a metal for coming forth with your evidence. Ever wonder why? Why, this has never happened? Because your psuedoscience claism has been debunked countless times as either coming from someone who is lying and does not actually know anything about science, or the ravings of a lunatic. Either way, you have nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted July 30, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted July 30, 2014 We let GOD be GOD... and let Scripture define Scripture and under no circumstance use "science" as our Hermeneutics filter. True enough, but is the reverse the case? Do we let what we interpret in Scripture filter how we interpret scientific data? If we know the answers already, why go through all the work of basic research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted July 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted July 30, 2014 We let GOD be GOD... and let Scripture define Scripture and under no circumstance use "science" as our Hermeneutics filter. True enough, but is the reverse the case? Do we let what we interpret in Scripture filter how we interpret scientific data? If we know the answers already, why go through all the work of basic research? ================================================================ If we know the answers already, why go through all the work of basic research? Depends on what "answers" you're looking for and how you define "Scientific Data". Do we let what we interpret in Scripture filter how we interpret scientific data That depends on your position on the Authority of the Creator of the Universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted July 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted July 30, 2014 If this was actual credible science. It would not be appearing on some "creationist science website". The number one golden rule of science is, no matter what your personal feelings are or what common sense tells you. If the evidence shows otherwise, that is how things are. If you Christians had a single bit of "actual" evidence to discredit, disprove, or prove anything. Scientists would give you a metal for coming forth with your evidence. Ever wonder why? Why, this has never happened? Because your pseudoscience claism has been debunked countless times as either coming from someone who is lying and does not actually know anything about science, or the ravings of a lunatic. Either way, you have nothing. ========================================================================== If this was actual credible science. It would not be appearing on some "creationist science website". No True Scotsman (Logical Fallacy) and an Ad Hominem (Logical Fallacy) If you Christians had a single bit of "actual" evidence to discredit, disprove, or prove anything The Genetic "CODE" is Software, it's Immaterial: "The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink" -Roger Sperry (neurobiologist and Nobel laureate) Translation: Dr. Sperry is telling the adult that they won't be finding the Software Program by physically inspecting the Hardware of their computer. Dr. Sperry is telling the first grader, not to expect any messages from their Match Box Cars or Rocks anytime soon. The "CODE"/ message transcends the properties of the medium. A "CODE" is Sourced/Programmed by an Intelligent Agent 100% of the time without exception forever and ever. Examine the Chemical Structure of DNA...where's the Information? It's like examining the Motherboard/Microchips/Circuitry in an attempt to divine what Software Program is running.... When you sit down @ your computer, do you ever struggle with who/what Programmed it? What happens when you turn on your computer without any Software loaded? Where does "CODE" (Encrypted) come from? In the History of Mankind has "Nature" ever sent a Message? To Source and Send Information requires Sentience and Intelligence: DNA is Encrypted "CODE"/Software------------------Design (Intelligence)--------------------Designer! Can it be Falsified? Yep, only Two: 1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR.... 2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence. Scientists would give you a metal for coming forth with your evidence a "Metal"? ....Like Lead, Rubidium or Strontium? Because your pseudoscience claism PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDO-scientific objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis evolution: Ad Hoc Hypothesis....."Punctuated Equilibrium" and "Convergent evolution". has been debunked countless times as either coming from someone who is lying Baseless "erroneous" Generalized Assertion (Fallacy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts