Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
anthonyjmcgirr

Big Bang Proven False?

Recommended Posts

adaption is a phase in evolution. of couse a lizard does not change in a bird in just one day, but due to many and many adaptions the lizard will finally become a bird.

the wolf -> dog is a good exemple.

and not everything that is not in the bible cannot exist or have happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Evolution has been observed by man. Just look at how all of our dogs today have descended from a single ancestor the gray wolf.

So to say that evolution does not happen is a sheer and utter nonsense.

No, what YOU posted is sheer and utter nonsense.  That is NOT evolution.  Variations within a kind or species isn't "evolution."  Animals adapt within a given kind or species.  They don't evolve into another kind of creature.

 

Also to deny that there was a Big Bang is to also deny that God created the universe at one point in time because the Bible clearly states that the universe did not always exist and that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

More liberal drivel.   The Big Bang is not described in the Bible and the Bible contradicts the  Big Bang on fundamental levels.  You obviously have a low view of God's inerrant word and a high view man's fallible words.
.

I tried to find an emoticon for a facepalm but couldn't find one...... I guess the saying is true you can lead a man to knowledge but can't make him think.

In no way do I say this to disrespect you as a person, its just a remark in general about how people can be scientificly illiterate when it comes to matters like this.

Oh and thanks by compairing me to the librals, and putting false words in my mouth by saying I have a higher opinion of mans words rather than God's word. Did the holy spirit supernaturaly reveal that to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

I tried to find an emoticon for a facepalm but couldn't find one...... I guess the saying is true you can lead a man to knowledge but can't make him think.

In no way do I say this to disrespect you as a person, its just a remark in general about how people can be scientificly illiterate when it comes to matters like this.

 

Sorry but you didn't put forth an example of evolution.  Micro-evolution doesn't prove macro-evolution. Just because there are variations within a species doesn't warrant a leap in logic that says lizards evolved into birds.

 

Your position is nonsense because it is bait-and-switch.  Claim that evolution is proven and then trying to produce micro-evolution examples and pretend that such examples prove evolution en toto.   

 

Sorry but I am not the one with thinking issues.  I simply don't except evolution because it has NEVER been empirically proven or intuitively observed and that is simple basic fact, whether you can bring yourself to face up to it or not.

 

 

Oh and thanks by compairing me to the librals, and putting false words in my mouth by saying I have a higher opinion of mans words rather than God's word. Did the holy spirit supernaturaly reveal that to you?

 

 

It's obvious from what you said that you reject God's word that He created the earth in six days and anyone who knows anything about the Big Bang knows it is incompatible with the Bible so when it comes to choices, you chose a hypothesis over God's inerrant Word.

 

I am a Christian.  I believe God.  That's what Christians do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's obvious from what you said that you reject God's word that He created the earth in six days and anyone who knows anything about the Big Bang knows it is incompatible with the Bible so when it comes to choices, you chose a hypothesis over God's inerrant Word.

Well i would chose a theory who has 99.9999% chance of being right over believe in something were is no prove for at all!! 

you are constantly saying there is no neutral evidence for the big bang, but there is not even a single piece of possible neutral evidence for creationism.

and believing in God does not has to be taking the bible pure litterally. there are many many many people who believe in the god but do not take the bible litterally.

they are christians too. 

i suspect 20-30% of the belgians is believes in god, but at highest 1% takes the bible litterally and believes in creationism.

this can be taken for the majority of west europe.

even our bisshops, the ones who should have the most strongest believe here, say they believe in evolution and the big bang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well i would chose a theory who has 99.9999% chance of being right over believe in something were is no prove for at all!! 

 

Sorry, but the Big Bang isn't even close to that.  It is nothing more than a hypothesis.

 

 

you are constantly saying there is no neutral evidence for the big bang, but there is not even a single piece of possible neutral evidence for creationism.

 

I didn't say there was no evidence for the Big Bang.  I said there was no proof.  You need to learn the difference.  There is evidence for creationism, but most people like you dismiss it out of hand as evidence at all.

 

and believing in God does not has to be taking the bible pure litterally. there are many many many people who believe in the god but do not take the bible litterally.

they are christians too. 

i suspect 20-30% of the belgians is believes in god, but at highest 1% takes the bible litterally and believes in creationism.

this can be taken for the majority of west europe.

even our bisshops, the ones who should have the most strongest believe here, say they believe in evolution and the big bang.

 

And all of them would be wrong.   There is a difference between being a "Christian" and being a genuine follower of Jesus.  Most of Europe as abandoned Jesus for a version of Christianity that is devoid of God or Jesus.   They have a religion, but they are still lost sinners going to hell, just like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blessings Everyone.....

      Well,not to get into the entire study but researchers are coming to the conclusion that dogs dis not share a common ancestor with the wolf,LOL-ever try to breed the two?it ain't easy,,,,they are natural enemies because they are 2 different predatory species,,,,,,well that will kinda put a dampr on evelution when they figure it out,huh

 

Dog domestication is more complex than we originally thought," said John Novembre, associate professor in the Department of Human Genetics at the University of Chicago and a senior author on the study. "In this analysis we didn't see clear evidence in favor of a multi-regional model, or a single origin from one of the living wolves that we sampled. It makes the field of dog domestication very intriguing going forward."

The team generated the highest quality genome sequences to date from three gray wolves: one each from China, Croatia and Israel, representing three regions where dogs are believed to have originated. They also produced genomes for two dog breeds: a basenji, a breed which originates in central Africa, and a dingo from Australia, both areas that have been historically isolated from modern wolf populations. In addition to the wolves and dogs, they sequenced the genome of a golden jackal to serve as an "outgroup" representing earlier divergence.

Their analysis of the basenji and dingo genomes, plus a previously published boxer genome from Europe, showed that the dog breeds were most closely related to each other. Likewise, the three wolves from each geographic area were more closely related to each other than any of the dogs.

Novembre said this tells a different story than he and his colleagues anticipated. Instead of all three dogs being closely related to one of the wolf lineages, or each dog being related to its closest geographic counterpart (i.e. the basenji and Israeli wolf, or the dingo and Chinese wolf), they seem to have descended from an older, wolf-like ancestor common to both species.

"One possibility is there may have been other wolf lineages that these dogs diverged from that then went extinct," he said. "So now when you ask which wolves are dogs most closely related to, it's none of these three because these are wolves that diverged in the recent past. It's something more ancient that isn't well represented by today's wolves."

Accounting for gene flow between dogs and wolves after domestication was a crucial step in the analyses. According to Adam Freedman, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and the lead author on the study, gene flow across canid species appears more pervasive than previously thought and more than likely we will conclude that dogs and wolves have two entirely different origins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I just think it takes more faith to say a reptile turned into a bird over many variations and small changes than to say God created both lizards AND birds.  It will just never, ever happen.  A bird will always be a bird.  It can change colors, its beak might shorten or lengthen, but it will always be the bird that it is.  You can classify it whatever you want, but it's still a bird. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many ideas in science that we cannot replicate or directly observe.  That does not mean we do not apply scientific thinking in our interpretation of the evidence.  It is much the same, in a way, as the Faith.  Non repeatable events occurred, yet we look at the evidence and make our minds up they have indeed taken place.  

I think the Big Bang is a very good model;  it explains some of the evidence we have observed and measured.  To say that it precludes God is nonsense.  It may well be thrown out of the window sooner or later. . . such is the nature of science.  Recall the Steady State model for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i would chose a theory who has 99.9999% chance of being right over believe in something were is no prove for at all!!

Sorry, but the Big Bang isn't even close to that.  It is nothing more than a hypothesis.

 

 

you are constantly saying there is no neutral evidence for the big bang, but there is not even a single piece of possible neutral evidence for creationism.

I didn't say there was no evidence for the Big Bang.  I said there was no proof.  You need to learn the difference.  There is evidence for creationism, but most people like you dismiss it out of hand as evidence at all.

 

and believing in God does not has to be taking the bible pure litterally. there are many many many people who believe in the god but do not take the bible litterally.

they are christians too. 

i suspect 20-30% of the belgians is believes in god, but at highest 1% takes the bible litterally and believes in creationism.

this can be taken for the majority of west europe.

even our bisshops, the ones who should have the most strongest believe here, say they believe in evolution and the big bang.

And all of them would be wrong.   There is a difference between being a "Christian" and being a genuine follower of Jesus.  Most of Europe as abandoned Jesus for a version of Christianity that is devoid of God or Jesus.   They have a religion, but they are still lost sinners going to hell, just like you.
.

Who are you to judge another christian and say their not a true believer? It is god who will judge them in the great white throne judgment. Your actions come off as self righteous and with a "I know better than you" attitude. You probably have been told that before but didn't even take the time to self reflect and see if that could be true. I know I had that kinda attitude a few years ago and didn't even know it until I took time to pray and let god show this to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is moving faster than I can type. Someone said you don't have to disprove something that was never proven as true. I agree. The big bang theory was never proven. But evolution was never proven neither, and yet it's adherents expect we who don't follow it to prove it wrong. But it was never proven true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×