Joshua-777 Posted December 7, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 410 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,102 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 522 Days Won: 6 Joined: 10/19/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/07/1984 Share Posted December 7, 2006 http://media.christiananswers.net/aqoo/aqo...28k_player.html Runners, heres a better video for you to watch, Please check it out, and give me your opinions on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua-777 Posted December 7, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 410 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,102 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 522 Days Won: 6 Joined: 10/19/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/07/1984 Author Share Posted December 7, 2006 But still concidered science, and older theorys of evolution it does disprove, which honestly I feel that creation science should be concidered science aswell, because the evidence that is there, the only facts, actualy mean evidence for both depending on the interpritation of the evidence. The thermodynamics argument. "Things can't ever increase in order. Everything tends to entropy. So how can life evolve? Isn't that an increase in order?" sin--is a source of entropy in the universe? Actualy makes more sence, from the point of creation, to destruction, sin entering the world being the reason? well if the world was perfect without sin in the begining, than sin entered the world, and everything was made imperfect, that does make sence, and actualy sounds more logical than most theorys I've heard on it. It referred to the gravitational singularity as a "cosmic fireball" Which I find funny, because Honestly, there has been many upon many credited evolutionists, that claim this. This disproves one theory of the big bang, there are multiple theorys, as you are aware of. This is not really so much of an argument as an analogy, a comparison. And comparing the Big Bang to an explosion on Earth is a very bad comparison. Click on the link I posted earlier. An explosion is the rapid of expansion of matter and energy into space. The Big Bang was the expansion of space itself. And explosions we observe today are infinitesimal compared to the immensity of the Big Bang. Overall, the Big Bang has created a heck of a lot of disorder. Planets, stars, galaxies; these are all disorderly compared to the incredible simple gravitational singularity that yielded them. Which holds no evidence, and evidence provided actualy is neutral depending on how the facts are interprited, so therefore it is a product of personal opinion rather than science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billie Posted December 7, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 51 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,849 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/17/1979 Share Posted December 7, 2006 From your links, Runner........ In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space (in accord with the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity) as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. From Dictionary.com........ ev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua-777 Posted December 7, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 410 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,102 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 522 Days Won: 6 Joined: 10/19/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/07/1984 Author Share Posted December 7, 2006 None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven There ya go. like I said, the evidence is interprited differently by those viewing it. So therefore, evidence could go both ways and remain as neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua-777 Posted December 7, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 410 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,102 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 522 Days Won: 6 Joined: 10/19/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/07/1984 Author Share Posted December 7, 2006 well, probibility 99% based on ones opinion, if you think about it it shows possibility spirit 50/50. If it's not one explination it's the other,. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
systemstrike_7 Posted December 7, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 540 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/07/1987 Share Posted December 7, 2006 I have a question. And I probably don't have a response. I was under the impression that the Big Bang is not really contradictory to Christian belief. Since it doesn't explain the beginning, just the first millisecond (or whatever second it was), couldn't the Bible's explanation still be a valid one? Even with a big bang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
systemstrike_7 Posted December 7, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 540 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/07/1987 Share Posted December 7, 2006 And don't be too harsh if I sound like an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua-777 Posted December 7, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 410 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,102 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 522 Days Won: 6 Joined: 10/19/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/07/1984 Author Share Posted December 7, 2006 I have a question. And I probably don't have a response. I was under the impression that the Big Bang is not really contradictory to Christian belief. Since it doesn't explain the beginning, just the first millisecond (or whatever second it was), couldn't the Bible's explanation still be a valid one? Even with a big bang? Times I've wondered that, cause it says God created the heavens and the earth, so ya, I believe that space expanding, and the whole universe being formed, as opossed to the big bang, might not be far off. God spoke Bang, it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua-777 Posted December 7, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 410 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,102 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 522 Days Won: 6 Joined: 10/19/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/07/1984 Author Share Posted December 7, 2006 Well, no, because in the Bible the earth was created first, then the sun, moon, and stars were created. In the Big bang theory, the earth is an insignificant spec of rock in some corner of the universe, and is supposedly quite young compared to the universe itself. In the Bible, light, and the earth, are the two oldest things "in" the universe. Everything else was made after the earth. So the Big Bang theory, and christian Biblical creation are like polar opposites really. Actualy, God created the heavens and the earth, some believe that the heavens are the universe and it says he created the heavens above the heavens, the world in the begining, was all water then he created land, . As far as being created in sequence, I believe that it may not be far off, cause if you look at the chain theory, and genesis, they have simularitys. I do believe genesis whole heartedly, look at the very begining In the Begining God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form, and void and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of waters, On the 4th day the sun, moon, and stars became visable, where created let the firmanent of the heavens devide the day from the Night, well the earth was being formed, and then starts, and sun and moon where created, well this could actualy fit the big bang theory aswell, The only gap would be the 3rd day where land sea and plantlife where created, which, honestly I believe is true, if it where a product of creation, makes sence, land sea and plantlife, hmm well oviously you need sun for plantlife and moon, but what if it's refering to algea? or all plantlife in general. Like I said I believe all the facts are neutral depending on the interpritation of evidence. Honestly it is impossible to know, I mean we know genesis is true by the Word of God, and knowing Jesus personaly, but if we where to see evidence of this, without beliving in God, I believe easily you get the big bang, apply a creator, and it makes more sence though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
systemstrike_7 Posted December 7, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 540 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/07/1987 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Well, no, because in the Bible the earth was created first, then the sun, moon, and stars were created. In the Big bang theory, the earth is an insignificant spec of rock in some corner of the universe, and is supposedly quite young compared to the universe itself. In the Bible, light, and the earth, are the two oldest things "in" the universe. Everything else was made after the earth. So the Big Bang theory, and christian Biblical creation are like polar opposites really. Well maybe He created the earth in His own secret room, and then put it in space after the big bang. I'm kidding, good point though WhySoBlind. This kind of rocks my understanding of the Creation though. I was always in the understanding that the Big Bang was about as close to fact as you can get with matters concerning the beginning of time. But I will give my God the benefit of the doubt. He is an amazing God and I do not believe that we can limit Him to what is in the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts