Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 70
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,742

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement



    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post
    Calling it a theory as if that makes it open to debate is evidence that you don't know enough about science to be arguing with anyone.

    It is a theory the same way gravity is a theory. There is an overwhelming mountain of evidence supporting it and nothing to cast any doubt on it's reality.

    Chill your jets big guy, your simply over your head trying to claim that the big bang is anything other than the established start of the universe. Ditto trying to claim time existed prior to its occurrence. It simply didn't. Time is a dimension exactly like length and width. Before the big bang there was no length, width, depth, or time. That is well established and supported.

    The Catholic Church has even accepted all of this as facts. You arguing it can only be A. Evidence of your ignorance, or B. Proof that you are anti science.


    ---
    I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.369155,-76.761102
    Comparing how much is known about gravity to how much is know about BBT, is a stretch. A hug stretch.

    Am I over my head talking about the science of the big bang? Abso-fucking-lutely. I am not an astrophysicist.

    I started by asking for evidence. And per usual, you go off assuming I am some hayseed-hick, anti-science, radical religious nut-job, embarrassing intelligent republicans like yourself. Which leads you to come in with your smugness and condescension.

    I said your link talks about the Big Bang as "its development with time" and not as the origin of the universe. And I said that because what I've read on that is incomplete. Matter of fact, here. Read this.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
    1) What is the Big Bang theory?
    a) Common misconceptions about the Big Bang

    In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like "The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."

    There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:

    The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
    BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
    The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.

    The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44). The March 2005 issue also contained an excellent article pointing out and correcting many of the usual misconceptions about BBT.
    There is a ton more in this article, so yes that is just a sample size.




  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,908
    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post

    If you can show me an astrophysicist who disagrees, I would be interested in reading his work.

    Classic example of someone who supports something like TBB. Namely the legitimacy of their defense starts and ends with what spam said above. The lame "gravity is only a theory as wel" is BS as well. The debate starts at a fundamental level with those who believe science can, does, or eventually will explain everything in the universe with absolute and definite truth, and those who don't. If you happen to support the former, it's easy to see how many theories, despite myriads of unsupporting, and even falsifying evidence, are still considered fact. This is the backwards model scientists essentially use: During research falsifying evidence is simply ignored because the assumption that (X) happened is fact, so in affect, whatever (X) required to take place must only be evident, otherwise (X) wouldn't have happened. The ultimate verification of any theory isn't derived from a plethora of confirmative examples which will of course be found, it comes from its ability to withstand the toughest falsifying evidence. To compensate for their lack of devotion to this truth, many scientists are master sophists.
    Last edited by Sirdowski; 02-23-2012 at 06:52 PM.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    Classic example of someone who supports something like TBB. Namely the legitimacy of their defense starts and ends with what spam said above. The lame "gravity is only a theory as wel" is BS as well. . If you happen to support the former, it's easy to see how many theories, despite myriads of unsupporting, and even falsifying evidence, are still considered fact. This is the backwards model scientists essentially use: During research falsifying evidence is simply ignored because the assumption that (X) happened is fact, so in affect, whatever (X) required to take place must only be evident, otherwise (X) wouldn't have happened. The ultimate verification of any theory isn't derived from a plethora of confirmative examples which will of course be found, it comes from its ability to withstand the toughest falsifying evidence. To compensate for their lack of devotion to this truth, many scientists are master sophists.
    I am curious as to what you gain from being so anti-science? Hang with me here for a second before you attack the question and really try to answer what is it that you gain from such an anti-science stance. I want to know because there was a time in this country when geting an education was a good thing. Now a percentage of our population is developing a negative stance on education. It doesn't make sense to me and I ask you because I think you might have the ability to actually critically think about my question and give a meaningful answer that isn't political.

    Now you might come back and say you aren't anti-science but your paragraph on top is full of anti-science bias. Look at what you say:


    The debate starts at a fundamental level with those who believe science can, does, or eventually will explain everything in the universe with absolute and definite truth, and those who don't

    If the debate starts with those who think science can, does, will explain everything in the universe, you are starting the pro-science side of the debate at an extreme that just isn't true. This is a complete overstatement of a pro-science stance and immediately puts pro-science people in an impossible box. I know a lot of people who work at what would be described as scientists and I don't think any of them would subscribe to science's ability to determine everything. In fact, most true scientists marvel at the idea that as soon as we determine one thing, we open a dozen more questions that we don't know. Knowledge is truly infinite and we will always be chasing the questions that opens up from our previous answer. Scientists are usually more humbled by knowledge than arrogant as your premise begins.

    Secondly, The ultimate verification of any theory isn't derived from a plethora of confirmative examples which will of course be found, it comes from its ability to withstand the toughest falsifying evidence. To compensate for their lack of devotion to this truth, many scientists are master sophists

    This reeks of anger and is completely dismissive of the "peer review" that is a cornerstone of science. Any scientific experiment that yields data should be able to be replicated. I mean, c'mon, this is 7th grade science. As a grad student, I never read a single journal article without cross-referencing the peer reviews and ensuing articles. Do you understand this process? Do you completely deny it has bogus? Researchers line up to peer-review, ie. peer criticize research. You are a fool as a researcher if you publish anything that can't be defended on its merits and "withstand the toughest falsifying evidence". You publish anything of significance that can't be verified, replicated and withstand critical peer review, you are toast. Research is competitive. It isn't cooperative where we all agree to support something that comes from poor methodology.

    Your description of how science works is so inaccurate. No one claims it is perfect but these two claims you make right off the bat as fundamental positions on the integrity of science are truly ignorant.

    No wonder you think like you do. So what matters? What's real? What you think is real because, well, its what you think?

    Anyway ignore those questions. What do you gain from being so dismissive of science? Truly I want to know.








  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    30 PROBS WITH BIG BANG.

    And for Christians that try to justify it by saying God
    used it to create the universe, well, that doesn't wash
    according to scripture.


    Earth was created before the stars.
    Plants were created a few hours before the sun.
    The sun was created on the fourth day after the earth.

    And time is just not measurement as people think of it here. At one point there was nothing. The earth was void of form but the creator had to put the earth into something and that something was time.




    http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 02-24-2012 at 12:00 PM.




  5. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,742

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Galen no one is "anti-science". What I am saying and what I see Sirdowski saying is, Science either is or it isn't, meaning it is a proven fact, or there is still work left to be done to make it a fact. It's not a consensus.

    I am sure you'll attack that in some way. But, I accept science and scientific facts. Unproven theories, majority consensus etc. I am not saying they're not true or won't be proven a fact, but as of yet, they are not.




  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    For the religious and non-religious it's Science vs the Bible. That is the
    general argument and guys like Spammy and Galen will look down
    on guys like Sirdowski and me who will defend the Bible and pray for
    Spammy and Galen.


    Some scientists regard the Bible as an antiquated collection of myths and primitive nonsense. In their worldview there is no place for intelligent design. Once they have dismissed the Bible they look down on believers as people still trapped in their outdated faith systems. The two sides appear to be locked in endless conflict.




  7. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    For the religious and non-religious it's Science vs the Bible. That is the
    general argument and guys like Spammy and Galen will look down
    on guys like Sirdowski and me who will defend the Bible and pray for
    Spammy and Galen.


    Some scientists regard the Bible as an antiquated collection of myths and primitive nonsense. In their worldview there is no place for intelligent design. Once they have dismissed the Bible they look down on believers as people still trapped in their outdated faith systems. The two sides appear to be locked in endless conflict.
    Make sure you are also praying for the scientists that are developing the life-saving medicines that will actually improve and extend your life.








  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Galen no one is "anti-science". What I am saying and what I see Sirdowski saying is, Science either is or it isn't, meaning it is a proven fact, or there is still work left to be done to make it a fact. It's not a consensus.

    I am sure you'll attack that in some way. But, I accept science and scientific facts. Unproven theories, majority consensus etc. I am not saying they're not true or won't be proven a fact, but as of yet, they are not.
    I don't think you are anti-science; I think you are science-illiterate. There is a difference. Sirdunceski on the other hand is clearly anti-science. He appears to understand what is seen as the anti-science argument and endorses it. I imagine he would openly welcome the title of anti-science and wear it like a badge of honor. This is why I am interested in what he thinks he gains from dismissing science from his life.








  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,908

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    I am curious as to what you gain from being so anti-science?
    I appreciate intellectual integrity and verity. I'm not anti-science. I'm anti-scientific naturalist dogma. I have a huge problem in particular with the allowed elasticity of the word evolution. A shift in the relative number of dark colored moths is called evolution, and so is the creative process that produced the cell, the multicellular organism, the eye, and the human mind. The semantic implication is that evolution is fundamentally a single process, and Darwinists enthusiastically exploit that implication as a substitute for scientific evidence.

    If the debate starts with those who think science can, does, will explain everything in the universe, you are starting the pro-science side of the debate at an extreme that just isn't true. This is a complete overstatement of a pro-science stance and immediately puts pro-science people in an impossible box. I know a lot of people who work at what would be described as scientists and I don't think any of them would subscribe to science's ability to determine everything. In fact, most true scientists marvel at the idea that as soon as we determine one thing, we open a dozen more questions that we don't know. Knowledge is truly infinite and we will always be chasing the questions that opens up from our previous answer. Scientists are usually more humbled by knowledge than arrogant as your premise begins.
    It's fair to say I over generalized. I just fail to see what could possibly compel scientists to continually recycle vacuous theories other than a blind devotion to the humanist manifesto, the anthropic principle, naturalism, etc. Truly every field of science evolution touches, a negative trail of evidence isn't far behind.

    This reeks of anger and is completely dismissive of the "peer review" that is a cornerstone of science. Any scientific experiment that yields data should be able to be replicated. I mean, c'mon, this is 7th grade science. As a grad student, I never read a single journal article without cross-referencing the peer reviews and ensuing articles. Do you understand this process? Do you completely deny it has bogus? Researchers line up to peer-review, ie. peer criticize research. You are a fool as a researcher if you publish anything that can't be defended on its merits and "withstand the toughest falsifying evidence". You publish anything of significance that can't be verified, replicated and withstand critical peer review, you are toast. Research is competitive. It isn't cooperative where we all agree to support something that comes from poor methodology.
    So at what part of the peer review process is negative evidence simply equated to no evidence? How is it that over 100 years of determined efforts to confirm Darwinism have done no better than to find a few ambiguous supporting examples, and this isn't viewed as significant negative evidence? How about the the sudden explosion of complex life forms at the beginning of the Cambrian age? The difficulty of explaining the origin of the genetic code? The limits to change shown by breeding experiments? The punctuated equilibrium controversy? Or how about the importance of catastrophic extinctions? Why are these explained away?


    The insults of scientific illiteracy on the part of NC and I is the same garbage many scientists use. They direct attention away from the questioned fundamentals, attempt to make the issue about the esoteric details supported by flawed fundamentals, which of course transcend our comprehension, and call us scientifically illiterate.

    I ask you, empirically speaking, what is so compelling about evolution that would make me anti-science for not accepting its claims?
    Last edited by Sirdowski; 02-25-2012 at 05:35 PM.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  10. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    Make sure you are also praying for the scientists that are developing the life-saving medicines that will actually improve and extend your life.
    ABSOLUTELY. WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE GALEN.

    The issue here is creation not life saving medicines although there are
    some religions that don't believe in using medicines. Im not one of those.




  11. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,491

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post
    Yea, Atheists are stupid. Obviously a wizard did it! That's waaaaay more logical that the evidence based belief in the big bang.
    Uh, do you understand what the Big Bang is? It is the beginning of the universe, all matter, energy, space and time coming from absolutely nothing, exactly what I said. What do you think causes something like that? Well, it owuld have to be something immaterial, spaceless and timless since all of those came into existence at the Big Bang.




  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,491

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    30 PROBS WITH BIG BANG.

    And for Christians that try to justify it by saying God
    used it to create the universe, well, that doesn't wash
    according to scripture.


    Earth was created before the stars.
    Plants were created a few hours before the sun.
    The sun was created on the fourth day after the earth.

    And time is just not measurement as people think of it here. At one point there was nothing. The earth was void of form but the creator had to put the earth into something and that something was time.




    http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
    Trap, stop listening to those people that tell you the Big Bang doesn't square with Scripture. The original Hebrew reading works with the Big Bang very well and is amazing evidence for a timeless, spaceless, immaterial Creator. I believe in the Big Bang, it is atheists that have a hard time squaring with it.

    A THEN atheist Fred Hoyle named the concept the Big Bang as a term of derision. Einstein was an atheist but was turned deist because of the Big Bang, something that first came to light from his Theory of Relativity (which is proven enough to be law). Robert Jastrow, former chariman of the Wilson Observatory in LA (Hubble was a chair before him when he discovered the expanding universe and made Einstein realize hism math in the Theory of Relativity was correct (he had put a constant in to take away this beginning away because he knew what it meant - he then called this his greatest blunder and became a diest) calle dthe Big Bang proof that a supernatural exists (he was an agnostic and also the founding diredctor of NASA Goddard). It is proof of the supernatural because NATURE BEGAN TO EXIST at the Big Bang. Its cause must be supernatural.

    I believe in the Big Bang and I know who banged it.

    Trap, in the original Hebrew the verb used in the 4th is not create as it is in Genesis 1:1. And if you read the English versions most of them do not say the sun, moon and stars were "created" except in terms of WHY they were created, not when. Open your mind to this powerful evidence for a supernatural Cause to the universe.




  13. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Thanks Greg. I'm in no position to argue with you on science. I know the big bang was supposed to take place over 65 billion years or whatever.

    Your Hebrew word aside, Nowhere does the Bible explicitly teach the Big Bang theory.

    BTW, your Hebrew word for creation is, YOM, and means what you say,
    actually more than one day and some if not many Christians believe that
    1 day according to this might be millions of years. So maybe the earth
    was created in 65 billion years according to that which undermines the foundation
    of the Bible because it puts death, disease and suffering before the fall.

    I know what you're saying that God used the big bang to create everything like boom
    and there it was. A 24 hr day now does not really mean 24 hrs in a day back then,but a
    thorough examination on what it means leads to the things I said above.

    BACK TO YOM:

    As you always say, context is everything and yom is used in different contexts of the Bible.

    Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception.

    Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning” 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?

    In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word “night.” Outside of Genesis 1, “night” is used with yom 53 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word “light” with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.

    With all due respect, I really don't think either of us are fluent enough in
    Hebrew or have the theological training to answer those questions - of why?

    0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    Many people don’t realize that the big bang is a story not only about the past but also about the future. The most popular version of the big bang teaches that the universe will expand forever and eventually run out of usable energy. According to the story, it will remain that way forever in a state that astronomers call “heat death.”

    But as you know the Bible teaches in Revelation that the world will be judged and there will be a new heaven and new earth. Paradise will be restored with those of us who believed.

    The big bang denies this crucial biblical teaching.

    And scientists are beginning to abandon the theory so what happens to Christians that
    compromised their position on it?

    Thanks for the comments.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 02-27-2012 at 07:49 AM.




  14. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,491

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Thanks Greg. I'm in no position to argue with you on science. I know the big bang was supposed to take place over 65 billion years or whatever.

    13.7 billion years ago. That can be squared with Scripture any nuimber of ways. Most importantly, even if we accept that the genealogies in the Bible truly mean X is the father of Y when it say he begat him (in reality the Hebrew word should have been translated to ancestor instead of father) it still only tells us when HUMANITY was created, not the universe and earth.

    Your Hebrew word aside, Nowhere does the Bible explicitly teach the Big Bang theory.
    "In the Beginning . . . "

    The Big Bang shows there is a BEGINNING, which is exactly what the Bible says. The Big Bang teaches us the cause of the universe is outside of time and space, as does the Bible. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that disagrees with the Big Bang. The issue is only of concern to religious people leery of the lengthy time frame such that maybe evolution could be true. Evolution can be challeneged on any number of fronts, including time granting an old universe.

    To deny the Big Bang is just foolish and HURTS our position. The Big Bang is inexplicable from the atheist's point of view.

    BTW, your Hebrew word for creation is, YOM, and means what you say,
    actually more than one day and some if not many Christians believe that
    1 day according to this might be millions of years. So maybe the earth
    was created in 65 billion years according to that which undermines the foundation
    of the Bible because it puts death, disease and suffering before the fall.
    No, the Hebrew word for "create from nothing" is bara, the word yom can be translated as 24 hour day, the period of daylight, or a long period of time.

    As for suffering and disease before the fall, only if you consider animals death what is referred to in the fall causing death. I would contend it means spiritual death and not physical death, and animals do not have spirits. The curse of the fall killed humans spiritually, which is how and why we must be born again. The removal from Eden and no longer having access to the Tree of Life is why we physically degrade and die.

    In many cases of Scripture the death from the curse is clearly a spiritual death and not a physical one. And even if it meant physical death there still is no issue with animals dying.

    Tell me, was there plant death before the Fall?

    Tell me Trap, if the sun and moon were not created until day 4 how was there an evening and morning on days one, two, and three?

    There are other places where yom is used with a number and it means long period of time. For example, Hosea 6:2 is about the healing of Israel and the time frame it will take. It mentions 2 or 3 "yoms." It does not mean 2 or 3 literal days. Another problem with t his point is that the Hebrew langauage in Moses' day (see how day can be used to mean a long time in English as well) the Hebrew langauage was much less developed and the word for long period of time was yom and only yom.

    Many people don’t realize that the big bang is a story not only about the past but also about the future. The most popular version of the big bang teaches that the universe will expand forever and eventually run out of usable energy. According to the story, it will remain that way forever in a state that astronomers call “heat death.”

    But as you know the Bible teaches in Revelation that the world will be judged and there will be a new heaven and new earth. Paradise will be restored with those of us who believed.
    So what? God will intervene and stop the degradation of the universe into a heat death. What is the problem?

    The FACT is the universe is expanding and the inevitable heat death is going to happen REGARDLESS of how the universe began. That is, unless the Creator intervenes.

    And scientists are beginning to abandon the theory so what happens to Christians that
    compromised their position on it?
    First, I find your conclusion I have compromised insulting. I have compromised nothing. This is the problem with young earthers, they are incredible insulting to anybody that holds a differeing view. I suggest a lengthy study on Romans.

    Second, no scientists are abandoning the Big Bang, they are trying to escape the conclusion that IT POINTS TO A CREATOR! There are all kinds of explanations of how it could have happened, etc, all that try to explain how it could have happened without a non-natural or supernatural cause, but none work because the math says nature began to exist.

    Do you deny that the universe began to exist in the past at some point in time? If you do you have the problem with Genesis, not me.

    Oh, and by the way, most Rabbis and Jewish religious leaders have no issue with the Big Bang or lengthy time frames. It is a Christian thing, not a Jewish one. And I am pretty sure they know a bit about Hebrew.
    Last edited by Greg; 02-27-2012 at 12:18 PM.




  15. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    Thanks Greg. I'm in no position to argue with you on science. I know the big bang was supposed to take place over 65 billion years or whatever.

    13.7 billion years ago. That can be squared with Scripture any nuimber of ways. Most importantly, even if we accept that the genealogies in the Bible truly mean X is the father of Y when it say he begat him (in reality the Hebrew word should have been translated to ancestor instead of father) it still only tells us when HUMANITY was created, not the universe and earth.



    "In the Beginning . . . "

    The Big Bang shows there is a BEGINNING, which is exactly what the Bible says. The Big Bang teaches us the cause of the universe is outside of time and space, as does the Bible. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that disagrees with the Big Bang. The issue is only of concern to religious people leery of the lengthy time frame such that maybe evolution could be true. Evolution can be challeneged on any number of fronts, including time granting an old universe.

    To deny the Big Bang is just foolish and HURTS our position. The Big Bang is inexplicable from the atheist's point of view.


    It just sounds like you're defending the atheists point of view. Whatever the original word was,
    it ended up in our Bible as day. If God had meant years, it would say years - 13B of them as you
    say. To speculate is completely conjecture.



    No, the Hebrew word for "create from nothing" is bara, the word yom can be translated as 24 hour day, the period of daylight, or a long period of time.

    As for suffering and disease before the fall, only if you consider animals death what is referred to in the fall causing death. I would contend it means spiritual death and not physical death, and animals do not have spirits. The curse of the fall killed humans spiritually, which is how and why we must be born again. The removal from Eden and no longer having access to the Tree of Life is why we physically degrade and die.

    God told Adam he would die if he ate the forbidden fruit. Adam told Eve they would die. He
    thought he meant a physical death. When they sinned there was a spiritual death as you say.
    There was an immediate dis-communication with God. It still happens today when we sin. If
    we look at porno or as Christians we will not have the same fellowship with God until we repent
    and he forgives us. God forgave Adam and Eve and even sacrificed animals with their blood
    symbolizing the shedding of Christ's blood on the cross thousands of years later.
    Satan thought God meant a physical death and thought Adam would end up with him in
    hell but God gave man a second chance. Yea, Adam did experience a physical death too but
    God sent his son to die for our sins. So death has a two-fold meaning in the fall - both
    spiritual and physical. If we believe that death has always existed, then we make a mockery of the death of Christ. This is exactly what evolution means.


    In many cases of Scripture the death from the curse is clearly a spiritual death and not a physical one. And even if it meant physical death there still is no issue with animals dying.

    Tell me, was there plant death before the Fall?

    There wasn't any death before the fall. Everything was perfect. God intended man to live
    forever but when he sinned, that ended it. God made the ground harder to harvest the plant life
    died, animals became dangerous. Adam named all the animals before that. They came up to him
    and lions and tigers were like little kittens but all that changed after the fall.


    Tell me Trap, if the sun and moon were not created until day 4 how was there an evening and morning on days one, two, and three?

    There wasn't an evening til Genesis says there was.


    There are other places where yom is used with a number and it means long period of time. For example, Hosea 6:2 is about the healing of Israel and the time frame it will take. It mentions 2 or 3 "yoms." It does not mean 2 or 3 literal days. Another problem with t his point is that the Hebrew langauage in Moses' day (see how day can be used to mean a long time in English as well) the Hebrew langauage was much less developed and the word for long period of time was yom and only yom.



    So what? God will intervene and stop the degradation of the universe into a heat death. What is the problem?

    Because the bang doesn't fit with the new heaven and new earth. The universe expands and
    that's it.


    The FACT is the universe is expanding and the inevitable heat death is going to happen REGARDLESS of how the universe began. That is, unless the Creator intervenes.

    Again he does intervene according to Revelation.

    First, I find your conclusion I have compromised insulting. I have compromised nothing. This is the problem with young earthers, they are incredible insulting to anybody that holds a differeing view. I suggest a lengthy study on Romans.

    Second, no scientists are abandoning the Big Bang, they are trying to escape the conclusion that IT POINTS TO A CREATOR! There are all kinds of explanations of how it could have happened, etc, all that try to explain how it could have happened without a non-natural or supernatural cause, but none work because the math says nature began to exist.

    Do you deny that the universe began to exist in the past at some point in time? If you do you have the problem with Genesis, not me.

    I believe the universe began with Genesis says it began. I see no evidence where the bang
    is explicitly mentioned in the Bible.


    Oh, and by the way, most Rabbis and Jewish religious leaders have no issue with the Big Bang or lengthy time frames. It is a Christian thing, not a Jewish one. And I am pretty sure they know a bit about Hebrew.
    I'm sure they do. They disagree so much with Christians even in the Old Testament. They
    don't believe their Messiah has come yet even though Christ came exactly the way OT scriptures
    say he would come and there are plenty of Christian scholars who are fluent in Hebrew and Greek
    that believe as I do. I also listed a link with 30 problems with the bang with scientific data and
    facts.



    Im sorry if I offended you. I meant that it seems that Christians are arguing the same as the
    atheists when they agree with the Big Bang Theory. I wasn't calling you ignorant like the others
    call us. It just seems like you're compromising but I'll relent on that.

    It's always a pleasure Greg. I always learn from you.

    God Bless.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 02-27-2012 at 08:28 PM.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland