|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi ringo
ringo writes: Nonsense. You're like the guy living in a cardboard box who thinks nobody has a better house than his. Creation is the subject of this discussion and there is nobody who has presented any scientific evidence supporting creation. Which is the origin of the universe. If you have any scientific evidence that is not based on an assumption would you please present it and give me permission to use it in my book on creation? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Tangle
Tangle writes: The universe does not have to have had a beginning, it could have always existed,. This is just one hypothesis: How could the universe have always existed since it would have been in equilibrium a long time before 13.7 billion years ago?"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi caffeine,
Google earliest artificial insemination preformed on humans You get this information in the second paragraph.
quote: Below is the actual address but I prefer you use the search above.earliest artificial insemination preformed on humans - Google Search God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Phat
Phat writes: So my question: Do you believe that secular science and scientists are in any way deceived if they are not believers in Jesus Christ and/or the Bible? If they are deceived it is by themselves. You can not make a person do anything they don' want to do.Neither can you make a person believe anything they don't want to believe. Message 1293ringo says:
quote: The definition of assumption is: quote: Therefore an assumption is not based on evidence of any kind. For Hawking's instanton to be workable you have to assume it existed in an absence of existence as there would be no vacuum for it to begin to exist in. No evidence of any kind has ever been presented. For the little pin point sized universe to exist requires an assumption that it existed. No evidence of any kind has ever been presented. So when someone tells me an assumption is based on scientific evidence I begin to wonder how many loose screws they have upstairs.
Phat writes: but your whole thing about owning guns and the right to bear arms takes credibility away from your otherwise sound and heartfelt beliefs regarding our Creator. I joined the military and took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That Constitution says: quote:Notice I put the comma before the t just like it is in the constitution. which makes the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." separate from what preceded the comma. Since I took an oath twice to uphold the Constitution I will always support the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. Had that amendment not been added the Constitution would never have been ratified. Because of where the people came from and the things they were subjected too. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Tangle,
Tangle writes: How the hell would I know? I'm no cosmic physicist and neither are you. No I am no cosmologist but I quoted one, Alan Guth. If you care to refute that the universe would be in equilibrium if it was eternal please do so. The Big Bang Theory requires a beginning to exist some 13.7 billion years ago. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi ringo,
ringo writes: That doesn't answer the question. I confirm that I am in a boat from which no creator can be detected. I'm asking how YOU can claim that there is evidence for a creator when YOU also claim that the creator is invisible. Who said God was invisible? It was not me. Moses viewed the hinder parts of God in:
quote: Jesus walked around on earth for 33 1/2 years He was God.
quote:This was Jesus speaking. ringo writes: Of course there can be. There can be evidence for anything that exists. The universe exists so present the evidence for the origin of the universe. If the universe had no beginning and is eternal present the evidence that shows the universe would not be in equilibrium if it was eternal. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi ringo,
ringo writes: We do have evidence about the origin of the universe. It doesn't point to any Creator. I am going to assume that "WE" includes you.Since you have the evidence would you please present it in this thread. ringo writes: Assumptions are based on scientific evidence. Please explain how that, 'a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.' is based on any kind of evidence? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Tangle,
Tangle writes: You have no business picking a side that you think supports your religious argument whilst pretending that it's settled science and that no other position exists it isn't and it doesn't. I thought I picked the majority side.
quote: Tangle writes: This is quoted from a talk given by Alan Guth at Cosmic Questions, April 14-16, 1999, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. You haven't the first idea what the Big Bang is, never mind whether anything existed before it. You're miles out of your depth arguing dishonestly. I argue facts that are presented by the scientists I quote.If they are right or wrong is not my fault. Do you think Guth's side is the wrong side?If so why don't you try to present the correct side. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi ringo
ringo writes: Paul did: quote: Had the translators used the primary definition instead of the secondary definition it would have read unseen. But exactly what did Paul say? He is the image of the... Who is the He Paul is referring too? Paul is referring to Jesus. The firstborn of creation being in the image of the unseen God.
quote: If you have seen one you have seen the other. They are one and the same John 10:30 "I and my Father are one." God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi ringo
ringo writes: quote: Yes the cmbr is evidence of a long light period in the beginning. But that also supports the day the Lord God Created the heavens and earth in that lasted until He created darkness. The primordial elements being found throughout the universe also supports God creating the universe. They would have to be there Since God stretched out the heavens you would also see that the universe is expanding. Yes you have presented evidence that supports the BBT as for as it goes. But there are many problems with the BBT. But the evidence you presented supports creation by God as good if not better than the BBT.
here Are the top 10 problems with the Big Bang Theory.
ringo writes: That is not how assumptions are defined in science. For example, the "assumption" that radioactive decay rates do not change has been tested thoroughly. Words have meanings and we don't get to redefine them to suit our particular situation. Invent words if necessary. Tested thoroughly over how many years. Can you tell me what the radioactive rate of decay was a trillion years ago as we measure time? And yes I believe the universe is a lot older than that. Can you even tell me what the radioactive rate of decay was 13.7 billion years ago. You can make all the assumptions you want but you were not there to test it then so what ever you decide is just an assumption. It may be true or it may be false. God Bless, Edited by ICANT, : No reason given."John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Man
Son of Man writes: Scientist make up theories that are their assumptions based on what they see as fact, Scientist don't make up theories. Assumptions are made. Hypothesis are formed evidence is gathered, examined, tests are made, conclusion are made, and if enough scientists agree it can become a theory. Even if they are wrong, as they have been so many times in the past.
Son of Man writes: Jesus father was Joseph, Jesus had no human father his mother was a virgin when He was born.
Son of Man writes: God maybe he would have said his creator? Why? Jesus created everything and made everything that was made and is the force that holds it together.
Son of Man writes: My assumption being that religion is not a scientific theory Religion is not a theory. It is a fact if when you use the word religion you are talking about a set of beliefs that are believed and practiced by people. There are over 4,000 different religions in the world, and 34,000 so called Christian denominations. But when it comes down to it one's of those that are doing things the way that pleases God is very few.
Son of Man writes: disproved by scientists hands down? What belief can be disproved by scientist? Be specific. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi ringo
ringo writes: Unseen and invisible is the same thing. How so? You are unseen to me as I have never seen you. But are you also invisible? I think you exist as someone using the nickname of ringo. Unseen to me yes but invisible no. God to you is unseen by you but that does not make Him invisible.
ringo writes: Apparently Jesus was not telling the truth, since He was visible and His Father was not. Since they are one and the same they are both visible. If I was standing in front of you, your physical body would be visible to me but your spirit and mind would not be visible to me. But they would be there just the same. They are all 3 one and the same. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Pressie
Pressie writes: My father banged my mother. So What? You were there when the 23 chromosomes from the egg of your mother was fertilized by the 23 chromosomes from your fathers sperm. It makes no difference that occurred because you mother and father had sex or your mother's egg was put in a test tube with your fathers sperm. It works either way. You could have then been placed in a surrogant mother to carry you to natural birth. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Tangle
Tangle writes: Why are you picking sides? The fact that there are sides tells you that there is not yet a settled scientific concensus yet you picked a side that you thought would help you. I actually thought 99.9% consensus was considered an accepted theory in scientific circles.
Tangle writes: You're also confused about what the scientists are saying - not surprising because you're not a scientist, so you post stuff that you don't understand imagining that it supports your position. As long as I post what they say you can argue against what they say and not what you imagine I am imagining they said.
Tangle writes: The scientists are not saying that the big bang didn't happen, they're saying that a universe existed before it. ie it's eternal. There is no scientific evidence of anything existing prior to the singularity at T=0. Quote me one published scientist that can support with evidence of any thing existing prior to the singularity that existed at T=0).
Tangle writes: Because there is no correct side yet. Obviously. Sure there is a correct answer.
quote: It was not created by spontaneous combustion from an absence of existence. It had to be created by something or someone, that had all power, required to produce all the matter in the universe. There only two theories of the origin of the universe.1. The oldest is that the universe is eternal having no beginning and no end. There are several different versions of this one. Einstein believed in 1 of them called Static universe. Until Hubble used the Doppler effect to determine that the universe is expanding.Then Einstein changed his mind. Because an expanding universe can not be eternal due to entropy. 2. The other is that the universe was created at some point in time. The BBT is one of those with a little different explanation stating time, and space began to exist at the same time. Lately it has been modified to add everything existed in a pea sized universe that existed 1 billionth of a second after T=0. No explanation of where that little universe came from. Later Hawking proposed an instanton to produce the universe with no explanation of where it came from. Later some said that little universe was produced by two branes banging together. With no explanation of where those branes could have existed. They require a vacuum to appear in. No explanation of where that vacuum came from or existed. There was several problems with the big bang theory.The Horizon Problem The missing magnetic monopole problem. The Flatness Problem. Lack of universal galactic uniformity. Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Inflation violates Einstein's General Law of Relativity The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as Entropy. It violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. link Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models. The microwave background makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball. Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe. link Here is an open letter to science concerning problems with the big bang theory. Partial quote:
quote: God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi ringo
ringo writes: No it isn't. It says nothing about duration. 10 billion K would produce a lot of light.3 billion K 380,000 years later would produce a lot of light. All this before the first atom was formed. That would make for a pretty long day in my book. ringo writes:
God did not "create" darkness.quote: I know you don't believe God exists but I would warn you since it is possible that He does exist you refrain from calling Him a Liar.
ringo writes: It is not possible to scientifically support creation "by God" unless you can support scientifically that God exists - and you can't. There is more real evidence that God exists than the universe began to exist from non existence. Or that it is scientifically eternal.
ringo writes: That's right. YOU don't get to redefine how science defines assumptions. The root word was around along time before modern science came along and started making assumptions.
ringo writes: No, it's perfectly fine to use different definitions of words in different contexts. For example, the word "unity" has a different meaning in politics than it does in mathematics. I thought it meant oneness in either.
ringo writes: If you think it was different, you'd have to show that it was different AND you'd have to show what caused it to change. Without evidence of a change, we can't pretend that there was a change. You were the one making assertions and I ask a question you did not answer. You can not test the aftereffect of an assumption.You can only test observations and see if they fit your assumption After the body is totally decayed and there is no body left if the bullet did not hit a bone you can't tell if the victim has been shot or not.In other words you need a pretty fresh body. But we are talking about assumptions that were made of events that took place billions of years ago"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024