Creation

Hi ringo You do realize the words "Whether you believe in Him or not does not make any difference." were your words don't you? Yes I will have to give an account of my life to God one day. He will judge me according to what I have done and not done in my lifetime here on earth. Many of those things are not going to get me any rewards but regardless of whether I do or not get any rewards I already have the greatest reward that He could give to me.In 1949 I had believed in God for quite some time but I had never trusted Him to do what He said He would do for me if I met His conditions. I came to the realization I had to believe on Him rather than just to believe in Him. Believing on Him means I would put my total trust in Him to do what He said He would do. He said if I believed on Him I had eternal life.

quote:

---

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

---

.
He also tells me why people don't have eternal life.

quote:

---

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

---

Those who believe on Him is not condemned.
Those do not believe on Him is condemned already.
Simply because they have not belived on Him for deliverance.God Bless,

They were your words, in Message 1333.

Hi ringo I thought light was light especially if it was made by a 10 billion degree kelvin temperature ball of quark soup.Don't heat produce light and light produce heat? Moses might have known what it was when he came down off the mountain the second time they had to cover his head because nobody could look at his head as it shown so bright.But regardless of that no one knew the cmbr existed until May 20, 1964. Looking for objective evidence and having objective evidence is two different things. Either you have objective evidence (and if you do produce it) or you don't have objective evidence in which case you can not present any.Yet you demand that I present objective evidence for Gods existence.So give me any objective evidence available to prove the universe began to exist like science so called say it did.That includes Big Bang Theory, String theory, Big bounce theory or any other theory. Are you saying the universe don't exist?It is a fact it exist as I can see part of it. I just want to know how it began to exist.I have read where Hawking said if his instanton popped into existence it would produce a universe just like the one we live in.
They are known to pop into existence and then disappear in a vacuum. The problem with that is since there would be no existence prior to the universe existing there would be no place for a vacuum to exist for the instanton to pop into existence in.Scrap that idea.Two branes banging together caused the universe to begin to exist. You have the same problem as with the instanton as there would be no existence for the branes to exist in.Scrap that idea.This hot glob of quark soup existed, it began to expand/inflate and produced the universe.
If there was no existence where did it exist?
Where did it come from?
How did it get to be 10 billion/trillion which ever degrees?
How did all the energy and mass get packed into that little universe that is said to be expanding at 1 billionth of a second after T=0?
If it had been around for eternity without expanding/inflating what caused it to start all of a sudden?Now lets look at the bounce theory. A universe existed and had x=(available energy) amount of energy and lost y= (unusable energy) amount of energy before it contracted to the size of what ever existed at T=^{-23 s}.Then the inflation/expansion began again with less x than before and more y than before. Goes through the same process.The process repeats and x is reduce and y is increased during the process.The process repeats and x is reduced and y is increased.When x and y becomes equal and there is no more useable energy to use available you have reached equilibrium the process will cease.Therefore the universe could not have existed eternally in the past according to known scientific processes. But you have no objective evidence for the universe having existed or beginning to exist. What you call the Big Bang Theory is only trying to explain what has taken place since 1 billionth of a second after T=0. The universe is assumed to exist at 1 billionth of a second after T=0.
Where is the test and results that support that assumption? It is just an assumption that is accepted as fact without any proof or evidence of any kind. String theory and bounce theory all require the same assumption. I did and this is what I found.

quote:

---

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

​

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

---

Big Bang Theory I use pneumatic nail guns.God Bless,

That's your problem. You don't know what science is.

We didn't discover photons beyond the visible spectrum until quite recently. When the Bible was written, light was either sunlight or moonlight or lamplight, all definitely visible. If you want to be picky about the definitions of Hebrew words, you can't impose modern definitions on them. And he might have come down on a skateboard but we have no reason to think that he did. I don't demand anything. I conclude that since you don't show any objective evidence, you don't have any. And I conclude that since you're not actively looking for objective evidence, you don't think there is any. Been there; done that: cmbr, redshift, etc. If you want to know what I'm saying, you could try paying attention to what I'm saying instead of making it up in your own head. I didn't say that the universe doesn't exist. I said that the event of its "beginning" is not fully understood - yet. If a baseball appears in your back yard, you don't question its existence just because you don't know exactly how it got there. No, I'm inclined to keep Hawking's idea and scrap yours. I didn't ask you to google the first instance you could find of the Big Bang being called a "theory". Try being honest and googling for it being called a hypothesis.Edited by ringo, : capitAlization.Edited by ringo, : moAr capitalization - @#$%ing sHift keY!

Hi Pressie, After 10 years of hanging around here I am about ready to agree with you.I was taught and used to believe that science was a search for the truth. But it seems that it has become a search for fame and fortune at any cost of the truth.God Bless,

yeah cause there's sooooooooooooo much money in science. You're like the idiots who claim the scientists studying climate change are pushing a fake story so they can keep their funding, who do you think has more wealth to spread around, MIT or BP?

Hi ringo Every language that has been translated into English has had our modern English imposed upon them. Don't be silly. I don't think that happened because if it had the Jewish History would have recorded it.They did record that his face shown so bright they covered his head as they could not be in his presence with it uncovered.

quote:

---

The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, or CMB for short, is a faint glow of light that fills the universe, falling on Earth from every direction with nearly uniform intensity. It is the residual heat of creation

---

What is the cosmic microwave background radiation? - Scientific AmericanThis light is the residual heat of creation.
Which verifies there was a light period in which the universe began to exist.Science assumes this supports the BBT.
I say it supports the Hebrew text of the Torah that was written 3800 years ago.

quote:

---

The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding.

---

Evidence for the Big Bang | National Schools' ObservatoryScience says the redshift supports an expanding universe.I say it supports the Hebrew text of the Torah that was written 3800 years ago. Isa 44:24, Zec 12:1. God stretched out he heavens. Both support my version of the creation event. Then when it is understood my version may be the correct one. Then explain to me where the instanton appeared to begin creating the universe.Logically speaking if there is non existence no thing could begin to exist. For the instanton to appear it requires a vacuum in which to appear. Since there would be non existent the vacuum would not exist and could not begin to exist. Therefore the instanton could not begin to exist nor create the universe.If you can believe a fairy tail like that you will fall for anything. I did google for it being called a hypothesis.There are a couple of hundred scientist and engineers that don't even believe it is a decent hypothesis. But most scientist believe and accept it as a theory.Now if you only accept it as a hypothesis why do you argue like the events of the BBT is fact?Any other theory that had as many holes in it as the BBT would have been discarded a long time ago. cavediver and Son Goku both agreed that the BBT is not sufficient to describe the beginning to exist of the universe.God Bless,

Again, you don't have a clue what science is.May you be touched by a Holy Noodly Appendage.

You don't have the foggiest what science is.Let's give you a hint. The best explanation for what is observed. That's basically it.

You got it right, scientist observe and mainly see what they are looking for biased on a theory they have, wanting to be the first to see it. lot of truth in that statement, why else would anyone do anything these days? Some so called scientist may as well put their time and effort into winning the lottery and sell their theories to other like minded greedy people! yeh that's right its already being/been done. The search for a cure to cancer is another greedy mans effort. The list goes on and on!!!..

The King James version is four hundred years old. They had the same sunlight and moonlight and lamplight then as the ancient Hebrew authors had. They did not know about "light" beyond the visible spectrum. No, I did not write that. It is the residual radiation from the Big Bang. It is NOT what the ancient Hebrews would have called "light". Science concludes this supports the Big Bang. Your dissenting opinion has no value. You might as well disagree with a pilot about aerodynamics. It's unlikely that all of science will be thrown away in favour of your uninformed opinion. There is no logic in that. "Existence" is not a thing; it's a property. So you were being dishonest. You did know that the Big Bang has been called a theory and/or a hypothesis. I haven't said what I accept. You are not remotely near qualified to talk about holes in the Big Bang theory/hypothesis. Nonsense. Science doesn't just discard explantions that are incomplete. It modifies them and/or replaces them when better explanations are found.

You contradict yourself. If scientists want to be the first to discover something, they're quick to criticize what other scientists discover. They're more likely to look for the flaws in the other guy's work than to jump on the band wagon and give him undue credit.

Hi Pressie If science is not a search for the truth then what is it?God Bless,

Hi Pressie If science is not a search for the truth why do it.If it's just looking for the best explanation to soothe someone's mind into believing their version of their beliefs is the truth why waste the time.God Bless,