Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

There's a Hebrew word for "ball". Why wasn't that sufficient? I did know that. But that's not Biblical literalism. You can hardly say that the Bible is the literal word of God if it's only the inspired word of God. If you weren't a Biblical literalist, why did you say you were? (Isn't that bearing false witness? I'm the "failed Christian", like you say, but I thought I remembered that being a bad thing.)See my confusion? You confuse me when you say you believe one thing when actually you believe a totally different thing. Ok, here are my points that you haven't refuted:Big Bang cosmology isn't synonymous with atheism.
Big Bang cosmology is not a biological theory, so it has nothing to do with evolution.
Big Bang cosmology makes no specific statements about the age of the Earth, because it's not a theory of geology.I don't even really understand why we're arguing about the Big Bang. It's consistent with a kind of creationism. According to you it's consistent with what the Bible says. If we both agree that the Big Bang is the likely explanation, what are we arguing about?

Jack,Who is being unreasonable here? Frog offered a "Proof" for the Big Bang and I answered it.
I suppose I should say it is typical of Atheist to twist words then.How many creationist do you see arguing on this thread. Well, lets count.
1....1...and ummm....1. Wow, that would be ME!! Amazing. I was only talking about part of the evidence because thats all I had time for. I should be either be studying or sleeping right now in fact. What you are ignoring is that I did shoot down expanding universe as a proof for the Big Bang.
But, if it makes you happy, I will, because I am, after all, a really nice guy, answer your backround radiation as soon as the US Navy gives me time.
Please be patient with me. Is that too much to ask? I'm a kid, who has a full time job, in a critical part of his career. But, if you and the other 19 Big Bangers give me time, I will (eventually) answer your objections. Thank youJoe

If you think that's what you did, you need to look up the "Fallacy of False Alternatives."What you proved is that the Big Bang theory and the Bible don't contradict each other on the idea of an expanding universe. How does that disprove the Big Bang?

"I don't even really understand why we're arguing about the Big Bang."Look at the name of the thread, bright guy. It's what we are here to do."It's consistent with a kind of creationism."Yea, some twisted mix that totally sucks and that I have never argued."According to you it's consistent with what the Bible says."An observant man would have noticed that I said it was consistant with an expanding universe. It is not consistant with the Big Bang."If we both agree that the Big Bang is the likely explanation, what are we arguing about?"Moot point. We don't."I did know that. But that's not Biblical literalism. You can hardly say that the Bible is the literal word of God if it's only the inspired word of God. If you weren't a Biblical literalist, why did you say you were? (Isn't that bearing false witness? I'm the "failed Christian", like you say, but I thought I remembered that being a bad thing.)"Well, I'm proud son. You got one thing right. Bearing false witness is wrong. Way to go. Am I bearing false witness? Umm...no. The Bible is the Literal Word of God. It is literally true (with the exceptions of some portions that are prophecy and maybe a few songs). I never said he took a scroll and wrote it with his own person. If in the future, I say "Literal, inspired Bible", would it make you stop nitpicking? Probably not, but I'll give it a shot."See my confusion?"I see you confusing yourself. Must be rough being you."Big Bang cosmology isn't synonymous with atheism."When did you bring this point up? I know I never did."Big Bang cosmology is not a biological theory, so it has nothing to do with evolution."We agree. Umm, aside from error in typing, which I corrected before you brought it up, when I have I said otherwise?"Big Bang cosmology makes no specific statements about the age of the Earth, because it's not a theory of geology."Never said it did. Look up at the name of the thread. See it there? It says: "Topic: Big Bang...How Did it Happen?"
That is what we are arguing.Joe

"What you proved is that the Big Bang theory and the Bible don't contradict each other on the idea of an expanding universe. How does that disprove the Big Bang?"It doesn't. Do you actualy read what I write? I wrote, and I quote, "What you are ignoring is that I did shoot down expanding universe as a proof for the Big Bang." Did I say that I had disproven the Big Bang? Ummm...look close, I know this is tough for you. No, what I said what that it can't be used as proof any more.If you look in my quote you can see it 'a proof'. Not all proof.Are you ok? Are you in good health with no major addictions? Dude...this is getting sad.Joe

But you didn't do that at all. You simply argued that expanding space is a feature of the Bible as well as the Big Bang theory. What does that prove?If you don't like what I'm asking you, you need keep better track of your arguments.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-23-2004]

You had said that expanding universe was a proof of the Big Bang, that "wouldn't make sense" in a God created universe.It is no longer a valid proof for the Big Bang vs Creationism, which is what we have been arguing these past 126 posts.Joe

Navy,If you follow the conversation we've had, you'll see that I've repeatedly pointed out that evidence has been offered to you and you've repeatedly claimed it hasn't, before finally answering one small (and rather weak) part of the evidence for the big bang. No you didn't. You made a claim that an expanding universe was evidence for biblical creation. The problems for you are that the evidence for an expanding universe only works if the universe is, in fact, billions of years old; and that no-one made a prediction from the biblical text that the universe would be found to be expanding.You are incidently continuing to show that you don't understand what evidence is, or how it works.Although, you are actually right if for the wrong reasons. The expanding universe is actually very poor evidence for the big bang, this is because it is the evidence from which the theory was originally extrapolated. That is a fair point. I apologise for my earlier harshness.

Frog,How about you respond to the full post, #124. I think I'm not the one who needs to keep track of my arguments.Joe

Thank you for your kindness. We can be friends, to argue another day.JoePS: The only reason I looked at expanding universe is because it was brought up by frog. I will of course look at the radiation point next.
PPS(by edit): Of course the Bible didn't predict the universe was expanding. It just said it was being "stretched" out by God.[This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-23-2004]

Ok, now it's getting clear. You don't believe that the Bible and the Big Bang say the same thing.What, exactly, do you believe that they disagree on? Couldn't you interpret the Bible to say, essentially, "God created the universe by starting the Big Bang?" The Bible can't be both literal and inspired. You can't say "literal, inspired Bible" because those terms are contradictory. Will you nitpick me if I say "round, square circles" or "hot, cold ice cream"? Once again you can't answer a simple question. Did God dictate the words of the Bible to the authors? Yes or no? If yes, it's literal and not inspired. If no, it's inspired, but not literal. You can't have it both ways. Cool. As long as that's out of the way. But the discussion can't really continue until you make it absolutely clear how you believe that the Big Bang and the Bible disagree. Take your time, of course.

No, I said it doesn't make sense in a God created universe that's only 6,000 years old. It does make sense in a universe that God created via the Big Bang. It also makes sense in a universe that simply came into being, without God.Do you see what I'm getting at when I ask you what kind of creationism you're arguing? I'm trying to get you to explain where you think the Big Bang and the Bible differ.

Nitpicking Road-dead frog,"Ok, now it's getting clear."It's ok, it takes some people longer to learn then others."You don't believe that the Bible and the Big Bang say the same thing."My do you have a gift for understatment. Of course not. That might explain why I've been arguing against the Big Bang over the life of this thread."Couldn't you interpret the Bible to say, essentially, "God created the universe by starting the Big Bang?" "If you were ignoring the conseptual difference between a God crafting, and an explosion flinging, the universe into order. Or the fact that he spoke the earth into existence."The Bible can't be both literal and inspired."And I suppose you can't be both short and fat. Or a girl both fat and ugly. Or perhaps a car both new and red.But since you are not catching on, let me help you.The Bible is literally true.
Ok, that means, as defined by the dicionary:"Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words."And I have always believed this conserning the Bible aside from prophecy where the meaning is purposly hidden.Now inspired: "To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence."Where is the contradition?Literal is what it is. Inspired is how it came to be. The only contradiction, is in your own mind.JoePS Definitions from http://www.dictionary.com

Hi Joe,It would be easier to read your posts if you used the quote tags rather than simply enclosing the quote in " marks, as I imagine you will concede: vs."My do you have a gift for understatment. Of course not. That might explain why I've been arguing against the Big Bang over the life of this thread."You can do this by beginning the quote with [ qs ] and ending with [ /qs ] without the spaces after [ and before ].Cheers,Jack.

Jack haha, yes. Thank you much.Joe