Reply
Sun 22 Nov, 2015 07:54 am
"According to the standard Big Bang model, the universe was born during a period of inflation that began about 13.7 billion years ago. Like a rapidly expanding balloon, it swelled from a size smaller than an electron to nearly its current size within a tiny fraction of a second."
So, suddenly everything was there. Almost as if commanded to form.
Does that not sound like Genesis 1:3 "And God said let there be light, and there was light." ?
Someone once said,"such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
Makes sense to me. Because the universe needed to be made, it made itself. Because I needed myself to be made, I made myself.
Does this make sense in your eyes? That nobody made the universe on a simple command in a tiny fraction of a second, instead it 'made itself in a fraction of a second because it felt the need to' ?
On evolution. If we evolved from apes, why are there the beginning and end stages only? Where are all of the apes in between? In order for this to make sense, we had to have both been made at the same time and made two different creatures:
Genesis 1:21 “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
Mmm, evolution. If creatures evolved according to their surroundings, then how do they know how to evolve according to them? Are they smarter than us? We can't evolve ourselves. How come they can? Does nothingness use its nothingness and change animals because nothing told nothingness that it needed to?
That makes no sense. Wouldn't it make sense for a God to be watching and fixing his creations according to their environment ?
In Genesis 9:1-2 God is recorded changing the animals according to what has happened.
"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered."
If that can happen, history can repeat itself. Just as He created the universe, He can create more things.
Your thoughts?
@Johnjohnjohn,
Johnjohnjohn wrote:Your thoughts?
I think that was like listening to a 5 yr old child trying to explain advanced physics.
@Johnjohnjohn,
Quote: Are evolution and the big bang true?
.
Actually your title should be"Does the bible have any credibility as a science book?"
@rosborne979,
Quote:...5 yr old child trying to explain...
Ros, disagree; some of x3's q's were provocative
@farmerman,
Man, you'll hafta explain for the the benefit of the old, typically retarded by brain degeneration (me)
Ma brother kilt a 'coon . . .
@farmerman,
Nah.
Science books are filled with theories of overthinking madmen.
The bible has hundreds of fulfilled prophecies written 2,000 years ago and they are being fulfilled to this day.
@Johnjohnjohn,
I doubt you'll find any answers you want to hear (or understand) here. Rational people prefer to deal with facts and evidence and suchlike, not fairy stories.
Maybe you should go talk to Ken Ham or someone at AIG. They're still madmen but at least they're not "overthinking" ones. Their answers will most likely fit your overly simplistic and inflexible viewpoint better.
@dalehileman,
Theres a TV coomercial by an insurance company wherein this guy is driving between cities in a car that was given him by some aunt. In the car is a cage with a myna bird that is singing over and over "Row row row ya boat"?
Jut that line, over and over. The guys face sez it all.
@Johnjohnjohn,
Quote:
The bible has hundreds of fulfilled prophecies written 2,000 years ago and they are being fulfilled to this day.
Just cause you say so, doesnt make it a fact. ACtually, to most, the bible has become "dont bother me with facts, I have this neat tale to tell you that is primarily fact-free"
@Slugfoot,
Quote:Rational people prefer to deal with facts and evidence and suchlike
Yea Slug but those capable of deeper thinking inescapably detect deep symbolic connections
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Quote:...5 yr old child trying to explain...
Ros, disagree; some of x3's q's were provocative
I didn't see anything new in his list. It looked like the same list of cosmological and biological oversimplifications and straw men then I've seen for decades. What did you see that looked new to you?
@farmerman,
Thanks Man, but as a typical 85-year-old (yes, just had a birthday, Armistice Day when one war ended for my parents and another one began) I'm still not sure. Is
a 5 yr old child
to explain advanced physics,
a Myna Bird trying to explain advanced physics, or
a 5 yr old child trying to explain the Myna Bird
Yea, Man, just sorta kidding but ya gotta give 'em credit for stimulating our responses while some of their q's are quite profound, as with john x 3
@rosborne979,
Quote:What did you see that looked new to you?
Not new, Ros but nonetheless provocative, inviting from us original approaches
For instance that of the apodictical existential pantheist, God bless his incredible ego
@dalehileman,
forget it dale. Ive forgotten what it was about
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace