The Big Bang!

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
I don't disagree with your main point (at least not right now), but how does the universe existing back infinitely seem any more plausible/easier to wrap your head around than the big bang. I personally like the big bang theory, but it seems like either way you go, secular or religious, static or big bang, it doesnt look pretty from a thought perspec ...[text shortened]... rse but I don't want to write a book explaining it, read a book on it yourselves please people.

A universe existing back infinitely seems more logical to me, because as far as I know there is no evidence proving that nature can create matter out of nothing. We do know that atoms last forever...

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
A universe existing back infinitely seems more logical to me, because as far as I know there is no evidence proving that nature can create matter out of nothing. We do know that atoms last forever...

Actually, we know the opposite of both of those. Nuclear fission happens all the time in stars. And quantum foam is the continuous creation of matter-antimatter particle pairs. We can do this in particle acceleraters easily. Like I said, try reading a popularized physics book. The creation of matter is demanded by heisenberg uncertainty and allowed by relativity and quantum theory.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Anybody believe that the big bang occured? I don't believe it. I believe that the big bang is still coming...

2 Peter 3:10 - But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a [b]great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.[/b]

i believe big bang happened and i have a child to prove it. AND i believe the big bang is still cumming too.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
If a god created everything you will always be left with the question of who created the god...
To me it seems most logical than the universe has always been here and will always stay here. This does not mean that I dont believe the big bang occured, I just think that before the big bang, the universe was already here but in another form.
Beca ...[text shortened]... t some things do last forever. For example the atoms that we and the entire universe is made of.

If a god created everything you will always be left with the question of who created the god...

It can be proven that the universe has a beginnig. Thus the universe needs a cause, God. Unlike the universe, God has no beginnig and no end, He is the uncreated creator of the universe.

To me it seems most logical than the universe has always been here and will always stay here.

Why is this more logical than saying God is eternal? So basically I believe in the beginnig was God and you believe that in the beginnig was the universe and basically I believe God created the universe and basically you believe the universe created itself?

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
A universe existing back infinitely seems more logical to me, because as far as I know there is no evidence proving that nature can create matter out of nothing. We do know that atoms last forever...

A universe existing back infinitely seems more logical to me,

More logical than a God existing back infinately?

because as far as I know there is no evidence proving that nature can create matter out of nothing.

So does this not imply that God created matter?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]A universe existing back infinitely seems more logical to me,

More logical than a God existing back infinately?

because as far as I know there is no evidence proving that nature can create matter out of nothing.

So does this not imply that God created matter?[/b]

NO ,,,it implies God cant create matter out of nothing

Originally posted by frogstomp
NO ,,,it implies God cant create matter out of nothing

Are you refering to the omnipotent God that raised Christ from the dead and sopke a word to create the Heavens and the earth, or are you refering to some other god?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Hi Maarten

I also hope you realise that the Big Bang theory cannot explain the origin of natural laws and the many particular constants such as the strength of gravity or the mass of the electron, all of which seem so precisely tuned to permit stars and planets and life to exist.

There are also many other problems with the theory.

Just for start ...[text shortened]... few, see: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.html

Hope this helps.

I thought you were an expert on molecular biology but now I see your cut and paste genius extends to physics and cosmology. Is there nothing you won't stoop to in order to discredit science.

BTW, the computer your posting with was devised by scientists. How can you bear to use this devil's tool?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Are you refering to the omnipotent God that raised Christ from the dead and sopke a word to create the Heavens and the earth, or are you refering to some other god?

Originally posted by god
Did I do all that stuff? I never realised

Do you really believe the stuff you post, dj, or are you posting as reinforcement in the face of doubt?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
I thought you were an expert on molecular biology but now I see your cut and paste genius extends to physics and cosmology. Is there nothing you won't stoop to in order to discredit science.

BTW, the computer your posting with was devised by scientists. How can you bear to use this devil's tool?

The sad situation is when scientists fight for their 'religious' belief which is based on a theory that has been discredited time and again.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I hope you understand that the big bang theory is a direct attack on God's Word.

Why do you idiotically draw these lines in the sand?

Let physics deal with the physical world and metaphysics with faith.

Let biology deal with the living world and metaphysics with faith.

Scientific models of physical and life processes describe and predict the behaviour of systems; no more, no less.

Metaphysical musings describe and educate the behaviour of people who believe in them: no more, no less.


These are two separate areas, they don't address the same questions. Just get used to it.

If you truly believe that science is devil inspired, stop driving your car devised by scientists, don't take medical advice from doctors, they are all scientists. Don't fly in planes, they are designed by engineers who are, of course, the spawn of beezebub.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Why do you idiotically draw these lines in the sand?

Let physics deal with the physical world and metaphysics with faith.

Let biology deal with the living world and metaphysics with faith.

Scientific models of physical and life processes describe and predict the behaviour of systems; no more, no less.

Metaphysical musings describe and edu ...[text shortened]... Don't fly in planes, they are designed by engineers who are, of course, the spawn of beezebub.

Science without Religion is lame; Religion without Science is blind;

- Albert Einstein -

Originally posted by dj2becker
The sad situation is when scientists fight for their 'religious' belief which is based on a theory that has been discredited time and again.

Prat.

I don't need to believe in these theories. belief in them is not required. They are models, tools to be used for description and prediction. Imperfections in theory lead to refinement and in some cases replacement of theory. This does not in any way diminish their utility in daily life.

Newtons laws of motion are known to be flawed at both micro and macro levels and where replaced in the new physics of the early 20th century. However, the US put a man on the moon using newtonian physics in the design of the technology and in calculating the ballistic trajectories followed.

Get used to it, science is not a religion and only nutters like you whose feeble faith is undermined by the reality that the fundemental word of god is nothing more than the creation myth of stone age people.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Science without Religion is lame; Religion without Science is blind;

- Albert Einstein -

But they address different areas of human experience

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Prat.

I don't need to believe in these theories. belief in them is not required. They are models, tools to be used for description and prediction. Imperfections in theory lead to refinement and in some cases replacement of theory. This does not in any way diminish their utility in daily life.

Newtons laws of motion are known to be flawed at both ...[text shortened]... ity that the fundemental word of god is nothing more than the creation myth of stone age people.

I don't need to believe in these theories.

Are you saying that a theory which seeks to explain the origin of man and the universe is not religious in nature?

If you don't believe the big bang theory, then how do you believe the universe originated?