|
Post by sharingtheriches on Sept 3, 2019 15:20:20 GMT -5
Well then, no waddling, no quacks from me, not swimming in any water, hardly look like a duck... so... not a duck. Nor a 2&2er, either despite years of indoctrination, and many fine deceptions. A counterfeit is always a counterfeit, no matter how close it resembles that which is genuine. I was sadly deceived, but not left there. Getting wiser in our old age, Dennis! 😊
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 15:20:35 GMT -5
As shown plenty of times on this board the practice of calling the kettle black that is performed routinely by 2x2s throughout 2x2 history plays out once again in the instance of some on here pointing up creation as the pseudoscience when evolution fits the definition of “pseudoscience” to a “T.” The accusation made against creation is AT BEST drawing a distinction where there is no difference, another illogical practice of 2x2ism historically. Here is Dr. Lisle's reply – by all means, if creation is pseudoscience to you and you want to remain wilfully ignorant on that point, don't read it. Science vs. Pseudoscience by Dr. Lisle | Jun 7, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/science-vs-pseudoscience/Why don’t you post your own views rather than continually relying on what other people have written? Why do you avoid intelligent debate on the issue of evolution and instead stick to posting links and avoiding responding directly to issues and questions put to you? (I’m still waiting for you to set out the creationist’s position which you complain is misrepresented). Why don’t you explain why you refute the overwhelming evidence for evolution? In fact why don’t you begin by explaining in detail HOW and WHY you refute each of the following as evidence which supports evolution and then when you have provided persuasive arguments (in your own words) we can then start to debate creation by the Biblical God (or indeed any other God). Obviously I’ll look forward to that. Matt10 1. Anatomy - whereby species share similar physical features. 2. Molecular evidence - whereby DNA comparisons show how related species are. 3. Biogeography - whereby the unique features of island species reflect evolution 4. Fossil records - which document the existence of extinct species related to species of today 5. Direct observation - whereby small-scale evolution in organisms is directly observed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 15:27:21 GMT -5
“The problem is that the word "science" didn't even exist in biblical times! “ I would guess that YOU adhere to the common 'caveman' theories regarding early human history – such that human beings during biblical times were stupid in comparison to human beings of today. Biblically, the very first human being was PERFECT – so the 'caveman' theory is just a modern myth that boosts modern man's self esteem abundantly. And from that perfect human being, once he FELL from that already eternal state by his own choice, started degenerating. And his offspring were born imperfect and degenerating at birth. And each generation that followed them were more and more degenerated at birth. But, of course THAT does not suit the modern man's self pride very well, so modern man formulated a 'caveman' theory to make himself LOOK ever so smart – right along with evolution theory that by random chance produces the non-existent upward mutation accidents that make organisms improve from single celled organisms to mankind – given 'billions of years' that are impossible as shown by JUST the existence today of comets. All modern man had to do to boost his self pride today is REVERSE observable science. And if there are 'billions' of years even possible, one might think that random chance improvements of organisms might have made mankind eternal by now. To hell with the fossil record. Let's just make something up and believe it. "To hell with the fossil record. Let's just make something up and believe it." That's exactly what I thought - in our degrading mental/physical condition decade after decade let's make up evolution to make us look smart, (not dumber and dumber), in spite of the fossil record supporting creation in terms of a global flood that covered the highest mountains, and eroded the land it left behind when the flood subsided, leaving the dead buried in mud that produced those fossils even on the highest mountains. I stood on a cliff looking down at a river bend that placed water washed stone half way up the opposite mountain side from boulder size near bottom to pebble sized up top. So I have seen the evidence of very high water erroding as if flowed off that land - with my own yese. So YOU can have your pseudoscience, I'll stick with what I have SEEN.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Sept 3, 2019 15:27:24 GMT -5
As shown plenty of times on this board the practice of calling the kettle black that is performed routinely by 2x2s throughout 2x2 history plays out once again in the instance of some on here pointing up creation as the pseudoscience when evolution fits the definition of “pseudoscience” to a “T.” The accusation made against creation is AT BEST drawing a distinction where there is no difference, another illogical practice of 2x2ism historically. Here is Dr. Lisle's reply – by all means, if creation is pseudoscience to you and you want to remain wilfully ignorant on that point, don't read it. Science vs. Pseudoscience by Dr. Lisle | Jun 7, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/science-vs-pseudoscience/Here's a cracker piece of pseudoscience. Notice how there was light and then later on the sun and the moon were formed. Genesis 1 New King James Version (NKJV) The History of Creation 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 Then God said, “Let there be a [c]firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great [d]lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.Supposedly this goes with that first part of Genesis. John 1:3-5. All things were made by him; and without him was nothing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Revelations 1:8. I am Alpha and Omwga, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 3, 2019 15:42:38 GMT -5
"That sounds like a creationist view - it all came from nothing from the command of a paranormal entity of which there is no verifiable proof. If I am not mistaken the creationist belief is that the whole universe came from nothing." Ah huh – you cannot seem to decide WHAT the “creationist” view is... It is your view. I have to guess what it is that you believe since that is difficult to understand. I didn't read in a paranormal being. The entity you call god is a paranormal being. And, as I understand it, your belief is that the paranormal being you call god spoke and the whole universe came into being. Nothing there and then POOF!, it was there. Sounds like something from nothing to me. No, we have peer reviewed explanations of what some of the possibilities were when the universe was formed and from these explanations predictions can be formulated and tested. And, unlike the creation story, the predictions are frequently true and support the explanations. Anyone can say, for example, that the acceleration due to gravity has a standard value of 9.80665 m/s 2 but the difference between stating a fact and stating a belief is that the fact can be checked, verified. The big bang is concerned with the physics and not the existence or non-existence of a paranormal being. Not exactly certain to parse that last paragraph. The very meaning of something from nothing. How did it happen? Toss in a god of the gaps A clumsily constructed straw man that no one but a creationist would believe but at least it is easy for you to shoot down. But, on second thought - "In the beginning the Big Bang went boom" - isn't that exactly what you are claiming your paranormal being did? You juat are willing to make the claim without any evidence to back it up.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 3, 2019 16:10:39 GMT -5
“The problem is that the word "science" didn't even exist in biblical times! “ I would guess that YOU adhere to the common 'caveman' theories regarding early human history – such that human beings during biblical times were stupid in comparison to human beings of today. I don't think anyone who has studied in this field would make the claim that early humans were stupid when compared to modern man. Humans as long ago as 1 million years were using boats to discover different places. It strongly indicates communication skills and level of intelligence higher than other animals of the period. Story wise, the princess could feel a pea through multiple mattresses. The humans then degenerated into paranormal entity worshipping beings and developed a series of "creationist" sites that many still believe to contain factual information even in the light of facts that show them to be in error. Individuals being eternal is not a goal that would satisty any species and anyone who had any idea of the way evolution works would realize that an eternal being would be counter to evolution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 16:26:52 GMT -5
"The very meaning of something from nothing. How did it happen? Toss in a god of the gaps "
So let's try THAT once again - first bit:
Genesis 1:1 (the "peer reviewed" word of God)
In the beginning God -- so in the beginning God already existed.
The “peer-reviewed” word of man
In the beginning the Big Bang - where did the Big Bang come from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 18:13:18 GMT -5
1. Anatomy - whereby species share similar physical features.
Supports creation better than evolution.
2. Molecular evidence - whereby DNA comparisons show how related species are.
Supports creation better than evolution.
3. Biogeography - whereby the unique features of island species reflect evolution
Supports creation better than evolution.
4. Fossil records - which document the existence of extinct species related to species of today
Supports creation better than evolution.
5. Direct observation - whereby small-scale evolution in organisms is directly observed.
Supports creation better than evolution.
Got any more?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 3, 2019 18:20:33 GMT -5
"The very meaning of something from nothing. How did it happen? Toss in a god of the gaps " So let's try THAT once again - first bit: Genesis 1:1 (the "peer reviewed" word of God) In the beginning God -- so in the beginning God already existed. Creationists stick by the claim that if something exists it must have been created, Raises the question of who/what created god. If you make god a special case the whole argument falls apart. If you are positing that god already existed it would be as valid to say that the universe also already existed as a gravitational singularity. If god can exist in the beginning there is nothing to say that other things could also exist. Perhaps vacuum fluctuations. From circumstances that already existed.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 3, 2019 18:25:20 GMT -5
1. Anatomy - whereby species share similar physical features. Supports creation better than evolution. 2. Molecular evidence - whereby DNA comparisons show how related species are. Supports creation better than evolution. 3. Biogeography - whereby the unique features of island species reflect evolution Supports creation better than evolution. 4. Fossil records - which document the existence of extinct species related to species of today Supports creation better than evolution. 5. Direct observation - whereby small-scale evolution in organisms is directly observed. Supports creation better than evolution. Got any more? Someone asked @gratu to post his own views. I think that has been accomplished and this is the best that can be hoped for. Sad.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 3, 2019 18:34:45 GMT -5
rational is about as much a 2x2 as you are.... If it waddles, swims in marshes and quacks, there is a good chance it's a duck. Wally's right. If Rational is a 2x2 then you definitely are. A rather devout one too.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 3, 2019 18:50:52 GMT -5
“So, brothers and sisters, if we can’t even sort out fact from fiction during a two hundred year period ranging back two thousand years ago, how in the world can we know what happened at the beginning of creation? “ That's very easy to sort out these days – all we need is a “peer-reviewed” “Big Bang.,” no matter where that peer-reviewed “cosmic egg” or “singularity” came from. You know – that nothing that was really nothing and gave rise to all of the nothing we see today just prior to becoming nothing again ourselves – oh, ya, as long as it all gets peer-reviewed. Now THAT is certainly not confusing in the least – it's as clear as a crystal ball, I'd say. So if you think it's all created by a God, where did God come from? If you answer that God has always been around, then why couldn't a universe also always have been around? If an infinite being can exist why not an infinite universe? And, if there is a creator, how do you know which creator god actually did the creating? There is zero proof that the Christian God is the one that created anything. In fact, he's just one more god in a long line of gods people think was the creator god. Gnostic Christians didn't believe the Christian God was the primary creator, but a secondary God that was the one that took care of Earth in particular. Every branch of Christianity believes something different. So what makes more sense to me is this. When we don't know something for sure, we acknowledge that we don't know and work on finding out the truth. There is no doubt anymore, none at all, that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and that we have evolved. If you let anyone tell you different you're not paying attention. You're not understanding the science behind what we do know. And, scientists are honest enough to admit when they don't know something. Very unlike all the creationists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 18:51:25 GMT -5
If it waddles, swims in marshes and quacks, there is a good chance it's a duck. Wally's right. If Rational is a 2x2 then you definitely are. A rather devout one too. "Wally's right. If Rational is a 2x2 then you definitely are. A rather devout one too." Did you intend to put this big smile on my face? It so, you succeeded very well. Rational shows 2x2 hangover almost constantly, reminding me of an 'elite' elder we had when I was a kid, who loved to outwit kids, even by trickery.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 3, 2019 19:05:07 GMT -5
Wally's right. If Rational is a 2x2 then you definitely are. A rather devout one too. "Wally's right. If Rational is a 2x2 then you definitely are. A rather devout one too." Did you intend to put this big smile on my face? It so, you succeeded very well. Rational shows 2x2 hangover almost constantly, reminding me of an 'elite' elder we had when I was a kid, who loved to outwit kids, even by trickery. So you're admitting you are a devout 2x2? Good to know.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 3, 2019 19:17:50 GMT -5
"Wally's right. If Rational is a 2x2 then you definitely are. A rather devout one too." Did you intend to put this big smile on my face? It so, you succeeded very well. Rational shows 2x2 hangover almost constantly, reminding me of an 'elite' elder we had when I was a kid, who loved to outwit kids, even by trickery. So you're admitting you are a devout 2x2? Good to know. A mutating strain.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 3, 2019 19:33:32 GMT -5
"Wally's right. If Rational is a 2x2 then you definitely are. A rather devout one too." Did you intend to put this big smile on my face? It so, you succeeded very well. Rational shows 2x2 hangover almost constantly, reminding me of an 'elite' elder we had when I was a kid, who loved to outwit kids, even by trickery. So the mark of the 2x2 is trickery. So far the trickery I have been accused of is: 1)Placing a fake biblical-sounding quote in a fake biblical-sounding book. I think the real crime was that it took @gratu about 3 hours, after reading posts of others, to discover that the book was not in the bible. Somehow that is my fault. I admit - I did it. 2) Even worse than that I posted the hint in a faint color just in case someone though it was a real quote. My crime for that was that @gratu failed to see the hint and was not immediately warned that the biblical quote was false. 3) Another nail in the coffin was the fact that I posted an image from DanaSoft that showed the IP and location of the poster so @gratu could determine the IPs being used as detected from outside his network rather than the dynamically allocated ones within the network. This caused @gratu to panic and post warnings to the board regarding his misunderstanding. Once his employer explained how the image worked the warnings were modified/removed. Perhaps pointing out that all of the videos @gratu posted were sourced on creationist sites was considered a trick. Who knows. Makes me wonder what other normal behavior will be called trickery.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 3, 2019 19:37:40 GMT -5
"Wally's right. If Rational is a 2x2 then you definitely are. A rather devout one too." Did you intend to put this big smile on my face? It so, you succeeded very well. Rational shows 2x2 hangover almost constantly, reminding me of an 'elite' elder we had when I was a kid, who loved to outwit kids, even by trickery. So the mark of the 2x2 is trickery. So far the trickery I have been accused of is: 1)Placing a fake biblical-sounding quote in a fake biblical-sounding book. I think the real crime was that it took @gratu about 3 hours, after reading posts of others, to discover that the book was not in the bible. Somehow that is my fault. I admit - I did it. 2) Even worse than that I posted the hint in a faint color just in case someone though it was a real quote. My crime for that was that @gratu failed to see the hint and was not immediately warned that the biblical quote was false. 3) Another nail in the coffin was the fact that I posted an image from DanaSoft that showed the IP and location of the poster so @gratu could determine the IPs being used as detected from outside his network rather than the dynamically allocated ones within the network. This caused @gratu to panic and post warnings to the board regarding his misunderstanding. Once his employer explained how the image worked the warnings were modified/removed. Perhaps pointing out that all of the videos @gratu posted were sourced on creationist sites was considered a trick. Who knows. Makes me wonder what other normal behavior will be called trickery. From what I've seen here, it's not hard to confuse them and of course their only recourse to cover that up is to accuse you of being tricky. What else can you do if you don't even understand the fundamentals of science and make ludicrous claims that show how little you understand.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 3, 2019 21:10:48 GMT -5
creation? Are you all really serious about trying to sort out creation? If you can't even get agreement on when the church started and who and what Jesus was just a mere 2000 years ago how in the world are you going to sort out creation? <SNIP> Okay I have to leave before you all start throwing rotten vegetables at me. Oh, there you go with your facts and big words. And so many words... at an 8th grade level. 61 sentences 61 1087 words, 98 of which were complex words. Who can understand this gibberish?? Of course, the Flesch Kincaid reading ease of 69.2 does mean that most 13 to 14 year olds sound find it easy going!
"Jibber Jabber, Its all just a bunch of jibber jabber. No jibber jabber allowed in my court room," said the judge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 21:28:00 GMT -5
"So the mark of the 2x2 is trickery. "
Nope - except in very few other cases of worker-worshiping elitists among 2x2s, that's your former 2x2 mark/hangover, which you continue to downplay from what was done by you. But then you might convince someone if you downplay your trickery often enough - here's a hint - just copy your downplayed version and post it over and over and over - I won't bother correcting your downplaying act again and again and again. So by sheer repetition you might convince someone. To me, you are a self-stuffed trickster who made himself untrustworthy with your trickery. And in my opinion anyone who trusts you now deserves your trickery.
Edit- And the three tricks you have downplayed are not the only tricks that you tried to pull on me on here. Some of your other tricks did not gain even a comment from me. Since you dug out those three only, let's see if you can dig out your others as well.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 3, 2019 23:24:01 GMT -5
"So the mark of the 2x2 is trickery. " Nope - except in very few other cases of worker-worshiping elitists among 2x2s, that's your former 2x2 mark/hangover, which you continue to downplay from what was done by you. But then you might convince someone if you downplay your trickery often enough - here's a hint - just copy your downplayed version and post it over and over and over - I won't bother correcting your downplaying act again and again and again. So by sheer repetition you might convince someone. To me, you are a self-stuffed trickster who made himself untrustworthy with your trickery. And in my opinion anyone who trusts you now deserves your trickery.
The rants just fade away after excessive use. Not certain how far you can down-play text that is posted in plain sight on a public forum. I am not sure how to deal with what seems to be increasing attributional bias on your part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 23:40:42 GMT -5
creation? Are you all really serious about trying to sort out creation? If you can't even get agreement on when the church started and who and what Jesus was just a mere 2000 years ago how in the world are you going to sort out creation? <SNIP> Okay I have to leave before you all start throwing rotten vegetables at me. Oh, there you go with your facts and big words. And so many words... at an 8th grade level. 61 sentences 61 1087 words, 98 of which were complex words. Who can understand this gibberish?? Of course, the Flesch Kincaid reading ease of 69.2 does mean that most 13 to 14 year olds sound find it easy going!
😂😂 Indeed! Dadgum inconsiderate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 23:42:31 GMT -5
"So the mark of the 2x2 is trickery. " Nope - except in very few other cases of worker-worshiping elitists among 2x2s, that's your former 2x2 mark/hangover, which you continue to downplay from what was done by you. But then you might convince someone if you downplay your trickery often enough - here's a hint - just copy your downplayed version and post it over and over and over - I won't bother correcting your downplaying act again and again and again. So by sheer repetition you might convince someone. To me, you are a self-stuffed trickster who made himself untrustworthy with your trickery. And in my opinion anyone who trusts you now deserves your trickery.
The rants just fade away after excessive use. Not certain how far you can down-play text that is posted in plain sight on a public forum. I am not sure how to deal with what seems to be increasing attributional bias on your part. Popcorn?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Sept 3, 2019 23:57:47 GMT -5
Oh, there you go with your facts and big words. And so many words... at an 8th grade level. 61 sentences 61 1087 words, 98 of which were complex words. Who can understand this gibberish?? Of course, the Flesch Kincaid reading ease of 69.2 does mean that most 13 to 14 year olds sound find it easy going!
😂😂 Indeed! Dadgum inconsiderate. Given that 98% of people (not just 2x2s) likely do not believe and do not plan on spending eternity in Venus, it's going to be a pretty lonely place. Having said that I think that 98% is too high, More like 99.98%. You might be sitting inside Venus waiting a long time for someone else to join you Nathan. After all it does say few there are that will be saved.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Sept 4, 2019 0:54:32 GMT -5
😂😂 Indeed! Dadgum inconsiderate. Given that 98% of people (not just 2x2s) likely do not believe and do not plan on spending eternity in Venus, it's going to be a pretty lonely place. Having said that I think that 98% is too high, More like 99.98%. You might be sitting inside Venus waiting a long time for someone else to join you Nathan. After all it does say few there are that will be saved. Did I say the believers will spend in Venus for ALL eternity? I think you are mistaken... Earth, Venus/old heaven the old Solar system will all be burned UP! melt with fervent heat sent by God (II Peter 3:9-13)
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
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 great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Then After the judgement day, God will create New earth and heaven where God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, all of the good angels and God's people from all nations gathered on the earth will dwell for eternity there. (Rev. chapters 21-22)
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 4, 2019 1:02:53 GMT -5
My understanding is that prior to the big bang time and space did not exist. If time and space did not exist then there is no room for any god type creators. We understand there was a big bang because of the expanding universe. If it is expanding then all that is needed is to wind the clock back to the beginning. That being about 13.8 billion years ago. I have been reading about parallel universes this week. Stephen Hawking mentions them. We do not know if they exist and if we did know we most likely could go round for a scone and a cuppa. There is also very faint microwaves still reverbating through the universe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2019 1:27:55 GMT -5
"I am not sure how to deal with what seems to be increasing attributional bias on your part."
ah huh - i have seen this trick before too. Soon after writing my Edit I decided it gave you too much of a hint at what other tricks I was referring to, so I logged in again while mine was still last post and modified the hint 2 hours ago. And your quote includes my old Edit in spite of being time stamped about an hour ago.
But I don't much care whether you have somehow set up a situation to make it look like I change my posts after you have quoted them.
It is obvious at this point that you have no intention of admitting other tricks than the three you have downplayed so far - so be it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2019 1:39:02 GMT -5
My understanding is that prior to the big bang time and space did not exist. If time and space did not exist then there is no room for any god type creators. We understand there was a big bang because of the expanding universe. If it is expanding then all that is needed is to wind the clock back to the beginning. That being about 13.8 billion years ago. I have been reading about parallel universes this week. Stephen Hawking mentions them. We do not know if they exist and if we did know we most likely could go round for a scone and a cuppa. There is also very faint microwaves still reverbating through the universe. I suppose your difficulty fitting God into space/time before He created space/time stems from your rather poor Bible knowledge - the Bible presents God as being BEYOND space/time - just as an artist is not part of any picture he paints. "We understand there was a big bang because of the expanding universe." Believers understand that God stretches out the universe just as the Bible says. "If it is expanding then all that is needed is to wind the clock back to the beginning." But you don't wind that clock back to the beginning - you wind it back to a Big Bang that had to have a preexisting "cos,ic egg" or "singularity" before there would be anything to go bang. Where did that "cosmic egg" come from when you admit that before that Big Bang there was no space/time. And it does seem very convenient to somehow attribute a date of 13.8 billion years when evolution would need that at least just to create one particle of physical existence - why not postulate a billion billion and surely random chance could create on particle of physical existence in that length of time just to wind back that clock to a causeless Big Bang. I think it would expend a lot less mental acrobatics to believe that God created it ALL 6000 years ago, which is supported by the continuing existence of just comets.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 4, 2019 1:52:14 GMT -5
My understanding is that prior to the big bang time and space did not exist. If time and space did not exist then there is no room for any god type creators. We understand there was a big bang because of the expanding universe. If it is expanding then all that is needed is to wind the clock back to the beginning. That being about 13.8 billion years ago. I have been reading about parallel universes this week. Stephen Hawking mentions them. We do not know if they exist and if we did know we most likely could go round for a scone and a cuppa. There is also very faint microwaves still reverbating through the universe. I suppose your difficulty fitting God into space/time before He created space/time stems from your rather poor Bible knowledge - the Bible presents God as being BEYOND space/time - just as an artist is not part of any picture he paints. I consigned my bible to the fiction section of the library but then biffed it as it was not even good fiction.
|
|