Apostasy Rising: 4 Denominations In Less Than A Week Defy God's Word

MMurphy said:
But that's the thing mitspa, it isn't a religion because it has empirical evidence to support it. We don't yet know what caused it and most who hate the theory do so exactly because it supports theism.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence and its not science, this theory is rejected more and more everyday by real scientist,,,its history!
 
Mitspa said:
There is no evidence and its not science, this theory is rejected more and more everyday by real scientist,,,its history!
Click to expand...
No it isn't. Exodus International was the biggest "Ex-gay" organization in the world. They shut their doors in disgrace and the founder apologized to all gay and lesbian people.
 
Mitspa said:
There is no evidence and its not science, this theory is rejected more and more everyday by real scientist,,,its history!
Click to expand...
Mitspa, I imagine you like a little child stomping his feat everytime someone disagrees with him.

Red shift and Cosmic background radiation are both key pieces of evidence to the theory, and thus far contrary theories have not obtained parallel evidence to support themselves.
 
MMurphy said:
How have I been refuting the Bible?
Click to expand...
Do you believe God created the universe?

The big bang fits perfectly into the creation story. Even so, if I listened to the whole thing I wouldn't have as much time to propagate false science :)
Click to expand...
That is your choice. You don't get do-overs in how you choose to spend your life's time. :)



Your absolutely right as to self-life on theories, however, theories are a group of consolidated facts and well-tested hypotheses, and untested hypotheses. The notion that the universe has an origin (i.e. the Big Bang) would most likely be considered a fact, at least since the discovery of Cosmic Background Radiation. What caused the big bang theory is not substantiated. What Mitspa is trying to say is that because the theory doesn't explain what caused the big bang is that means the whole theory is wrong, and that's simply not good logic.
Click to expand...
I would respectfully afford the observation that good logic does not propagate the theory that all that exists resulted from a huge bang that detonated out of nothing, due to nothing, in order to create all things.

If the Big Bang is substantiated then what properties existed so as to go BANG? And where did they come from? And what made them go BANG in the first place?


Meta Research: The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang



(2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

The expression “the temperature of space” is the title of chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, [[4]] Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K [[5]]), essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature. A similar calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy light. [[6]] So the intergalactic matter is like a “fog”, and would therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum.


Such a fog also explains the otherwise troublesome ratio of infrared to radio intensities of radio galaxies. [[7]] The amount of radiation emitted by distant galaxies falls with increasing wavelengths, as expected if the longer wavelengths are scattered by the intergalactic medium. For example, the brightness ratio of radio galaxies at infrared and radio wavelengths changes with distance in a way which implies absorption. Basically, this means that the longer wavelengths are more easily absorbed by material between the galaxies. But then the microwave radiation (between the two wavelengths) should be absorbed by that medium too, and has no chance to reach us from such great distances, or to remain perfectly uniform while doing so. It must instead result from the radiation of microwaves from the intergalactic medium. This argument alone implies that the microwaves could not be coming directly to us from a distance beyond all the galaxies, and therefore that the Big Bang theory cannot be correct.


None of the predictions of the background temperature based on the Big Bang were close enough to qualify as successes, the worst being Gamow’s upward-revised estimate of 50°K made in 1961, just two years before the actual discovery. Clearly, without a realistic quantitative prediction, the Big Bang’s hypothetical “fireball” becomes indistinguishable from the natural minimum temperature of all cold matter in space. But none of the predictions, which ranged between 5°K and 50°K, matched observations. [[8]] And the Big Bang offers no explanation for the kind of intensity variations with wavelength seen in radio galaxies.
Click to expand...
 
Scripture Bird said:
Do you believe God created the universe?

That is your choice. You don't get do-overs in how you choose to spend your life's time. :)




I would respectfully afford the observation that good logic does not propagate the theory that all that exists resulted from a huge bang that detonated out of nothing, due to nothing, in order to create all things.

If the Big Bang is substantiated then what properties existed so as to go BANG? And where did they come from? And what made them go BANG in the first place?


Meta Research: The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
Click to expand...
Of course I believe God created the universe. And I think that big bang is the observation we have of that creation. It is within God's character to create the universe in a big bang.
 
So it was God that went "BANG". ;)


*points at self* Realizing that visual just helped every atheistic evolutionist reading these forums to drop their coffee. :p So sowy. :LOL:
 
I've never understood the opposition to the big bang. It proves that there was a beginning which, in my opinion makes it much more likely for there to be a creator. I think a lot of Christians are just opposed to all science for no real reason. Ignorance, maybe.
 
Huntingteckel said:
I've never understood the opposition to the big bang. It proves that there was a beginning which, in my opinion makes it much more likely for there to be a creator. I think a lot of Christians are just opposed to all science for no real reason. Ignorance, maybe.
Click to expand...
There is a tendency to dislike or distrust anything not mentioned in the Bible by some Christians. I don't understand it either; you are not alone.
 
Huntingteckel said:
I've never understood the opposition to the big bang. It proves that there was a beginning which, in my opinion makes it much more likely for there to be a creator. I think a lot of Christians are just opposed to all science for no real reason. Ignorance, maybe.
Click to expand...
I think some people think it makes them holy to attack academia because it isn't bound to a narrow interpretation of scripture and makes them challenge their beliefs.

The only thing I've really heard here is mitspa shouting that there is no evidence, then when I tell him the evidence he ignores it and then shouts again that it isn't scientific. We've done this 3 or 4 times already.
 
Job_26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?
Job_40:9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?

Is there a sound after a "bang"?
Does not God's voice thunder when he speaks?
 
Huntingteckel said:
I've never understood the opposition to the big bang. It proves that there was a beginning which, in my opinion makes it much more likely for there to be a creator. I think a lot of Christians are just opposed to all science for no real reason. Ignorance, maybe.
Click to expand...
I think the concern arrives in those Christians who express doubt about the theory of Big Bang, when Big Bang itself is presented on a platform that is antithetical to Genesis.
People can say, well the Big Bang is just God creating. But the actual Big Bang Cosmology theory doesn't say that. In fact it is atheistic in origin.
It only becomes a matter of theist ideology when certain Christians elect to incorporate it into their religiosity.
 
Huntingteckel said:
I've never understood the opposition to the big bang. It proves that there was a beginning which, in my opinion makes it much more likely for there to be a creator. I think a lot of Christians are just opposed to all science for no real reason. Ignorance, maybe.
Click to expand...
maybe folks dont believe that nothing can blow up and make everything...and the leading scientist in the world agree that this theory is just a bunch of made-up and unscientific nonsense. Watch the video that proves this. I wonder why folks will believe any silly story if someone tells them its science?
 
Scripture Bird said:
I think the concern arrives in those Christians who express doubt about the theory of Big Bang, when Big Bang itself is presented on a platform that is antithetical to Genesis.
People can say, well the Big Bang is just God creating. But the actual Big Bang Cosmology theory doesn't say that. In fact it is atheistic in origin.
It only becomes a matter of theist ideology when certain Christians elect to incorporate it into their religiosity.
Click to expand...
Atheists are always going to say that everything scientists come up with excludes God, but we know better than that. If science proves something is true then why argue with it if we know God did it?

Mitspa said:
maybe folks dont believe that nothing can blow up and make everything...and the leading scientist in the world agree that this theory is just a bunch of made-up and unscientific nonsense. Watch the video that proves this. I wonder why folks will believe any silly story if someone tells them its science?
Click to expand...

Leading scientists? You mean the leading Christian scientists that butcher science because they hate it, right? I never trust "Christian Scientists."
 
Huntingteckel said:
Atheists are always going to say that everything scientists come up with excludes God, but we know better than that. If science proves something is true then why argue with it if we know God did it?
Click to expand...
However, with regard to the Big Bang Cosmological Theory, science hasn't proven it is true. It is theoretical.
And very often science attempts to 'prove' something while extracting God from their equation. If someone is a Christian they can not agree that science proves something is true, without God in the equation. And to just believe science proves it is true without God, while we know God is responsible, is just a cop out.
 
Huntingteckel said:
Atheists are always going to say that everything scientists come up with excludes God, but we know better than that. If science proves something is true then why argue with it if we know God did it?



Leading scientists? You mean the leading Christian scientists that butcher science because they hate it, right? I never trust "Christian Scientists."
Click to expand...
Christian scientists is actually a denomination. Haha They believe in the power of prayer to heal and generally refuse medicine, and their attendence is somewhat dwindiling.
 
Scripture Bird said:
However, with regard to the Big Bang Cosmological Theory, science hasn't proven it is true. It is theoretical.
And very often science attempts to 'prove' something while extracting God from their equation. If someone is a Christian they can not agree that science proves something is true, without God in the equation. And to just believe science proves it is true without God, while we know God is responsible, is just a cop out.
Click to expand...
ScriptureBird, it comes down to whether or not you think that you can "test" for God, which the Bible strictly prohibits. You cannot test for God. So when we learn something from scientific experimentation, we rely on the rules that God has created, but we cannot prove God created them. Thus when it comes to the big bang theory, it is a "proven" theory inasmuch as it can be showed through observation that the universe has an origin. And thus far no other theory has been proven with more conclusive evidence, thus it is the "prevailing" theory.

In any case the scientific method is structured on the basis that you cannot "prove" anything, you can only "disprove" it. Though in practice this tends to not be how we think of it, when a hypothesis has been confirmed enough time to be effectively unchallenged we consider it to be a "fact" but this is still different from truth, it is sort of our best representation of the truth.
 
Huntingteckel said:
Atheists are always going to say that everything scientists come up with excludes God, but we know better than that. If science proves something is true then why argue with it if we know God did it?



Leading scientists? You mean the leading Christian scientists that butcher science because they hate it, right? I never trust "Christian Scientists."
Click to expand...
No the most respected sceintist in the field reject that there is any credible evidence for this theory...this theory is defeated and everyone who understands these things knows it..watch the video post #106 I believe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top