davidm

Except that this is false. There is a mountain of evidence for the Big Bang. The Six-Day creation cannot even be considered; it has been ruled out by the evidence.

None of this is a matter of belief.

4God

Steven

Perhaps I have been too liberal in my explanations. With respect to women...by stating that women are believed implies that generally they weren't...but let me go further by citing this reference.


Just ask a Jewish historian and he'll/she'll state the same.

Thallus work...no longer exists..it did at one time..but does no longer...George Washington existed...but does no longer...so I do not see your point.

..ask christians for evidence and they say here's some non-existent evidence..believe it or not....

LOL

What I am saying is, based upon evidence I have presented a reasonable person, like myself can draw the conclusions that I have. Ant further, place us in a vacuum and meld our experiences and independent evidence, i'm willing to argue that you would draw the same conclusions that I have.

4God

the difficult part of big bang for me is the "for no apparent reason" b/c then things just happen...to me that's anti-scientific. but that's for another day.

.....but just so you know there are many strains to the origin of the universe and big bang is not fact.


From origin-of-the-universe.com
==========================
Origin of the Universe - The Big Bang Theory
So began the effort to purpose an atheistic mechanism for the origin of the universe. Enter the Big Bang Theory and Darwinian Evolution. The original Big Bang Theory seeks to explain the sudden appearance of everything from nothing, while Darwinian Evolution seeks to explain the origin of complex life forms from their supposed simpler ancestors. The premise of the Big Bang is that the entire universe was compacted into a teeny tiny little ball, which, after randomly coming into existence for no apparent reason in the first place, exploded into all space, time, matter and energy in an instant. Yes, that's the theory. No Ph.D. required.

Origin of the Universe - The Inflation Universe Theories
The Big Bang Theory provided an atheistic explanation for the origin of the universe, but its obvious simplicity was subject to multiple attacks. As a result, the original theory is no longer the dominant scientific explanation for the atheistic origin of the universe. While the original Big Bang Theory is now "dead," from its ashes have emerged the various Inflationary Universe Theories (IUTs). Starting with Alan Guth in the late 1990's (The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins), the scientific community has now proposed roughly 50 different IUT variants. Scientists hope that one of the current IUTs will sire an accurate reconstruction of the birth of our universe, though it is universally acknowledged that all of the current IUTs have their problems. It seems the only way to get realistic calculations to match an IUT model is to make assumptions that are poorly justified.

King Rat

Let me get this straight.

You have more of problem with the universe "randomly coming into existence" than a omnibenevolent/omnimalevolent sky-god poofing it into existence by uttering a word?

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry...

davidm

If you want to debate the details of the Big Bang, Science and Skepticism is the place to do it.

Just a couple of points:

There is no "atheistic" science. Science is all about finding natural explanations for the natural world. It does not address "supernatural" claims.

The inflationary big bang model is well supported by the evidence, increasingly so in recent years.

There is no evidence for a Six-Day creation. What's more, the Six-Day creation is actively ruled out by the evidence.

Random, uncaused events occur all the time in the universe. See quantum physics.

When you say, "Big Bang is not a fact," you must keep in mind that science cannot provide an incontrovertible proof for anything at all. Nor does it claim to be able to do that. The inflationary Big Bang model best fits the available evidence. If new evidence comes along that does not fit with the Big Bang, then the Big Bang theory will be revised or discarded. However, this would provide no support for Six-Day Creation, which has already been ruled out by the evidence.

variant 13

First you have presented very little evidence, but that has been pointed out before.

Second point, the melding of experience and evidence would lead to us drawing the same conclusions:

Go right ahead............

Steven Carr

Thallus may well have existed, possibly in the first century BC, as we are told he wrote up to 109 BC. That does not make him a witness.

And let ME quote the actual Biblical reference you did not :-
Luke 24:11But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.

Note carefully. Not because they were women, but because their words seemed like nonsense. It had nothing to do with their gender.

And you have yet to explain why John 4:39 states that women's testimony was considered believable. You keep stating that women's testimony was NOT credible, contradicting the Gospel writers, who gave examples of people not realising they were meant to despise women's testimony. Perhaps these Samaritans just did not know what culture they were living in.....

And , of course, it is just one of the many, manyabsurdities of the Bible that the women's words seemed like nonsense.

Consider Matt. 20:17-19.

And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart, and on the way he said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify: and the third day he shall be raised up



I shall quote Farrell Till.


In view of what Jesus said in the last passage cited above, the postcrucifixion conduct of the apostles is almost impossible to understand.

On the way to Jerusalem, he took them aside, told them that he would be
(1) delivered up to the chief priests and scribes,
(2) condemned to death,
(3) delivered to the Gentiles to be mocked,
(4) scoured,
(5) crucified, and
(6) raised on the third day.

After their arrival in Jerusalem, the apostles saw Jesus
(1) delivered up to the chief priests and scribes,
(2) condemned to death,
(3) delivered to the Gentiles and mocked,
(4) scoured, and
(5) crucified,
yet somehow, after personally witnessing these five specific fulfillments of Jesus's statement, they didn't expect him to be resurrected.



Why? One would think that if Jesus had really told them to expect all of these things, after witnessing the precise fulfillment of the first five of his predictions, they would have surely expected at least a possibility of the sixth.

So rather than the women's having to run to tell the apostles about the empty tomb they had found, one would think that the apostles would have been on the scene themselves that third-day morning at least waiting to see if Jesus would come forth.

I have to agree with Till. Where were the disciples?

How could their Saviour predict so many times what would happen, back up his claims with miracles, and yet the women's seemed to them to be like nonsense, although it was no more than what the man theu had been following for 3 years had prophesied WOULD happen.

And you expect reasonable people to buy this?

Steven Carr

You have to love the web site 4God quotes.
It claims 'They guess how long it would take for one kind of life to evolve into another kind of life and then date the fossils and rocks accordingly.'


It also claims :-

' In addition, human remains have been found buried with dinosaur remains on more than one occasion. It may be that man hunted dinosaurs to extinction.'


Lying for God?

Did man really hunt T.Rex?

MsChutzpah

Sorry, but I can't take anyone serious when they make references to:

"atheistic" origin
"atheistic" science
"atheistic" mechanism

:banghead:

4God

Steven. Here's what I am saying.

a.)women in Jewish culture at the time were not generally believed.
b.)Each gospel purports they found Jesus' tomb.

Therefore regardless of the fact of whether or not the disciples found them credible, at first or not...the fact remains that each author described the situation as it in fact happened...not taking pains to list contrawise.

I'm talking about the context of the people that wrote these words, not the disciples reaction to it.

The website claims alot and backs it with much evidence....


My friend...your Matthew reference is almost an explanation of your current perspective.

Here we have 12(11 sans Judas) people who have walked with and seen the miracles of Jesus for three years, and yet in spite of the fact that he told them exactly what would happen....they could not grasp it....If you're going to site Matthew please don't leave out.....Matt 26:31-35. Jesus told the disciples that they were going to desert him.

Now why would these guys do this to the Son of God whom they also claimed as such. Jews of the day thought a Messiah would come and deliver them from Roman rule...they thought it would be a return to their own kingdom and kings. Jesus toppled that idea and as with you, they couldn't see the forest through the trees. For them, death was the end, they had no observable evidence to believe that after Jesus died their situation would change. Yes, Jesus had raised more than one person from the dead, but if you are aware of the promises contained within the prophets, you'd also be aware of what a high call it is to be the Messiah. Sadly, many Jews to this day reject Jesus as He did not fit the mold they were expecting in the Messiah.

Therefore, it stands to reason that they would desert Him, and why it would logically progress that way. So I disagree with Till.

Again, what you also fail to mention is, that after Jesus is resurrected He speaks with Peter about the situation....so if you bring up a situation in the Bible...you certainly need to carry out the story to its completion.