Right Divider
Body part
Don't get childish and dishonest. You don't have observations to support your beloved "big bang".... but you still call it "science".
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Creationists vs "Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists"
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
Don't get childish and dishonest. You don't have observations to support your beloved "big bang".... but you still call it "science".
Actually, we do have observational evidence for the Big Bang theory:
The earliest and most direct observational evidence of the validity of the theory are the expansion of the universe according to Hubble's law (as indicated by the redshifts of galaxies), discovery and measurement of the cosmic microwave background and the relative abundances of light elements produced by BBN. More recent evidence includes observations of galaxy formation and evolution, and the distribution of large-scale cosmic structures,[72] These are sometimes called the "four pillars" of the Big Bang theory.[73] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ba...ional_evidence
"Big bang" is science. It's the best science we have at the present time to explain the data. But like all science, it is subject to change when presented with new information. It isn't "doctrine" or "dogma."
Right Divider
Body part
It's funny that you do not understand the highly speculative nature of those "observations".
https://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang
Ironically, it was atheists who attacked the Big Bang theory earliest and most angrily. Easy to see why. It implies creation from nothing.
Creationists do a fine job of sitting on the sidelines and throwing mud at the scientific establishment. But shouldn't they should try to do something constructive for a change? Try expanding the boundaries of scientific knowledge, rather than shrinking it.
So you agree that the solar system has the appearance of ~4.5 billion years of age, and the universe has the appearance of ~13.8 billion years of age? Great, we're making progress!
Right Divider
Body part
The "scientific establishment" is well aware of the problems.
You cannot just sweep it under the rug.
:rotfl:
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Such childishness.
Why don't you try to answer the question?
How would the Creator create a huge universe with distance stars and light without some "appearance of age"?
Of course the scientific establishment is well aware of the problems in cosmology. In fact, YECs wouldn't even know anything about the problems in cosmology if the atheistic darwinialistical evolutionalists hadn't told us all about it.
How much "appearance of age" do you estimate the Creator created the solar system and the universe with?
Right Divider
Body part
You get funnier with every post.
- There are no problems in cosmology.
- There are many problems with the "big bang" cosmology.
- Both ADE's and YEC's know that there are problems with the "big bang" cosmology.
- The problems are with the bogus model and not with the cosmos itself.
- ADE's keep trying to put band-aid's on a dead body.
Right Divider
Body part
Answering a question with a question is NOT answering the question.
Just try to answer the question.
I'm trying to agree with you, but you don't seem to want to let me. The answer is obvious: The Creator DID create the universe with distant stars and light with "appearance of age." Specifically, He created the solar system with the appearance of ~4.5 billion years of age, and he created the universe with the appearance of ~13.8 billion years of age.
I just answered the question. How do you respond?
Right Divider
Body part
Begging the question is not an answer.
I'm not "begging the question," I'm begging you for an answer to the question, How much "appearance of age" do you estimate the Creator created the solar system and the universe with?
Right Divider
Body part
I'll wait for you to actually address the question.
I did address your question. I answered it in full. But you seem keen to avoid the question I asked you: How much "appearance of age" do you estimate the Creator created the solar system and the universe with? Why is that?
Right Divider
Body part
You can continue to claim that you answered, but you did not.
Here it is again for reference: How would the Creator create a huge universe with distance stars and light without some "appearance of age"?
He wouldn't. It's an inherent contradiction to say so. How could God create Adam without an "appearance of age?'' If God created Adam as a full-grown, adult male of say, 25 years of age, then Adam's "appearance of age" at the time he was created was "apparently" ~25 years.
Right Divider
Body part
Begging the question.... again.
No, it's not.
There is no way that God could create a HUGE universe where distant stars send light to earth without some "appearance of age".
Adam would appear to us to be "aged" and YET he was not... see the point yet?