• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Big Bang Theory is dead.

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
There is no "official dogma". And the answer is

"We don't know yet". Do you think that is a problem somehow? Why would you think that if you do?
After all this the all knowing ones who actually teach their theories as fact, do not have an answer to such a simple question.
What existed a trillion years before the Big Bang?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
After all this the all knowing ones who actually teach their theories as fact, do not have an answer to such a simple question.
What existed a trillion years before the Big Bang?
Parts of theories are facts. There is nothing wrong with that. For example the theory of evolution has been tested and confirmed millions of times. There is no scientific evidence for any competing idea, therefore it is considered a fact. In the sciences even "facts" are not sacrosanct. One has to keep an open mind. That is why people continue to test and confirm the theory of evolution.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Parts of theories are facts. There is nothing wrong with that. For example the theory of evolution has been tested and confirmed millions of times. There is no scientific evidence for any competing idea, therefore it is considered a fact. In the sciences even "facts" are not sacrosanct. One has to keep an open mind. That is why people continue to test and confirm the theory of evolution.
Baloney.
You are only fooling yourselves.
There is no evolution without a first living creature, which is impossible.
I have proved that several times and no one has refuted that.
The rest of evolution is garbage. You have yet to show one created kind changing into another kind or how such would even happen.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Baloney.
You are only fooling yourselves.
There is no evolution without a first living creature, which is impossible.
I have proved that several times and no one has refuted that.
The rest of evolution is garbage. You have yet to show one created kind changing into another kind or how such would even happen.
You keep making that claim, but you have never supported it. So why would anyone believe you.

And it seems that you do not listen very well. Evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis.

And please do not claim to have proven anything, when you have not.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
You keep making that claim, but you have never supported it. So why would anyone believe you.

And it seems that you do not listen very well. Evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis.

And please do not claim to have proven anything, when you have not.
Evolutionists are always trying to run and hide from that nonsense.
Life cannot exist without the Almighty God the Crestor.
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Baloney.
You are only fooling yourselves.
There is no evolution without a first living creature, which is impossible.
I have proved that several times and no one has refuted that.
The rest of evolution is garbage. You have yet to show one created kind changing into another kind or how such would even happen.
um...
If the first creature is as impossible as you say, then how are we all here?
You have not proven it even once and your bold empty claims have been refuted to many times to count.
You keep making the bold empty claim that evolution is garbage, but you do not support said claim with anything more than bold empty claims.
Can you even define "kind" meaningfully?
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Do I need to link to the Moderator post warning you, by name, to list your beliefs as beliefs and not as facts??
I believe what I believe but have already proven them so now they are facts.
what do you believe and what are the facts according to what you believe.
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
I believe what I believe but have already proven them so now they are facts.
what do you believe and what are the facts according to what you believe.
I know you will have a difficult time understanding this, but you have not proven your beliefs as facts.

How about we flat out ask the Moderators what they think?
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
I know you will have a difficult time understanding this, but you have not proven your beliefs as facts.

How about we flat out ask the Moderators what they think?
Why are you trying to find help?
I have told you want I believe and have proven that assumption, so again your assessment is not true.
 
Top