You spend your time 'thinking' about looking for frog hairs on watermelons
-
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.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The theory of evolution and billions of years is not a science at all but anti-science.
It is theory of nothing because it fails to explain the origin of anything.
It just makes the same false assumptions all the time and uses circular reasoning all the time.
McBell
Unbound
Wait, are you claiming to be the theory of evolution?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
From nothing before the Big Bang to all matter and enedgy to chemicals that turned into the first living creature to that producing all living things and finally mankind.
Let me guess, it does not match your fake definition.
McBell
Unbound
You did not address the post your reply is in "response" to.
Care to try again?
Perhaps reading my post would help?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I did.
But you did not address my post
What caused the Big Bang?
What existed 1 trillion years before it?
McBell
Unbound
No, you did not.
You made the claim that evolution is:
theory of nothing because it fails to explain the origin of anything.
It just makes the same false assumptions all the time and uses circular reasoning all the time. post#262
Now since that is exactly all you have done; Fail to explain the origin of anything, make the same false assumptions all the time and use circular reasoning, it sounds like you are claiming to be the theory of evolution.
So I asked you if that is what you are claiming. post#263
Then you replied with:
From nothing before the Big Bang to all matter and enedgy to chemicals that turned into the first living creature to that producing all living things and finally mankind.
Let me guess, it does not match your fake definition. post#264
So no, you did not address what I posted in your reply to that post.
when is a black dog most likely to enter a white house?
Why isn't phonetic spelled the way it sounds?
How did a fool and his money get together?
What do they use to ship styrofoam?
If a book about failures doesn't sell, is it a success?
Does fuzzy logic tickle?
If a stealth bomber crashes in a forest, will it make a sound?
Would a fly without wings be called a walk?
Is it possible to be a closet claustrophobic?
If you can not refute these then evolution is the real toasted toads truth and creation is an epic fail.
Remember, no assumptions...
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
You have moved into the realm of childishness.
Please explain where all the DNA, RNA code came from and where all the proteins came from in all living creatures.
McBell
Unbound
Just trying to meet you at your level...
If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages?
Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?
If you're cross-eyed and have dyslexia, can you read all right?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
RIP BB
McBell
Unbound
You have fulfilled prophecy.
Specifically Jeremiah 14:14
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What more false accusations from you. But you have fulfilled Biblical prophecy over and over again. Your very thoughts do,
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. - 2 Tim 3:1-5
If you want fiction, look at those thinking the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. As an added bonus, you get tortured arguments and false science.
And a deity that has always existed does not. Nice avoidance.
The universe did NOT 'pop' into existence. On a grand scale, both space and time are part of the universe and it simply exists. On a smaller scene, there is no 'before' the universe (again, because time is part of the universe) and so there was no 'pop'.
Once again, we don't know that there *was* a cause. In all likelihood, there wasn't.
McBell
Unbound
*yawn*
gnostic
The Lost One
btw @SavedByTheLord, this…
Do you really want to bring up fiction, right here, right now?
What do think a large part of the Bible made of, SavedByTheLord?
They are stories, especially narratives from Adam to Solomon. They are myths, which are essentially fiction. They are not historical records, as there are no biblical texts or books existing prior to the 7th century BCE. Not even tiny fragments inscribed in clay or stone tablets or stone stele, nor are there any parchment or papyrus scroll, etc, not a single ones of them in the Bronze Age (c 3100 - c 1050 BCE). No texts contemporary to any of these characters.
if you are going to bring up sciences being work of fiction, then I would point to you that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samson, David & Solomon are all mythological characters, and there are no contemporary texts to each and every one of them that I have mentioned.
It is only some of the rulers of Israel and of Judah, that we get some contemporary & independent sources which verify the reigns of some of these kings, like from Assyris (Neo-Assyrian empire), because stone stelae and cylinders of Assyrian rulers have dealings with Israel or Judah.
But that‘s not to say the books of Kings being reliable. For instance, the Kings’ account about Solomon is a complete work of fiction, for examples there are no sign of his empire, no evidence vast military arsenals or that of his fable wealth. It is even doubtful that he built the temple in Jerusalem. The temple may have been built, but it certainly wasn’t by Solomon, and the only physical evidence of any temple, are those of Herod the Great (eg the Wailing Wall). So the books of the Kings aren’t reliable sources.
Even the gospels aren’t reliable, such as that of Jesus’ birth. I am not denying Jesus is a real person, but details of Mary’s pregnancy and Jesus’ birth are distorted by exaggeration that cannot be verified, 3 wise kings following a star, the massacre at Bethlehem, the host of angels. The only truth in the 2 conflicting Nativity stories, is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
you should think again, before pointing finger and declaring “fiction”, when the Bible is filled with fiction.
Do you really want to bring up fiction, right here, right now?
What do think a large part of the Bible made of, SavedByTheLord?
They are stories, especially narratives from Adam to Solomon. They are myths, which are essentially fiction. They are not historical records, as there are no biblical texts or books existing prior to the 7th century BCE. Not even tiny fragments inscribed in clay or stone tablets or stone stele, nor are there any parchment or papyrus scroll, etc, not a single ones of them in the Bronze Age (c 3100 - c 1050 BCE). No texts contemporary to any of these characters.
if you are going to bring up sciences being work of fiction, then I would point to you that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samson, David & Solomon are all mythological characters, and there are no contemporary texts to each and every one of them that I have mentioned.
It is only some of the rulers of Israel and of Judah, that we get some contemporary & independent sources which verify the reigns of some of these kings, like from Assyris (Neo-Assyrian empire), because stone stelae and cylinders of Assyrian rulers have dealings with Israel or Judah.
But that‘s not to say the books of Kings being reliable. For instance, the Kings’ account about Solomon is a complete work of fiction, for examples there are no sign of his empire, no evidence vast military arsenals or that of his fable wealth. It is even doubtful that he built the temple in Jerusalem. The temple may have been built, but it certainly wasn’t by Solomon, and the only physical evidence of any temple, are those of Herod the Great (eg the Wailing Wall). So the books of the Kings aren’t reliable sources.
Even the gospels aren’t reliable, such as that of Jesus’ birth. I am not denying Jesus is a real person, but details of Mary’s pregnancy and Jesus’ birth are distorted by exaggeration that cannot be verified, 3 wise kings following a star, the massacre at Bethlehem, the host of angels. The only truth in the 2 conflicting Nativity stories, is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
you should think again, before pointing finger and declaring “fiction”, when the Bible is filled with fiction.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Says who?
The Bible is the very word of God Almighty written by men inspired by God. It is also historical..
gnostic
The Lost One
That’s an assumption. A claim you cannot substantiate.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I proved it several times already.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Except where it gets its history wrong.
And it is scientific. Well except where it gets its science terribly wrong.
Ooh Ooh Oooh! And it is the book with the best morals in the world. Well, except from where it gets its morals amazingly wrong .
Yep, that's the good old Bible, totally reliable. I mean mostly reliable. Okay, somewhat reliable. Yep, except for all of the places where it is terribly wrong it is totally reliable.
QED
gnostic
The Lost One
the only things you have proven is that you are not good at using logic, and you are even worse with even the most basic of sciences.
plus, you lack integrity.