The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[IndigoChild5559]

@Subduction Zone really explained the Bible's view without realizing it.

I dont' read every post. I use my alert system, which informs me of who has replied to me, plus throwing in a few random posts that the software thinks I would enjoy. So I have no idea what Subduction Zone said about the Bible's view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're having a problem understanding language.usage because your reference actually confirms what the Bible says.

Don't be silly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone really explained the Bible's view without realizing it.

I doubt it. In what way?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But without God, abiogenesis is impossible.

1. doesn't follow; bare claim
2. irrelevant to evolution

And since there are living things, God must have created them.
End proof.

you mean "end bare claim"


Here's a similar "proof":

Without Ra, the sun doesn't come up.
The sun comes up.
Therefor Ra.
End proof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Kind of like Stephen Hawkins assertion that something came from nothing. No proof, no nothing.

The difference, off course, is that Hawkins doesn't just assert it from a faith based position, but actually proposes a mechanism to underpin the claim.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The difference, off course, is that Hawkins doesn't just assert it from a faith based position, but actually proposes a mechanism to underpin the claim.

But Hawkins used circular reasoning as John Lenox proved.
All evolutionists and billions of years people do.
That is just one of the reasons that they are so deceived.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But Hawkins used circular reasoning as John Lenox proved.
All evolutionists and billions of years people do.
That is just one of the reasons that they are so deceived.

What is the state of reasoning for repeating the same claims over and over that science is wrong and concluding that science is wrong, because the claims against science are repeated?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But Hawkins used circular reasoning as John Lenox proved.

No. And Lenox is a moron who thinks he can start with the answers before even asking the question. Like all creationist apologists do.

All evolutionists and billions of years people do.

No.

That is just one of the reasons that they are so deceived.

You keep telling yourself that.
It won't help your "arguments".

 

[ratiocinator]

But Hawkins used circular reasoning as John Lenox proved.
All evolutionists and billions of years people do.

Neither are based on circular reasoning. Your assertion that the KJV is the "word of god" on the other hand, seems to be entirely circular.

Exodus 20:16
Matthew 7:5

 

[Esteban X]

But Hawkins used circular reasoning as John Lenox proved.
All evolutionists and billions of years people do.
That is just one of the reasons that they are so deceived.

Are we talking about Stephen HawkinG, or is this actually a physicist named Hawkins we're talking about? It's rather confusing to me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are we talking about Stephen HawkinG, or is this actually a physicist named Hawkins we're talking about? It's rather confusing to me.

Interesting that this misnaming keeps happening among those that believe they have divine knowledge and understanding behind their rejection of science.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Are we talking about Stephen HawkinG, or is this actually a physicist named Hawkins we're talking about? It's rather confusing to me.

Sorry.
Yes Stephen Hawking.

HawkinG used circular reasoning as John Lenox proved.
All evolutionists and billions of years people do.
That is just one of the reasons that they are so deceived.

 

[YoursTrue]

I dont' read every post. I use my alert system, which informs me of who has replied to me, plus throwing in a few random posts that the software thinks I would enjoy. So I have no idea what Subduction Zone said about the Bible's view.

To a large extent, he shares your view -- @Subduction Zone

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry.
Yes Stephen Hawking.

HawkinG used circular reasoning as John Lenox proved.
All evolutionists and billions of years people do.
That is just one of the reasons that they are so deceived.

Is that a proof or just Lenox's argument or claim? Is proof just really what you want and you claim it is proof, when it is not?

Who really is arguing in circles?

Aren't you just breaking your own rules and arguing personal views as assumed?

 

[ratiocinator]

HawkinG used circular reasoning as John Lenox proved.

[Citation missing]

 

[SavedByTheLord]

[Citation missing]

John Lennox Quote

What (Stephen) Hawking says in his book The Grand Design is the universe exists because it needed to exist, and because it needed to exist, it therefore created itself. His conclusion merely restates his premise, which means his argument is circular. Nonsense is nonsense, even when spoken by...

www.azquotes.com

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry.
Yes Stephen Hawking.

HawkinG used circular reasoning as John Lenox proved.
All evolutionists and billions of years people do.
That is just one of the reasons that they are so deceived.

Yes. @Esteban X also-- Dr. Hawking (sorry about leaving out the final g) figured and said that the universe could start out from nothing. Zilch. Nothing. He said something can come from -- zero. nothing. And who knows? Since the universe was created by God -- I wasn't there at the beginning. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." So when people want to postulate and make theories, they don't know but they keep talking...
Dr. Hawking said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Better yet, create itself from nothing. Vocabulary can't really do the job well. Back to gorillas again. They don't publish treatises, books, or have doctorate degrees.
So, in other words according to Dr. Hawking, gravity existed (lol) before the universe he figured, and so the universe, he postulated, spontaneously combusted from -- zilch. Or gravity, lol. (Sorry I can't help laughing sometimes.) So gravity EXISTED before the universe "spontaneously combusted" from zilch, of course, or, per Dr. Hawking offers, gravity. Yup, it's fascinating but not that fascinating.. Poor Dr. Hawking -- so sick -- and cherished no hope of ever getting better poor guy. Judgment is up to God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Is that a proof or just Lenox's argument or claim? Is proof just really what you want and you claim it is proof, when it is not?

Who really is arguing in circles?

Aren't you just breaking your own rules and arguing personal views as assumed?

Just reciting Dr. Hawking's views. Why not?

 

[ratiocinator]

John Lennox Quote

What (Stephen) Hawking says in his book The Grand Design is the universe exists because it needed to exist, and because it needed to exist, it therefore created itself. His conclusion merely restates his premise, which means his argument is circular. Nonsense is nonsense, even when spoken by...

www.azquotes.com

That's just somebody else (who's a bit of a fool from what I've seen of him) making a claim without a reference. I read The Grand Design more than a decade ago and I don't recall anything like this being said in it.

 

[YoursTrue]

John Lennox Quote

What (Stephen) Hawking says in his book The Grand Design is the universe exists because it needed to exist, and because it needed to exist, it therefore created itself. His conclusion merely restates his premise, which means his argument is circular. Nonsense is nonsense, even when spoken by...

www.azquotes.com

He said the universe "needed to exist"? I love it...lol again...