The Bible

[betsy]

Answered here: http://www.mapleleaf...845#entry858319 and here: http://www.mapleleaf...830#entry857956 and here: http://www.mapleleaf...785#entry856863

You've avoided answering this several times now: http://www.mapleleaf...860#entry858330

If you do not wish to answer it, that's fine, just let me know. If my question or points require clarification, just ask and I will provide it.

You can quote all you want....and I'm telling you, you didn't address the question. Perhaps you didn't understand why I'm asking you the question. I'm simply responding to your own post. Read my posts again.

Edited December 2, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

You can quote all you want....and I'm telling you, you didn't address the question. Perhaps you didn't understand why I'm asking you the question. I'm simply responding to your own post. Read my posts again.

Try saying why it doesn't address the question.

[betsy]

Try saying why it doesn't address the question.

Well, if you can't understand why....you're on your own. Go back and re-read. Focus. Concentrate and try to understand.

I'm not going to spell it all out for you.....do your homework. If you don't get it, you don't get it. What can I say?

Edited December 3, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

I just want to share this quote from C.S. Lewis:

One must keep on pointing out that Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important.

[Sleipnir]

Well, if you can't understand why....you're on your own. Go back and re-read. Focus. Concentrate and try to understand.

I'm not going to spell it all out for you.....do your homework. If you don't get it, you don't get it. What can I say?

One must not dismiss a statement without saying why the said statement fails to hold up against the original statement.

[jbg]

READ YOUR OWN ARTICLE! It says:

Read my question.

Did anyone ever observe how something (Big Bang) came from nothing?

This thread is beyond infantile.

[cybercoma]

Well, if you can't understand why....you're on your own. Go back and re-read. Focus. Concentrate and try to understand.

I'm not going to spell it all out for you.....do your homework. If you don't get it, you don't get it. What can I say?

Wow. He answers your question over and over. Then you say he hasn't answered it, but refuse to say why. Grow up.

[cybercoma]

This thread is beyond infantile.

Not the thread....

[Mighty AC]

Betsy's ignorance of the science she is attacking makes it very hard to know what she is talking about. So Slippy hasn't addressed Betsy's question. He has focused on the evidence for the Big Bang, even providing the same link I listed. However, that's not what she is asking about.

Betsy seems to think the Big Bang theory claims the universe formed from nothing. Of course it doesn't... This theory starts with an immensely dense singularity...it does not attempt a guess at the formation of that matter. Everything after that singularity is pretty well supported, and I doubt even Betsy disputes it.

However, her asinine question is "Did anyone ever observe how something (Big Bang) came from nothing?".... That is pre Big Bang talk. Betsy may think that is part of the Big Bang theory, so maybe that is why she isn't aware that her question had been answered several freakin' times. Though this is like trying to explain multiplication to a 2 year old let's try again. The Big Bang starts at an immensely dense singularity, prior to that we don't know what was going on. Some people claim a magical being created the matter, but that just adds more complicated questions. Like, what created this omnipotent fairy hating, fairy? If you are dumb enough to claim this aparition always existed, then an infinite string of finite universes preceded this one, collapsed in big crunches and then led to this one. See how BS speculation supported by nothing is useless Betsty?!

Your question has been answered over and over. Now answer this: http://www.mapleleaf...860#entry858330

[Sleipnir]

Betsy's ignorance of the science she is attacking makes it very hard to know what she is talking about. So Slippy hasn't addressed Betsy's question. He has focused on the evidence for the Big Bang, even providing the same link I listed. However, that's not what she is asking about.

She was asking the wrong question, she wanted to know how we humans know about the phenomenon of the big bang. She asked by asking a fallacy that either 'yes' or 'no' answer would prove her point without addressing the point.

The point, how we know about the big bang - because of physcis, not through actual observing of the big bang itself.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Bonam]

She was asking the wrong question, she wanted to know how we humans know about the phenomenon of the big bang. She asked by asking a fallacy that either 'yes' or 'no' answer would prove her point without addressing the point.

The point, how we know about the big bang - because of physcis, not through actual observing of the big bang itself.

We are also getting a lot closer to actually looking at the big bang itself, however. While we exist 13.7 billion years after the formation of the universe, telescopes are now able to image events that happened only a few hundred million years after the big bang. Further, particle accelerators are able re-create the conditions that existed just seconds after the big bang. As our technology progresses, we obtain more and more real empirical data of events ever closer to the time of the big bang.

[Mighty AC]

She was asking the wrong question, she wanted to know how we humans know about the phenomenon of the big bang. She asked by asking a fallacy that either 'yes' or 'no' answer would prove her point without addressing the point.

The point, how we know about the big bang - because of physcis, not through actual observing of the big bang itself.

That's your interpretation of the question Betsy is asking; but, I'm suggesting that you're off the mark. It's hard to know for sure because Betsy doesn't really understand what she is arguing against, hence, solidifying her reasoning is like nailing Jello to the wall.

I think she is asking about what we know about pre-Big Bang conditions. Which is nothing, In her mind that gives believers an advantage....but that's because they don't subscribe to reason. In her mind making wild unsuported claims is somehow a more confident stance than being honest and claiming we do not know yet.

Claiming an ever present, magic, creator formed this universe leads to more questions than answers....but that is very hard for them to see.

[Mighty AC]

Betsy, I have answered your questions but you have avoided mine. Please read the points below and answer my question.

1) We do not know what preceded the Big Bang, but the Big Bang itself is a theory supported by everything we have observed and tested about the universe. If you are interested, this article explains (in layman's terms) how we know the universe is expanding, cooling, almost completely made of hydrogen and helium, etc.

2) All other theories are not simply "assumptions" because we do not know what preceded the Big Bang. For example, the Cell Theory and the Theory of Gravity still hold true on earth even if we didn't know how the earth was formed. Example: A pedestrian is hit by a car, we have skid marks, dents, blood, a body, and eye witness accounts. This fact does not become an assumption if we do not know where the car was manufactured.

3) Evolution, including speciation events have been observed, tested and confirmed. I have provided you with a link that documents the formation of a new species of salamander. The intermediate populations still exist and the lineage and direction of evolution has been confirmed with morphological, protein and DNA evidence.

4) You believe in evolution "within kinds". I provided a detailed examination of the use of "kind" in the bible which concluded: "There is no Biblical support for the assertion that genetic information cannot be gained, nor for any 'change barrier' that restricts how far a 'kind' may evolve."

5) You stated that scientific evidence is what changes a biblical passage from true to allegorical. In this case I have provided scientific evidence of a speciation event and have also shown that there is no biblical support for your position.

How do you support your position that 'barriers' limit evolutionary changes to 'kinds'?

[Sleipnir]

That's your interpretation of the question Betsy is asking; but, I'm suggesting that you're off the mark.

If you've been paying attention to betsy's style of arguing you would know exactly what she's asking. She's asking if anyone observed how the big bang came from nothing. Her past argument is that science is based solely on observations and experiments, to suggest otherwise would be based on personal opinion - that is not true. So her question can be translated as 'how do we know?' to avoid her fallacy.

I've given her information on how we know the phenomenon of the big bang, but of course - she refused to acknowledge the info.

I think she is asking about what we know about pre-Big Bang conditions.

That's your interpretation of the question Betsy is asking; but, I'm suggesting that you're off the mark.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Sleipnir

[betsy]

Betsy's ignorance of the science she is attacking makes it very hard to know what she is talking about. So Slippy hasn't addressed Betsy's question. He has focused on the evidence for the Big Bang, even providing the same link I listed. However, that's not what she is asking about.

Betsy seems to think the Big Bang theory claims the universe formed from nothing. Of course it doesn't... This theory starts with an immensely dense singularity...it does not attempt a guess at the formation of that matter. Everything after that singularity is pretty well supported, and I doubt even Betsy disputes it.

However, her asinine question is "Did anyone ever observe how something (Big Bang) came from nothing?".... That is pre Big Bang talk. Betsy may think that is part of the Big Bang theory, so maybe that is why she isn't aware that her question had been answered several freakin' times. Though this is like trying to explain multiplication to a 2 year old let's try again. The Big Bang starts at an immensely dense singularity, prior to that we don't know what was going on. Some people claim a magical being created the matter, but that just adds more complicated questions. Like, what created this omnipotent fairy hating, fairy? If you are dumb enough to claim this aparition always existed, then an infinite string of finite universes preceded this one, collapsed in big crunches and then led to this one. See how BS speculation supported by nothing is useless Betsty?!

Your question has been answered over and over. Now answer this: http://www.mapleleaf...860#entry858330

Saying you don't know what preceded and proceeded the Big bang is not the issue. We are talking about the Big Bang. IN other words.....

WAS THERE A BIG BANG?

Here, in a nutshell.

I say the Big bang is simply an assumption. You believe the Big bang is a fact. You cite science to back up your claim. Science uses Observation and testing to discover and to prove.

Science says:

We can define the universe as everything there is, so in that case there is nothing outside of it. We also say that space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=364

So we know that science thinks there's nothing before the Big Bang.

Therefore I ask:

Did anyone ever observe something coming out of nothing?

[betsy]

MightyAC

The Big Bang starts at an immensely dense singularity.

You're talking spacetime singularity or gravitational singularity?

That doesn't answer the question! NOTHING does not mean, "space."

According to science, Space was started along with the Big Bang!

Nothing means nothing.

Edited December 3, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

According to science, Space was started along with the Big Bang!

So you agree that the big bang occurred, what are you asking now?

[Mighty AC]

That's your interpretation of the question Betsy is asking; but, I'm suggesting that you're off the mark.

Hmmm...turns out you were right. Since, the evidence for the Big Bang has been explained and provided several times and Betsy was still stuck on the same question, I assumed we must have missed the point. What a waste of time this is.

[Mighty AC]

You're talking spacetime singularity or gravitational singularity?

That doesn't answer the question! NOTHING does not mean, "space."

According to science, Space was started along with the Big Bang!

Nothing means nothing.

Why do you think there was nothing prior to the current universe we inhabit? Why do you think this is the only universe?

[cybercoma]

Did anyone ever observe something coming out of nothing?

Did anyone observe God create something out of nothing?

[Sleipnir]

Did anyone observe God create something out of nothing?

As if she'll answer that...

[Sleipnir]

WAS THERE A BIG BANG?

Yes, read the source I provided.

I don't see the purpose repeating the same thing 35 times with answers being provided for each of those 35 times.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Sleipnir

[betsy]

Why do you think there was nothing prior to the current universe we inhabit? Why do you think this is the only universe?

So you're not that sold anymore on the Big Bang assumption, I see.

About a century ago, science assumed the universe had always existed. That was the assumption.

What a bummer when they found out it had a beginning.

Strange how that discovery supported the Bible (again). Genesis said there was a beginning! The very first sentence of Genesis described that.

GENESIS 1

The Beginning

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Amen.

Edited December 4, 2012 by betsy

[Guest]

Who wrote that, and how did she know?

[Mighty AC]

So you're not that sold anymore on the Big Bang assumption, I see.

No, I still think this universe began with the Big Bang; but why do you think there was nothing before this universe? Couldn't there be previous and other universes?