Science agree with the Bible: The Universe had a beginning (Jastrow,John Gribbins,Francis Crick)
Joseki
Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
beginning. One prominent theory that attempts to describe this
beginning is known as the Big Bang. “Almost all recent discussions of
the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory,” notes
Francis Crick. Jastrow refers to this cosmic “explosion” as
“literally the moment of creation.” But, as astrophysicist John
Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and
large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after
this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a
mystery.” And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”
Then the Question remain --who created the creator? ---
What do you think? Well the Scientific Method can not demonstrate a
creator, nor more than it can demonstrate Abiogenesis. So why the
controversy?
It has to do with personal bias. Atheist have no issue with Universe
popping into existence on it is own. But having a superior life form
popping into existence on it own accord troubles them. So we must ask
the Question why?
ilbe...@gmail.com
Ill let the BIble answer the question 'why ?' ; The BIble says that
Men loved their immoral deeds, lifestyle, and darkness...rather than
coming into the light who is Jesus , and also because their foolish
hearts were darkened by believing in desperate philosophies instead of
the Creator whos creative design and vast engineering of creation can
be witnessed by all. In short, such people dont want God to be real
because of the implications of there being authority over their lives
including ultimate moral accountability. More narrowly : ABC
(anything but the creator) . Doesnt matter if your name is the
esteemed Prof. Stephen Hawking , Dick Dawkins, or the Gang-Banger
down the block.
Joseki
That is not true... What you did, was to use the Bible to insult a a
group of people, who have valid and sincere reasons to be atheists.
Syd M.
> Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> beginning.
Coming from 'you', Jabbers, I highly doubt it.
PDW
Andy W
> Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> beginning.
Sorry, are you trying to claim that this amounts to some sort of
scientific validation of the Bible? Firstly, pretty much every
religion has a creation myth, and so can equally claim validation in
this way; and secondly, there are very few points about the Genesis
creation account that science agrees with, and most of those are just
common sense.
It is not any sort of personal bias. It's quite simple, really: with
the Big Bang theory, you start with a really quite simple system,
which gets more complicated over time, just through the application of
a few initial conditions. The Creator just starts out more complicated
than anything that follows, with no explanation at all for how it got
to be that complex. Also, there is evidence for the Big Bang, and not
really any for the creator. Not a difficult choice really.
Andy
Syd M.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> > beginning. One prominent theory that attempts to describe this
> > beginning is known as the Big Bang. “Almost all recent discussions of
> > the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory,” notes
> > Francis Crick. Jastrow refers to this cosmic “explosion” as
> > “literally the moment of creation.” But, as astrophysicist John
> > Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and
> > large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after
> > this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a
> > mystery.” And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”
>
> > Then the Question remain --who created the creator? ---
>
> > What do you think? Well the Scientific Method can not demonstrate a
> > creator, nor more than it can demonstrate Abiogenesis. So why the
> > controversy?
>
> > It has to do with personal bias. Atheist have no issue with Universe
> > popping into existence on it is own. But having a superior life form
> > popping into existence on it own accord troubles them. So we must ask
> > the Question why?
>
> Ill let the BIble answer the question 'why ?'
You do that.
And in the meantime, the rest of us will look for REAL answers.
PDW
raven1
<jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
>beginning. One prominent theory that attempts to describe this
>beginning is known as the Big Bang. �Almost all recent discussions of
>the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory,� notes
>Francis Crick. Jastrow refers to this cosmic �explosion� as
>�literally the moment of creation.� But, as astrophysicist John
>Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists �claim, by and
>large, to be able to describe in great detail� what happened after
>this �moment,� what brought about �the instant of creation remains a
>mystery.� And, he mused, �maybe God did make it, after all.�
>
>Then the Question remain --who created the creator? ---
Yes, that's the problem. Postulating a creator implies either an
infinite regress (who created the creator, who created the creator's
creator ad infinitum), or a Special Pleading fallacy: if the universe
requires a creator, why is the creator exempt from that same
requirement? It's much more economical to eliminate the creator
entirely through Ockham's Razor.
>What do you think? Well the Scientific Method can not demonstrate a
>creator, nor more than it can demonstrate Abiogenesis. So why the
>controversy?
>
>It has to do with personal bias. Atheist have no issue with Universe
>popping into existence on it is own. But having a superior life form
>popping into existence on it own accord troubles them. So we must ask
>the Question why?
Because Special Pleading fallacies annoy us, and because Ockham's
Razor is a useful tool.
raven1
>On Jun 25, 6:33�am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> �Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
>> beginning. One prominent theory that attempts to describe this
>> beginning is known as the Big Bang. �Almost all recent discussions of
>> the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory,� notes
>> Francis Crick. �Jastrow refers to this cosmic �explosion� as
>> �literally the moment of creation.� But, as astrophysicist John
>> Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists �claim, by and
>> large, to be able to describe in great detail� what happened after
>> this �moment,� what brought about �the instant of creation remains a
>> mystery.� And, he mused, �maybe God did make it, after all.�
>>
>> Then the Question remain --who created the creator? ---
>>
>> What do you think? Well the Scientific Method can not demonstrate a
>> creator, nor more than it can demonstrate Abiogenesis. So why the
>> controversy?
>>
>> It has to do with personal bias. Atheist have no issue with Universe
>> popping into existence on it is own. But having �a superior life form
>> popping into existence on it own accord troubles them. �So we must ask
>> the Question why?
>>
>>
>
>Ill let the BIble answer the question 'why ?' ; The BIble says that
>Men loved their immoral deeds, lifestyle, and darkness..
Again, for the umpteenth time, Dimwit Dave, I don't live my life any
differently than I would if I thought there was a "God". I'm a
monogamous, married heterosexual, who works, pays his taxes, loves his
family and friends, and lives more "morally" than any given Christian
you'd care to put up as an example. Your projection of your own moral
failings onto everyone else is disgusting and insulting.
You may have noted, BTW, that I don't suffer fools gladly. Or at all.
That would not change if I suddenly found some reason to believe in a
deity. I'd be the first to tell you "yeah, you were right about that
"God" thing, but you still make Christians look like uneducated
blithering idiots, so please STFU". I understand that you can't
actually know how ignorant and illogical you appear, due to the
Dunning-Kruger effect, but trust me, you do your own side no favors
when you post. You may as well be working for us atheists.
raven1
Thank you. That is all he does. He has no idea that he is
accomplishing the opposite of what he intends.
Justin Tyme
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c51cc3e-837b-42ec...@16g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
Ill let the BIble answer the question 'why ?' ; The BIble says that
Men loved their immoral deeds, lifestyle, and darkness...
* The bible is a depressing and negative book of endless killings, adultery,
treachery, rape, mass murder and all manner of mayhem plus the story of a
God who is both a homicidal serial killer and mass murderer. I can see why
you're so frightened and unhappy now.
Same old creationist BS snipped.
--
Science flies people to the moon,
Religion flies people into buildings.
(Recently spotted bumper sticker)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ><>
Ips-Switch
"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:jv7c07dc5mdl571mu...@4ax.com...
> Again, for the umpteenth time, Dimwit Dave, I don't live my life any
> differently than I would if I thought there was a "God". I'm a
> monogamous, married heterosexual, who works, pays his taxes, loves his
> family and friends, and lives more "morally" than any given Christian
> you'd care to put up as an example. Your projection of your own moral
> failings onto everyone else is disgusting and insulting.
But that's never enough for a fanatical fundy or JW. You'll still be
accused of all manner of "sinning" simply because you don't go to church or
door to door peddling WTS/JW wares - depending on which NG you're posting
from.
Joseki
Then he should be pitied.
Joseki
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 04:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Joseki
>
>
> > Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> >beginning. One prominent theory that attempts to describe this
> >beginning is known as the Big Bang. “Almost all recent discussions of
> >the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory,” notes
> >Francis Crick. Jastrow refers to this cosmic “explosion” as
> >“literally the moment of creation.” But, as astrophysicist John
> >Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and
> >large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after
> >this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a
> >mystery.” And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”
>
> >Then the Question remain --who created the creator? ---
>
> Yes, that's the problem. Postulating a creator implies either an
> infinite regress (who created the creator, who created the creator's
> creator ad infinitum), or a Special Pleading fallacy: if the universe
> requires a creator, why is the creator exempt from that same
> requirement? It's much more economical to eliminate the creator
> entirely through Ockham's Razor.
>
And yet science and scientist believe the Universe, our Universe and
other Universe are doing exactly that, birth, death, birth, death from
infinity to infinity. The fact that Physicist Like Stephen Hawking and
Michio Kaku, can accept a Universe from Nothing implies that Gravity
is just that way, from eternity to eternity
Joseki
> "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9c51cc3e-837b-42ec...@16g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ill let the BIble answer the question 'why ?' ; The BIble says that
> Men loved their immoral deeds, lifestyle, and darkness...
>
> * The bible is a depressing and negative book of endless killings, adultery,
> treachery, rape, mass murder and all manner of mayhem plus the story of a
> God who is both a homicidal serial killer and mass murderer. I can see why
> you're so frightened and unhappy now.
>
>
But you don't believe it to be true..so there goes that. By the way
the NY times and CNN does the same.
Justin Tyme
"Joseki" <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ecd4a77a-2baf-44aa...@t9g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
True or not, it's a depressing and negative book of endless killings,
adultery,
treachery, rape, mass murder and all manner of mayhem plus the story of a
God who is both a homicidal serial killer and mass murderer. I can see why
people like you who believe it are so frightened and unhappy and become
mentally ill.
--
(Jabriol/Joseki) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
=============================================><>
Jeanne Douglas
<72136db1-ccb4-49ad...@t9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> beginning. One prominent theory that attempts to describe this
> beginning is known as the Big Bang. “Almost all recent discussions of
> the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory,” notes
> Francis Crick. Jastrow refers to this cosmic “explosion” as
> “literally the moment of creation.” But, as astrophysicist John
> Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and
> large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after
> this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a
> mystery.” And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”
>
> Then the Question remain --who created the creator? ---
>
> What do you think? Well the Scientific Method can not demonstrate a
> creator, nor more than it can demonstrate Abiogenesis. So why the
> controversy?
>
> It has to do with personal bias. Atheist have no issue with Universe
> popping into existence on it is own. But having a superior life form
> popping into existence on it own accord troubles them. So we must ask
> the Question why?
No. The question that needs an answer is why you're such a credulous
fool. Not yet knowing the answer to a question is no excuse for
inventing an imaginary being.
JD
Jeanne Douglas
<9c51cc3e-837b-42ec...@16g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 6:33 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> > beginning. One prominent theory that attempts to describe this
> > beginning is known as the Big Bang. “Almost all recent discussions of
> > the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory,” notes
> > Francis Crick. Jastrow refers to this cosmic “explosion” as
> > “literally the moment of creation.” But, as astrophysicist John
> > Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and
> > large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after
> > this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a
> > mystery.” And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”
> >
> > Then the Question remain --who created the creator? ---
> >
> > What do you think? Well the Scientific Method can not demonstrate a
> > creator, nor more than it can demonstrate Abiogenesis. So why the
> > controversy?
> >
> > It has to do with personal bias. Atheist have no issue with Universe
> > popping into existence on it is own. But having a superior life form
> > popping into existence on it own accord troubles them. So we must ask
> > the Question why?
> >
> >
>
> Ill let the BIble answer the question 'why ?' ; The BIble says that
> Men loved their immoral deeds, lifestyle, and darkness...rather than
> coming into the light who is Jesus , and also because their foolish
> hearts were darkened by believing in desperate philosophies instead of
> the Creator whos creative design and vast engineering of creation can
> be witnessed by all. In short, such people dont want God to be real
> because of the implications of there being authority over their lives
> including ultimate moral accountability. More narrowly : ABC
> (anything but the creator) . Doesnt matter if your name is the
> esteemed Prof. Stephen Hawking , Dick Dawkins, or the Gang-Banger
> down the block.
Do you have any idea how utterly boring you are?
JD
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ecd4a77a-2baf-44aa...@t9g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 25, 2:33 pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:9c51cc3e-837b-42ec...@16g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Ill let the BIble answer the question 'why ?' ; The BIble says that
> > Men loved their immoral deeds, lifestyle, and darkness...
>
> > * The bible is a depressing and negative book of endless killings,
> > adultery,
> > treachery, rape, mass murder and all manner of mayhem plus the story of a
> > God who is both a homicidal serial killer and mass murderer. I can see why
> > you're so frightened and unhappy now.
>
> But you don't believe it to be true..so there goes that. By the way
> the NY times and CNN does the same.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> True or not, it's a depressing and negative book of endless killings,
> adultery,
> treachery, rape, mass murder and all manner of mayhem plus the story of a
> God who is both a homicidal serial killer and mass murderer. I can see why
> people like you who believe it are so frightened and unhappy and become
> mentally ill.
>
> -
Well if it not true and it thus came from human imagination, Your beef
is with people, since there is no God... look around Carol, only
people.. evolved people. People who commit endless killings,
adultery, treachery, rape, mass murder and all manner of mayhem, that
he now a prime tv commercial hero that sell insurance... and since we
al evolved this way you should be proud, since yo do exactly the same
thing. So you don't hate God, he doesn't exists...
You hate yourself---And that is just sad---
raven1
I do pity him on an abstract level. But at the same time, I hold him
in contempt in the real world for:
1) His insistence on reposting claims that have been overwhelmingly
and repeatedly demonstrated to him to be false (ie: "150+ razor edge
physical constants").
2) His denial that atheists do, in fact, have valid and sincere
reasons for our lack of belief in his particular deity, and
3) His projection that our reasons for rejecting his particular
variety of theism are based on our desire to lead "immoral" lives.
4) His inability to *ever* accept correction on any of the above,
especially #1, no matter what facts are presented to him in response.
raven1
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Can you elaborate?
Budikka666
> beginning
This universe *appears* to the current state of scientific knowledge
to have had a sort beginning, but it's not know for sure if that
really was a beginning, and if it was, it was only the beginning of
this universe and it most certainly *was NOT* some 6,000 or so years
ago as the Bible LIES (based on the continuous genealogy in Luke).
Try again, you ignorant, evidence-free Jackass.
And while we're on the subject, why is it that you accept what (you
think) science says about the so-called Big Bang (which wasn't the
beginning), but blindly, stupidly, and ignorantly reject out of hand
what it says about abiogenesis (and the RUN AWAY when you're
challenged to offer an alternative explanation *and* supply as much
scientific support for that as abiogenesis has?).
Because you're a worthless little hypocrite, that's why.
Budikka
Joseki
> On Jun 25, 12:33 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> > beginning.
>
> Sorry, are you trying to claim that this amounts to some sort of
> scientific validation of the Bible? Firstly, pretty much every
> religion has a creation myth, and so can equally claim validation in
> this way; and secondly, there are very few points about the Genesis
> creation account that science agrees with, and most of those are just
> common sense.
>
>
while every religion do have a creation myth.. they are not straight
forward, nor simple.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > One prominent theory that attempts to describe this
> > beginning is known as the Big Bang. “Almost all recent discussions of
> > the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory,” notes
> > Francis Crick. Jastrow refers to this cosmic “explosion” as
> > “literally the moment of creation.” But, as astrophysicist John
> > Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and
> > large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after
> > this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a
> > mystery.” And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”
>
> > Then the Question remain --who created the creator? ---
>
> > What do you think? Well the Scientific Method can not demonstrate a
> > creator, nor more than it can demonstrate Abiogenesis. So why the
> > controversy?
>
> > It has to do with personal bias. Atheist have no issue with Universe
> > popping into existence on it is own. But having a superior life form
> > popping into existence on it own accord troubles them. So we must ask
> > the Question why?
>
> It is not any sort of personal bias. It's quite simple, really: with
> the Big Bang theory, you start with a really quite simple system,
why?
> which gets more complicated over time, just through the application of
> a few initial conditions. The Creator just starts out more complicated
> than anything that follows, with no explanation at all for how it got
> to be that complex. Also, there is evidence for the Big Bang, and not
> really any for the creator. Not a difficult choice really.
>
> Andy
As I understand it, the way the Big bang is describe by scientist is
quite complicated. And the dffort of recreating it in a Lab or the
Collider is very intense.
Justin Tyme
No one said they hated this mass murdering serial killing God. This is why
you need help with English. Perhaps a few night classes would help.
You hate yourself---And that is just sad---
I have no reason to hate myself. Why should I? Why project your failing,
fears, phobias and shortcomings on others?
--
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
SilentOtto
Your entire existence is governed by fear, rightard.
Heh heh...
Racist rightard religious nutters...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
SilentOtto
We've evidence that the universe exists.
As soon as you provide evidence for a creator, I'll devote some time
to contemplating how it came into existence.
SilentOtto
Some parts of the Bible have evidentiary support.
Other parts have no evidentiary support what so ever.
The main difference between people like me and theists is that I know
the difference and many theists don't.
Syd M.
Bullshit.
And why is your god exempt from having a 'begining', Jabbers?
PDW
Joseki
>
> why?
>
> It is not any sort of personal bias. It's quite simple, really: with
> the Big Bang theory, you start with a really quite simple system,
Jastrow made an interesting comment: “Now we see how the astronomical
evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The
details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and
biblical accounts of Genesis are the same"
llbe...@hotmail.com
No!
You should be pitied, as a brasinwashed cult member
Colanth
<silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 25, 4:09�pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 2:33�pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:9c51cc3e-837b-42ec...@16g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Ill let the BIble answer the question 'why ?' �; � The BIble says that
>> > Men loved their immoral deeds, lifestyle, and darkness...
>>
>> > * The bible is a depressing and negative book of endless killings, adultery,
>> > treachery, rape, mass murder and all manner of mayhem plus the story of a
>> > God who is both a homicidal serial killer and mass murderer. �I can see why
>> > you're so frightened and unhappy now.
>>
>> But you don't believe it to be true..
>
>Some parts of the Bible have evidentiary support.
>
>Other parts have no evidentiary support what so ever.
And others have evidence supporting the fact that they're outright
lies.
--
Darwin's Law of Carcinogens: Cancer cures smoking.
Colanth
Oh! the irony.
--
"Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the
people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are
destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the
globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." -
John Adams
Ghod Dhammit
To tell the truth, xians wouldn't live their lives much differently if they
didn't think there was a god. You see how many of them behave as though
they have no fear of punishment...............
Ken
> Again, for the umpteenth time, Dimwit Dave, I don't live my life any
> differently than I would if I thought there was a "God". I'm a
> monogamous, married heterosexual, who works, pays his taxes, loves his
> family and friends, and lives more "morally" than any given Christian
> you'd care to put up as an example. Your projection of your own moral
> failings onto everyone else is disgusting and insulting.
>
> You may have noted, BTW, that I don't suffer fools gladly. Or at all.
> That would not change if I suddenly found some reason to believe in a
> deity. I'd be the first to tell you "yeah, you were right about that
> "God" thing, but you still make Christians look like uneducated
> blithering idiots, so please STFU". I understand that you can't
> actually know how ignorant and illogical you appear, due to the
> Dunning-Kruger effect, but trust me, you do your own side no favors
> when you post. You may as well be working for us atheists.
Dave rarely reads replies so your comments remain unread:
"Yep, you're still determined to remain the dumbest
human I've ever encountered on Usenet or in real life.
Congratulations"
"Seriously, I've been on Usenet for 13 years, and you have to be the
dumbest, most ignorant person I've run across in that time"
Dimwitted Dave....so ignorant he isn't even able comprehend his own
level
of stupidity
Ghod Dhammit
news:a935f740-e0f4-4f9a...@g12g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 25, 9:17 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 6:33 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
>> > beginning. One prominent theory that attempts to describe this
>> > the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory,� notes
>> > Francis Crick. Jastrow refers to this cosmic �explosion� as
>> > �literally the moment of creation.� But, as astrophysicist John
>> > Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists �claim, by and
>> > large, to be able to describe in great detail� what happened after
>> > this �moment,� what brought about �the instant of creation remains a
>> > mystery.� And, he mused, �maybe God did make it, after all.�
>>
>> > Then the Question remain --who created the creator? ---
>>
>> > What do you think? Well the Scientific Method can not demonstrate a
>> > creator, nor more than it can demonstrate Abiogenesis. So why the
>> > controversy?
>>
>> > It has to do with personal bias. Atheist have no issue with Universe
>> > popping into existence on it is own. But having a superior life form
>> > popping into existence on it own accord troubles them. So we must ask
>> > the Question why?
>>
>> Ill let the BIble answer the question 'why ?' ; The BIble says that
>> Men loved their immoral deeds, lifestyle, and darkness...rather than
>> coming into the light who is Jesus , and also because their foolish
>> hearts were darkened by believing in desperate philosophies instead of
>> the Creator whos creative design and vast engineering of creation can
>> be witnessed by all. In short, such people dont want God to be real
>> because of the implications of there being authority over their lives
>> including ultimate moral accountability. More narrowly : ABC
>> (anything but the creator) . Doesnt matter if your name is the
>> esteemed Prof. Stephen Hawking , Dick Dawkins, or the Gang-Banger
>> down the block.
>
> Your entire existence is governed by fear, rightard.
>
> Heh heh...
>
> Racist rightard religious nutters...
>
> Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
Not to mention pig-ignorant.
John Baker
wrote:
Yeah, can't help noticing that. Their *words* say they believe, but
their *actions* say otherwise.
Joseki
Easy, from a certain standpoint a creator needs a creator, it is
impossible for some to see of a creator who popped into existence on
his own, and yet scientist using math and observations concludes that
a universe can pop into existence on it own accord. From nothing.
Yap
> Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> beginning. One prominent theory that attempts to describe this
> beginning is known as the Big Bang. “Almost all recent discussions of
> the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory,” notes
> Francis Crick. Jastrow refers to this cosmic “explosion” as
> “literally the moment of creation.” But, as astrophysicist John
> Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and
> large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after
> this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a
> mystery.” And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”
>
> Then the Question remain --who created the creator? ---
>
> creator, nor more than it can demonstrate Abiogenesis. So why the
> controversy?
>
> It has to do with personal bias. Atheist have no issue with Universe
> popping into existence on it is own. But having a superior life form
> popping into existence on it own accord troubles them. So we must ask
> the Question why?
The big bang was theorized from evidence that we are still collecting
from the vast universe.
Superior life forms does not popped into existence, they undergo
millions of years of evolution.
The dust turned into life form is the only idiotic fantasy we human
are against....since there is no continuation, no nothing, simply just
one imagined event.
Yap
> On Jun 25, 6:33 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> > beginning. One prominent theory that attempts to describe this
> > beginning is known as the Big Bang. “Almost all recent discussions of
> > the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory,” notes
> > Francis Crick. Jastrow refers to this cosmic “explosion” as
> > “literally the moment of creation.” But, as astrophysicist John
> > Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and
> > large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after
> > this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a
> > mystery.” And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”
>
> > Then the Question remain --who created the creator? ---
>
> > What do you think? Well the Scientific Method can not demonstrate a
> > creator, nor more than it can demonstrate Abiogenesis. So why the
> > controversy?
>
> > It has to do with personal bias. Atheist have no issue with Universe
> > popping into existence on it is own. But having a superior life form
> > popping into existence on it own accord troubles them. So we must ask
> > the Question why?
>
> coming into the light who is Jesus , and also because their foolish
> hearts were darkened by believing in desperate philosophies instead of
> the Creator whos creative design and vast engineering of creation can
> be witnessed by all. In short, such people dont want God to be real
> because of the implications of there being authority over their lives
> including ultimate moral accountability. More narrowly : ABC
> (anything but the creator) . Doesnt matter if your name is the
> esteemed Prof. Stephen Hawking , Dick Dawkins, or the Gang-Banger
> down the block.
The bible is a fake tale from the Jews.....it has contributed nothing
to humanity.
Yap
You have a twisted mind.
There are always bad apples among anything.
Lions are killing beasts, but they defend their cubs dutifully.
But if you insisted there is a god, then you have to answer why did he
give us those bad behavior or genes to kill, murder, rape and commit
adultery?
Can you ?
Ips-Switch
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:va4f07lg3g4eubcl5...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:01:59 -0500, "Ghod Dhammit" <gh...@att.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>To tell the truth, xians wouldn't live their lives much differently if
>>they
>>didn't think there was a god. You see how many of them behave as though
>>they have no fear of punishment...............
>
> Yeah, can't help noticing that. Their *words* say they believe, but
> their *actions* say otherwise.
That's because the hypocrites don't practice what they preach.
Ips-Switch
"Yap" <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:85415f39-6d37-46c3...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
``````````````````````````````````````
I assure you they cannot. I've asked that question here many times over the
years. I've yet to get a sensible straight answer from any of them. At best
they'll mumble something about the mythical Adam and Eve magically bringing
these things into the world.
Ips-Switch
The bible is a fake tale from the Jews.....it has contributed nothing
to humanity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But it's made a lot of people and groups of people very very VERY rich.
Joseki
Sure.. I replied once but don't see it posted. So this is a resend.
When referring to a creator, one concludes that a creator needed a
creator. But science is quite happy with declaring the Universe just
popped into existence from nothing. Now I know I am oversimplifying,
but for the Laymen, this is how theoretical physicist views the
origin of the Universe at this time.
raven1
Missing the point: if the universe doesn't need a creator, then
Ockham's razor dictates that there's no reason to postulate one. If,
however, one claims that the universe does need a creator, then and
only then does the infinite regress / special pleading fallacy come
into play.
curtjester1
>
> > Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> > beginning.
>
> scientific validation of the Bible? Firstly, pretty much every
> religion has a creation myth, and so can equally claim validation in
> this way; and secondly, there are very few points about the Genesis
> creation account that science agrees with, and most of those are just
> common sense.
>
>
>
>
>
> > beginning is known as the Big Bang. “Almost all recent discussions of
> > the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory,” notes
> > Francis Crick. Jastrow refers to this cosmic “explosion” as
> > “literally the moment of creation.” But, as astrophysicist John
> > Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and
> > large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after
> > this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a
> > mystery.” And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”
>
> > Then the Question remain --who created the creator? ---
>
> > creator, nor more than it can demonstrate Abiogenesis. So why the
> > controversy?
>
> > It has to do with personal bias. Atheist have no issue with Universe
> > popping into existence on it is own. But having a superior life form
> > popping into existence on it own accord troubles them. So we must ask
> > the Question why?
>
> the Big Bang theory, you start with a really quite simple system,
> a few initial conditions. The Creator just starts out more complicated
> than anything that follows, with no explanation at all for how it got
> to be that complex. Also, there is evidence for the Big Bang, and not
> really any for the creator. Not a difficult choice really.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
How could any Big Bang or any theorized beginning be categorized as
"simple". Do physics and chemistry just happen, ever?
CJ
Colanth
wrote:
>The big bang was theorized from evidence that we are still collecting
>from the vast universe.
Actually, the Big Bang is the time t=0. The only "theorizing" is that
time didn't always exist. (If 'always' has any meaning when used that
way.)
--
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." -
Thomas Jefferson
Budikka666
> Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> beginning is known as the Big Bang. “Almost all recent discussions of
> the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory,” notes
> Francis Crick.
Who has absolutely no qualifications whatsoever - just like yourself -
which qualifiy him to be prognosticating on the so-called Big Bang.
> Jastrow refers to this cosmic “explosion” as
> “literally the moment of creation.”
And he was wrong, because the "Big Bang" was not the first thing to
happen in this universe. Before the "Big Bang" came inflation.
The big bang is the sound of you dumb clicks getting your ignorant
asses kicked on Usenet.
> But, as astrophysicist John
> Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and
> large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after
> this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a
> mystery.” And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”
Who cares what they muse? Once again you show your profound stupidity
and ignorance, because musing, no matter who is doing it, is utterly
worthless. The only important thing is the weight of the scientific
evidence - but you know *that* only too well, don't you, having spent
so much time in RUNNING from it?
Inflation and the Big Bang are as near to proven as science can get
given the current state of scientific knowledge, and neither one
requires any gods or aliens. Ignorance of what came before is not
proof of any god, nor is it proof of any aliens fertilizing this
universe. Ignorance is not evidence for anything except the need to
learn more, not sit around bullshitting about what gods or aliens
might have done.
The *fact* is that there are many explanations rooted in science (as
opposed to ancient mythology and pure science fiction) which offer
intelligent ideas as to what came before inflation and scientists are
working towards testing those ideas. They're not sitting around with
their thumbs in their asses like creationists and airheaded dipshits
musing that our ignorance proves a god or a space alien.
But by all means keep flapping, you pathetic jackass; we can always
use a good laugh.
Budikka
Joseki
> On Jun 25, 6:33 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> > beginning
>
> to have had a sort beginning, but it's not know for sure if that
> really was a beginning, and if it was, it was only the beginning of
> this universe and it most certainly *was NOT* some 6,000 or so years
> ago as the Bible LIES (based on the continuous genealogy in Luke).
>
You most likely have me confused with a creationist. however so.. the
universe has always existed... I see.
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> On Jun 25, 4:53 pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ecd4a77a-2baf-44aa...@t9g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 25, 2:33 pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:9c51cc3e-837b-42ec...@16g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Ill let the BIble answer the question 'why ?' ; The BIble says that
> > > Men loved their immoral deeds, lifestyle, and darkness...
>
> > > adultery,
> > > treachery, rape, mass murder and all manner of mayhem plus the story of
> > > a
> > > God who is both a homicidal serial killer and mass murderer. I can see
> > > why
> > > you're so frightened and unhappy now.
>
> > But you don't believe it to be true..so there goes that. By the way
> > the NY times and CNN does the same.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > adultery,
> > treachery, rape, mass murder and all manner of mayhem plus the story of a
> > God who is both a homicidal serial killer and mass murderer. I can see why
> > people like you who believe it are so frightened and unhappy and become
> > mentally ill.
>
> > -
>
> is with people, since there is no God... look around Carol, only
> people.. evolved people. People who commit endless killings,
> adultery, treachery, rape, mass murder and all manner of mayhem, that
> he now a prime tv commercial hero that sell insurance... and since we
> al evolved this way you should be proud, since yo do exactly the same
> thing. So you don't hate God, he doesn't exists...
>
> you need help with English. Perhaps a few night classes would help.
>
you did. then again how you hate or not something you do not believe
in?
> You hate yourself---And that is just sad---
>
> I have no reason to hate myself. Why should I? Why project your failing,
> fears, phobias and shortcomings on others?
> --
you hate yourself more each day
> (Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
> himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
> JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
> =============================================><>
Joseki
I am not a creationist
evidence for abiogenesis is.. where?
Joseki
Joseki
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:06:30 -0700 (PDT), Joseki
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 25, 1:50 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 04:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Joseki
>
> >> <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> >> >beginning. One prominent theory that attempts to describe this
> >> >beginning is known as the Big Bang. Almost all recent discussions of
> >> >the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory, notes
> >> >Francis Crick. Jastrow refers to this cosmic explosion as
> >> > literally the moment of creation. But, as astrophysicist John
> >> >Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists claim, by and
> >> >large, to be able to describe in great detail what happened after
> >> >this moment, what brought about the instant of creation remains a
> >> >mystery. And, he mused, maybe God did make it, after all.
>
> >> >Then the Question remain --who created the creator? ---
>
> >> infinite regress (who created the creator, who created the creator's
> >> creator ad infinitum), or a Special Pleading fallacy: if the universe
> >> requires a creator, why is the creator exempt from that same
> >> requirement? It's much more economical to eliminate the creator
> >> entirely through Ockham's Razor.
>
> >And yet science and scientist believe the Universe, our Universe and
> >other Universe are doing exactly that, birth, death, birth, death from
> >infinity to infinity. The fact that Physicist Like Stephen Hawking and
> >Michio Kaku, can accept a Universe from Nothing implies that Gravity
> >is just that way, from eternity to eternity
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying here. Can you elaborate?
If a universe can come from nothing.... anything can.
Justin Tyme
"Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:iu6177$a3u$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Joseki" <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On Jun 25, 4:53 pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ecd4a77a-2baf-44aa...@t9g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 25, 2:33 pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:9c51cc3e-837b-42ec...@16g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> > * The bible is a depressing and negative book of endless killings,
>> > adultery,
>> > treachery, rape, mass murder and all manner of mayhem plus the story of
>> > a
>> > God who is both a homicidal serial killer and mass murderer. I can see
>> > why
>> > you're so frightened and unhappy now.
>>
>> But you don't believe it to be true..so there goes that. By the way
>> the NY times and CNN does the same.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> True or not, it's a depressing and negative book of endless killings,
>> adultery,
>> treachery, rape, mass murder and all manner of mayhem plus the story of a
>> God who is both a homicidal serial killer and mass murderer. I can see
>> why
>> people like you who believe it are so frightened and unhappy and become
>> mentally ill.
>>
>> -
>
> Well if it not true and it thus came from human imagination, Your beef
> is with people, since there is no God... look around Carol, only
> people.. evolved people.
Then ditch the bible! Why do you still read it Antonio? We both know it's
nonsense. Look how it destroyed you and your family. Your children and
grandchildren.
People who commit endless killings,
> adultery, treachery, rape, mass murder and all manner of mayhem, that
> he now a prime tv commercial hero that sell insurance... and since we
> al evolved this way you should be proud, since yo do exactly the same
> thing. So you don't hate God, he doesn't exists...
You make no sense at all. Those seizures are destroying your mind and
ability to think logically.
>
> No one said they hated this mass murdering serial killing God. This is
> why you need help with English. Perhaps a few night classes would help.
>
> You hate yourself---And that is just sad---
Projecting Antonio. Remember what you called yourself not to long ago? ;-)
As I remember it was "black Puerto Rican ghetto trash." You made it clear
how much you hate yourself and everything that goes with living as you do.
>
> I have no reason to hate myself. Why should I? Why project your failing,
> fears, phobias and shortcomings on others?
--
Antonio aka "1000 other sock puppets" is Antonio Santana/Joseki gave us a
fine *witness* here:
"Jabriol" <gei...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> It wasn't a snake. It was my foreskin. Happen a lot when I read
> them porn stories on the net. I dont believe in mineral oil.
=====================================
Justin Tyme
:: Nope. No one can hate what doesn't exist. You're too stupid to realize
that.
> You hate yourself---And that is just sad---
>
> I have no reason to hate myself. Why should I? Why project your failing,
> fears, phobias and shortcomings on others?
> --
you hate yourself more each day
:: I'm sorry you hate yourself more each day. Too bad you're such loser
you can't make changes so you feel better about being what you are. You are
the fruit of a truly rotten diseased tree.
--
(Jabriol aka "Joseki" ) should be more careful in the way he presents
Parrish *~
I am not a creationist
evidence for abiogenesis is.. where?
-----------------------------
BS! All JWs are creationists. Look it up yourself. They are teaching no
other alternative. You may hate the retired elder who exposes your
confusion and lies, but he at least is honest. Something you are not and
will never be. Your cult still teaches that Jah created it all.
Andy W
> On Jun 25, 10:39 am, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> > > beginning.
> >
> > scientific validation of the Bible? Firstly, pretty much every
> > religion has a creation myth, and so can equally claim validation in
> > this way; and secondly, there are very few points about the Genesis
> > creation account that science agrees with, and most of those are just
> > common sense.
> >
> >
>
> forward, nor simple.
Whether that's true or not, what difference does it make? The Genesis myth is more than just "there was a beginning" but it's the only aspect you brought up. Every creation myth implies a beginning, no matter how simple or complex.
<snip>
> > > It has to do with personal bias. Atheist have no issue with Universe
> > > popping into existence on it is own. But having a superior life form
> > > popping into existence on it own accord troubles them. So we must ask
> > > the Question why?
> >
> > It is not any sort of personal bias. It's quite simple, really: with
> > the Big Bang theory, you start with a really quite simple system,
>
> why?
Why what? Why start with a simple system, you mean? Well, because that is how it happened. You think cosmologists should have come up with a theory of the universe based on initial conditions that are not the ones they think are correct?
>
> > which gets more complicated over time, just through the application of
> > a few initial conditions. The Creator just starts out more complicated
> > than anything that follows, with no explanation at all for how it got
> > to be that complex. Also, there is evidence for the Big Bang, and not
> > really any for the creator. Not a difficult choice really.
> >
> > Andy
>
> As I understand it, the way the Big bang is describe by scientist is
> quite complicated. And the dffort of recreating it in a Lab or the
> Collider is very intense.
Complicated is relative. The earliest condition of the universe is generally thought to be uniform, very hot, very dense, and very high pressure, and there's not a lot of scope for complexity when everything is the same. As time rolled on it rapidly got more complex, yes, but that's the whole point. And the difficulty in recreating those conditions is just because they were really extreme, not really complex.
So, am I to conclude then that "complexity requires even greater complexity" is actually your best argument for a creator?
Andy
Andy W
> On Jun 25, 10:39 am, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 12:33 pm, Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > why?
> >
> > It is not any sort of personal bias. It's quite simple, really: with
> > the Big Bang theory, you start with a really quite simple system,
>
>
> evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The
> details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and
> biblical accounts of Genesis are the same"
Oh, yes? Which elements?
Colanth
<vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, 26 June 2011 13:50:45 UTC+1, Joseki wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 10:39�am, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> > On Jun 25, 12:33�pm, Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > why?
>> >
>> > It is not any sort of personal bias. It's quite simple, really: with
>> > the Big Bang theory, you start with a really quite simple system,
>>
>>
>> Jastrow made an interesting comment: �Now we see how the astronomical
>> evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The
>> details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and
>> biblical accounts of Genesis are the same"
>
>Oh, yes? Which elements?
Space is a hard vacuum. So is Jabbers' head. Those elements.
--
"We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile
or hold our allies hostile.'' - George Bush
Joseki
American laws and most European laws are based on it.
Joseki
Not at all according to Carol... that is what people are, just a bunch
of evolved apes, that rape, plunder and kill.
> But if you insisted there is a god, then you have to answer why did he
> give us those bad behavior or genes to kill, murder, rape and commit
> adultery?
> Can you ?
bad behaviour genes?
Joseki
> On Jun 25, 7:33 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> > beginning. One prominent theory that attempts to describe this
> > beginning is known as the Big Bang. “Almost all recent discussions of
> > the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory,” notes
> > Francis Crick. Jastrow refers to this cosmic “explosion” as
> > “literally the moment of creation.” But, as astrophysicist John
> > Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and
> > large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after
> > this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a
> > mystery.” And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”
>
> > Then the Question remain --who created the creator? ---
>
> > What do you think? Well the Scientific Method can not demonstrate a
> > creator, nor more than it can demonstrate Abiogenesis. So why the
> > controversy?
>
> > It has to do with personal bias. Atheist have no issue with Universe
> > popping into existence on it is own. But having a superior life form
> > popping into existence on it own accord troubles them. So we must ask
> > the Question why?
>
> The big bang was theorized from evidence that we are still collecting
> from the vast universe.
>
> Superior life forms does not popped into existence, they undergo
> millions of years of evolution.
>
You don't know that. Unless you think all life must be exactly like us
no matter where in the Universe. And even scientist don't think so.
> The dust turned into life form is the only idiotic fantasy we human
> are against....since there is no continuation, no nothing, simply just
> one imagined event.
So you are against abiogenesis.
Andy W
> >
> > > It has to do with personal bias. Atheist have no issue with Universe
> > > popping into existence on it is own. But having a superior life form
> > > popping into existence on it own accord troubles them. So we must ask
> > > the Question why?
> >
> > It is not any sort of personal bias. It's quite simple, really: with
> > the Big Bang theory, you start with a really quite simple system,
> > which gets more complicated over time, just through the application of
> > a few initial conditions. The Creator just starts out more complicated
> > than anything that follows, with no explanation at all for how it got
> > to be that complex. Also, there is evidence for the Big Bang, and not
> > really any for the creator. Not a difficult choice really.
> >
> > Andy- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> How could any Big Bang or any theorized beginning be categorized as
> "simple".
The best current models have the early universe as a tiny, hot, uniform ball. It doesn't get much simpler. There weren't even as many forces back then. It quickly got a lot more complex, of course, but that's the whole point. It didn't start out complex.
Which is more complex: the modern universe, or a tiny hot ball? Which is more complex, the modern universe or an intelligent being capable of designing and creating the modern universe?
> Do physics and chemistry just happen, ever?
Of course! All the time! How did you think they happen? Does electricity not flow unless a little pixie is pushing it along? Do acids and bases only react if an invisible goblin rearranges the atoms by hand? Of course not.
Andy
Joseki
> On Jun 25, 6:33 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Today, scientists generally acknowledge that the universe did have a
> > beginning. One prominent theory that attempts to describe this
> > beginning is known as the Big Bang. “Almost all recent discussions of
> > the origin of the universe are based on the Big Bang theory,” notes
> > Francis Crick.
>
> Who has absolutely no qualifications whatsoever - just like yourself -
> which qualifiy him to be prognosticating on the so-called Big Bang.
>
More qualified than ever you will be...
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/
Because you say so... yeah.
> > Jastrow refers to this cosmic “explosion” as
> > “literally the moment of creation.”
>
> And he was wrong, because the "Big Bang" was not the first thing to
> happen in this universe. Before the "Big Bang" came inflation.
>
And before Inflation..? show us your kindergarten genius.
> The big bang is the sound of you dumb clicks getting your ignorant
> asses kicked on Usenet.
>
so claim the girlie who face been been stumped on by the Jabriol.
> > But, as astrophysicist John
> > Gribbin admitted in New Scientist, though scientists “claim, by and
> > large, to be able to describe in great detail” what happened after
> > this “moment,” what brought about “the instant of creation remains a
> > mystery.” And, he mused, “maybe God did make it, after all.”
>
> Who cares what they muse?
Well, the science community because Scientist are making these
statements. You did know that right?
> Once again you show your profound stupidity
> and ignorance, because musing, no matter who is doing it, is utterly
> worthless. The only important thing is the weight of the scientific
> evidence - but you know *that* only too well, don't you, having spent
> so much time in RUNNING from it?
uhhh you did the part that these are scientist eh?
>
> Inflation and the Big Bang are as near to proven as science can get
> given the current state of scientific knowledge, and neither one
> requires any gods or aliens.
And of course you were there at the Bigbang.. you would know this.
> Ignorance of what came before is not
> proof of any god, nor is it proof of any aliens fertilizing this
> universe.
there is no proof on abiogenesis neither ..(Shrug)...
> The *fact* is that there are many explanations rooted in science (as
> opposed to ancient mythology and pure science fiction) which offer
> intelligent ideas as to what came before inflation and scientists are
> working towards testing those ideas
Which, you selectively ignored..ahem.. does Francis Crick ring a bell?
> They're not sitting around with
> their thumbs in their asses like creationists and airheaded dipshits
> musing that our ignorance proves a god or a space alien.
>
Ever heard of SETI?