Zone1 “If the universe had a beginning, then we cannot avoid the question of creation.”

[DonGlock26]

Because youre too dumb even to know what you were complaining about.

I see you have reached the "enraged insults" phase.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Who said God was necessary to explore the Universe?

Now keep thinking.

Who said showing that the Big Bang was not necessarily the beginning of everything precludes a creator?

It doesn't. You can point at all of science and say, "God did that".

 

[DonGlock26]

Now keep thinking.

Who said showing that the Big Bang was not necessarily the beginning of everything precludes a creator?

It doesn't. You can point at all of science and say, "God did that".

You should try thinking.

And?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You should try thinking.

And?

Cry it all out, crybaby.

And... this means you dont have to roll up into a ball and suck your thumb, every time someone comes up with a natural explanation for our observations.

You can still point at it and say Daddy Did It.

You're welcome!

 

[DonGlock26]

Cry it all out, crybaby.

And... this means you dont have to roll up into a ball and suck your thumb, every time someone comes up with a natural explanation for our observations.

You can still point at it and say Daddy Did It.

You're welcome!

Back in the 19th century, materialists had Darwin's theory of evolution and a static universe model to support their beliefs.
But today, we have an expanding universe coming from a singularity and DNA storing complex data which points to a creator.

 

[Kruska]

Who said God was necessary to explore the Universe?

YOU - because "evidently" you harbor this BELIEF - for a GOD having created life on Earth and as a prerequisite had to create the universe first - see YOUR Bible.

The beginning of life and the beginning of the Universe are two different things.

No they are not - they are clearly connected, and only SCIENCE can find out what this "Universe" is even about - if there other forms of life - throughout the universe - and how did life itself start on planet earth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Back in the 19th century, materialists had Darwin's theory of evolution and a static universe model to support their beliefs.
But today, we have an expanding universe coming from a singularity and DNA storing complex data which points to a creator.

And I say it does not point to a creator.

Well that was easy.

Your ad hoc, fanciful claims are dismissed as easily as they are made. But you will never understand that, because your grasp of basic logic is nonexistent.

 

[DonGlock26]

YOU - because "evidently" you harbor this BELIEF - for a GOD having created life on Earth and as a prerequisite had to create the universe first - see YOUR Bible.

View attachment 1231595


No they are not - they are clearly connected, and only SCIENCE can find out what this "Universe" is even about - if there other forms of life - throughout the universe - and how did life itself start on planet earth.

Did you read the OP?

The Universe existed before life. They are not the same thing.

 

[DonGlock26]

And I say it does not point to a creator.

Well that was easy.

Your ad hoc, fanciful claims are dismissed as easily as they are made. But you will never understand that, because your grasp of basic logic is nonexistent.

If the Universe were proven to be static and eternal, you would be proclaiming that as proof that there is no need for a creator.
That is not the case.

Ad hoc? They were the main claims of atheists until the Big Bang blew them away.

 

[ding]

And I say it does not point to a creator.

Would intention point to a creator? If this were a simulation wouldn't it have been intentionally created? So how do you know this isn't a simulation; an alternate reality?

 

[Kruska]

Did you read the OP?

The Universe existed before life. They are not the same thing.

What was before the Universe, that we presently know???
So if you see our present Universe (only 13 billion years old), as apart of a repeating cycle - then what life was there before?

 

[ding]

What was before the Universe, that we presently know???
So if you see our present Universe (only 13 billion years old), as apart of a repeating cycle - then what life was there before?

It's not cyclical. That idea is dead and buried.

 

[DonGlock26]

What was before the Universe, that we presently know???
So if you see our present Universe (only 13 billion years old), as apart of a repeating cycle - then what life was there before?

We don't know. We do know that the Universe is not static and eternal.

What is your evidence of a "repeating cycle"?

 

[Kruska]

We don't know. We do know that the Universe is not static and eternal.

Thanks to SCIENCE

What is your evidence of a "repeating cycle"?

SCIENCE might disapprove it or may proof it.

Life on Earth is a repeating cycle, plants and living species - die (go extinct) and appear (evolve) again.
Mountains crumble and Volcano's create new land, tectonic shifts destroy existing continents and form new ones.
So far for 4.6 billion years.

And the Universe shows the same pattern, that stars and galaxies can crumble/explode/implode or get sucked into a black hole, whilst new stars and galaxies show up.

 

[DonGlock26]

Thanks to SCIENCE

SCIENCE might disapprove it or may proof it.

Life on Earth is a repeating cycle, plants and living species - die (go extinct) and appear (evolve) again.
Mountains crumble and Volcano's create new land, tectonic shifts destroy existing continents and form new ones.
So far for 4.6 billion years.

And the Universe shows the same pattern, that stars and galaxies can crumble/explode/implode or get sucked into a black hole, whilst new stars and galaxies show up.

I have nothing against science. In fact, I mention science in the OP in the form of the discovery of the Big Bang and the complexity of DNA. I would also add the complexity of cellular machines.

So, you have no evidence.

 

[Kruska]

I have nothing against science. In fact, I mention science in the OP in the form of the discovery of the Big Bang and the complexity of DNA. I would also add the complexity of cellular machines.

If so - then why do you belief in a CREATOR?? where is your "evidence" for a creator?

So, you have no evidence.

No - it's a hypothesis, based on scientific proven observations and research. - and not onto some unsubstantiated personal Belief.

 

[DonGlock26]

If so - then why do you belief in a CREATOR?? where is your "evidence" for a creator?

No - it's a hypothesis, based on scientific proven observations and research. - and not onto some unsubstantiated personal Belief.

Read the OP:

Back in the 19th century, materialists had Darwin's theory of evolution and a static universe model to support their beliefs.
But today, we have an expanding universe coming from a singularity and DNA storing complex data which points to a creator.

It's speculation because it is not testable.

The expansion of the Universe is proven. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is proven. DNA is proven.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's speculation because it is not testable.

*yet

Much of Einsteins theory was not testable at the time, because we didnt have the tech to test it.

But nobody would have been silly enough to call it mere speculation. His theory followed from the math.

Like the multiverse does.