Originally posted by robbie carrobie
pathetic, prejudiced, condescending and utterly contemptible! you aught to be ashamed of yourself!

From a christian fundamentalist, who see the bible as being scientific, I take this as a compliment.
I would be bothered if you thought good of me.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
From a christian fundamentalist, who see the bible as being scientific, I take this as a compliment.
I would be bothered if you thought good of me.

it is as far as I can determine been established that BOTH the Bible and the scientific community agree that the universe had a beginning, this i would like to see you refute, and actually i do think good of you, despite you're idiosyncrasies and stubbornness, after all, its just a matter of time before you embrace the truth, for even water as it drips upon a rock, with constancy, can make an indentation! 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it is as far as I can determine been established that BOTH the Bible and the scientific community agree that the universe had a beginning, this i would like to see you refute, and actually i do think good of you, despite you're idiosyncrasies and stubbornness, after all, its just a matter of time before you embrace the truth! 🙂

You take a verse out of the bible and you think this is scientific fact? Perhaps it's a fact or not a fact, but it is certainly not a scientific fact o the sole reason you took it from the bible. The bible is not, has never been, will ever be scientific in it's nature.

You can never mix your religion with science. It's just not possible.

Do you really belive that Earth came into being at the same time as the Universe did, as your verse from the bible says? Then you have not understood the BigBang theory, not by a long shot. And I understand why - you are a christian fundamentalist.

I ask you again: Do you really belive that Earth came into being at the same time as the Universe did, as your verse from the bible says?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You take a verse out of the bible and you think this is scientific fact? Perhaps it's a fact or not a fact, but it is certainly not a scientific fact o the sole reason you took it from the bible. The bible is not, has never been, will ever be scientific in it's nature.

You can never mix your religion with science. It's just not possible.

Do you real ...[text shortened]... arth came into being at the same time as the Universe did, as your verse from the bible says?

hey there ol putty cat, did the universe have a beginning? does the bible state that the universe had a beginning? well then, whats the problem? of course its not a scientific text book, but when it does touch on matters of science, it is wholly accurate as can be readily ascertained from the above comparison, why you cannot accept this i do not know? I call out to the Forum in earnest, is it so unreasonable to expect this to be the case? for the evidence is incontrovertible, regardless of the illustrious Fabians ill conceived words, for he has yet to refute it! 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hey there ol putty cat, did the universe have a beginning? does the bible state that the universe had a beginning? well then, whats the problem? of course its not a scientific text book, but when it does touch on matters of science, it is wholly accurate as can be readily ascertained from the above comparison, why you cannot accept this i do not k ...[text shortened]... ible, regardless of the illustrious Fabians ill conceived words, for he has yet to refute it! 🙂

"its (the bible) not a scientific text book," Now you agree with me. the bible is not a scientific textbook. The facts from it cannot be taken as scientific facts. You never know even if they are true or not. Yet less scientific facts. It's just a black book with thin pages, nothing more.

Your verse stated that the Earth came into being the same time as the Universe did. This is not a svientific fact, it's not even a fact. Yout you persist that it is a scientific fact. You're wrong. Totally wrong.

I ask you again because you avoid the question: Do you really belive that Earth came into being at the same time as the Universe did, as your verse from the bible says?

If you don't answer this question now, then I suppose you believe indeed that Earth was there at the dawn of the Universe. And this is why I don't like to answer your question about the beginnign of the Universe - you cannot understand the answer!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"its (the bible) not a scientific text book," Now you agree with me. the bible is not a scientific textbook. The facts from it cannot be taken as scientific facts. You never know even if they are true or not. Yet less scientific facts. It's just a black book with thin pages, nothing more.

Your verse stated that the Earth came into being the same time a ...[text shortened]... wer your question about the beginnign of the Universe - you cannot understand the answer!

I agree with nothing you have stated, nothinnnnnnnnnggggggggggg!

the universe had a beginning, lets tick the box, yes!
the bible states the the universe had a beginning, lets tick the box, yes!

is the Bible wrong to state that the universe had a beginning? not according to scientific consensus its not! therefore this FACT ESTABLISHED IN THE BIBLE MORE THAN THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO, BY PRESENT DAY STANDARDS IS SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE, you cannot refute it, you may not, because of your prejudice be able top accept it, but you cannot refute it!

the verse states nothing about the universe coming into existence at the same time as the earth, nothing!!!!! it is unspecified! therefore, not only must i contend with your misconceptions, you are trying to burden me with them as well, no thanks Fabian, no thank you! If you will not tell me what you know, then I will ask Scrabian, who in the most objective manner possible, gave clear and unambiguous information with regard to contemporary scientific thought, why cant you? i dunno?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the verse states nothing about the universe coming into existence at the same time as the earth, nothing!!!!!

So now you're telling me that the bible is wrong? And you still say that this biblical lie is a scientific truth? How would you like to have it?

I haven't commented at all if the Universe has a beginning or if it has not. If you would like to have an answer to that, then you have to give the answer at the Science Forum. This is the Spiritual Forum, and you want to bring Science in here? Why? Because I cannot give an answer in a spiritual way. Because it is not spiritual. It is science.

Do you really think you can understand an answer about BigBang? No, I don't, because you are a christian fundamentalist. They don't belive in science. Another christian fundamentalist here believes that Noah brought dinosaurs in his Ark at the time of the great flooding (this is spiritual, I'm allowed to bring it up in this forum). Do you agree with him, or do you think he is wrong? Of, course he is wrong, but he has anyway the same ideas that you have, you are both christian fundamentalists. See? I don't think you can understand answers about the BigBang theory.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So now you're telling me that the bible is wrong? And you still say that this biblical lie is a scientific truth? How would you like to have it?

I haven't commented at all if the Universe has a beginning or if it has not. If you would like to have an answer to that, then you have to give the answer at the Science Forum. This is the Spiritual Forum, and n fundamentalists. See? I don't think you can understand answers about the BigBang theory.

Fabian Fabian, what is it that grieves you so, the Bible is truth, science is truth, there is no contradiction, none whatsoever, if you would like to contend that there is, then i suggest you first of all work out in your own mind, whether the universe had a beginning or not. If you conclude that it did have a beginning, then you must agree that the Bible also states it had a beginning, if you conclude that it has always existed, then you must conclude that the Bible and present scientific understanding is wrong. its that simple.

as to whether i can understand the 'big bang theory', or not, i do not know, it depends how it is presented, for the real art of teaching is to present profound truths in a simple way, for when one wades through the cloak of language, then the ideas in themselves are relatively easy to assimilate, and if not, with explanation, they may be grasped! unless you have some kind of monopoly on understanding! see Scriabins text for an excellent presentation! regards Robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Fabian Fabian, what is it that grieves you so, the Bible is truth, science is truth, there is no contradiction, none whatsoever, if you would like to contend that there is, then i suggest you first of all work out in your own mind, whether the universe had a beginning or not. If you conclude that it did have a beginning, then you must agree that the ...[text shortened]... f monopoly on understanding! see Scriabins text for an excellent presentation! regards Robbie.

The bible is not the ultimate Truth. You showed me the Genisis 1:1 that says that Earth was created first of all in universe, that must be at the BigBang itslef. This is clearly not true. You know that (you agreed to it), science people know that, I know that. I don't have any problem with that. You seem to have problems with that.

I haven't said anything about the beginning of the Universe. This is a matter of science, and this is the Spiritual Forum. If the bible says that Earth is created at the time of BigBang, it is surely not scientific.

My nephew, 6 years of age, presented me his theory why the Sun is yellow. He was partly right, and partly wrong. The details that was right was not scientific, not at all. It just happened to be the same conclusion as science has. But my nephew was just guessing, he has no scientific background whatsoever. Nor does the bible. The bible can be right in certain details, but it is not scientific, not even in these details.

You cannot ever mix religion and science.

Originally posted by black beetle
What Sicilian exactly?

Could it be the noble Scheveningen, which occured after deep meditation of the ancient Masters over that profound Paulsen's 1.e4 c5 line as a result of the fotprints of Void and its reflection at the Universe through Logos, which it emerged when the primordial wavefunction was collapsed??
😵

in my case, it is more like pizza

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hey there ol putty cat, did the universe have a beginning? does the bible state that the universe had a beginning? well then, whats the problem? of course its not a scientific text book, but when it does touch on matters of science, it is wholly accurate as can be readily ascertained from the above comparison, why you cannot accept this i do not k ...[text shortened]... ible, regardless of the illustrious Fabians ill conceived words, for he has yet to refute it! 🙂

the problem is time --you assume there was a point in time, to use the common expressiion, before which there was no universe and after which there was.

not all scientists are agreed on that idea. Some think the universe always was here and simply expands and contracts periodically. It is an issue still in debate.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The bible is not the ultimate Truth. You showed me the Genisis 1:1 that says that Earth was created first of all in universe, that must be at the BigBang itslef. This is clearly not true. You know that (you agreed to it), science people know that, I know that. I don't have any problem with that. You seem to have problems with that.

I haven't said anyth ...[text shortened]... it is not scientific, not even in these details.

You cannot ever mix religion and science.

no, if you read the verse again, you will see quite clearly that it states 'the 'heavens and the earth, thus making a differentiation between the two, and its common sense to think, that first of all the universe was created and then the earth, is it not! thus your are making assumptions that simply do not exist, except in your own mind, and anyway this was not the point!

the point was quite simple and i will repeat it for the last time, the truth of the matter is that the Bible correctly states that the universe had a beginning, science since the nineteen fifties? also now agrees that the universe had a beginning. It states absolutely nothing about how it came about, nor have we proffered to explain it beyond that it was 'created'. all these inferences that the earth and the universe were created at the same time are of your originality, not the Bibles, and we can prove this, for its goes on to state that, the 'great luminaries', i.e sun, moon etc etc were also created, apart from the actual universe, so you are either ill informed or talking tosh!

as for discussing science and spirituality, whats the deal? the original poster seemed willing to discuss the two in the same context and i see no reason not to, for as far as I am concerned the two are perfectly capable of being in harmony, for the Bible in each and every instance that it touches on science is perfectly harmonious, problems only occurring when what is nothing but non science is postulated and masqueraded like some sick effigy as Science.

as you are either unwilling, unable or for whatever reason, to provide any evidence that the universe did not have a beginning, then I shall continue to proclaim that the Biblical writer, more than three thousand years ago, understood that the universe and all the wonderful things that we see in it, had a beginning, you cannot or are unable, to refute this!

Originally posted by Scriabin
the problem is time --you assume there was a point in time, to use the common expressiion, before which there was no universe and after which there was.

not all scientists are agreed on that idea. Some think the universe always was here and simply expands and contracts periodically. It is an issue still in debate.

yes i understand this Scriabin, but i think at least that the consensus of opinion is towards a beginning. btw, what do they say existed before the universe, unlimited energy? primordial chaos, something without a beginning that extended back eternally? something eternal? 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, if you read the verse again, you will see quite clearly that it states 'the 'heavens and the earth, thus making a differentiation between the two, and its common sense to think, that first of all the universe was created and then the earth, is it not! thus your are making assumptions that simply do not exist, except in your own mind, and anyway ...[text shortened]... erful things that we see in it, had a beginning, you cannot or are unable, to refute this!

I can read for myself, thank you, and I read clearly that there are no time between the two, 'heavens' (which btw is a religious term) and Earth. I can read it, there is only an 'and' in between. Now, if you think I misinterprete the verse, then it cannot be much of an scientific verse, can it?

If you say that the bible is scientific, then you clearly don't know what science is. Therefore I am stronger and stronger in my view that you don't know much about science. Therefore not able to understand the theory of BigBang.

This conversion is futile. Nothing can be gained from it. I propose we stop here. I give you kindly the last word if you think you need it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i understand this Scriabin, but i think at least that the consensus of opinion is towards a beginning. btw, what do they say existed before the universe, unlimited energy? primordial chaos, something without a beginning that extended back eternally? something eternal? 😉

the best word would be infinite.

that is, it is possible that there are an infinite number of what we might call dimensions, an infinite number of universes, infinite time.

another way, perhaps, to say: we don't know

why bother with questions for which there can be no answer or explanation that we can comprehend?

why not bother with questions about that which is known to be the case in the here and now -- we aren't doing very well, on the whole, with that task