₦airaland Forum

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Please don't be surprised, as I did no such thing. I had called your attention to calm reason rather than being driven with your attitude because I noticed some very fundamental flaws in your submissions which I had wanted to highlight for your attention. But you went on and on about reserving the right to be rude as if that was helping anyone to see anything reasonable in your arguments. Since you were not inviting a discussion thereto, I simply left the thread for you to assume that we were as ignorant as you had pressumed.

The one thing that people like you should note is that there is nothing you want to tell the public here about the BB theory that we don't already know! It is not helping your discussion when you assume such an unwelcome attitude - because predictably it only leads the reader to wonder if there is any substance in the arguments of people who act the way you had reiterated was best suited to your style.

I think you are absolutely right. My tone in this post must be difficult for most people coming fresh into the debate without some knowledge of science and the BB and its opposition by some for theological reasons. There was a reason for that. My inclinations are those of a polemicist and so am not averse to using shock methods sometimes.

pilgrim.1:
However, I would not have even replied your reposte for the simple reasons that you either still wrongly assume that others are ignorant, or that your style could be mistaken for rational dialogue. Whatever the case, I hinted that hubris and extremum were not ideal positions to assume when someone wants others to see him/her as an intelligent thinker.

I don't think you are ignorant as much as you are evasive or intellectually dishonest. You warn against taking extreme, a worthy caution, I might add. On my part, where am I being extreme. I have taken the position of the scientific consensus. Is this an extreme position.

You are are asking question, but question that are not addressed by the Big Bang. This is what makes you look dishonest and ignorant. I have said and posted many times the scientifically accepted definition of BB, yet you keep asking the self-same questions that are not addressed by the BB.

pilgrim.1:
Yet, don't you still get the basic flaw in your arguments? If you wanted to discuss the Big Bang theory, no one would bother you - we already know where to go for info about such. But my dear huxley, the serious flaw in your argument is to mistake the Big Bang theory as the best explanation for the "ORIGIN" of the Universe! That was why I started out first asking you not to be so driven with vituperations, and consequently proposed a simple question about "the origin of the matter". The universe did not just exist on its own by a BB - whatever are the underlying principles or working mechanisms for the BB, they still have one question to answer: that of the origin of matter itself.

OK, what in your opinion is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe? How do you account for observed cosmic expansion and Cosmic Microwave Background?

I serious would like an answer and would also like to know why the BB is inadequate.

On the question of the origin of matter, I shall post on this shortly.

pilgrim.1:
As some scientists are too embarrassed to face up honestly to that basic question, they switch over to attack Christian theists with all sorts of accusations! I mean, just as you so widely alleged that Christians were saying that the BB explains the "origins of life", I asked you a direct question about that and you predictably and conveniently ducked that question. It is unreasonble for people to assume extremum positions just to make a point - often, it borders on dishonesty; and that is not going to help any discussions at all.

As fas as is reasonably possible to accept, there are no scientist who dispute BB on scientific grounds. There are many scientist, mainly creationists (check out Answers In Genesis) who dispute it on theological grounds, but have not advanced any credible scientific evidence for their position. The last major scientist who disputed BB was Fred Hoyle, but he change his position on the discovery of CMB. In fact, his favour position was even more anathema to standard theology, he was a steady-state theorist - meaning the universe had always existed.

pilgrim.1:
Hmm, this is actually not helping you at all. In simple terms, I have not even stated any objections or affirmations about the BB. Nor was I so gullible to assume that the BB is a theological enquiry! Why do people have such narrow minds as to assume that THEOLOGY and TELEOLOGY are the same? This was why I shared with Chrisbenogor that when we fail to see the paradigm between both and either fields of enquiry, then we become the victims of the arguments and not the thinkers!

I did ask, if you object to BB, on what grounds? Scientific or otherwise? Why don't you state your position now?

pilgrim.1:
Oh c'mon, huxley. Why this weak exculpation? It is even illogical to make such assumptions. I am willing to be a disciple of my own ideas such that I will not assume any hubris or extremum here; but I am largely ignorant of the assertion that davidylan has made such a claim. If he has done so, then I don't see why he would come back here to fight against his own postulations. That is why I asked simply where Christians have been saying what you attributed to them.

I named Davidylan because he is right here with us at NL, but out there there are many. Check out the list at Answers In Genesis website. Others are people like Kent Hovind, Jonathan wells, etc, etc.

davidylan*:

Quote from: huxley on Today at 09:39:15 AM
Your dishonesty knows no bounds. I shall refer you to what I said earlier, viz;

The best explanation of the state and origin of the universe is called "Big Bang". These ignorant Christians characteristically mispresent Big Bang, saying that it explain the origin of life. BB is not an explanation of the origin of life. For that check out abiogenesis (not evolution). Nowhere in the Big Bang theory is there any comment for how life came about. (Get this)

And you have consistently failed to redeem yourself by answering the challenge - "Where in the definition of Big Bang is there a description of the origin of life?"


this post wins the stupidity award of the yr. What then did the big bang create? Ordered planets in the absence of time?
Did you know that abiogenesis itself is also a theory WITHOUT ANY SHRED OF PROOF?

This is the definition I culled from WKPD, which is actually not bad. Show me where it talks about the creation of matter?

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. As used by scientists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.

AFAIK, BB does not talk about planet formation.

What do you understand by abiogenesis? Can you enlighten me, please?

~Lady~:
@ Hux,

don't forget the type of Christian that build houses for the homeless, runs hospitals for the sick, have educational programs for the illiterate, pay the bills for the financial downtrudden, come up with solutions to the social injustice.
Don't forget the type of Christian wh fought against slavery calling it inhumane, and derogatory to humanity based on the Bible (just ask civil rights activists and they will tell you it is religious, I work with them so I know)

Don't forget the speaker of the House, the senators, Presidents, who are religious that have led to change in our society.

Yup those are the ridiculous ones. Yup they lack reason. They come up with solutions for the people, they roll up their sleeves to help those in need, yup they're the idiots.

Why don't you go build a house for a homeless person, pay someones' bill for them, build a hospital and make it affordable?
Please make yourself useful in society, instead of running around nairaland like a headless chicken looking to discredit Christianity.

I have news for you, God is real, he has always been there and long after you are gone he will always be there.

That's the problem, the non-religious think that the religious' belief is uncertain. It is very certain and there have been many evidences and yes a lot of them have been physical, I have had the priviledge of experiencing the physical myself.
You however have not seen therefore you expect it to not be true.

If we have to see everything with our own eyes before we believe then we will not believe in anything.

Majority of us believe in something that we have not seen. You can only be certain that evolution occurred based on someone else's finding and not your own. Religious people believe also based on someone else's finding and not their own, some actually believe based on their own finding.

It is quite unfortunate that those who are intellectuals cannot comprehend the simple.

You believe based on facts of others, we believe also based on facts of others.
You believe based on other's attestations, we too believe based on other's attestation.

It is not that difficult.

Air is certain to be there, however it is not see. Because you can't see it does that mean that it isn't there? There is no physical proof of air.

Yes, indeed. You make some very good points. I had taken the humanitarian side of religion and Christianity as neutral as believers and non-believer alike participate in such activities. But you are also right - there are many Christians who only help out and do humanitarian work only because they are Christians or they believe in god. Unfortunately, the sincerity of such good work is diminished because they are not doing this out of pure human goodness but in hope for future rewards in the afterlife.

On the question od slavery, the Christian establishment sat by for nearly 2000 years, arms folded, participating in the trade itself (with succor from their rotten bible), before jumping on the abolision band-wagon.

Where in the bible s slavery condemned?


At the moment, I do my little best to help. I personality sponsor a child in poverty in kenyan. If I could afford more I would increase my help proportionately. By the way, did you know that the world's greatest humanitarian have been atheist, viz, Carnegie, Buffet, Gates.

pilgrim.1:
This was why I simply left the thread jeje. When someone is determined to substitute irrationality for intelligence, what is left at the end of the day?

I was just wondering the gap in this wide berth:

(A)
(B)
On the one hand, (A) the "origin of the universe" is best explained by the Big Bang;
but on the other hand, (B) the same "origin of the universe" is not explained by the Big Bang!

The confusion may be best explained by this presumption:

In honest and very simple terms, where did Christians say what you have attributed to them?

Pilgrim, your question was the origin of matter, viz.

In case we missed it, what is the origin of the matter that gave rise to the Big Bang?

To which my answer was;

That is indeed a very good question.  But it is not explained by the Big Bang.  It will take another theory to explain that.  As for me, the short answer is that I don't know. But if I remember correctly from material I have read, the relationship between energy and matter as described by Einstein (E=mc2) is at the root of that explanation.

It is quite possible that following the Big Bang, the universe existed for many millions of years before matter was formed.  I have not checked this out, but it is not outside the realms of possibility.

I am not surprise that you would quote-mine and take my statements out of their context.  If you take the universe to be the 3 + 1 dimensional space around us, then clearly it is the Big Bang (Cosmic Expansion) that created that space.  Big Bang does not deal with things pre-Big Bang.

At some basic fundamental level there may be an interaction between the various forces in the universe, but until such is found we shall have to treat many of our theories as independent where we can find no links.  The Big Bang was responsible for expansion, gravity for the coalescing of matter, electromagnetism for electrical forces, etc.  And something else for the formation matter.

Do you think a respected cosmologist is likely to claim the Big Bang accounts for the virulence of some viruses?   


So you have taken my comments out of their context in your desperate bid to show they are contradictory.

By the way, I am not an expert cosmologist.  Just as if I was suffering from an illness, I would seek the advice of the experts in the field,  there are experts cosmologist who have earned Nobel prices investigating the Big Bang.


Are you objections to the Big Bang scientific or theological.  If they are scientific, rest assured that I can dig out the best available information on the subjects, which might alley your concerns.  But if they are theological, am afraid I cannot help you.

For examples of those who claim the Big Bang explains life, why not talk to your trusted friend Davidylan.  He has litter NL with such nonsensical claims.

Found it;

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? , Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." --
2 Cor.6:14-17

In fact, there may be another more specific verse, but I can't find it.

Does Paul give an injunction for followers of Jesus to NOT fratenize with non-believers? I may be mistaken, but I cannot remember the chapter&verse. So guys, help me out.

May kelly:
Job 12:13

“But true wisdom and power are found in God;counsel and understanding are his.

Job 28:28
And this is what he says to all humanity:‘The fear of the Lord is true wisdom;to forsake evil is real understanding.’”

Hello May Kelly, bible basher. Can we have some context to that please?

What explains the Christian antipathy towards wisdom and knowledge?  Could it be explain by the following?


Eccl. 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

I know there are many other verses in the bible extolling the virtues of wisdom.  But why would a book, inspired by the same omniscient being have such diametrical contradictions?


Why have these two verses come to define the cognitive approach of the majority of Christians?

davidylan*:
same old fraud. They think being atheist suddenly makes them more intelligent. Someone please tell them about Isaac Newton and co.

I read their writings and i wonder who they are decieving . . . huxley is trying to claim to be intellectual by copying and pasting the ideas of others? What a complete tool.

What about Isaac Newton and Co.? Were they intelligent? Is what what you are trying to say?

By the way, the author of this book is himself a christian evangelical. Here is parts of a review taken from Amazon;

Mark Noll is a chaired professor of "christian thought," at Wheaton College - one of the great Evangelical liberal arts colleges, as well as being one of the leading church historians of our time. Noll is also one of the leading public intellectuals within the Evangelical movement. (By public intellectual, I mean an academic whose is grounded in rigorous scholarship but who also writes - at a high level - for the general public. Stephen Carter of Yale is another good example of a Christian public intellectual.)
Evangelicals are all too often typecast as hillbillies who neither read nor think. Like most stereotypes, there is a grain of truth to the characterization - where there is smoke there is usually fire. In the "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind," Noll issues a wake-up call for a renewed commitment to the life of the mind on the part of Evangelicals. Noll begins by persuasively demonstrating the existence of an intellectual deficit among Evangelicals. In contrast to the Catholic-leaning journals like First Things or the New Oxford review, there is no real Evangelical journal of public thought. There are few scholarly journals focusing on Evangelical perspectives. Evangelical colleges emphasize teaching at the expense of scholarly research, despite decades of proof that the good teaching and good scholarship goes hand in hand.

Frizy:
The angels of Allah should give the initiator of this "big bang" a big bang on the head.

Yet another ignorant religionist enters the fray,

davidylan*:
the simple question - how does the big bang explain the presence of matter outside of time?
When did time begin?
How did the big bang create life and biological order?

These are valid scientific questions.

Infact why am i bothering?

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.  I shall refer you to what I said earlier, viz;

The best explanation of the state and origin of the universe is called "Big Bang".  These ignorant Christians characteristically mispresent Big Bang, saying that it explain the origin of life. BB is not an explanation of the origin of life.  For that check out abiogenesis (not evolution).   Nowhere in the Big Bang theory is there any comment for how life came about. (Get this)

And you have consistently failed to redeem yourself by answering the challenge - "Where in the definition of Big Bang is there a description of the origin of life?"

if you show that evidence, i shall never post ant comments critical of christianity again on NL. would that not be a win-win all round?

davidylan*:
Depends. There are times when even doctors can't diagnose certain medical problems. They simply theorise until the patient dies.
I'm sure you've seen mystery diagnosis on discovery channel, its on almost every other day.

You don't get it, do you. Who are the people attempting the diagnosis? Are they the experts in the field (those who are better placed to know ) or are they cowboys.

I wonder why they did not go to some Shamen in the Kalahari desert for a diagnosis

Why are Christian fundamentalists so Anti-intellectual?  Scandal of the evangelical Mind  discusses this sad state of affairs in great depth.

Here is the opening paragraph of this book;

The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind. An extraordinary range of virtues is found among the sprawling throngs of evangelical Protestants in North America, including great sacrifice in spreading the message of salvation in Jesus Christ, open-hearted generosity to the needy, heroic personal exertion on behalf of troubled individuals,  and the unheralded sustenance of countless church and parachurch communities. Notwithstanding all their virtues, however, American evangelical are not examplary for their thinking, and they have not been so for several generations.

Why does religion promote anti-intellectualism?

Any takers?

pilgrim.1:
You've already done so, thank you. See below:

Well, it is clear you have no arguments, as is your wont.

Mark you, this thread was about Big Bang and the Christian response to it. I reserve the right to be rude, polite or not (as the case may be).

I am not altogether surprise that you could not muster a scientific argument against Big Bang, considering how mired you are in the cesspit of superstitious. If When you get your mind out of this stinky stuff you might just about begin to understand exactly how we (humans) fit in the cosmic scheme of things.

In the meantime, go and give testimonies, quote bible passage, preach and have equally ignorant fans fawning over you

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

I'm not that dilettantish as to be polarised at two extremes. It is either you expect me to be rational with you or otherwise [b]ir[/b]rational, rather than pretend it so abstractly. Like I said, you really don't have to answer the question; but at least don't pretend this issue with ideas of "logic". Logic or no logic, I already hinted that . . . - if that is what best suits your ideology. So you can at least excuse me the prerogative to choose to be rational and not both at the same time.

Cheers.

What the deuce is this?.  Putting words together, however hifalutin they may be, may sometimes result in nonsense.

Ok,  let me humour you.   If you think rudeness amounts to irrationality, can you demonstrate that within the standardly accepted rules of logic?

The fact that science does not have answers to everything does not mean that there are things for which it has no answers.

Pilgrim, can your say what best explains the following;

1)  The Cosmic Microwave Background. (In fact, on a good day, you common radio or TV set cam receive these signals

2)  The observed expansion and acceleration of the universe.

These are facts for which there is no dispute amongst cosmologist.  How would you explain this?


[size=18pt]Are your objection to the Big Bang scientific or theological?[/size]

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Actually, I had hoped you would answer the basic question that is still ignored by you:
___________________________________

Is it rational to be rude and impolite?
___________________________________

It is neither rational nor irrational.  To be rude does not violate any known laws/rules of logic or reasoning.

pilgrim.1:
However, I haven't seen how you have addressed the other basic concerns in my direct enquiry. Rather, I only see an admission of the fact that science does not have answers to everything - one of which is the question of the Origin of the Universe (or Universe Origin). I haven't claimed anything; and that is why I have often and again shared with Chrisbenogor that hubris and extremum are not quite the elements in my style of approaching issues.
Cheers.

I thought this was addressed earlier.  I used "Big Bang" to loosely mean the universe origin.  For all practical purposes this may be seen as the origin, although scientist postulate that there are certainly earlier times than that.

The fact that science does not have answers to everything does not mean that there are things for which it has no answers.

Pilgrim, can your say what best explains the following;

1) The Cosmic Microwave Background. (In fact, on a good day, you common radio or TV set cam receive these signals

2) The observed expansion and acceleration of the universe.

These are facts for which there is no dispute amongst cosmologist. How would you explain this?

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Aiight, I now know that it were better leaving you to your irrationality. Even when people have to discuss issues, reason would not celebrate such otiose remarks; but it's not in my place to change your ideas if that's what best suits your ideology. Tomorrow, come back and hoot that your worldview is "rational" - we would be indeed convinced by your confirmation here.

Miss, get your terminology right.  On this occasion, the worst you can accuse me of is rudeness, impoliteness, etc. But not irrationality.

pilgrim.1:
What is there more to say if your theory fails at the very thing suggested by your topic about "Universe Origin"? Thanks very much, though - I see the point in your addressing others the way you did when you don't have answers to the questions you proposed.

Cheers.

The theory does not fail.  It has its scope within which it  is applicably. It does not explain things at time zero.  But some time later than that (circa 10 ^-20s or thereabouts).
Just as the scope of atomic theory is atoms, the scope of germ theory is germs, the scope of Big Bang is from time 10 ^-20 s  to now and beyond.  I hope this make it clearer.

pilgrim.1:
Thank you, but did you need the vituperations highlighted in yours just to sell your point?

In case we missed it, what is the origin of the matter that gave rise to the Big Bang?

Pilgrim,

Have you ever looked at the evidence for Cosmic Expansion (Big Bang) and are you convinced by the evidence? If you are, it would be interesting to know why. If not, it would also be interesting to know why.

pilgrim.1:
Thank you, but did you need the vituperations highlighted in yours just to sell your point?

Yes absolutely, I needed to spell that out as loudly as I did.  It is about time we stop pussy-footing about and confront the issue head-on

In case we missed it, what is the origin of the matter that gave rise to the Big Bang?

That is indeed a very good question.  But it is not explained by the Big Bang.  It will take another theory to explain that.  As for me, the short answer is that I don't know. But if I remember correctly from material I have read, the relationship between energy and matter as described by Einstein (E=mc²) is at the root of that explanation.

If you really want to know the current state of thinking on this subject, I shall investigate and post details here.

By the way, the Hadron Collider experiment ar CERN is designed to investigate such questions.

Some Christian consistently bury their heads in the sand and refuse to look at the evidence of the most powerful explanation for the origin and state of the universe. Why this is so, can only be put down to dishonest, stupidity, ignorance or delusion.

The best explanation of the state and origin of the universe is called "Big Bang".  These ignorant Christians characteristically mispresent Big Bang, saying that it explain the origin of life. BB is not an explanation of the origin of life.  For that check out abiogenesis (not evolution).   Nowhere in the Big Bang theory is there any comment for how life came about. (Get this)

What is even more inane is that the objections to Big Bang are not scientific, but theological. As far as can be establish, there is now little or no scientific objections to Cosmic Expansion. Evidently, all objections were brushed away with the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background.

For some of the experts in this area, check out the work of the following;

1) George Smoot, Nobel Laureate on work for CMB,
2) Alan Guth, Originator of the inflationary theory
3) Michio Kaku
4) Neil deGrasse Tyson
5) Alexei Filippenko

6) Steven Weinburg
7) Victor Stenger
8.) Stephen Hawkins
9) Roger Penrose



This is what Wikipedia has to say about what this model is;

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. As used by scientists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day. Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's General Relativity as formulated by Alexander Friedmann. After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point. The farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[1] If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory, but these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant. The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the phrase 'Big Bang' during a 1949 radio broadcast, as a derisive reference to a theory he did not subscribe to.[2] Hoyle later helped considerably in the effort to figure out the nuclear pathway for building certain heavier elements from lighter ones. After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its collective frequencies sketched out a blackbody curve, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some Big Bang scenario must have occurred.

davidylan*:
i'm tired of arguing with ignorant people . . . but a last look at the above nonsense.

opinionof "suitably qualified experts" is no substitute for conclusive evidence. Honesty is a problem with you.

What problem have you got with that expression.  If you had a health problem, I bet you would want the best qualified expert (as long as you can afford them) to attend to your problem.

On the subject of Big Bang, I can think of the following;

1)  George Smoot, Nobel Laureate on work for CMB,
2)  Alan Guth,   Originator of the inflationary theory
3) Michio Kaku
4)  Neil deGrasse Tyson
5) Alexei Filippenko

6) Steven Weinburg
7) Victor Stenger
8.) Stephen Hawkins
9) Roger Penrose


What do you think these experts would say about Cosmic Expansion (aka Big Bang)

davidylan*:
The key question is "Why do you misrepresent biblical concepts you think are critical of your areligious position?

Deliberatel misrepresentation of the bible is a valid charge that you have tacitly acknowledged not once, not twice.

Now, which biblical concept have I misrepresented? As honest a christian you claim to be, i want you to show me where i have misrepresented christian concepts.

Also, i want you to show me where i have acknowlegde doing so.

davidylan*:
Now lets evaluate your own "charge". How do i misrepresent the big bang THEORY? By constantly reminding you that it is NOT A FACT BUT A HIGHLY UNLIKELY THEORY? That by somehow asking you how magnetic waves can generate life ON EARTH ONLY and an ordered biological system is misrepresentation?

Showing your ignorance yet again, are you? Can you show me anywhere where scientists claim the Big Bang is responsible for life on earth? You are either, ignorant, dishonest, stupid, and deluded, all in one. If you show me where such a claim has been made, I shall withdraw this statement unreservedly.

What do you make of the measureable data that the universe is expanding? And not expanding uniformly, but indeed accelerating?

What do you make of Cosmic Microwave Background?

Upon showing you these and you fail to acknowledge their import suggest to me that you are deceitful and dishonest.

davidylan*:
That by wondering why the big bang contradicts the laws of conservaton of energy is misrepresentation?
That to wonder why a big bang could have occured out of nothing is misrepresentation?
That to wonder how an event could occur in the absence of time is misrepresentation?
That to wonder where on earth the molecules that caused the big bang appeared from is misrepresentation?

Even if any of the above were true, it would not constitute misrepresentation. It just shows how desperate you are to make a charge of misrepresentation. Go educate yourself, man, go.

davidylan*:
Mr. stop and understand the theories you peddle first before trying to pick holes in others.

Have you shown that you understand these theories, yourself?

davidylan*:
My position is not new, its evident in the bible. Too bad you prefer to ferret for "contradictions" rather than focus on understanding what the bible actually stands for.

Again - you need to understand what honesty means.

Let's give ourselves the best chance, using this challenge. Let us take the following two propositions and research the best available information we can find to characterise them.

1) Evidence for a Big Bang

2) Evidence for a global flood about 4500 years ago?

To settle once and for all these accusations of misrepresentation, let both of us supply the best possible evidence for and against these two propositions.

Let us define misrepresentation as follows: A departure from the opinion of the suitably qualified experts in the field.

Is any of the above a misrepresentation of Christianity?

davidylan*:
I wasnt born last week, as soon as i saw the title of the thread i knew where you were going. Too bad you prefered to dishonestly dance around pretending to be impartially trying to understand the average christian. No one will ban you or remove your thread if you just come out and say what you've got to say.

That is the stupidity that most atheists don't even realise in their own position. What if i said the exact same thing but in this fashion - if you were a truly honest and learned man, you would reach out for the best rational explanation for the existence of God.

Nah i don't expect you'll notice the musical chairs you're playing. When it comes to christianity you want just ONE one-size fits all explanation, when it comes to science however you're ready to swallow specious theories, improbable speculation and unreasonable attempts at rationalising a lack of understanding . . . all the while pretending it makes you "learned".

If you seek conclusive proof that God exists, i'D expect you'D be able to provide conclusive proof too that rather than the notion of creation, the big bang was responsible for the existence of life. Up till now you're just grasping at straws.

You need to further understand the meaning of the word "honesty".

The key question is "Why do you misrepresent concepts you think are critical of you religious position? The honest man would not adopt this approach, but this has been your tactic all along. You misrepresent theories like Big Bang, evolution, etc, etc, because somehow you think they hurt your position.

On the other hand, I have asked umpteen times "what the principal doctrine of Christianity is" and not surprisingly I get no answer from you. So do not criticise me (and other atheist) for misrepresenting your position. You fail to define your position and our knowledge of you position derives from our previous experience as Christians or from the various documents that describe Christianity.

So, now, once and for all - tell us what Christianity is, a honest man as you are. Do you want me to resurrect the threads I had raised about this subject?

davidylan*:
Amazing how many people think they have a capacity to reason by virtue of being athiest. These same people would rather indulge in false fantasies of a big bang theory than believe a God could possibly exist. Talk of being impervious to reason.

Huxley, too bad but its more than obvious that a lot of people have moved beyond your irresponsible baiting.

Am glad you see yourself in this characterisation. In fact, I had you in mind as well as I wrote this one. Lets examine some of the reasons why I think you would fit this description.

1) When challenge to explain and describe what scientist call Big Bang, you deliberately and dishonestly misrepresent. It is not that you cannot learn or find the correct description. You are more worried about the sense of disonance it would cause you, so it pays you to misrepresent. Can you show us that this is wrong? If you were a truly honest and learned man, you would reach out for the best scientific explanation for Big Bang. But as dishonest as you are, you dare not. Hahahahha

3) Pseudo-sophisticated Christian.

This type of Christian is sheer blooded-mindedly stupid and a zealot, all at once. They are particularly industrous and diligent in their attachment to Christianity and would continue to be so even if the bones of Jesus were to be discovered today and it was proven 100% that these were Jesus's bones. They do not care about the truth as much as their affiliation to a superstitious myth. Their industry means that they would have spent time and money investigating the various criticisms of theism and christianity but because they are committed to their position are impervious to reason. In fact, because of the sense of cognitive disonance they inevitably feel, they would tend to be even more zealous for their defunct ideas. The operative word for these types is intellectual dishonesty.

They like to engage others, christians and non christians alike in debates and even if caught lying or in dishonesty will rarely back down.

Examples of such are Kent Hovind and many apologist here on Niaraland such as . . .

Chrisbenogor:
I know he did why are Christians not going that way, all this I believe in heaven and hell and if the bible says it I believe it surely it is a full proof plan don't you think?

What do you think? Do you think John List is in heaven? In my opinion, he "is in heaven?".

Idea, idea. But John List beat you to it many years ago.