you do not understand. big bang is not a matter for believing or not. it is a theory, based on evidence. it might be wrong. there is no faith involved. the intelligent design advocate has more information to offer about the reasons things happened, but that doesnt mean that information isnt made up. there is evidence, and that is all. you do your best to construct answers from the evidence, if you can't, you can't. the guy whith the made up answers isnt more knowledgeable than the scientist without conclusions.
where did you look? under a mushroom in your garden? in a crystal ball? did you analyze a communion cracker for human flesh?
Very true, but I take evidence that God created Heaven and Earth found in multiple sources throughout history that have been proven time and again to not have been falsified or recreated at points throughout history. By this I mean that the Bible is the Word of God, authentically, and the only thing that has been able to avoid the nasty hands of those religious leaders throughout history who have corrupted what the only blameless One did is this book thanks to multiple original sources existing proving what we have to day as authentic. You and I both know that we disagree, and that I will not attempt to convert anyone. The difference is you insult my beliefs and appreciation for the literature of my beliefs, calling it a joke, when I simply choose to allow you to believe such and show my faith through the life I lead and the love I show. Also, I use this example only to show how intelligent I find him to be- I really wish you would read the book, like I said. I will happily mail you my copy if you agree to read it with a mind bordering as close as you can reach on open. :thumb: It's not like I'm asking you to read it and believe it. I'm just sharing something that I find interesting and I think you will at least find as ammo, in the very least.
that dinner conversation never happened. the witer made it up to make himself seem smart. what do you think that means? "not scientific"? magic? lets say for instance gravity acts weird before the big bang happens. what of it? is that what you call science breaking down? must be magic? what do you think that conversation means? it is sufficient for crackpot to mumble nonsensical jibberish for you to think something of import was said?
I'd say that it's God. However, his point was that they, who attack our very explanation of existance, in turn ignore the argument they put before us when defining their explanation of said existance. Also, it takes a lot to call a person a liar without knowing them. I'd tread lightly there.
evidence that god created heaven and earth? you realize usmtiger has looked far and wide for this evidence and found nothing. you should point him in the right direction. this sentence needs to be restructured or maybe broken into two sentences, i cannot understand it. i appreciate your offer and sincerity. however, if i read this book, honestly it would slightly sadden me that humans were so pathetic that this book was ever written.
what? you are inventing craziness. if i am a scientist, and i make a claim that gravity exerts x amount of force, and then it is demonstrated that somewhere something doesnt play by those rules, ignoring physics, that doeant mean magic is involved. it means i need to revise my numbers. when we thought we had things nailed down, and then we started to understand quantum mechanics, and realized that traditional physics were insufficient to explain things, it didnt mean we had to throw our old books out of the window and get on our knees and pray. science is a dynamic thing, always revising and trying to figure things out. the fact that science isnt some static thing doesnt mean god is tricking us or something. i honestly have no idea what you even think you are saying. that "mind-blowing" anecdote was jibberish.
I have no reason to dodge or deflect the conversation like others I don't believe I have to change the world. That is why I tell people to find the evidence out for themselves. I don't continue with conversations when they evolve to this level. And to sum everything up you have said re-read my post that I said yesterday. Btw I see several patterns here.:lol: Sounds more like the politicians as well as the whole judicial system to me.