susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#1368 May 16, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this is your tacit admission that your god was an utter failure at creation?
All of his creations required total destruction (noah) now he is whinning about the rest?
And... you have personally seen his heaven? WOW!
I need something new and different for my bong... what strain of cannabis sativa or indica do you recommend so I can also enjoy a heavenly visit like yours?
So far... I only get relaxed and very hungry!
God looked on his creation and saw that it was good, not perfect. God promised Noah after the flood there would never be another and the sign of the covenant was a rainbow. That does not mean there will never be another judgment but the coming judgment will be by fire and initially, only the enemies of God will be cut off. I have seen and been to heaven but didn't need a drug to accomplish it.

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#1369 May 16, 2013
Matthew 11:28-29
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Have a Godly day...:)
CunningLinguist

Lady Lake, FL

#1370 May 16, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>God looked on his creation and saw that it was good, not perfect. God promised Noah after the flood there would never be another and the sign of the covenant was a rainbow. That does not mean there will never be another judgment but the coming judgment will be by fire and initially, only the enemies of God will be cut off. I have seen and been to heaven but didn't need a drug to accomplish it.
What reason did god give you for omitting the animal life in Australia, North America and the Artic?

Were these created after the flood?

Did God explain his fondness for beetles?
Or did Noah have a huge can of RAID?

"The Creator would appear as endowed with a passion for stars, on the one hand, and for beetles on the other, for the simple reason that there are nearly 300,000 species of beetle known, and perhaps more, as compared with somewhat less than 9,000 species of birds and a little over 10,000 species of mammals. Beetles are actually more numerous than the species of any other insect order. That kind of thing is characteristic of nature."
~J.B.S. Haldane
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#1371 May 16, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
What reason did god give you for omitting the animal life in Australia, North America and the Artic?
Were these created after the flood?
Did God explain his fondness for beetles?
Or did Noah have a huge can of RAID?
"The Creator would appear as endowed with a passion for stars, on the one hand, and for beetles on the other, for the simple reason that there are nearly 300,000 species of beetle known, and perhaps more, as compared with somewhat less than 9,000 species of birds and a little over 10,000 species of mammals. Beetles are actually more numerous than the species of any other insect order. That kind of thing is characteristic of nature."
~J.B.S. Haldane
I believe the flood of Noah was a very large "local" flood. The purpose of the flood was to kill mankind and they were confined to the middle east and fertile crescent. It would be impossible to fit all the species of animals in the world on a boat of that size. Only species of animals indigenous to that part of the world were included on the ark.
KJV

United States

#1376 May 16, 2013
who="polymath257" who="KJV
"<quoted text>
The one with out God would be an empty void. The one with God looks like this one."

And *that* is exactly what I disagree with. A universe without a God looks exactly like the universe we actually see. You are *assuming* that a deity is required to produce the universe.

"How do you think the universe would be any different without a deity?"
No space, or time, no energy and no matter."

Why would you say that?
These were all created by God so remove God and you remove everything. In other words there cannot be a universe with out a creator. "

Yes, that is the exact point at issue. Why would anyone actually believe that claim?

Something does not spring forth out of nothingness with out God. "

I disagree. The universe is NOT 'springing out of nothing'. It is uncaused with an earliest possible time.

"And *that* is exactly what I disagree with. A universe without a God looks exactly like the universe we actually see. You are *assuming* that a deity is required to produce the universe."

I know you disagree. I would have to be as dense as a atheist to not know that.

I am not assuming that this universe needed a God to create it. The fact is "nothing" cannot spontaneous create everything. God did it.

"How do you think the universe would be any different without a deity?"
No space, or time, no energy and no matter."

Why would you say that?"

Because God created them. With out God they would not exist. As in what was there when there was not the Big Bang or its after math.

"Yes, that is the exact point at issue. Why would anyone actually believe that claim?"

Why do you believe that the Big Bang just happened when there was nothing (nothing as in the absences of everything) to feed it?

Weird!
CunningLinguist

Lady Lake, FL

#1377 May 16, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>I believe the flood of Noah was a very large "local" flood. The purpose of the flood was to kill mankind and they were confined to the middle east and fertile crescent. It would be impossible to fit all the species of animals in the world on a boat of that size. Only species of animals indigenous to that part of the world were included on the ark.
OK...then we can ASSUME that ALL life outside of this 'locality' was not affected by the flood, and sadly, completely forgotten by God himself.

He gave them no messengers or saviours.

They had to wait until Columbus arrived with priests aboard, ready to pollute the new world with old world dogma, killing all of the natives that objected.

You still have not explained those 300k+ beetles that would have infested the ark.

no wait... only 150K+ allowing for the other 'forgotten' half.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#1378 May 16, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Blasphemy is a sin against Gods person and is the deadliest sin you can commit. I am also not a Christian and do not believe in the Rapture, that is a christian myth, along with the tribulation and millennium. VWD stands for Vengeance, Wrath, and Destruction and is the first Day of the Lord. There are three. If God revels to me when exactly this will happen, I might post it and I might not. I will do whatever God tells me to do. It could come as early as September or October 2013.
VWD ---> Very, Weird, Dropkick.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#1380 May 16, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
OK...then we can ASSUME that ALL life outside of this 'locality' was not affected by the flood, and sadly, completely forgotten by God himself.
He gave them no messengers or saviours.
They had to wait until Columbus arrived with priests aboard, ready to pollute the new world with old world dogma, killing all of the natives that objected.
You still have not explained those 300k+ beetles that would have infested the ark.
no wait... only 150K+ allowing for the other 'forgotten' half.
Godbots never let the facts stand in the way of their delusions.

I am always amused by the way they try to modify their myths to fit reality. Why can't they just wake up to the simple fact that it is a myth?
CunningLinguist

Lady Lake, FL

#1381 May 16, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>I believe the flood of Noah was a very large "local" flood. The purpose of the flood was to kill mankind and they were confined to the middle east and fertile crescent. It would be impossible to fit all the species of animals in the world on a boat of that size. Only species of animals indigenous to that part of the world were included on the ark.
As a visitor to heaven you should be able to explain this as well...

Since their bodies only make use of half of the food they consume, the elephant must eat between 330 and 350 pounds of food each day.

For two Elephants to survive 40 days would require how much food?

Hmm - let's go LO-Ball

660 x 40 = 26400 pounds of food for these animals alone.
Where did Noah store the food?

And what kept the insects alive since so many animals eat them?
Were they all placed into hibernation for 40 days?
Misa

Weymouth, UK

#1382 May 16, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
As a visitor to heaven you should be able to explain this as well...
Since their bodies only make use of half of the food they consume, the elephant must eat between 330 and 350 pounds of food each day.
For two Elephants to survive 40 days would require how much food?
Hmm - let's go LO-Ball
660 x 40 = 26400 pounds of food for these animals alone.
Where did Noah store the food?
And what kept the insects alive since so many animals eat them?
Were they all placed into hibernation for 40 days?
It's obvious. The Ark was equipped with Gallifreyan technology.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#1383 May 16, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
As a visitor to heaven you should be able to explain this as well...
Since their bodies only make use of half of the food they consume, the elephant must eat between 330 and 350 pounds of food each day.
For two Elephants to survive 40 days would require how much food?
Hmm - let's go LO-Ball
660 x 40 = 26400 pounds of food for these animals alone.
Where did Noah store the food?
And what kept the insects alive since so many animals eat them?
Were they all placed into hibernation for 40 days?
How about termites:-

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#1384 May 16, 2013
Misa wrote:
<quoted text>
It's obvious. The Ark was equipped with Gallifreyan technology.
ROTFPML
KJV

United States

#1385 May 16, 2013
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...

Exploding the Big Bang Theory

Originally, the Big Bang Theory was being used to explain the beginning of the universe. Now more and more people are seeing this huge event less as the actual beginning and more as a massive event unto itself. However, many still claim the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and this article is evidence that this is probably a false claim.

This article will not involve any mathematical calculations or anything too difficult to understand. The purpose of this article is to explain in simple language why a "Big Bang" if they do exist, was not the creation of the universe.

First off we must explain the Big Bang Theory and then give the arguments that we will be dispelling.

The theory actually has multiple formations and differences in details depending on who you talk to.(Time frame, speed differences, etc.) However since we will be discussing the overall generalities and not the mathematical details, we won't bother with those differences.

The overall Big Bang theory states that the universe started from an incredibly dense singularity that exploded. All matter, light and energy came from that explosion. The size of the universe increases as everything expands from this explosion. The theory is that of an expanding universe, meaning that the universe as a whole is expanding, instead of a static universe meaning that matter is expanding into a statically sized space. The theory states that the size of the universe is equal to the speed of light (the item furthest away from the explosion as possible) times the age of the explosion. In simpler terms, the light created from the explosion is expanding in equal directions and they represent the edge of the universe.

That's it in a nutshell. Now let's look at the problems with this theory.
KJV

United States

#1386 May 16, 2013
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...

Part 2

Issue #1: Problem of Size

First we must remember the definition of the term "universe". Basic definitions state: "Everything that exists anywhere", "The whole collection of existing things", "Everything stated or assumed in a given discussion", etc. That means all substance, energy and the space in between.

Regardless of the size of the universe, let's pretend that we are at the edge where the "universe defining light" is speeding its way out. Here's a simple question: Is the area 1/2 inch ahead of the light wave part of the universe? Of course it is. It's just as much a part of this universe as the space between the Sun and Earth is. Empty space is also a part of "everything that exists anywhere". No one would deny that.

OK, so if the area 1/2 inch ahead of the light wave is part of the universe, what about a foot ahead? What about a mile? What about a million miles? It's all empty space according to the theory.

Or is it? Remember, the current Big Bang theory is an expanding theory, not a static theory.
KJV

United States

#1387 May 16, 2013
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...

Part 3

Issue #2: Problem of expanding

The expanding universe theory is often compared to a balloon being blown up. As the balloon expands the amount of space available also expands. The problem of an expanding universe is that it must expand INTO something. If there's anything to expand into, that space must, as shown above, belong in the universe.

But where did all that empty space come from, and why are they forgetting that it's also part of the universe? This seems to be a case of people forgetting what the term universe really refers to.

Issue #3: Problem of time

Along with the problem of empty space, the expansion theory also runs into the problem of time.

Let's look at the empty space ahead of the light waves again. Since we have shown that the empty space ahead of the waves is a part of the universe, let us go back in time 10 seconds.

Would the same empty space still be a part of the universe 10 seconds ago? The obvious answer is yes. Well what about 10 years ago? Long before the waves reaches the empty space, it is still a part of the universe.

Taking this to it's furthest conclusion, would that same space ahead of today's light waves still be a part of this universe way back when the Big Bang happened only 1/2 second ago? The answer again is yes.
KJV

United States

#1388 May 16, 2013
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...

Part 4

Issue #4: Problem with light at zero MPH

What does the universe look like when light is reduced to 0mph or is stopped altogether?

One of the main parts of the big bang theory is that we will eventually see a contraction. That is, eventually the expansion will stop, and the natural gravitational forces will pull everything back together over a long period of time until it is all collected into the same singularity from which the Big Bang happened and everything will start all over again. This is generally referred to as the Big Crunch.

The important consequence of this theory is that it will pull everything, matter and light back into the crunch to begin the process. If anything is left outside the Big Crunch before it explodes again, then this, by definition contradicts the concept of the Big Bang being the start of everything. Also if you consider a universe to contain a huge, but ultimately finite amount of matter and photons, then if everything is not sucked back in with each crunch, even if that amount is only an amount of photons, then the bang gets smaller and smaller with each instance. Also that would mean that the universe is equal in size to the speed of light times the time of the very first bang, if there ever was one. So the theory must maintain that the Big Crunch pulls EVERYTHING back in.

Well usually our attention is focused at the beginning (Big Bang) and the end (Big Crunch) but I think we need to look at the midpoint.

So let us imagine we are at the very outer reaches of space riding along with the furthest light waves in the universe. The time occurs when the gravity behind us is so great, we will go back to where we began.
KJV

United States

#1389 May 16, 2013
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...

Part 6

Or will we?

In this case, the gravitational forces must act upon the furthest light waves and slow them down little by little until...

We can imagine at some point the exact moment when the light waves reach their zenith where their outward force exactly matches the gravitational pull. In other words, light is stopped altogether. I'm sure Einstein would've loved to try to consider what this scenario should be like. Maybe he did. I'm not sure.

The most realistic way around this bizarre scenario is to imagine that the pull is not precise and simply turns the light wave in a large slowing arc until they head back in the other direction.

This case creates a possible scenario where if we place ourselves in the right place at the right time (In the light waves path on their return trip) It would be possible to look forward any observe the universe forming behind us. Of course we couldn't turn around and watch the crunch at the same time since the gravity would presumably pull all tell tale light back into itself. Again, this is a very strange effect to imagine.

In either case it is hard to imagine the situation of a gravity so strong that ALL light photons would eventually be stopped before reversing course or arcing back to the beginning. This is not to say that this can't happen, but on a universe wide scale this would indeed be an interesting phenomenon to work out.

Issue #5: Problem of the edge

Another problem with an expanding universe theory is the presupposition that an edge to the universe must exist.

We have already shown that the empty space ahead of all matter exists in the universe as well, so what is at the edge of the universe? Let's look at it logically.

Let us imagine the edge of all space and time as a barrier of some kind. An impenetrable barrier enclosing all space, both empty and occupied through which matter and time can not pass. The edge of the universe must be something of this nature, right?

Any barrier, no matter what shape, size, composition, thickness, etc. always has two important sides: The side holding the contents and the opposite side, which is furthest away from the contents. Both sides always have a defined edge and therefore something on the other side of each edge. In this theoretical case, one edge touches the universe.
KJV

United States

#1390 May 16, 2013
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...

Part 7

The simple question that should come to mind then is: What is at the other side of the barrier?

With this basic understanding, we must conclude that anything on the other side of this "barrier", even if it's pure empty space must also be a part of the universe. Even if the other side consists of space/matter that doesn't conform to any law of physics currently known to man, it does still exist, and therefore must be included in the list of "Everything that exists anywhere" and therefore is part of the universe.

This means that any imagined barrier to the universe can not exist.

OK so just for thoroughness let's take away an assumption: Let's assume that the aforementioned "barrier" has no other side. To do this it must be a barrier of infinite thickness. Anything less would create another "side" as mentioned above.

OK so we now have a barrier of unknown composition and infinite thickness enclosing the entire universe.

What's wrong with this picture? Simple: Any barrier, no matter what it's made of, how impenetrable or how thick is still a part of this universe. Even a barrier of a thickness of 10,001,000 googolplex light-years (Trust me that's VERY thick) is still a part of this universe. The fact that we can't analyze it, penetrate it or get any information on its internal composition doesn't mean that isn't a part of the universe.

So if the barrier to the universe is infinite in thickness and since the barrier is part of the universe, the universe is also infinite in size.

If no barrier to the universe exists, then the universe is still infinite in size.

If the outermost edge of the universe is completely empty space then the universe is still infinite in size.

Ultimate conclusion: The universe is infinite in size at all times.

Since this is the case, the big bang becomes not the creation of the universe, but only a major occurrence during its existence.

The birth of a tree
How old would a tree be in the year 2002 if the seed start sprouting back in 1921? The obvious answer is 81 years old.

But how old is the seed? How long did it exist before it started sprouting? How long ago was it on the tree from which it sprouted? How old is the mother tree?

The basic information given can't give us the full picture in terms of multigenerational questions.

If a Big Bang actually occurred, the most likely scenario is that is part of a cycle of explosion, contraction, explosion and contraction ad infinitum. One explosion is simply one generation of an infinite life span. In fact, my guess is that Big Bangs happen in multiple places at different times.

The second purpose of this article is to layout other truths in conjunction with dispelling the theory.

The universe is infinite in size and time
Time had no beginning and will have no end
In other words, the universe is infinite in size, has always existed and will never end.

Why do I believe these concepts? Simply because any other explanation I've found runs into many of the same problems. Mainly: "But what happened before that?"

The funny part is that most opponents to these truths I show usually don't like the concept of an infinitely sized, never-beginning, never-ending universe. Then they try to hurt these arguments with rebuttal theories involving something equally large such as an infinite sized barrier or an infinitely powered deity.

I would like to hear if you have another plausible more logical explanation than a never-ending universe.
CunningLinguist

Lady Lake, FL

#1391 May 16, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Godbots never let the facts stand in the way of their delusions.
I am always amused by the way they try to modify their myths to fit reality. Why can't they just wake up to the simple fact that it is a myth?
Susan is harmless and very funny. I like her, even though I cannot agree with her bizarre views.

Of course she suffers from extreme religious dementia but is entertaining to chat with.

WHY?

This is an adventure into the seriously deluded religious mind.

For each question posed she must create a believable scenario, which will prove to be impossible, and unintentionally hilarious.

Naturally, she shall continue to pursue this endeavor until the indicated time expires and she is left wanting.

We she then admit, she has been wrong? No, No a 1000 times NO!

;)

We can thank Susan again for reminding us that God’s word is ANYTHING BUT eternal and unchanging as advertised.
Misa

Weymouth, UK

#1392 May 16, 2013
KJV wrote:
Exploding the Big Bang Theory
ROFL, very good. Downhill from there, I'm afraid.
KJV wrote:
Originally, the Big Bang Theory was being used to explain the beginning of the universe.
That's not what the modern big bang theory is about, any more than evolution is about the origin of life.

Further down:
KJV wrote:
The theory states that the size of the universe is equal to the speed of light (the item furthest away from the explosion as possible) times the age of the explosion.
Utter crap. If you're going to argue against a theory, make sure you understand what it actually says first.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 min Eagle 12 239,040
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 40 min NoahLovesU 97
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 58 min NoahLovesU 7,259
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 5 hr NoahLovesU 7,442
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... Thu thetruth 29
News .com | What hope is there without God? May 20 Kaitlin the Wolf ... 26
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) May 20 thetruth 2,171
More from around the web