Atheists are the most genius among us,
They believe that NOTHING

Created EVERYTHING

I mean, that makes total sense -

Well, wrong, but even if you were right, atheism has nothing to do with the big bang. There are many Christian scientists that accept the fact that the big bang happened and that the theory is our best understanding of that fact at this time.

Please, stop making this an atheist thing, because it isn't.

Somebody just said that literally two posts above the one you just quoted. "Technically nothing." But sure. I misinterpreted, right?

My biggest problem is modern creation science is literally its own cult of the unknown, taking bits and pieces of the observable universe and making YUGE leaps of faith to fill on a largely blank puzzle,  then have hubris and audacity to look down on religion as backward and impossible.

And when you finally pin that person down and ask them "what happened before that", they are either intellectually honest and admit they have no idea or they insert unintelligible slobber and bluster in defense of that cluelessness in an attempt to sound like the intellectual.

Just admit you (ambiguous, non-specific you) dont have any more of a clue than the religions you pan and we can all (mostly) get along.

39 books of our Bible were written as far back as 4,000 years ago, 2,000 years of prophecy of the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Actually, 108 prophecies were written to predict the coming of Jesus. And ALL of them came true! One example is the prophet Isaiah, who wrote 700 years before Christ that He would be born of a Virgin and would be God in the flesh.

The accuracy of this claim alone is miraculous-  World-renowned Physicist and mathematician, Peter Stoner, who studied the probability of all the messianic prophecies coming true - concluded that the probability of just 8 (of the 108) prophecies coming to pass. Only 8 of 108 would be 1 in one quadrillion in its probability. Yet all 108 came to pass.  The Bible is the inerrant, infallible, eternal Word of the Almighty God.

Study the Bible, you can read it, and if you're earnestly asking God, ..is this real? It will begin to read you. Why? because it's a living Book.

LOL, yea and there are many "Christian" pastors like Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland who claim to be Christians too.
A Christian scientist believes the BIBLE. - or he's not a Christian

Shocking. Another fake Christian that thinks he gets to judge other Christians. Color me shocked.

Where does a belief in astronomy, physics, and the concept of the "big bang" conflict with a belief in the Bible?  They are not mutually exclusive.

Once upon a time, there really wasn't much conflict. Giordano Bruno or that idiot who calculated the age of the Earth by counting generations in the Old Testament aside.

Then, enter the Progressives of the late 19th Century, who took Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and common descent, and twisted it around to some proto-Lysenko bullshit to justify their whole "we can force people to be good, by our definition of 'good,' whether they like it or not and kill off everybody who doesn't want to be good by our definition of 'good,' and let's do some eugenics while we're at it" notions.

This led to an anti-intellectual backlash among Christians who were (rightly, IMHO) offended by this version of 'progress.' And somewhere in there, someone decided that since the progressives were claiming that their bullshit logically derived from Darwin's theory, Darwin's theory also sucked along with anything that looked like it.

IMHO there can't be that much conflict between being a Christian and being an evolutionary biologist. I've been doing it for most of my adult life.

But progressivism is the wellspring from which wokeness flows, and everything woke turns to shit.

It can be yours, if you ask.

You remind me of my ex-wife's family. A bunch of dummies who watch TV evangelists talk about the statistical improbability of life randomly and spontaneously blossoming  out of rocks.

This is supposed to be their big proof that God is the most likely explanation for existence.

You don't know where this 1 in quadrillion number comes from, but I do. It came right out of your TV evangelist's ass.

haha.  i agree with you.

Intergalactic cumshot

No. No I don't. But that's a personal truth each must work out on their own.

It took decades of prayer for me, after all the times I faced death, yet walked away unharmed. That wasn't by luck it was through his grace.

For decades I was why did you save and protect me? While I saw others die...why?

After decades I was lead to the right place in life and the holy spirit spoke to me.

Accepting Jesus is the best thing that has happened in my life? Life for me has a different outlook now.

That's how faith and prayer works.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the entire thread. I checked in yesterday and happened to see it, and didn't get around to responding until today. Hopefully my views are consistent with/relevant to the overall content of the discussion.

I  want to address the tired, hackneyed assumptions that if a Christian opposes evolution it must be because it threatens their faith. It's probably not universal but I see it a lot.

So why do I, a Christian, oppose evolution?

Actually, for the greater part of my life I didn't. I believed 'Old Earth,' Christian theories which, as I understand it, are perfectly compatible with ~95-98% of evolution. It wasn't a big deal with me; I figured if God wanted to use evolution as an integral part of creation, that was His prerogative. Questioning His methods was way above my pay grade.

I didn't spend a lot of time pondering evolutionary creation but I was perfectly complacent. I recognized that I disagreed with what I then considered scientists but what I now consider pseudo scientific hacks, re the very first forms of life (i.e.: single celled plants, whatever). I had a very good personal relationship with a thorough going evolutionist who believed exactly as I did: that God created the original spark of life and then used evolution to shepherd it along. That was good enough for me.

Then everything changed. Why? Secondarily because red blood cells and flexible soft tissue were found in the leg bone of a T-rex. Primarily because I observed the hysterically ridiculous and stunningly dishonest ad hoc explanations for this discovery. 'There was iron in the leg bone therefore soft tissue remained flexible for 68 million years, case closed.'

So-called scientists didn't debate or honestly/realistically discuss the issues related to supposedly 68 million year old flexible soft tissue. It was simply a matter of stating--ex cathedra from a 'science,' POV--'Here's the explanation; now shut up and move on.'

I was frankly disgusted. To think I gave these people the benefit of the doubt* for so many years. They don't deserve it. As stated, they are not scientists. They behave fundamentally more like dogmatic religious ideologues. [This is all covered in atheist Thomas Kuhn's Structures of Scientific Revolutions, BTW. He used the religious fanatic analogy long before I did; credit where it's due.]

My attitude now is, fool me once, etc. The ease and audacity with which these 'scientists,' pretend that all questions re supposedly 68 million year old flexible soft tissue have been resolved should open the eyes of anyone with even a semi-objective POV. Facts and evidence do not inform the theory. The theory browbeats facts and evidence into compliance. So my approach has become, if they will lie to this degree about the shelf life of flexible soft tissue, what won't they lie about. Because what I care about--unlike pseudo scientific quacks--is the truth.

* It wasn't even the benefit of the doubt really. It was just me blindly buying the half truths evolutionists cavalierly peddle while not noticing how deftly they hide every legitimate question. They are dishonest above all else.

I now doubt pretty much everything after having observed how people were manipulated in the past, and how modern people are manipulated.

If you can't trust theoretical science in one area, there is no need to trust it at all.

I trust what can be demonstrated to my satisfaction, and only that.

If I'm wrong, I don't much care.

It makes some people mad, but then an Egyptian would be mad if told  the Sun isn't a living thing.

Belief in something that you yourself can not prove, that requires trust, is just that, a belief.

Is the world 4 billion years old?

Is the world 4 thousand years old?

Is the world a simulation where simple belief in something generates evidence of what you seek?

I don't trust anyone to know.

i don't know.

Absolutely. We watch 'scientists,' lie about man-made global warming. We watch 'scientists,' and even a non-insignificant number of drs lie about pandemics, etc. Surely what we're seeing is only the tip of the iceberg.

I occasionally read classic SciFi. It's amazing to look back in time and see how much faith was at one time invested in science and scientists. Of course, back then perhaps even the legal profession was held in higher regard. [There are some very excellent lawyers, BTW. I have never been down on the entire profession.]

I have a personal theory that wholesale lying wasn't truly popularized for the masses until Bill Clinton. At that time his virtually ubiquitous dishonesty meshed with starstruck media adulation to persuade the majority that not only were lies no big deal, but as often as not could actually be uplifting if told in a noble cause.

It's been downhill ever since.

Agreement.  Well said.

Nobody knows.  There is insufficient data to draw an accurate conclusion.  I am more likely to believe somebody who has a theory that "may" be right than to believe some nut who claims they know for certain based upon what a preacher told them to believe...

In this case the 'theory,' is confidently assuring us that T-rex tissue remains soft and flexible for 68 million years. They aren't saying, 'This unexpected discovery will lead to the questioning of some of our foundational assumptions.' They aren't admitting that there is no scientific way to test their ad hoc explanation re why soft tissue has what amounts to an infinite level of preservation. ['Infinite,' in the sense that they didn't say, 'We proved soft tissue remains relatively fresh for 68 million years but after 100 or 200 million years it would either fossilize or deteriorate beyond the state of 'flexibility.' They left it open ended.]

IOW, they aren't treating it as a theory. They are treating it as a fact to which external evidence must be forced/hammered into compliance.

What created God? If God created God, how is that different?

My view: I don't have any idea how to answer either question. We don't know what caused the universe to start expanding, we just know that it did.

We may never know why

You got a better one?

The people that come up with these theories are doing the best with what we can observe and study.

The universe is currently understood to be expanding, and accelerating, at that.

What causes something to expand?

You guessed it, a Big Bang.