Big Bang Fair-tail

Every few years, the Big Bang Fair-tail gets changed in order for it to appear to be correct. Since I admit that I’m ignorant of the latest version of this fair-tail, let’s talk some basic "facts" and I hope the Heliocentric High Priest will answer my questions, but first we must set one ground rule.

“The difference between religion and science is that in a religion, we believe something because we like to believe in it, where as in science, we can test and measure a result from our statements.”

I would like for the Heliocentric High Priest to back up their answers with how do you know the answer and what evidence do they have to support your claim?

Questions:

1)   How many years ago did the Big Bang happen?

2)   Was the mass spinning really fast before the explosion, as we were told in grade school or has this changed?

3)   What is the location of the origin of the explosion of the Big Bang? Do we know the spot (x, y, z) of the explosion?

4)   How far away is the Earth located today from the original explosion spot?

5)   How fast was the mass travelling after the explosion? Was it at the speed of light? Slower, faster?

6)   When did time start to be in effect? Was there such a thing as time, before the Big Bang or was it a product of the explosion?

7)   When did the physical laws start to be in effect, before the bang or after the bang? Conservation of Energy, Momentum, F=ma...

   How much mass is there in the Universe?

9)   How big is the Universe? How many light years, is the furthest object from the center of the explosion.

10)   Where did all this mass come from? Since everything has a beginning and an end, how did it become into existence in order for the Big Bang to happen?

I hope that you can provide scientific evidence for your answers, without using the word, “BELIEVE”…

Let out early?

Every few years, the Big Bang Fair-tail gets changed in order for it to appear to be correct. Since I admit that I’m ignorant of the latest version of this fair-tail, let’s talk some basic "facts" and I hope the Heliocentric High Priest will answer my questions, but first we must set one ground rule.

“The difference between religion and science is that in a religion, we believe something because we like to believe in it, where as in science, we can test and measure a result from our statements.”

I would like for the Heliocentric High Priest to back up their answers with how do you know the answer and what evidence do they have to support your claim?

Questions:

1)   How many years ago did the Big Bang happen?

Depends on your cosmological model, but about 14 billion years ago.

2)   Was the mass spinning really fast before the explosion, as we were told in grade school or has this changed?

Your grade school teacher got that wrong. There was never a theory like this, nor will there ever be one. This is complete nonsense

3)   What is the location of the origin of the explosion of the Big Bang? Do we know the spot (x, y, z) of the explosion?

4)   How far away is the Earth located today from the original explosion spot?

All these questions can be answered at once: The big bang is the origin of spacetime itself. After that, spacetime itself expanded, taking the mass inside with it. Think of it this way: You are in a space where the coordinates change with x_t(x)=t*x. At t=0 everything was at the origin. So the proper answer to 3) would be everywhere. The big bang is not an explosion that happened somewhere in space and time, it is the creation of space and time.

5)   How fast was the mass travelling after the explosion? Was it at the speed of light? Slower, faster?

Again, it was not mass that travelled through space, but space itself expanding. There is a theory of inflation, where spacetime expanded incredibly fast (way faster than the speed of light) in the first fractions of a second. While there is nothing speaking against it and it explains a few observations, it is only a posterior theory (i.e. it has not yet made predictions that were independently verified), therefore it is questioned.

6)   When did time start to be in effect? Was there such a thing as time, before the Big Bang or was it a product of the explosion?

This is a bit philosophical, I think the consensus is that both time and space begin with the big bang but I am not sure about this. According to GR space and time can not exist independently of each other, but wheter there was something before the big bang we can not know. We do know that everything in OUR universe was created in the big bang.

7)   When did the physical laws start to be in effect, before the bang or after the bang? Conservation of Energy, Momentum, F=ma...

At the moment of the big bang. Unfortunately, for the first fraction of a second, the energies are so high that we can not reproduce the physics and thus can not derive the respecitve laws. After the first second or so it is normal, well-understood physics. Conservation of Energy is only a local law, by the way, it does not hold globally.

   How much mass is there in the Universe?

9)   How big is the Universe? How many light years, is the furthest object from the center of the explosion.

We do not know. We only know that the observable universe is spanning 14 billion lightyears. It might extend past that infinitely, it might end somewhere, it might form a giant loop and end in itself. We do not know and can not know.

10)   Where did all this mass come from? Since everything has a beginning and an end, how did it become into existence in order for the Big Bang to happen?

That is the probably most important question of physics since generations. Why are we here? How did it begin?
Answer: Noone knows.

Every few years, the Big Bang Fair-tail gets changed in order for it to appear to be correct.

Since no-one has a clue what a
is, how can anyone answer your idiotic claims?

Every few years, the Big Bang Fair-tail gets changed in order for it to appear to be correct.

Do you mean that science is a constantly evolving field where no one rests on their laurels or accepts a theory with blind faith, but rather seeks to falsify and question everything? Wow, who knew?

Since your specific questions have been answered quite well, I'll go general. I'm assuming your speaking from a religious stance, based on your ground rule. So, given that, why can there not be a God and the Big Bang? Usually this argument tends to along the lines of:

P1: God created the universe.
P2: Science says the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe.
P3: P1 and P2 disagree.
Conclusion: Science is wrong; there was no Big Bang.

But this logic simply isn't valid. P3 is an incorrect premise, God could have caused the Big Bang, since he exists outside time and space. Many people believe this (I do, for example). What better way to reveal His ultimate power than providing proof that everything was created from (so far as we know) nothing?

Quote

2)   Was the mass spinning really fast before the explosion, as we were told in grade school or has this changed?

Your grade school teacher got that wrong. There was never a theory like this, nor will there ever be one. This is complete nonsense

I believe that you are wrong!!!

The website http://physicsworld.com published an article on Jul 25, 2011 with the title "Was the universe born spinning?" http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/25/was-the-universe-born-spinning which states

The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis – that is the bold conclusion of physicists in the US who have studied the rotation of more than 15,000 galaxies. While most cosmological theories have suggested that – on a large scale – the universe is the same in every direction, these recent findings suggest that the early universe was born spinning about a specific axis. If correct, this also means that the universe does not possess mirror symmetry, but rather has a preferred right or left "handedness".

Led by Michael Longo from the University of Michigan, the team had set out to test whether mirror symmetry, also referred to as "parity", was violated on the largest scales. If a particle violates parity, its mirror image would behave differently, and such particles can be described as right- or left-handed. Parity is violated in nuclear beta decays and there is a strong preference in nature for left-handed amino acids, rather than right-handed.

"To my knowledge, no-one had asked the question of whether the universe itself had a preference of say left-handed over right-handed. My idea was to test this by seeing if there was a preferred sense of rotation of spiral galaxies. At that time, I didn't quite appreciate that, if so, it meant that the entire universe would have a net angular momentum," explains Longo.

Galaxies in a spin
Longo and a team of five undergraduate students catalogued the rotation direction of 15,158 spiral galaxies with data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. They found that galaxies have a preferred direction of rotation – there was an excess of left-handed, or counter-clockwise, rotating spiral galaxies in the part of the sky toward the north pole of the Milky Way. The effect extended beyond 600 million light-years away.

The excess is small, about 7%, and Longo says that the chance that it could be a cosmic accident is something like one in a million. "If galaxies tend to spin in a certain direction, it means that the overall universe should have a rather large net angular momentum. Since angular momentum is conserved, it seems it [the universe] must have been "born" spinning."

So the US physicists are claiming that the Universe have been "born" spinning. Please so citation for your reasoning as to why it is "This is complete nonsense" as you put it?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on August 02, 2017, 02:47:59 AM

Every few years, the Big Bang Fair-tail gets changed in order for it to appear to be correct.

Do you mean that science is a constantly evolving field where no one rests on their laurels or accepts a theory with blind faith, but rather seeks to falsify and question everything? Wow, who knew?

Since your specific questions have been answered quite well, I'll go general. I'm assuming your speaking from a religious stance, based on your ground rule. So, given that, why can there not be a God and the Big Bang? Usually this argument tends to along the lines of:

P1: God created the universe.
P2: Science says the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe.
P3: P1 and P2 disagree.
Conclusion: Science is wrong; there was no Big Bang.

But this logic simply isn't valid. P3 is an incorrect premise, God could have caused the Big Bang, since he exists outside time and space. Many people believe this (I do, for example). What better way to reveal His ultimate power than providing proof that everything was created from (so far as we know) nothing?

Did I say anything about God?

This thread is for you to explain your fair-tail!!!

So far, you have 1 strike against you, the spinning explosion is back up by US physicists, unless they don't know what they are talking about and the heliocentric high priest do.

Quote

3)   What is the location of the origin of the explosion of the Big Bang? Do we know the spot (x, y, z) of the explosion?
4)   How far away is the Earth located today from the original explosion spot?

All these questions can be answered at once: The big bang is the origin of spacetime itself. After that, spacetime itself expanded, taking the mass inside with it. Think of it this way: You are in a space where the coordinates change with x_t(x)=t*x. At t=0 everything was at the origin. So the proper answer to 3) would be everywhere. The big bang is not an explosion that happened somewhere in space and time, it is the creation of space and time.

But the Universe is expanding in all directions, then their must be an origin, please inform the world, how many light years from earth is this origin.

Also can you please explain to us why was space and time created in the explosion?

So the US physicists are claiming that the Universe have been "born" spinning. Please so citation for your reasoning as to why it is "This is complete nonsense" as you put it?

There was no mass to rotate before the Big Bang, but it may have been the case that once the Big Bang occurred, everything started spinning at the moment anything began. You initially said:

2)   Was the mass spinning really fast before the explosion, as we were told in grade school or has this changed?

But of course, there was no mass spinning before the explosion, because there was no mass before the explosion.

Also, note how this is simply a theory.

Did I say anything about God?

This thread is for you to explain your fair-tail!!!

So far, you have 1 strike against you, the spinning explosion is back up by US physicists, unless they don't know what they are talking about and the heliocentric high priest do.

No, as I said, I made an assumption, based on your religion quote. Also, we have explained it sufficiently, would you like to provide counter-evidence, such as why you believe the Big Bang never happened?

But the Universe is expanding in all directions, then their must be an origin, please inform the world, how many light years from earth is this origin.

Also can you please explain to us why was space and time created in the explosion?

There is an origin, but said origin didn't exist until the universe did. But, if we can only see a small part of a massive universe, how are we supposed to know where the center is? If we can't see the edges, how do we know where the middle is? If I blindfolded you and brought you into an unfamiliar room, then asked you to point to the middle, could you do it?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on August 02, 2017, 02:47:59 AM

Every few years, the Big Bang Fair-tail gets changed in order for it to appear to be correct.

Do you mean that science is a constantly evolving field where no one rests on their laurels or accepts a theory with blind faith, but rather seeks to falsify and question everything? Wow, who knew?

Since your specific questions have been answered quite well, I'll go general. I'm assuming your speaking from a religious stance, based on your ground rule. So, given that, why can there not be a God and the Big Bang? Usually this argument tends to along the lines of:

P1: God created the universe.
P2: Science says the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe.
P3: P1 and P2 disagree.
Conclusion: Science is wrong; there was no Big Bang.

But this logic simply isn't valid. P3 is an incorrect premise, God could have caused the Big Bang, since he exists outside time and space. Many people believe this (I do, for example). What better way to reveal His ultimate power than providing proof that everything was created from (so far as we know) nothing?

Finally someone with similar ideas as me.
thank you Tessa. I also have the opinion that science and religion does not have to contradict each other. The big bang can be the beginning of the universe and time and space as science claims...That still doesn't mean God does not exist.

For what I know, God made the Big Bang happen, and by doing that he created the universe.

Quote

5)   How fast was the mass travelling after the explosion? Was it at the speed of light? Slower, faster?

Again, it was not mass that travelled through space, but space itself expanding. There is a theory of inflation, where spacetime expanded incredibly fast (way faster than the speed of light) in the first fractions of a second. While there is nothing speaking against it and it explains a few observations, it is only a posterior theory (i.e. it has not yet made predictions that were independently verified), therefore it is questioned.

But again, we have been told that the Universe is expanding in all directions, thus traveling even today. We have been told that the traveling speed goes against gravity. On the website https://www.quora.com, thier is an article by Doug Snell, Theoretical Physicist called "Would still being in the explosive part of the big bang explain the increase in speed as we travel, relative to the point of origin of the big bang?" and the link can be found at https://www.quora.com/Would-still-being-in-the-explosive-part-of-the-big-bang-explain-the-increase-in-speed-as-we-travel-relative-to-the-point-of-origin-of-the-big-bang

Where it states:

Q: “Would still being in the explosive part of the big bang explain the increase in speed as we travel, relative to the point of origin of the big bang?”

This is a very good question. Explaining ‘the universe is expanding at an increasing rate’ in defiance of gravity, has perplexed physics/science since 1929. It is 2017/time for a good explanation that resides well with the physics or math, and able to be verified.

If ‘the universe is expanding at an increasing rate’ in defiance of gravity/physics was currently happening: then yes, the ‘explosive’ dynamics of the big bang could explain expansion. The explosive nature of the big bang event would allow a defiance of the natural system of gravity and mater/mass to contract/attract.

Sort of like a supernova where energy/massive goes through an explosive event to enable mass to defy gravity=contrcation momentarily.

Increasing Rate- But ‘at an increasing rate’ would still be in defiance of the physics and gravity of what is involved, logically. And could not be explained by “the explosive part of the big bang explain the increase in speed as we travel”. Within the empirical physics and the known gravity of the galaxies and universe, ‘at an increasing rate’ let alone ‘the universe is expanding’, is illogical and woefully unsubstantiated.

The belief that universe is expanding is simply, a major blunder by science; and it was not Einstein’s blunder alone. This is about mis-interpreting redshift, science/physicists persist/insist in this blunder today.

Support the Blunder- There had to be some explanation of redshift/expansion. To support the ‘blunder’ the speculative/hypothetical ‘dark energy’ is imagined
1-to have an infinite source to create it (a something from nothing science) a ‘creation’…
2-to push galaxies away from each other,,,,to support ‘expansion’ as it is interpreted as creating the ‘redshift’ observed….. Poppycock is my response to such an illogical science mis-understanding.

Redshift interpretation- It is the ‘redshift’ observed from distant galaxies that is interpreted to mean: ‘the universe is expanding’. Within the redshift data it is found the more distant the galaxy, the more redshift observed. That increased observed redshift is interpreted as: ‘at an increasing rate’.

So we have two parts to unraveling the blunder:
1- redshift interpreted as expansion ‘the universe is expanding’. AND
2- increased redshift with the more distant the galaxy, ‘at an increasing rate’.

That is the ‘blunder’: mis-interpratation of the redshift observed from distant galaxies. It is not that the redshift is in question; Redshift is observed and that is empirical. The blunder is what the redshift is interpreted to mean. And, the correlating/following error is by not accounting for the redshift in ways that allows explanations within the physics/math of the event.

The error lays in not accounting for the ‘effects’ of
1-velocity/motion/acceleration and
2-gravity on the light/redshift observed.

Effects: Gravity effects light. Velocity has effects on light. Gravity and velocity have to adhere to the laws of Physics and corresponding math.

No Effects: Light does not effect gravity. Light does not effect velocity. Adhering to the laws of physics and its math is not vital concerning light- meaning, light is not (vital to) empirical data in all events/physics. Light only seems vital to…relativity….mess with light and it is Mayhem for relativity-results.

Examples of this is, no light does what to relativity; no redshift does what regarding expansion-relativity and the cosmological constant? Ergo, without accurate light interpretations, relativity is inaccurate…. effecting light effect results: yet light does not effect gravity-mass-distance.

Summary: the expansion interpreted from the redshift needs better interpretations and accounting. But rather than by a continuation of ‘big bang explosion’ continuation, a more advanced explanation is required.

As to your reply, this article debunks it.

As to your reply, this article debunks it.

Not really. Gravity is a fairly weak force, we don't actually know what force drives expansion (dark matter? space aliens? who knows). We also don't know how big the universe is, so there's no real way to tell what speed it's going at. I agree with you in that science has no clear answer, and is still looking for one. I would be really interested to hear what your answer is?

Quote

2)   Was the mass spinning really fast before the explosion, as we were told in grade school or has this changed?

But of course, there was no mass spinning before the explosion, because there was no mass before the explosion.

If their was no mass, before the explosion, then
1) How did the mass form?
2) Why would the mass be spinning once it formed?
3) Why did the mass form in the first place?

Please provide citation for your answer.

Quote

Quote

2)   Was the mass spinning really fast before the explosion, as we were told in grade school or has this changed?

But of course, there was no mass spinning before the explosion, because there was no mass before the explosion.

If their was no mass, before the explosion, then
1) How did the mass form?
2) Why would the mass be spinning once it formed?
3) Why did the mass form in the first place?

Please provide citation for your answer.

1) The energy from the big bang turned into matter. (source: http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/where-does-mass-come-from)
2) Because your article says so (source: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/25/was-the-universe-born-spinning)
3) Because of the big bang. (source: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/101-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/general-questions/572-where-did-the-universe-come-from-intermediate)

Quote from: InFlatEarth on August 02, 2017, 03:49:12 AM

As to your reply, this article debunks it.

Not really. Gravity is a fairly weak force, we don't actually know what force drives expansion (dark matter? space aliens? who knows). We also don't know how big the universe is, so there's no real way to tell what speed it's going at. I agree with you in that science has no clear answer, and is still looking for one. I would be really interested to hear what your answer is?

NO, I'm hear to learn from you. I ask the questions since I admit that I'm a total idiot when it comes to the Big Bang Fair-tail.

Let's start with the basics, you said that "we don't actually know what force drives expansion".

Can you please prove to us that their is an expansion in the first place. What are the facts to support this claim?

Quote

Quote

2)   Was the mass spinning really fast before the explosion, as we were told in grade school or has this changed?

But of course, there was no mass spinning before the explosion, because there was no mass before the explosion.

If their was no mass, before the explosion, then
1) How did the mass form?
2) Why would the mass be spinning once it formed?
3) Why did the mass form in the first place?

Please provide citation for your answer.

As I already said, there are no answers to these questions. Only speculations.

You need to get your mind away from the name big bang. It was not an explosion. The name is misleading. It is simply the start of spacetime.

The universe expands isotropically, so there is no origin or something like that.

The universe might have an internal angular momentum, but that has nothing to do with the big bang being an incredibly dense and fastly rotating ball that was torn away by centrifugal forces. The first one is possible, the latter is absolute bogus.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on August 02, 2017, 03:53:11 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on August 02, 2017, 03:49:12 AM

As to your reply, this article debunks it.

Not really. Gravity is a fairly weak force, we don't actually know what force drives expansion (dark matter? space aliens? who knows). We also don't know how big the universe is, so there's no real way to tell what speed it's going at. I agree with you in that science has no clear answer, and is still looking for one. I would be really interested to hear what your answer is?

NO, I'm hear to learn from you. I ask the questions since I admit that I'm a total idiot when it comes to the Big Bang Fair-tail.

Let's start with the basics, you said that "we don't actually know what force drives expansion".

Can you please prove to us that their is an expansion in the first place. What are the facts to support this claim?

Existence of cosmic microwave background radiation proves the universe was very hot and dense about 14 billion years ago.

Redshift of galaxies proves that they are moving away from us.

Assumption: We are not special, so if everything moves away from us it also moves away from each other, therefore the universe is expanding.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on August 02, 2017, 03:53:15 AM

Quote

Quote

2)   Was the mass spinning really fast before the explosion, as we were told in grade school or has this changed?

But of course, there was no mass spinning before the explosion, because there was no mass before the explosion.

If their was no mass, before the explosion, then
1) How did the mass form?
2) Why would the mass be spinning once it formed?
3) Why did the mass form in the first place?

Please provide citation for your answer.

1) The energy from the big bang turned into matter. (source: http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/where-does-mass-come-from)
2) Because your article says so (source: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/25/was-the-universe-born-spinning)
3) Because of the big bang. (source: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/101-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/general-questions/572-where-did-the-universe-come-from-intermediate)

The first link that you provided stated that "he Higgs field turned on".

My question are:
1) How do we now that it turned on and was not on from the explosion?
2) When did it turn on and why did it turn on when it did?
3) What was the mechanism to make it turn on.
4) Your first like was a story for children, is this the scientific citations that you have to provide me with?

Can you please prove to us that their is an expansion in the first place. What are the facts to support this claim?

https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/universe.html

The American astronomer Edwin Hubble made the observations in 1925 and was the first to prove that the universe is expanding. He proved that there is a direct relationship between the speeds of distant galaxies and their distances from Earth. This is now known as Hubble’s Law. The Hubble Space Telescope was named after him, and the single number that describes the rate of the cosmic expansion, relating the apparent recession velocities of external galaxies to their distance, is called the Hubble Constant.

Essentially, universes and stars are all getting further away from each other.

Kami pretty much covered it, except the assumption can be worked away (or at least supported by evidence) as well.

From http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

In 1929 Edwin Hubble announced that he had measured the speed of galaxies at different distances from us, and had discovered that the farther they were, the faster they were receding.  This might suggest that we are at the centre of the expanding universe, but in fact if the universe is expanding uniformly according to Hubble's law, then it will appear to do so from any vantage point.

Kami, let me know if I screw something up; you seem to have a better understanding than I

The first link that you provided stated that "he Higgs field turned on".

My question are:
1) How do we now that it turned on and was not on from the explosion?
2) When did it turn on and why did it turn on when it did?
3) What was the mechanism to make it turn on.
4) Your first like was a story for children, is this the scientific citations that you have to provide me with?

I apologise, the wording is kinda confusing. From the source:

But why did the Higgs field turn on? Why do some particles interact more with the Higgs field than others? The short answer is: We don’t know.

“This is part of why finding the Higgs field is just the beginning—because we have a ton of questions,” says Matt Strassler, a theoretical physicist and associate of the Harvard University physics department.

Also, to address your point, I apologise for the childish interpretation, I didn't mean to come across as patronising, it was just the most readily available source. I don't think that affects it's credibility though.

As I already said, there are no answers to these questions. Only speculations.

The definition of the word speculate is "form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence."

So let me get this correct, when people work in University and wear a white coat and speculate on something, we call them scientist, but when ordinary people speculate about God, we call that a religion?

Can you please explain to me why you have double standars?

Either both are science or both are a religion.

Quote

As I already said, there are no answers to these questions. Only speculations.

The definition of the word speculate is "form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence."

So let me get this correct, when people work in University and wear a white coat and speculate on something, we call them scientist, but when ordinary people speculate about God, we call that a religion?

Can you please explain to me why you have double standars?

Either both are science or both are a religion.

It is a lot like that; there is little distinction. Science can never prove anything conclusively. However, it can provide evidence to support the claims that it makes. That is the key distinction. Science offers an explanation of everything, and can provide repeatable evidence to support it's explanations, but religion cannot. However, it's perfectly fine to accept both. I believe in God as much as I believe if I jump, gravity will pull me down.

Sorry, I'm just not really understanding what it is you are trying to say.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on August 02, 2017, 04:15:48 AM

Quote

As I already said, there are no answers to these questions. Only speculations.

The definition of the word speculate is "form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence."

So let me get this correct, when people work in University and wear a white coat and speculate on something, we call them scientist, but when ordinary people speculate about God, we call that a religion?

Can you please explain to me why you have double standars?

Either both are science or both are a religion.

It is a lot like that; there is little distinction. Science can never prove anything conclusively. However, it can provide evidence to support the claims that it makes. That is the key distinction. Science offers an explanation of everything, and can provide repeatable evidence to support it's explanations, but religion cannot. However, it's perfectly fine to accept both. I believe in God as much as I believe if I jump, gravity will pull me down.

Sorry, I'm just not really understanding what it is you are trying to say.

Science has proven that Jesus was the son of God, how you might ask?

First the New England journal of medicine in the late 70's did a study and found that Jesus did die on the cross based on 20th century science.

Second, the empty tomb of Jesus, did prove that he was resurrected as the 500 plus people that so him alive  after his crucifixion. Don't forget, he had armed roman solders on the tomb grading it day and night so nobody can steal it.

Third, St Paul, who killed Christians, once he so Jesus, he became a Christian.

So scientifically speaking, Jesus was the son of God and the science backs it up.

Now that that is out of the way, since the Son of God quoted Genesis 60 times, then Genesis must be true, unless you call the Son of God a liar...

Science has proven that Jesus was the son of God, how you might ask?

First the New England journal of medicine in the late 70's did a study and found that Jesus did die on the cross based on 20th century science.

Second, the empty tomb of Jesus, did prove that he was resurrected as the 500 plus people that so him alive  after his crucifixion. Don't forget, he had armed roman solders on the tomb grading it day and night so nobody can steal it.

Third, St Paul, who killed Christians, once he so Jesus, he became a Christian.

So scientifically speaking, Jesus was the son of God and the science backs it up.

Now that that is out of the way, since the Son of God quoted Genesis 60 times, then Genesis must be true, unless you call the Son of God a liar...

Genesis was a collection of stories passed down through oral tradition for many years. It also was written as a sort of poetry, so the events contained within it are more guidelines and creation myths like from any other culture than hard fact. Also, the creation of light out of darkness may well refer to the Big Bang.

Science has proven that Jesus was the son of God, how you might ask?

Bullshit

First the New England journal of medicine in the late 70's did a study and found that Jesus did die on the cross based on 20th century science.

source? where did you get this information from?

Second, the empty tomb of Jesus, did prove that he was resurrected as the 500 plus people that so him alive  after his crucifixion. Don't forget, he had armed roman solders on the tomb grading it day and night so nobody can steal it.

He was seen alive by a lot of people after the crucifiction because he never died on the cross.

Third, St Paul, who killed Christians, once he so Jesus, he became a Christian.

So scientifically speaking, Jesus was the son of God and the science backs it up.

again, Fair-tail

Now that that is out of the way, since the Son of God quoted Genesis 60 times, then Genesis must be true, unless you call the Son of God a liar...

I do believe in Jesus, but he was just like the same son of God as we all are sons and daughters of God and he did not die on the cross. you christians overlooked one miracle which happened at that moment or you are just ignoring that.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on August 02, 2017, 04:53:41 AM

Science has proven that Jesus was the son of God, how you might ask?

First the New England journal of medicine in the late 70's did a study and found that Jesus did die on the cross based on 20th century science.

Second, the empty tomb of Jesus, did prove that he was resurrected as the 500 plus people that so him alive  after his crucifixion. Don't forget, he had armed roman solders on the tomb grading it day and night so nobody can steal it.

Third, St Paul, who killed Christians, once he so Jesus, he became a Christian.

So scientifically speaking, Jesus was the son of God and the science backs it up.

Now that that is out of the way, since the Son of God quoted Genesis 60 times, then Genesis must be true, unless you call the Son of God a liar...

Genesis was a collection of stories passed down through oral tradition for many years. It also was written as a sort of poetry, so the events contained within it are more guidelines and creation myths like from any other culture than hard fact. Also, the creation of light out of darkness may well refer to the Big Bang.

You are wrong, Genesis has been analysed by non religious scholars and it has been determined to be the writings of historical events not poetry.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Quote

First the New England journal of medicine in the late 70's did a study and found that Jesus did die on the cross based on 20th century science.

source? where did you get this information from?

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM197705192962008

Systemic Hypertension and the Relaxation Response

Herbert Benson, M.D.
N Engl J Med 1977; 296:1152-1156May 19, 1977DOI: 10.1056/NEJM197705192962008

He was seen alive by a lot of people after the crucifiction because he never died on the cross.

False, read Systemic Hypertension and the Relaxation Response
Herbert Benson, M.D.
N Engl J Med 1977; 296:1152-1156May 19, 1977DOI: 10.1056/NEJM197705192962008

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM197705192962008

Quote

Science has proven that Jesus was the son of God, how you might ask?

Bullshit

The only bullshit was your comments about Jesus being alive on the cross.

Do you know that if a convicted person did not die on the cross and escaped, that the roman guards that where their would be crucified  as punishment?