Math 13
24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.

Never forget we were made in his image. So go break some wind and create something!

And if a match was put to it then that would surly be a big bang!!!
Jesus told Nicodemus the spirit is like wind that we don't know from where it came.
Not mocking, just funin.

… maybe I’m a theologian and didn’t know it

If I'm not mistaken Catholics are old earth and haven't taken to the young earth thing yet, but I could be wrong?

So if evolutionists are saying g that God might have started the Big Bang, why couldn’t Gid have spoken the universe into existence like that Bible says?

How do evolutionists explain the variety of animals on the earth? Not one single transitional fossil has ever been found. Darwin himself said that if no transitional fossils were found the entire theory of evolution would collapse.

I think a quick Google search turns up several examples of transitional fossils. Wikipedia gives an Archaeopteryx fossil as an example of a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and modern birds.

But I'm still awaiting your answer to my question.

Why do people get stuck on God creating a big bang? What if there was just outer space with comets and asteroids floating around and two of them just smacked into each other at about a billion miles per hour a gazillion years ago?
Why does there have to be a reason they hit each other or a source of where they came from or some magical guy in the sky throwing them at eachother?

Did you know that the elements of the periodic table are what those rocks floating out in space are made of? That they contain the same basic footprints that we do? i.e. everything we know of is made up of star dust and has the same ingredients.

Did you know finding meteors that crash into earth for their minerals was a thing? Not new minerals we weren't sure existed but the ones we know about, the periodic table mostly.

When was the last time they they found a rock that fell from space and had to add a square to the periodic table?

Did you know when you see a shooting star that the color you see is the material its comprised of burning up in the atmosphere? Thats why they are diff colors. Some soft some hard and they burn up diff.

I guess this is where some genious asks... but where did the outter space orig from then? There had to be a start for something... well if some magical dude in the sky makes you feel better believe in it I guess.

Anyway. Not to start in on this thread again but geezemlou.

Check this out. Start watching about 5:00 min mark if you are in a hurry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIDs-VTCaNU

Two comets colliding could hardly cause life to form.

Are there transitional forms in the fossil record that confirm evolution? Namely, are there lots of fossils showing that all living and all fossilized plants, animals, people, and microbes are related to a single common ancestor, as Darwin and virtually all evolutionists today believe and dogmatically proclaim to the world? Are there, for example, creatures that are half-fish and half-amphibian or half-reptile and half-bird? Are there creatures that are 90% reptile and 10% bird? And then a little higher in the rock record, are there creatures that are 80% reptile and 20% bird, and then higher up creatures that are 70% reptile and 30% bird, and so on until we find 100% birds higher in the rocks? We should find thousands and thousands of transitional fossils if evolution and millions of years are true. So is there fossil evidence of transitional forms that strongly supports the theory of microbe-to-microbiologist evolution?

In his 1859 book, Origin of Species, Darwin devoted a whole chapter to the fact that the fossil record did not support his theory. He wrote:
“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”

Darwin predicted that more fossil research would one day supply the evidence to confirm his theory. In 1960, Carl O. Dunbar, then Professor Emeritus of Paleontology and Stratigraphy at Yale University, and former Assistant Editor of the American Journal of Science said, “Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms.”8

But we now have millions of fossils in the world’s natural history museums, and the transitional fossils are still missing.


This part of an article from Answers in Genesis. I would like to hear your thoughts on it.

If in 10,000 years someone digs up a fossil of a mule. Will they know it is a cross that shouldn't have happened between a donkey and a horse ?

If you can find a Water Hemp weed that is preserved from say 30 years ago that wasn't resistant to roundup, and now have the same weed 30 yrs later that is resistant to Roundup. Do you think you can tell when, or how the adaptation took place?

That is changes just over a few years, what could 1 billion years do? Yes, I know you only have 6,000 years to work with, that somebody miss interpreted as a thief in the night and you picked it up and ran with it !

If you are really into magic "The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao" movie is entertaining.

Where did this outer space thing come from? Comets and astroids?

How would you know that ? Do you know what could have been on those comets ?

Just curious if you have ever taken a true/false test ??? I would imagine so.
If i remember correctly, one of the earliest things we were taught about taking tests is that the use of the word "all" in a question was almost a guarantee that it was false. Also don't miss the bias in the statement above in the use of the pejorative word "dogmatically". I'd say your friends at "Answers" in Genesis are better described as propagandists.

The supposed question they, and you, are asking is something that no one in the scientific community is alleging.

There is abundant hard evidence in the fossil record that many species share genetic material in common. It does NOT mean that they all came from one common ancestor.

You may have a basic misunderstanding of what evolutionists actually believe.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/lines-of-evidence/transitional-features/

If remember correctly, Ohio Boy said that the material that the comets are made of is the same basic materials on the periodic chart. The materials are mostly gases, metals, and other solids. How would a collision of these materials cause life and everything as we know to exist?

I hear over and over that evolutionary theory means we came from monkeys. Pretty far off the mark.

There are several scientific problems with the big bang theory. For one, we are missing monopoles.

A “monopole” is a hypothetical massive particle that is just like a magnet but with only one pole. So a monopole would have either a “north” pole or a “south” pole, but not both. Particle physicists claim that the high temperature conditions of the big bang should have created magnetic monopoles.

Since monopoles are predicted to be stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable searching, monopoles have not been found. The fact that we don’t find any monopoles strongly suggests that the universe never was that hot. This indicates that there never was a big bang. But the lack of monopoles is not problematic for the Bible’s account of creation because the universe did not start at extremely high temperatures.

A second scientific problem with the big bang is there is too little antimatter.

The big bang model proposes that matter (hydrogen and helium gas) was created from energy as the universe expanded. However, experimental physics tells us that whenever matter is created from energy, such a reaction also produces antimatter. Antimatter has similar properties to matter, except the charges of the particles are reversed.

The big bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Thus, if the big bang were true, there should be an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the universe today. But there is not. The visible universe is comprised almost entirely of matter—with only trace amounts of antimatter.

A third scientific problem with big bang cosmology is there are no ‘population III’ stars.

The big bang model by itself can account for the existence of only the three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium). This leaves the other naturally occurring elements unexplained. Since the conditions in the big bang model are not right to form these heavier elements, secular astronomers believe that stars have produced the remaining elements by nuclear fusion in their cores, which then distribute the heavier elements into space when they exploded (went supernovae).

Second- and third-generation stars are thus “contaminated” with small amounts of these heavier elements. If this were true, then the first stars would be comprised of only the three lightest elements (since these would have been the only elements in existence initially). Some such stars should still be around today since their lifespans are supposed to exceed the 13.8 billion years that has elapsed since the big bang. Such stars would be called “population III” stars. Amazingly population III stars have not been found anywhere. All known stars have at least trace amounts of heavy elements in them.