Big Bang or Evolution have more direct evidence

[viole]

In each case the evidence we have points to a specific creation event for everything- space/time mass/energy, and also with life, it appeared and unfolded - changed over time from a simple beginning. That either of these things happened accidentally is an entirely separate belief system though isn't it?

Wait. Do you believe in biological evolution and common descent now?

Ciao

- viole

 

[First Baseman]

I am as sure about that as I am that I have the ability to see things. Thats why I would call it direct evidence.

Your problem is that you don't scrutinize enough. If it isn't a fact it isn't a fact. Them's the facts.

 

[First Baseman]

You reveal your ignorance is not limited to evolution..

You might want to look up and understand the speed of light and how it applies to you looking the arrogant fool right now.

I understand the speed of light and relativity theory better than you think I do. I also understand that relativity theory is under close scrutiny right now but I'll also bet you didn't know that.

I am not ignorant of evolution. I understand it very well. Too well. I understand macro-evolution so well that I understand it for the crock it is.

 

[McBell]

I understand the speed of light and relativity theory better than you think I do. I also understand that relativity theory is under close scrutiny right now but I'll also bet you didn't know that.

I am not ignorant of evolution. I understand it very well. Too well. I understand macro-evolution so well that I understand it for the crock it is.

"I know you are but what am I" is not that impressive a reply.

 

[idav]

In each case the evidence we have points to a specific creation event for everything- space/time mass/energy, and also with life, it appeared and unfolded - changed over time from a simple beginning. That either of these things happened accidentally is an entirely separate belief system though isn't it?

Whether these things happened with intent or not doesn't change the direct evidence we do have.

Like for the big bang for example. We have evidence that the universe has been expanding for 14 billion years, the fact is the expansion. whether or not intent is involved is not part of the theory. I believe there is intent within the system of things but that is harder to prove. Heck every aspect of the universe could have intent involved and it will still look like nature.

 

[idav]

Your problem is that you don't scrutinize enough. If it isn't a fact it isn't a fact. Them's the facts.

What are you talking about, I scrutinize everything and even told you I questioned what you were asking.

See the following thread for the example I gave you where I even questioned the age of the universe. I assume nothing. I tried to see if time dilation would affect the age of the universe since it is said to be expanding faster than light.
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/how-old-is-the-universe.134774
Penumbra ended up putting my questions to rest by post 11.

 

[Faronator]

They are pictures of what you see in the present. You are assuming they are pictures of the past. Can you prove they are? Do you know for a fact that what you are seeing is not a 4th dimensional optical illusion? No, you dont.

Have someone video you taking a picture and then show them the picture. That's proof of the past. I can't stand when people like you grasp at straws in the midst of an argument.

I believe that pigs fly and that's enough for me. Have an amazing day.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Which has more direct evidence to support the notions

What is "direct evidence"?

 

[First Baseman]

"I know you are but what am I" is not that impressive a reply.

Perhaps you should steer away from it then.

 

[First Baseman]

Have someone video you taking a picture and then show them the picture. That's proof of the past. I can't stand when people like you grasp at straws in the midst of an argument.

I believe that pigs fly and that's enough for me. Have an amazing day.

That's not the same thing, friend. You are looking at a picture and assuming it happened millions of years ago. That's a pretty far stretch.

 

[First Baseman]

What is "direct evidence"?

Something he doesn't have.

 

[idav]

What is "direct evidence"?

Evidence that where conclusions don't have to be extrapolated, as upposed to circumstantial evidence which requires imgination.

Something he doesn't have.

I've shown the evidence and all you can do, instead of presenting some of your own, is just be disagreeable. Attack the argument, seriously why should anyone bother when you obviously have some awesome evidence that can debunk the whole of science all together, yet you refuse to share.

 

[Faronator]

That's not the same thing, friend. You are looking at a picture and assuming it happened millions of years ago. That's a pretty far stretch.

Or reading a book and assuming creation as we know it really did happen 2-10K years ago when every bit of evidence outside said book says otherwise.

 

[Valjean]

If it isn't a fact it isn't a fact. Them's the facts.

But it is a fact.

I understand the speed of light and relativity theory better than you think I do. I also understand that relativity theory is under close scrutiny right now but I'll also bet you didn't know that.

Relativity's been under close scrutiny since 1904. It's stood the test of time.

 

[viole]

I am not ignorant of evolution. I understand it very well. Too well. I understand macro-evolution so well that I understand it for the crock it is.

And what is the reason that humans look like hairless orangoutangs, if (macro)evolution is a crock?

Does God love apes so much to make the pinnacle of His creation, including His own Son, to be one?

Ciao

- viole

 

[First Baseman]

Evidence that where conclusions don't have to be extrapolated, as upposed to circumstantial evidence which requires imgination.

I've shown the evidence and all you can do, instead of presenting some of your own, is just be disagreeable. Attack the argument, seriously why should anyone bother when you obviously have some awesome evidence that can debunk the whole of science all together, yet you refuse to share.

I don't need science to know that you can't look at a picture of something in the present and be able to tell me what happened in the past. It's common sense.

 

[First Baseman]

Or reading a book and assuming creation as we know it really did happen 2-10K years ago when every bit of evidence outside said book says otherwise.

Wrong. icr.org.

 

[First Baseman]

But it is a fact.

Relativity's been under close scrutiny since 1904. It's stood the test of time.

1. No it isn't a fact. If it were a fact it wouldn't simply be a theory. Evolution is a theory, big bang theory is a theory, etc.

2. So far. But at least you don't accept it as fact because like the theories I listed above it isn't fact.

 

[First Baseman]

And what is the reason that humans look like hairless orangoutangs, if (macro)evolution is a crock?

Does God love apes so much to make the pinnacle of His creation, including His own Son, to be one?

Ciao

- viole

?

I haven't seen any humans that look like orangutans. I also haven't seen any humans that look like fish or single celled organisms. If you think a human looks enough like a orangutan to be blood related to one then all humans must be related. Kind of like with Adam & Eve.

 

[SkepticThinker]

1. No it isn't a fact. If it were a fact it wouldn't simply be a theory. Evolution is a theory, big bang theory is a theory, etc.

2. So far. But at least you don't accept it as fact because like the theories I listed above it isn't fact.

How about germ theory? Is that a fact? Or do you doubt the existence of germs because it's "just a theory?"