Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Sapiens]

Facepalm.
Scientists having theories does not make them more credible necessarily than other people having theories. Science has theories for anything unknown, it doesn't mean they are loaded with 'evidence' or whatnot/
Your statement is so ridiculous I really had to think about even responding to it.
'Scientific theories' come in all manner, and if evidence arises to change them, they do. So, various theories are totally incorrect in science, and that's o.k. it's part of the process.

You clearly do not know what a scientific theory is. Look it up. On second thought I can't let that sort of ignorance wander around unchecked and you may not look it up, so here you go:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

See the difference?

ID does not qualify, not in science, not in court.

 

[Sonofason]

One has to ask, in respect to man's perception of things, if God is perfect, why would God change Creation by involving Godhood in what is evident to man a perfect Creation?

I am unable to answer this question. I'm not really sure what you're asking. I'm left wondering, which men? Which perceptions? Perceptions of what in particular?
What in creation did God change by involving Godhood? When did God change creation? And what is evident to which men? The question seems straight forward enough, I just can't make any sense of it. Can you ask it in a different manner, or be more specific? I just don't get it, sorry.

 

[Sonofason]

You clearly do not know what a scientific theory is. Look it up. On second thought I can't let that sort of ignorance wander around unchecked and you may not look it up, so here you go:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

See the difference?

ID does not qualify, not in science, not in court.

Honestly, there's nothing so special about scientific theories. To substantiate something is nothing more than to establish something by proof or competent evidence. Now, you know as well as I that science does not delve into any such concept as proof. Theories are held up by evidence alone. While competent evidence is better than weak evidence, there is no certainty that very competent evidence might not one day be refuted by new evidence.

Intelligent design is not a theory - I told you that a few posts ago. there is no theory of intelligent design, not even a testable hypothesis. There is no theory for me to refute.

Why would I need to refute a theory that does not actually exist - other than as an unsubstantiated claim?

That's ridiculous. If I call it a theory, it's a theory.

 

[Bunyip]

Honestly, there's nothing so special about scientific theories. To substantiate something is nothing more than to establish something by proof or competent evidence. Now, you know as well as I that science does not delve into any such concept as proof. Theories are held up by evidence alone. While competent evidence is better than weak evidence, there is no certainty that very competent evidence might not one day be refuted by new evidence.

That's ridiculous. If I call it a theory, it's a theory.

That's like pointing to a chicken, and saying "If I call it a banana, it's a banana"

No mate, it isn't.

 

[Sonofason]

That's like pointing to a chicken, and saying "If I call it a banana, it's a banana"

No mate, it isn't.

No mate, it is.

 

[McBell]

No mate, it is.

And you wonder why you get labeled dishonest?

 

[Desert Snake]

You clearly do not know what a scientific theory is. Look it up. On second thought I can't let that sort of ignorance wander around unchecked and you may not look it up, so here you go:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

See the difference?

ID does not qualify, not in science, not in court.

I'm not going to have a one-way conversation with you. You never answered my very simple and direct question regarding your opinion on the big bang theory, so there is no reason for me to think you have any good reasons to refute my beliefs.

 

[Sapiens]

Honestly, there's nothing so special about scientific theories. To substantiate something is nothing more than to establish something by proof or competent evidence. Now, you know as well as I that science does not delve into any such concept as proof. Theories are held up by evidence alone. While competent evidence is better than weak evidence, there is no certainty that very competent evidence might not one day be refuted by new evidence.

That's ridiculous. If I call it a theory, it's a theory.

Now you want to read something ridiculous ... on line up.

Words have specific meanings for good reason, again, scientific theory: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not 'guesses' but reliable accounts of the real world."

I suspect that the religious theories that you are used to don't demand this level or rigor.

Because you call it a theory does not mean that it is a well-substantiated explanation that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment, now does it?

 

[Sapiens]

Honestly, there's nothing so special about scientific theories. To substantiate something is nothing more than to establish something by proof or competent evidence. Now, you know as well as I that science does not delve into any such concept as proof. Theories are held up by evidence alone. While competent evidence is better than weak evidence, there is no certainty that very competent evidence might not one day be refuted by new evidence.

That's ridiculous. If I call it a theory, it's a theory.

Now you want to read something ridiculous ... on line up.

Words have specific meanings for good reason, again, scientific theory: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not 'guesses' but reliable accounts of the real world."

I suspect that the religious theories that you are used to don't demand this level or rigor.

Because you call it a theory does not mean that it is

 

[Sonofason]

And you wonder why you get labeled dishonest?

No, that is not true. No honest and decent human being would ever consider me to be dishonest. And certainly only the most vile of human beings would state such slander in an open forum such as this.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not going to have a one-way conversation with you. You never answered my very simple and direct question regarding your opinion on the big bang theory, so there is no reason for me to think you have any good reasons to refute my beliefs.

They do not need to be refuted, they are not evidential. That which is claimed without evidence (faith) need not he refuted - there is nothing to refute.

 

[Bunyip]

No, that is not true. No honest and decent human being would ever consider me to be dishonest. And certainly only the most vile of human beings would state such slander in an open forum such as this.

Mate, you are being dishonest. It is not slander to point out a fact.

Calling a chicken a banana does not make it a banana.

 

[Sonofason]

Now you want to read something ridiculous ... on line up.

Words have specific meanings for good reason, again, scientific theory: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not 'guesses' but reliable accounts of the real world."

I suspect that the religious theories that you are used to don't demand this level or rigor.

Because you call it a theory does not mean that it is

Stutter much?

 

[McBell]

No, that is not true. No honest and decent human being would ever consider me to be dishonest. And certainly only the most vile of human beings would state such slander in an open forum such as this.

I call it how I see it.

To say that calling a chicken a banana makes a chicken a banana is dishonest.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm not going to have a one-way conversation with you. You never answered my very simple and direct question regarding your opinion on the big bang theory, so there is no reason for me to think you have any good reasons to refute my beliefs.

You don't have to, but petulance does not make you more correct.

As far as the Big Bang is concerned, I am not a cosmologist, I am not particularly interested, and I defer to rather mainstream views on the subject.

 

[Desert Snake]

They do not need to be refuted, they are not evidential. That which is claimed without evidence (faith) need not he refuted - there is nothing to refute.

Facepalm.
Ditto.
Do you have a point?

 

[Sapiens]

Stutter much?

Just repeating it for the hard of learning.

 

[Desert Snake]

You don't have to, but petulance does not make you more correct.

As far as the Big Bang is concerned, I am not a cosmologist, I am not particularly interested, and I defer to rather mainstream views on the subject.

Great. Ironically I'm not really interested in your criticisms of my beliefs.

 

[McBell]

Great. Ironically I'm not really interested in your criticisms of my beliefs.

Then you should stop putting them up for criticism

 

[Bunyip]

Facepalm.
Ditto.
Do you have a point?

Yes. Why do you oeep asking people to refute stuff that does not need to be refuted? What is the point?