Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[Sonofason]

.... and BOOM goes the dynamite

Is it really fair to be taunted, and not expect an explosion? Or is it really a matter of trolling, with the intent to cause an explosion? You decide.

 

[Bunyip]

I sure hope your not speaking of me, because you know darn well that I have never mocked nor diminished, any of those theories. It would be a blatant lie if such a statement were directed at me, that is of course, me forgetting that you have already thrown such false accusations towards me, and more than once. I will forget that, and just reassure you that you are not referring to me.

What false accusations?

 

[Sonofason]

Well according to cosmologists it took about 400,000 years for the universe to cool down enough for light to exist. So the first light comes 400,000 years after the Big Bang.

So unfortunately the bible got that wrong.

The Sequence
"Big Bang nucleosynthesis began a few seconds after the big bang, when the universe had cooled sufficiently to allow deuterium nuclei to survive disruption by high-energy photons."
Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hmmm, the high-energy photons were already present when the deuterium nuclei cooled sufficiently to survive being disrupted by those high-energy photons which already existed.

photon - a unit of intensity of light...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photon

oh man. I'd hate to be you right now, it's got to be frustrating.

 

[Bunyip]

The Sequence
"Big Bang nucleosynthesis began a few seconds after the big bang, when the universe had cooled sufficiently to allow deuterium nuclei to survive disruption by high-energy photons."
Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hmmm, the high-energy photons were already present when the deuterium nuclei cooled sufficiently to survive being disrupted by those high-energy photons which already existed.

photon - a unit of intensity of light...
Photon - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

oh man. I'd hate to be you right now, it's got to be frustrating.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Visible light did not come until 400,000 years later. Light came 400,000 years AFTER the BB. There was plenty of radiation, but no light for 400,000 years.

 

[Sonofason]

What false accusations?

All of them. You know, the ones you just obfuscated in your random post that wasn't addressed to anyone in particular for a very particular reason.

 

[Bunyip]

All of them. You know, the ones you just obfuscated in your random post that wasn't addressed to anyone in particular for a very particular reason.

I'm sorry. Please quote the comment you are objecting to for me?

 

[Sonofason]

I'm not sure what your point is here. Visible light did not come until 400,000 years later. Light came 400,000 years AFTER the BB. There was plenty of radiation, but no light for 400,000 years.

I never once said anything about visible light. Nice try though.

 

[Bunyip]

I never once said anything about visible light. Nice try though.

There was no light for 400,000 years. What are you having trouble with there?

 

[Sonofason]

There was no light for 400,000 years. What are you having trouble with there?

Actually, there was light before three seconds. And I just showed you a claim of something which I believe could lead you to something that qualifies as evidence. But no worries. I don't expect you to believe every claim of evidence that I submit to you, just as I would hope that you would not expect me to believe every claim of evidence you submit to me.

You say 400,000 years, I say moments. Why quibble over mere semantics?

 

[Bunyip]

Actually, there was light before three seconds. And I just showed you a claim of something which I believe might qualify as evidence. But no worries. I don't expect you to believe every piece of evidence that I submit to you, just as I would hope that you would not expect me to believe every piece of evidence you submit to me.

You say 400,000 years, I say moments. Why quibble over mere semantics.

Simply because the inference you were defendijg was that light came first. The fact is that it did not.How is that just semantics?

 

[Sonofason]

I'm sorry. Please quote the comment you are objecting to for me?

I may be mistaken. The only false accusations I have found that you have made against me are the ones where you were accusing me of denying evidence that you claim I have seen, which I have not seen that you claim supposedly prove that evolution is true.

But that is not the accusation that I just accused you of making, which you apparently didn't do. So you have my sincere apologies. Apparently, I've made a mistake.

Atheists are always accusing me of lying. It's hard to keep it all straight.

 

[Bunyip]

I may be mistaken. The only false accusations I have found that you have made against me are the ones where you were accusing me of denying evidence that you claim I have seen, which I have not seen that you claim supposedly prove that evolution is true.

But that is not the accusation that I just accused you of making, which you apparently didn't do. So you have my sincere apologies. Apparently, I've made a mistake.

Atheists are always accusing me of lying. It's hard to keep it all straight.

Thanks. Apology accepted. I would however defend my claim that you deny the evidence for evolution, which you have seen. But that is not the topic here.

 

[Sonofason]

Thanks. Apology accepted. I would however defend my claim that you deny the evidence for evolution, which you have seen. But that is not the topic here.

Okay, until then..Thanks

 

[Sapiens]

I can't help but think that the saddest irony here is that so much of the science being mocked and demonised, the big bang, evolution and abiogenesis along with taxonomy was established by decent, intelligent and honorable Christians who were scientists

The thing to remember is that despite all that, most all scientists, regardless of their belief system, operate on the assumption that the big bang, evolution and abiogenesis along with taxonomy are true.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Amazing statement coming from an atheist.

Amazing assumption about someone you don't know.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I find it interesting how atheists always want to mention people killing one another, but that is just an observation.[/cool]

I'm confused, are you actually allowed to call me a liar on this website? Never-mind, I'll check on that myself. Shouldn't you have to support that claim. Isn't that what you just ranted about, people not giving evidence to support their claims?

I've never called you a liar. I do believe that you are misguided, though.
What claim are you calling into question? I made a statement about how peer-review works, followed by a hypothetical situation.

You are a human who has conversations with other humans all the time. Is it not part of the natural flow of conversation to question radical claims by people you are in conversation with?

Perhaps you should practice what you preach.

I do.

Anyhow, did you have a point to make? Did you have a question? I'll be happy to help you in any way I can.

Don't be quite so defensive and read it all again.

I will make a side note - you should probably consider how your interactions on here represent you as a Christian. Are you furthering your faith or hindering its spread among us "unbelievers"?

 

[sojourner]

I never once said anything about visible light. Nice try though.

You're nitpicking. To the ancients, light was visible.

 

[Aman777]

Sure.

I said:
Christian fundamentalism is based on the assertion that the Bible is perfectly God's word, inerrant and infalliable in every way. All kinds of irrational and destructive teachings are based on this principle.

Here, it's creationism. If Aman777 rejects creationism, the core tenant of his belief system is completely destroyed. He's taught then that the entire Bible is useless if one part of it is useless - if creationism isn't true, then nothing in the Bible is true because the Bible is supposed to be perfect. If it's not perfect, then it's all useless.

OK, so that circular logic is established...

My point - faith is the only way out of Christian fundamentalism - assumes that Christian fundamentalism requires no faith because the Bible is established as perfect through *faulty* theological reasoning. Once the Christian fundamentalist realizes the impossibility of this perfection, s/he must deny Christ or actually have faith in Christ -- or adopt a culture of lying like our friend Aman.

Dear Angellous, You shouldn't call other people liars, especially those you find IMPOSSIBLE to refute, either Scientifically, Scripturally, or Historically. All you can manage to do is call names and ACT like you know more than God. Be ashamed of your arogance, old mortal man. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

How would you change it?

Perhaps you could suggest a different methodology for investigating the world around us.

Dear Quaxotic, Seek the AGREEMENT of the Truth of Science, History and Scripture. This will brings you to God's Truth, which agrees in every way with every discovery of Science and History. This knowledge also assures you that NO one can refute you in any way, since their opposing truth is only a partial truth because it doesnt agree with every other discovered Truth. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Dear Angellous, You shouldn't call other people liars, especially those you find IMPOSSIBLE to refute, either Scientifically, Scripturally, or Historically. All you can manage to do is call names and ACT like you know more than God. Be ashamed of your arogance, old mortal man. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

I can see how someone with a measure of knowledge would seem arrogant to you - I cannot be responsible for that.

For what it's worth, I don't think that you are a liar. I don't think that you have the creativity or intelligence to create the material that you've written here. I like to assume the best in people -- I think that you're gullible, if even to your own delusions.