If the Big Bang was proved false what alternatives would evolutionist have?

[McBell]

You might want to be a bit more specific......

Why?
Have you forgotten that you toss cause and effect out the window once it gets you to your god?

 

[Thief]

That is just original sin, the knowledge of good and evil. You insert factual certitude into a subjective issue, the existence of God, and then the body's own drugs are released, and you feel high.

There are more then a hundred drugs the body can produce, having all sorts of useful functions. But one of them is released by the truckloads with that inappropiate way of thinking, of inserting factual certitude into a matter of opinion. Essentially you are enslaved to this drug just as the same as you would be enslaved to cocaine, or alcohol.

There is no substitute for choosing yourself, forming an opinion, it is the only authentic way to have faith.

WAY TOO MUCH assumption on your part.
You don't have a clue about me.

 

[Thief]

Why?
Have you forgotten that you toss cause and effect out the window once it gets you to your god?

Someone had to be First.
deal with it.

 

[McBell]

Someone had to be First.
deal with it.

Bold empty claim.
But I have gotten used to your denial of holding the paint brush and do not expect anything useful or meaningful from you.

I mean, you're unable to define the word "spirit" in a useful or meaningful way....

 

[LuisDantas]

Someone had to be First.
deal with it.

Actually, we don't know that at all.

It just turns out that you among several other people insist that it must be so and for some reason expect others to simply agree.

That is weird, very weird.

 

[Thief]

Actually, we don't know that at all.

It just turns out that you among several other people insist that it must be so and for some reason expect others to simply agree.

That is weird, very weird.

It is a simple scheme of thought....no excuses....
In regression....Someone had to be first.

 

[fantome profane]

It is a simple scheme of thought....no excuses....
In regression....Someone had to be first.

But why must that first someone be someone you cannot define? Why must it be someone that cannot be shown to exist?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

WAY TOO MUCH assumption on your part.
You don't have a clue about me.

That is like saying you don't get drunk from alcohol. Everybody is tempted by original sin. That you refer to science for evidence of God....it inclines towards inserting factual certitude into a matter of opinion.

 

[McBell]

It is a simple scheme of thought....no excuses....
In regression....Someone had to be first.

Fact is you throw cause and effect out the window, so all your preaching about cause and effect is for naught simply because you toss it out the second it becomes problematic to your beliefs.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is a simple scheme of thought....no excuses....
In regression....Someone had to be first.

That would be the case if the premises were known to be true.

Such is not the case. You are simply insisting that we treat unproven, arbitrary, dogmatic premises as if they were known to be true.

I will pass.

 

[Thief]

That would be the case if the premises were known to be true.

Such is not the case. You are simply insisting that we treat unproven, arbitrary, dogmatic premises as if they were known to be true.

I will pass.

I have no dogmatic belief.
In regression.....Someone had to be First.

 

[McBell]

I have no dogmatic belief.
In regression.....Someone had to be First.

More denial...

 

[Thief]

Third count.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have no dogmatic belief.
In regression.....Someone had to be First.

You must be kidding.

 

[gnostic]

I have no dogmatic belief.
In regression.....Someone had to be First.

You keep saying that, but you don't have any evidence to support your baseless claims of there being any First. It just your personal belief, and nothing to substantiate it. Meaning it just wishful thinking.

you say your not dogmatic, but I am not seeing this. You are still clinging to belief, where there are no evidences.

 

[Thief]

You keep saying that, but you don't have any evidence to support your baseless claims of there being any First. It just your personal belief, and nothing to substantiate it. Meaning it just wishful thinking.

you say your not dogmatic, but I am not seeing this. You are still clinging to belief, where there are no evidences.

Let me drag you there.............................................................................................

Let's do small numbers.
32...16....8....4......2......1.........

Of the Living....in mind and heart.....Someone had to be First.

 

[gnostic]

At some 'point' science cannot continue.
THEN reason takes over.

Science will take you TO that 'point' of decision where the experimentation cannot be applied.
At that 'point' you have to make the choice.

Just because science may not have all the answers, doesn't mean that I would jump for a supernatural explanation.

I personally find it dishonest, to rely on divine or unnatural miracles or creationism, simply because it may make "feel" good. Science is about relying on logic, naturalism and empirical evidences, not make-believe of creationism.

If you want to believe in god and creationism, as recorded in the Genesis, then that's fine with me. Just don't call creationism "science", because religion, their scriptures and creation myths are not science.

 

[gnostic]

Let me drag you there.............................................................................................

Let's do small numbers.
32...16....8....4......2......1.........

Of the Living....in mind and heart.....Someone had to be First.

What more trash are you talking about?

What do the numbers have to do with who is the First?

You are not making sense.

Sometimes, I don't know why I bother with replying to you.

 

[Thief]

Just because science may not have all the answers, doesn't mean that I would jump for a supernatural explanation.

I personally find it dishonest, to rely on divine or unnatural miracles or creationism, simply because it may make "feel" good. Science is about relying on logic, naturalism and empirical evidences, not make-believe of creationism.

If you want to believe in god and creationism, as recorded in the Genesis, then that's fine with me. Just don't call creationism "science", because religion, their scriptures and creation myths are not science.

Yeah well.....reasoning doesn't halt, just because the experiment won't fit in the petri dish.
Logic doesn't fail....when the numbers aren't large enough.

 

[Thief]

What more trash are you talking about?

What do the numbers have to do with who is the First?

You are not making sense.

Sometimes, I don't know why I bother with replying to you.

Oh c'mon.....you're not really lost over this......................are you?