• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Let's not talk about the Big Bang

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Ok so the experts are wrong and you are right. There is no point in continuing
Experts have been wrong. In fact, experts argue with each other. And nobody has proved Darwinism right in the detailed, unassailable sense. By that I mean there is nothing to show that one animal evolved into another type of animal. Nothing. Ever. Not in real time or fossils. It's all conjecture. Realizing if an atheist realizes that there is no factually reliable evidence supporting the theory of evolution (there isn't), then what do you have?
I had been an atheist and believed in the theory of evolution. So it was a life-altering change to realize the Bible is God's word to mankind. And that evolution just isn't true.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Ok so the experts are wrong and you are right. There is no point in continuing
ChristineM, I understand your denial of God, I used to be the same way. Now here's what I find interesting. Experts yes, have been wrong about figuring things in the past and expert summations are overturned by new discoveries, rendering previous considerations wrong. But the unfolding of Daniel's prophecy as well as Jesus' prophetic warnings are still in the fulfillment. I understand you don't like religion; and if I thought Buddhism, Catholicism, mysticism, etc., were true from God now, I'd feel free to go with them. (But I don't.) You know I find it interesting that it can be an either/or situation. Either evolution is true or it is not. Either God exists, or there is no God. Now if I thought that Buddhism, Hinduism, Bahai'ism (if that's the right word) or Judaism are true I'd go with that. (But I don't.) So yes, we all make choices.
Either there was a "Big Bang" or there was not.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Experts have been wrong. In fact, experts argue with each other. And nobody has proved Darwinism right in the detailed, unassailable sense. By that I mean there is nothing to show that one animal evolved into another type of animal. Nothing. Ever. Not in real time or fossils. It's all conjecture. Realizing if an atheist realizes that there is no factually reliable evidence supporting the theory of evolution (there isn't), then what do you have?
I had been an atheist and believed in the theory of evolution. So it was a life-altering change to realize the Bible is God's word to mankind. And that evolution just isn't true.

I have repeated often, science does not deal in proof but in evidence and there is considerable evidence in favour of evolution.

Concerning fossils, thats where you are wrong. Every single fossil is transitional.

Your belief is not my problem
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I have repeated often, science does not deal in proof but in evidence and there is considerable evidence in favour of evolution.

Concerning fossils, thats where you are wrong. Every single fossil is transitional.

Your belief is not my problem
Your belief is not my problem either, but I find it inconsistent with evidence. And so I like to make that clear sometimes. And of course, not only does science not deal in proof, but there IS no proof of evolution OR the "Big Bang" theory. None whatsoever. Fossils in no way are proof of evolution. While there are animals that are now extinct, they do not show the actuality of (a bad word for some) the theory of evolution.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I have repeated often, science does not deal in proof but in evidence and there is considerable evidence in favour of evolution.

Concerning fossils, thats where you are wrong. Every single fossil is transitional.
No, they are not. Changing viruses are not evidence in favour of evolution. Humans are not evidence in favour of evolution. Viruses stay viruses and humans stay humans. Gorillas are staying gorillas.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I have repeated often, science does not deal in proof but in evidence and there is considerable evidence in favour of evolution.
I know science doesn't deal in proof, or at least that is what is said. They just make up what might have happened. There is not considerable evidence in favor of evolution, or the "Big Bang" theory, the evidence is like pieces of a puzzle forced into place but not fitting. And contested or overturned by other scientists.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Your belief is not my problem either, but I find it inconsistent with evidence. And so I like to make that clear sometimes. And of course, not only does science not deal in proof, but there IS no proof of evolution OR the "Big Bang" theory. None whatsoever. Fossils in no way are proof of evolution. While there are animals that are now extinct, they do not show the actuality of (a bad word for some) the theory of evolution.


Every fossil is transitional, this is evidenced and there are millions and millions of fossils. Luckily the facts don't need your belief
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
No, they are not. Changing viruses are not evidence in favour of evolution. Humans are not evidence in favour of evolution. Viruses stay viruses and humans stay humans. Gorillas are staying gorillas.

Yes, viruses evolved, hence the reason you need a different flu shot each year.

Yes humans are evidence of evolution, see my avatar? A 22000 year old human skull, very different from modern human skulls.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I know science doesn't deal in proof, or at least that is what is said. They just make up what might have happened. There is not considerable evidence in favor of evolution, or the "Big Bang" theory, the evidence is like pieces of a puzzle forced into place but not fitting. And contested or overturned by other scientists.

Nope, they observe and or measure, they don't make up.
Yes there is considerable evidence for evolution, sorry you don't like it.
The BB is different, the little evidence there is indicates a bb. How the bb occured is a matter of much discussion. What happened after is pretty much agreed on given the evidence available.
However is you can provide contradictory evidence please write a paper and gwt it peer reviewed
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I know science doesn't deal in proof, or at least that is what is said.

No, you don’t know.

You continued to confuse proof and evidence as if they are one and the same, when they are not the same things to scientists and mathematicians.

You use the two words if they were synonymous and interchangeable:

I have repeated often, science does not deal in proof but in evidence and there is considerable evidence in favour of evolution.

Concerning fossils, thats where you are wrong. Every single fossil is transitional.

Your belief is not my problem

Your belief is not my problem either, but I find it inconsistent with evidence. And so I like to make that clear sometimes. And of course, not only does science not deal in proof, but there IS no proof of evolution OR the "Big Bang" theory. None whatsoever. Fossils in no way are proof of evolution. While there are animals that are now extinct, they do not show the actuality of (a bad word for some) the theory of evolution.

If knew, you wouldn’t repeat the mistakes again and again, like the quote above.

EVIDENCE is the observations of the physical reality or observations of the natural phenomena & their processes (or mechanisms).

Evidence are physical, not abstract logic.

Evidence are physical that can be observed (or detected), measured and tested.

PROOF is a statement in logic.

Proofs aren’t physical, they are abstract.

The statements in logic are often expressed in mathematical equations or formulas, in the combination of variables, constants and numbers.

When scientists formulated mathematical equations in their scientific papers, those equations are the proofs, they are not the physical evidence.

For example Newton’s law on forces, your proof is -

F = m a​

Where m is the mass of object, a is the acceleration. For a falling object, the variable a can be substituted with the variable g, which is the acceleration of the Earth’s gravity, so the Newton’s equation can easily be rewritten as -

F = m g​

The rewritten equation is your proof. It is not evidence.

The acceleration of Earth gravity (g) can be calculated by distance (or height) divided by time squared (t^2), hence g = d / t^2. The equation for g, is another proof.

This equation of force for falling object can be tested in experiments, by measuring the evidence. The evidence are the measurements of -

  • the mass of the object,
  • the distance or height of the fall (the dimension from release of the object to the surface of the ground),
  • and the time it take for object to travel that distance (height).
These 3 observations of mass, distance and time are measurements of your 3 evidence. You can then plug all these measurements into your equations to test if the equations are true.

The equations or proofs are not valid until they have been tested, just like when you test the explanations and predictions of the hypothesis.
 
Last edited:

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I have repeated often, science does not deal in proof but in evidence and there is considerable evidence in favour of evolution........
Scientists and religionist too both should search for truth.
Scientists 'discover' truth, but Scripture 'reveals' truth ( Jesus believed he taught ' religious truth ' - John 17:17 )
An Expert said at John 8:32 that we can know the truth and the truth would set us free.
Free from what is false.
So, there is a measure of faith in science, even 'known science' which can be updated.
Scientists that are put on a pedestal are expected to transform the world.
Pres. Reagan said (man's) government is Not the solution but the problem.
So, neither the political nor the scientific nor the religious can enforce morality.
Scientists will never completely grasp absolute truth nor morality because that only comes from God.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Scientists and religionist too both should search for truth.
Scientists 'discover' truth, but Scripture 'reveals' truth ( Jesus believed he taught ' religious truth ' - John 17:17 )
An Expert said at John 8:32 that we can know the truth and the truth would set us free.
Free from what is false.
So, there is a measure of faith in science, even 'known science' which can be updated.
Scientists that are put on a pedestal are expected to transform the world.
Pres. Reagan said (man's) government is Not the solution but the problem.
So, neither the political nor the scientific nor the religious can enforce morality.
Scientists will never completely grasp absolute truth nor morality because that only comes from God.

All of this is irrelevant.

But to start with, scientists are not set on any pedestal, THEY ARE NOT gods, prophets, heroes, etc.

Yes, they may become famous, but it is not who they are that are important, it is their works.

Do their works (theories, discoveries) provide the information needed to be of use, today?

Sciences are not just about explaining things about the physical nature of the phenomena.

Sciences have many applications, because the theories provide the fundamentals of WHAT the physical or natural phenomena are, and more importantly HOW these work.

By understanding the sciences behind the phenomena, there may be some ways to apply that knowledge that are of use.

To give you some examples. Isaac Newton’s theory on motions, on forces and on gravity, still have many relevant applications today, and understanding these Newtonian mechanics are one of the many steps for other people to their works.

Newtonian mechanics still have applications in the following areas:
  • Civil engineering, eg designs of large buildings, bridges, roads, dams, pipes for hydrology systems or sewer systems, etc;
  • Mechanical engineering, that include knowledge about engines, eg designs of automobile vehicles, of boats and ships, of planes, of spacecrafts.
  • Space flights still understanding on gravity and the forces needed for rocket to take off, as well as providing them with knowledge about how to keep satellites in orbits.
When NASA needed to send unmanned crafts beyond the moon, like the Voyagers, they tried to save as much powers, so they use their knowledges on speed, forces (eg inertial force, centrifuged force) and the planets’ gravitation & orbit, to propel the craft in the direction of their next destination, known as the slingshot.

While Albert Einstein provide more accurate insights and knowledge to motion, forces and gravity, with his theory of Relativity, Newtonian physics still have many applications.

Both theories (eg Newtonian Mechanics, Relativity) still have applications, here today.

My points, that yes, Newton and Einstein are famous physicists, but you would be focusing on the wrong things. It is not their fame that are relevant, it is their works that have contributed that we can use.

Likewise, Charles Darwin is a famous pioneer, but biologists are not interested in his fame, but in his evolutionary mechanism - Natural Selection - that still have some applications today.

Modern evolutionary biology have update and expanded Natural Selection and other mechanisms (eg Genetic Drift, Mutations, etc) with other fields of biology: eg modern genetics, the genome project, biophysics, biochemistry, molecular biology, etc, as well as studies on zoology, botany, microorganisms, etc.

Only fools think they can ignore sciences, like Evolution, just because of their religious biases.

You do understand that the Bible isn’t a book on biology, physics or astronomy, don’t you?

Since Bible narrated on certain people, as individuals (eg Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, etc) or in groups (eg Hebrews, Israelites, Jews, one of the 12 tribes, etc), then nothing in the entire Bible explain human anatomy and physiology, doesn’t explain how the brain, heart and other organs function, doesn’t explain how reproduction systems works, or how genetics work, there are no explanatory descriptions of the cells, etc.

The applications of Evolution isn't just in paleontology (study of fossils). Modern genetics and molecular biology work with modern Evolution (not just with Natural Selection), but Evolution also contribute to understanding in these areas too. Together, it provide biologists with it largest mission - the Genome Project. Evolution also help with understanding with medicine, especially for courses of treatments for bacterial diseases and viral diseases.

Are you comprehending what I am saying here?

When it come to understanding biology, even human biology, the Bible is utterly useless.

So it is really astonishing for today's creationists to continue trying discredit MODERN Evolution when the Bible offer absolutely NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION to Evolution or other fields of biology.

"God did it" isn't an explanation; it is a foolish primitive superstition.

And btw, biology, physics, chemistry and astronomy are studies of natural phenomena, not the studies of morals or laws.

If you want to study law, then go study law and legal procedures at universities or law schools, or join the police force.

If you want to study morals, then there are number of different subjects on ethics.

Can the Bible be taught in science classrooms (like biology)? The answer is "no".

Can you get the any job on any any field of science relying only on the Bible? It is still a "No".
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Scientists and religionist too both should search for truth.
Scientists 'discover' truth, but Scripture 'reveals' truth ( Jesus believed he taught ' religious truth ' - John 17:17 )
An Expert said at John 8:32 that we can know the truth and the truth would set us free.
Free from what is false.
So, there is a measure of faith in science, even 'known science' which can be updated.
Scientists that are put on a pedestal are expected to transform the world.
Pres. Reagan said (man's) government is Not the solution but the problem.
So, neither the political nor the scientific nor the religious can enforce morality.
Scientists will never completely grasp absolute truth nor morality because that only comes from God.

I am going to ignore most of your post but will answer....

Scientists will never completely grasp absolute truth nor morality because that only comes from God.
Absolute bull, the religious hijacking of moralaty is a crime against morality.

Morality is a human (and many other mamals) trait. Without it civilisation could not have developed to the stage that organised religion could form and steal morality as it own so they can exclude and ostracise those not members of their particular brand of worship. Its sad and diminisges the human race.

And truth has several meanings, i am of the view that truth (absolute or otherwise) is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Another definition is a belief that is accepted as true.

Personally i go for the hard evidence form of truth. Beliefs can be and often are wrong.

But you believe what you like,


 

gnostic

The Lost One
Experts have been wrong. In fact, experts argue with each other.
Of course, there have been errors and disagreements over one thing or another, but sciences allow for correction, modification and even replacing existing science with alternative. But changes can only occur -
  1. if changes are supported by the current physical evidence, or
  2. if there are enough new physical evidence to support the changes, or...
  3. ...ideally, do both cases above, 1& 2.
Meaning. No changes can happen, unless there are testable & veritable evidence that meet with the requirements of Scientific Method.

And the theory of Evolution have been updated and even expanded.

The theory of Evolution is still solid as ever, because it have been repeatedly tested, and there are no other alternatives that better explained biodiversity of life, adaption & speciation.

And I am not talking about the original Natural Selection of the 19th century. As I have said earlier, the theory have been updated, including Natural Selection, so I am talking about the MODERN theory, which included all the testing methods.

Beside that.

Even if (hypothetical) there were a new alternative theory that better explained the biodiversity of life, Creationism would still be a pseudoscience (meaning “unscientific”) religious garbage that have no basis of natural reality. Even if someone could refute Evolution today, Creationism wouldn’t be true, by-default.

And the biggest reason why Creationism can never be true, scientifically, is that God, or Creator or whatever you want to call him, cannot be observed, quantified, measured or tested...largely because god is invented being that don’t exist except in people’s imagination, ignorance or delusion...or all of the above.
 
Last edited:

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
................Morality is a human (and many other mamals) trait. Without it civilisation could not have developed to the stage that organised religion could form and steal morality as it own so they can exclude and ostracise those not members of their particular brand of worship. Its sad and diminisges the human race.
And truth has several meanings, i am of the view that truth (absolute or otherwise) is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. Another definition is a belief that is accepted as true.
Personally i go for the hard evidence form of truth. Beliefs can be and often are wrong........

To me the Bible is a hard-covered book in the form of truth - religious truth.
Yes, morality is a human trait because unless damaged we come equipped with an inborn conscience.
Because of conscience is why the people of the nations have a form of morality.
Ignoring one's conscience can cause it to become hardened calloused like flesh seared by a hot branding iron (unfeeling)
Yes, truth as several meaning even when Pilate spoke he spoke of truth in general / general truths.
Jesus also taught that ' beliefs can be and often are wrong ' as expressed at Matthew 7:21-23.

Have you noticed how even the political tries to make a political issue out of a moral issue _______
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I am going to ignore most of your post but will answer....

Scientists will never completely grasp absolute truth nor morality because that only comes from God.
Absolute bull, the religious hijacking of moralaty is a crime against morality.

Morality is a human (and many other mamals) trait. Without it civilisation could not have developed to the stage that organised religion could form and steal morality as it own so they can exclude and ostracise those not members of their particular brand of worship. Its sad and diminisges the human race.

And truth has several meanings, i am of the view that truth (absolute or otherwise) is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Another definition is a belief that is accepted as true.

Personally i go for the hard evidence form of truth. Beliefs can be and often are wrong.

But you believe what you like,


War crimes and even "scientific" crimes have been more than deplorable in many cases, they've been disgusting, filthy, worthy of complete and total abolishment by God. Regardless of whether people think Einstein & others did a great job in inventing the atomic bomb, it's a filthy world that is destined, thank God, for destruction BY God. Whether we appreciate that our not is up to each individual and God takes note. Just as some say re: the "end" of the world, many do not know what it means --
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
To me the Bible is a hard-covered book in the form of truth - religious truth.
Yes, morality is a human trait because unless damaged we come equipped with an inborn conscience.
Because of conscience is why the people of the nations have a form of morality.
Ignoring one's conscience can cause it to become hardened calloused like flesh seared by a hot branding iron (unfeeling)
Yes, truth as several meaning even when Pilate spoke he spoke of truth in general / general truths.
Jesus also taught that ' beliefs can be and often are wrong ' as expressed at Matthew 7:21-23.

Have you noticed how even the political tries to make a political issue out of a moral issue _______
That is happening all over the place. And, of course, people are taking sides often based on their religious agenda. That is another reason why God foretold this world to be gone -- amen and thank God for that! As Jesus said, if anyone wants to be saved, they must come to God.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I am going to ignore most of your post but will answer....

Scientists will never completely grasp absolute truth nor morality because that only comes from God.
Absolute bull, the religious hijacking of moralaty is a crime against morality.

Morality is a human (and many other mamals) trait. Without it civilisation could not have developed to the stage that organised religion could form and steal morality as it own so they can exclude and ostracise those not members of their particular brand of worship. Its sad and diminisges the human race.

And truth has several meanings, i am of the view that truth (absolute or otherwise) is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Another definition is a belief that is accepted as true.

Personally i go for the hard evidence form of truth. Beliefs can be and often are wrong.

But you believe what you like,


The history of crime, legal (as in war idepending on who is judging) and illegal, is something that started from the very beginning of mankind, whether you believe it or not, such as Cain and Abel. It makes sense to me -- however it was transmitted to God's servants to know it, understand it, and write the history down. Same as with the account of the fall of Jerusalem, the wars will rage on until God puts an end to it. He will. Mankind will flourish, but not as it is today. Have a nice day if the weather is good where you're at. Meaning no tornadoes, no hurricanes, no flooding, no fires, and so forth. :)
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I am going to ignore most of your post but will answer....

Scientists will never completely grasp absolute truth nor morality because that only comes from God.
Absolute bull, the religious hijacking of moralaty is a crime against morality.

Morality is a human (and many other mamals) trait. Without it civilisation could not have developed to the stage that organised religion could form and steal morality as it own so they can exclude and ostracise those not members of their particular brand of worship. Its sad and diminisges the human race.

And truth has several meanings, i am of the view that truth (absolute or otherwise) is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Another definition is a belief that is accepted as true.

Personally i go for the hard evidence form of truth. Beliefs can be and often are wrong.

But you believe what you like,


Since it is said that there is no proof in science, then it is clear that scientists will never ever get to the "bottom" of some things.
 
Top