The Big Bang and Evolution

[JustWondering]

Wonderful. Name one thing the TOE preaches that has been proved. Scientifically of course. Now don't post a link. They never give any evidence. If you want to cut and paste what a link says, that's fine, but I quite reading links years ago.



Lets leave God out of this discussion and stick to science.



What reality is Christianity failing in?



I will reply to that when you provide something the TOE preaches that has been proved.



I can prove more in the chapter of Genesis than evolution has proved in 100+ years.



If you were a born skeptic you would not believe in evolution.
Which argument of Christianity are false? Be specific.
If you were intellectually honest you would admit that life can't originate from lifeless elements. You would also admit you don't have a clue as to what the second life form was.

The fossil record, DNA evidence and experiments with short lived species like fruit flies demonstrate that species evolve through mutation and natural selection. Since you are a science denier I don't want to waste time discussing things you willingly refuse to accept, regardless of evidence provided. If your world view doesn't accept that a creator and evolution can mutually exist than that is your problem. There is literally tons of evidence supporting evolution. Science isn't about proving or disproving god, it simply tells us about the natural world.

 

[psychoslice]

Is that what HaShem is for you, a man in the sky waving his magic wand? What about if he is a woman? The concept of Causality is more akin to a woman than to a man.

Take your pick.

 

[psychoslice]

What does my opinion of myself have to do with this? And I'm not the one who needs the security of religious mythology to deal with reality -- I can handle whatever the evidence points to.

Why will we never know anything about the BB or Evolution? Questions remain, but we do know about the BB, and we know a lot about evolution.
Next you'll be saying we'll never know the distance to Mars or what the bottom of the sea looks like.
Sure -- why not? Can't you?

Why do you think there must be a cause? Reality isn't intuitive. The reality we experience is an abstraction.

Knowing the distance to mars is a pimple of knowledge lol.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The statement was that there was no matter before the Universe. This is simply logical. But of course there was no matter before the Universe! The Universe is composed of matter. If there was matter before the Universe, the Universe was already in existence. In that case, it would be illogical to speak of "before the Universe."

So, Jonathan wants a theist to provide evidence to support the existence of the Primal Cause! You, Jonathan, is that evidence. "How?" Did you cause yourself to exist? "Obviously not!" Who then caused you to exist? "My parents!" And your parents? "Their parents." And their parents? "Their parents." It means that by now, you understand that we are talking about the concept of Causality. One more question: Who caused the first couple of parents to exist? If your answer is "I don't know." Atheistic preconceived notions have taken over your common sense and you have lost track of Logic because, it is only obvious that it was the Primal Cause. If you agree with me, you have got the evidence you asked for the existence of the Primal Cause. If you use the same process with the Universe, that's how it was caused to exist.

We've been over this before...

You're making a case for everything requiring a cause, and then exempting your Prime Mover from that requirement. It's ridiculous. Whats more, the premise of this argument is incorrect. It is flawed, as I've described to you before. I imagine you're arguing against spontaneous generation, which is fine. But you're assuming that something resulting from a large host of natural variables, and being subject to natural laws, is the same thing as spontaneous generation, which it's not.

Regardless, I'm not going to start a second conversation with you when we already have one going. Why didn't you respond to #192?
The Big Bang and Evolution

 

[omega2xx]

The fossil record, DNA evidence and experiments with short lived species like fruit flies demonstrate that species evolve through mutation and natural selection.

If evolution was true, the vast majority of fossils would be intermediate and to date you have zero, zilch, nada.

DNA actually separates species, not links them. It is not the similarites that are important, it is the differences.

Fruit flies remaining fruit flies is not evidence of evolution. Hint: Evolution preaches a change of species.

Mutations do not change the species. They only altar the characteristics of a species.

Natural selection can't be proven. l Even if it is true it also will not result in a change of species, it would only give the species a better chance of survival.

Since you are a science denier I don't want to waste time discussing things you willingly refuse to accept,

Actually I am great supporter of science. Real science refutes evolutoin and if you understood genetics, you would KNOW that. I am a denier of of evolution being science.

regardless of evidence provided.

You don't even understand what constitutes evidence, You have only presented the usual, unscientific evo rhetoric.

If your world view doesn't accept that a creator and evolution can mutually exist than that is your problem. There is literally tons of evidence supporting evolution. Science isn't about proving or disproving god, it simply tells us about the natural world.

If you don't understand that "after its kind" refutes evolution and would rqather beleive man instea of God, the problem i yours.

 

[Valjean]

If evolution was true, the vast majority of fossils would be intermediate and to date you have zero, zilch, nada.

The vast majority are. Evolution is usually a continuous process. Where we make the division into species is arbitrary. Everything is in transition. Everything's intermediate.

DNA actually separates species, not links them. It is not the similarites that are important, it is the differences.

What's your point? Similarities and differences are part of the same analysis, which clearly demonstrates evolution.

Fruit flies remaining fruit flies is not evidence of evolution. Hint: Evolution preaches a change of species.

Your point? Speciation has been observed.
Do you believe no change occurrs in species; that every species has always existed in its present form?

Mutations do not change the species. They only altar the characteristics of a species.

How is this not change?

Natural selection can't be proven. l Even if it is true it also will not result in a change of species, it would only give the species a better chance of survival.

Heliocentrality and the germ theory of disease can't be proven, but it would be foolish to dismiss all the supporting evidence. Evolution has at least as much supporting evidence as the unproven theory of a spherical Earth.
You really don't know anything about the subject you're so passionately criticizing, do you?
Speciation has been observed firsthand, both in the lab and in Nature, and giving species a better chance of survival is how natural selection works.

Actually I am great supporter of science. Real science refutes evolutoin and if you understood genetics, you would KNOW that. I am a denier of of evolution being science.

No science refutes evolution -- zero, zilch, nada.
Where do you come up with this stuff?

You don't even understand what constitutes evidence, You have only presented the usual, unscientific evo rhetoric.

What on Earth are you talking about? "...unscientific evo rhetoric?" It's you who doesn't seem to be making sense.

If you don't understand that "after its kind" refutes evolution and would rqather beleive man instea of God, the problem i yours.

How does a quotation from the Bible refute anything? The Bible's not a scientific text, it presents no evidence. You quote ancient, poetic folklore as some sort of scientifically authoritative source.
Your argument is unsupported by any real evidence, it's a priori,
You're just parroting religious doctrine as if it were relevant to this discussion.

 

[Valjean]

Knowing the distance to mars is a pimple of knowledge lol.

What are you talking about? I was comparing your dismissal of the vast amount of evidence supporting evolution to a couple of examples of scientific knowledge I assume you accept -- with less evidence than we have for evolution.
Did you miss the analogy?

 

[JustWondering]

If evolution was true, the vast majority of fossils would be intermediate and to date you have zero, zilch, nada.

DNA actually separates species, not links them. It is not the similarites that are important, it is the differences.

Fruit flies remaining fruit flies is not evidence of evolution. Hint: Evolution preaches a change of species.

Mutations do not change the species. They only altar the characteristics of a species.

Natural selection can't be proven. l Even if it is true it also will not result in a change of species, it would only give the species a better chance of survival.



Actually I am great supporter of science. Real science refutes evolutoin and if you understood genetics, you would KNOW that. I am a denier of of evolution being science.



You don't even understand what constitutes evidence, You have only presented the usual, unscientific evo rhetoric.



If you don't understand that "after its kind" refutes evolution and would rqather beleive man instea of God, the problem i yours.

As I said, science is not about proving or disproving god. Science simply tells us how nature works. If science tells me one thing and a two thousand plus year old book of stories with talking snakes and bushes in it tells me another, I'm gonna side with science. Which is why fundamentalists (like you) are threatened by it.

 

[Sonofason]

If God was the father of these angelic or heavenly beings who was their mother?

If God wasn't the father of these angelic or heavenly beings, who was their father?

 

[psychoslice]

What are you talking about? I was comparing your dismissal of the vast amount of evidence supporting evolution to a couple of examples of scientific knowledge I assume you accept -- with less evidence than we have for evolution.
Did you miss the analogy?

Probably.

 

[Sonofason]

I'll give you credit for this statement, because it's correct. But you got it right on accident.


This is an unsubstantiated claim and it will remain so until one of you Theists finally provides evidence to support your deity. The fact that you believe in something very strongly does not satisfy the requirement of substantiation.

Actually, that which is true is true despite having been substantiated by anyone. Truth does not require substantiation to be true.

First, a simple question...How do you know what time it is?

Now, read all of these and answer that question again.
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity
Minkowski space - Wikipedia
Spacetime - Wikipedia
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html
NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment | Science Mission Directorate
Did time exist before the creation of matter in the universe?

So, what time is it?

The time is now, it always will be.

Until you can produce some evidence that it's not a constant, then how you feel about is kind of a moot point, don't you think? This isn't just true for you. It's true for everyone everywhere.

Carbon-14 - Wikipedia
Radioactive Decay of Carbon-14
Carbon 14 dating 1
How is carbon dating done?

Creationists love to toy around with the idea that somehow, someway, the physical laws of the Universe were different at a chronologically convenient time for their mythological story... I don't understand why, other than the explanation of willful ignorance. Geological, Astronomical, and Radiometric timescales don't mesh will with primitive understandings of Biblical canon, so you guys just make up excuses for how and why those sciences don't work... I think you faith blinds you from realizing just how shallow this version of apologetics has become.

By faith we believe. Yes, even you.

 

[omega2xx]

The vast majority are. Evolution is usually a continuous process. Where we make the division into species is arbitrary. Everything is in transition. Everything's intermediate.

That simply isn't true and you know it. That is a necessary lie invented by the evos when you finally figured out there are no intermediate fossils.

What's your point? Similarities and differences are part of the same analysis, which clearly demonstrates evolution.

Differences clearly reject evolution.

Your point? Speciation has been observed.

You don't even understand speciation. Speciation doe snot result in a change of species.

Do you believe no change occurrs in species; that every species has always existed in its present form?

Give me one example of where a species changed. Be sure to includxe the mechanism that made teh change possible.

How is this not change?

Heliocentrality and the germ theory of disease can't be proven, but it would be foolish to dismiss all the supporting evidence. Evolution has at least as much supporting evidence as the unproven theory of a spherical Earth.
You really don't know anything about the subject you're so passionately criticizing, do you?

Yak, yak, yak---present the evidence.

Speciation has been observed firsthand, both in the lab and in Nature, and giving species a better chance of survival is how natural selection works.

Speciation DOES NOT result in a change of species. The salamanders and gulls remained salamanders and gulls.

No science refutes evolution -- zero, zilch, nada.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
What on Earth are you talking about? "...unscientific evo rhetoric?" It's you who doesn't seem to be making sense.
How does a quotation from the Bible refute anything? The Bible's not a scientific text, it presents no evidence. You quote ancient, poetic folklore as some sort of scientifically authoritative source.
Your argument is unsupported by any real evidence, it's a priori,
You're just parroting religious doctrine as if it were relevant to this discussion.

I haven't quoted the Bible. IF the Bible says something scientific, it is true. AFTER ITS KIND is true and it refutes evolution, and you can't falsify it.

 

[omega2xx]

As I said, science is not about proving or disproving god. Science simply tells us how nature works. If science tells me one thing and a two thousand plus year old book of stories with talking snakes and bushes in it tells me another, I'm gonna side with science. Which is why fundamentalists (like you) are threatened by it.

I haven't mentioned God. Stick to science. I haven't mention the Bible . Stick to science. You are going to stick to evolution, not to real science. I depend on science to refute evolution. I am not threatened by it, you are if you really understood science.

 

[metis]

Evolution is a continuing process, therefore any organism that reproduces is in reality "intermediary" or "transitional". One can take any organism, such as the horse [see: Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia ], and clearly see steps along with way that are found in the fossil record. Genome testing also attests to this.

 

[omega2xx]

Evolution is a continuing process, therefore any organism that reproduces is in reality "intermediary" or "transitional". One can take any organism, such as the horse [see: Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia ], and clearly see steps along with way that are found in the fossil record. Genome testing also attests to this.

How sad.

 

[Valjean]

That simply isn't true and you know it. That is a necessary lie invented by the evos when you finally figured out there are no intermediate fossils.

Have you not been reading the responses? Every fossil is an 'intermediate'.
Can you give me an example of what you think the problem is?

Differences clearly reject evolution.

Au contraire. If there were no differences there would be little evidence for evolution. Evolution is change. It's the ramification of differences that defines evolution.
Q: How do you think life's variety originated? (Magic poofing?)

Yak, yak, yak---present the evidence.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Speciation DOES NOT result in a change of species. The salamanders and gulls remained salamanders and gulls.

If speciation doesn't result in new species, what is it? Why would accumulated small changes not eventually result in a big change?
Salamanders and gulls" -- I assume you're referring to ring species. The rings do illustrate speciation in the classical understanding of reproductive viability, but I assume you're fixating on "kind." First, kind is not a taxonomic class. The bible doesn't use it in any technical sense. The writers knew nothing of biology or evolution.
It's creationists who've manufactured a semantic conundrum.

I haven't quoted the Bible. IF the Bible says something scientific, it is true. AFTER ITS KIND is true and it refutes evolution, and you can't falsify it.

"After its kind" refers to animal husbandry. Kind is not a taxonomic classification. The Authors of the Bible knew only what they'd observed in their own lives. Their sheep gave birth to sheep. They knew nothing of biology, fossils or DNA.

 

[JustWondering]

I haven't mentioned God. Stick to science. I haven't mention the Bible . Stick to science. You are going to stick to evolution, not to real science. I depend on science to refute evolution. I am not threatened by it, you are if you really understood science.

 

[omega2xx]

Have you not been reading the responses? Every fossil is an 'intermediate'.

That is the sorriest excuse the evos have invented yet. Look up "evolution of ______." Fill in the blank and you will find seval intermediate fossils of the species. The evolution of whales goes from a dog-like land animal to a full blown sea creature they named a whale with about 5 or 6 intermediate fossils. Go to o"Talk Origins," and google intermediate fossils and they will give you a list.

Can you give me an example of what you think the problem is?

Of course. You evos have preached intermediate fossils will prove evolution ever since pope Darwin said they would 100+ years ago. It finally became evidence there were no intermediate fossils, do to give the faithful hope, some evolution evangelist came up with a new doctrine and everyone recognized its necessity, so the all jumped on board. It has never been observed that an A gave birth to a B in one generation and that is what such an absurd idea is preaching. Also it violates the laws of genetics and if you understood genetics, you would know that it is not true.

Au contraire. If there were no differences there would be little evidence for evolution. Evolution is change. It's the ramification of differences that defines evolution.

Evolution is more than change. A difference in eye color is change. Evolution is a change of species and salamanders remaining salamanders is not a change of species.

Q: How do you think life's variety originated? (Magic poofing?)

As soon as you tell me how life originated out of lifeless elements, I will tell you how the variety of life we have today originated.


TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

If speciation doesn't result in new species, what is it? Why would accumulated small changes not eventually result in a big change?

Explain how a land animal with no gene for fins nor a blowhole, can produce a kid with fins and a blowhole. You can't explain that with mutations. You can't explain it at all. You see it is necessary do you accept it be faith alone.

Salamanders and gulls" -- I assume you're referring to ring species. The rings do illustrate speciation in the classical understanding of reproductive viability, but I assume you're fixating on "kind." First, kind is not a taxonomic class. The bible doesn't use it in any technical sense. The writers knew nothing of biology or evolution.
It's creationists who've manufactured a semantic conundrum.
"After its kind" refers to animal husbandry. Kind is not a taxonomic classification. The Authors of the Bible knew only what they'd observed in their own lives. Their sheep gave birth to sheep. They knew nothing of biology, fossils or DNA.

Don't bring the Bible into this but if you want to discuss "after it kind>' That is proven thousands of times every day and it can't be falsified. How do you explain that away?

 

[omega2xx]

Don't post links, post the evidence they offer.

 

[leibowde84]

If God exists perhaps the big bang was his way of creating the universe making scientist and Religion correct.

Maybe he is also responsible for evolution.

Anything is possible. There just isn't any evidence that is the case.