The Big Bang and Evolution

[omega2xx]

That makes absolutely no sense as a response to what I said.

That depends on one's reading comprehension level.



...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.

 

[Evie]

When you answer my question I will answer yours.


...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.

Yes.

That depends on one's reading comprehension level.



...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.[/Q

 

[Evie]

Yes.

Yes.

 

[ratiocinator]

When you answer my question I will answer yours.

This is very childish, what are you frightened of? I don't even know what question you want me to answer.

Everything that is not eternal needs a source. God is eternal.

How do you know that physical reality isn't eternal?

That depends on one's reading comprehension level.

I said that gaps in science don't lend credence to evidence-free storytelling and you said that science was storytelling.

What are you talking about? All science? The gaps in science?

 

[omega2xx]

What problem do you see there?<<

One needs to know what characteristics a living organism has to explain how it became something without the characteristics not in the gene pool of its parents.

What laws of genetics? What genetic law could prevent DNA from becoming more complex?

This is not about DNA being complex. That is a proven given. This about how the offspring can acquire a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents. Do ydou believe the fdirst life form was a single-celled something?

You'll need to alert the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) and the NAS (National Academy of Sciences). They seem to think otherwise. Why do you suppose that is?

I can't evaluate it without knowing exactly what they said and the evidence they provided to verify it. Give me that info and I will gladly give you my answer.

How did you come to this knowledge of what is impossible - knowledge that apparently still eludes the scientific community? How could it be that some lay people would know more about science than the community of experts in the field?

Do you really think lay people do not have the ability to read and understand scientific concepts without having a science degree? Also there are Christian scientists who reject evolution and they do it with science. In addition, evolution scientist never offer the scientific evidence for what they say.

The opposite is self-evidently true. Lifeless molecules are organizing themselves into living cells by the millions in your own body right now under the direction of other lifeless molecules.

First they did not cause my life. Second living cell contain molecules but the molecules are not living any more than the atoms in my body are living.

Do you consider a god - lets say your god - to be a living organism? Some people claim that He is a living god. Do you?

God is living but He is not an organism. He is Spirit.


...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.

 

[omega2xx]

4 "honest" men? If by that you mean Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. It is well established that these are not the real authors of the Gospel, so we already have "bearing false witness" before reading the first word.

Unless you have evidence they were no the authors of the gospels, guess who is bearing false witness. Present your evidence so I and others can evaluate if you know what you are talking about.


...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.

 

[omega2xx]

That's incorrect. Science is constructing a putative chain of events leading from simple molecules to the first replicator. Many links are still missing, but the form of a chain is becoming apparent. Some people have speculated that the chin will be complete within our lifetimes. Being in the last third of my life, I don't expect that.

If you care to find out what the state-of-the-art is, I recommend Google.

I recommend you provide the evidence for you you say.

What do you consider a spiritual truth? Something true about spirits like gods, demons, and angels?

A spiritual truth is one that is true but can't be proved----You must be born again is a spiritual truth.

Or maybe all Christian dogma is what you mean such as that man is born a sinner.

No. Dogma is literal truth. All are not born sinners; all are born with a sin nature, that will cause them to sin. A neew born baby is not a sinner.

Or maybe you are talking about beauty or art. The Bible doesn't offer a lot of meaningful ideas there, so I doubt that that is what you are claiming that the Bible is a good source for.

That depends on how you define beauty and art.

I find beauty in the truths found in God's word. I find art in how figurative language paints spiritual truths.



...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.

 

[omega2xx]

I think we're pretty satisfied with what we have. We need no such explanation.

IOW, you have no evidence for how they came into being.

If we never have one, we will still be using the scientific method to understand our world. The proof is in the pudding: Science works. We won't be abandoning it for religion.

Of course real science works. Evolution is not based on real science.

And though self-creation from nothing is a candidate hypothesis for the solution to the origins problem, and the one Krauss makes, it is not the only one, and he has no basis to rule out other possibilities. The scientific position is that we don't know what happened, not the one you are staking out for science.

To postulate that nothing can be the source of something is not only absurd and illogical, it is a last ditch effort to try and save a failed theory.

These arguments against science based on what is not yet known are effete, and are more powerful against a god hypothesis, where absolutely nothing is known.

My arguments are not against a science based on what is not known. It is based on a theory that is not based on science at all.

 

[omega2xx]

You don't know that, and neither of us has a reason to believe it.

Speak for your self.


...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.

 

[omega2xx]

All fossils are intermediate.

That is the saddest comment anyone can make ab out the fossil record and it basically admits the fossil record does not prove evolution. If anything it proves creationism's "after its kind.

Species have constantly changed through random mutation and natural selection, and still continues to do so now. You just have to take in the immense time that evolution occurs over.

Some of the characteristics have changed but no species has changed, and time will not change the laws of genetics. and if you understood mutations, you would know they can't be the mechanism for a change of species.


...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.

 

[Evie]

Can a scientific explanation be given as to why there are varying humans. Such as colour, shape of eyes etc. Is there an explanation as to how this came about?

 

[omega2xx]

This is very childish, what are you frightened of? I don't even know what question you want me to answer.

A better queston is what you afraid of. If you want to know the question, backtrack to my last post to you.

How do you know that physical reality isn't eternal?

I don't and you don't know that it is.

I said that gaps in science don't lend credence to evidence-free storytelling and you said that science was storytelling.

I might have said evolution is story telling ,but I did not say science was.

What are you talking about? All science? The gaps in science?

I am saying nothing in the TOE is based on science.

 

[omega2xx]

Can a scientific explanation be given as to why there are varying humans. Such as colour, shape of eyes etc. Is there an explanation as to how this came about?

All human characteristics are determined by the genes of the parents, including eye color, hair color, skin color etc.

If both parents have the gene for blue eyes the eyes of their kids will be blue. If one parent has the gene for blue eyes and one has he gene for brown eyes, the gene that is dominant will determine the eye color. A mutation can change the eye color, but it cant change the species.

 

[ratiocinator]

A better queston is what you afraid of. If you want to know the question, backtrack to my last post to you.

Why should I? You always refuse to follow links or look back yourself.

You are busy saying that you think the vast majority of geneticists and evolutionary biologists are either ignorant of, or are lying about, the "laws of genetics" - it's perfectly fair to ask which you think it is and why?

I am saying nothing in the TOE is based on science.

Back to the question you are so terrified of: why then, do almost all scientists who study these subjects disagree?

Go on, run away from the question, yet again....

 

[omega2xx]

Why should I? You always refuse to follow links or look back yourself.

I read links for over 20 years. They NEVER provided the evidence for what they said. I have challenged all the evos to cut and paste the evidence in any link they want to. To date no one has accepted my challenge. Would you like to be the first. I will answer that for everyone---youwon't do it.

You are busy saying that you think the vast majority of geneticists and evolutionary biologists are either ignorant of, or are lying about, the "laws of genetics" - it's perfectly fair to ask which you think it is and why?

I have already told you I will answer your quesion, when you answer mine.

Back to the question you are so terrified of: why then, do almost all scientists who study these subjects disagree?

Hyperbole is an indication you have no leg to stand on. I am not terrified at what "almost" all scientist say. I actually have real science on my side. I think you are terrified that science will show the TOE to be the fraud it is.

Go on, run away from the question, yet again....

Why have you run away from my question?


...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.

 

[ratiocinator]

I read links for over 20 years. They NEVER provided the evidence for what they said. I have challenged all the evos to cut and paste the evidence in any link they want to. To date no one has accepted my challenge. Would you like to be the first. I will answer that for everyone---youwon't do it.

I refer you back to #789.

Hyperbole is an indication you have no leg to stand on. I am not terrified at what "almost" all scientist say. I actually have real science on my side. I think you are terrified that science will show the TOE to be the fraud it is.

So, are you saying the scientists involved are all lying? That is the implication of it being a fraud. How did this vast international conspiracy, across multiple scientific disciplines, involving scientists of many different religious faiths and none, get organized? Who is behind it? How did they get all the scientific journals to cooperate? What is the motivation? How come nobody has broken ranks and answered these questions?

 

[omega2xx]

I refer you back to #789.


So, are you saying the scientists involved are all lying? That is the implication of it being a fraud. How did this vast international conspiracy, across multiple scientific disciplines, involving scientists of many different religious faiths and none, get organized? Who is behind it? How did they get all the scientific journals to cooperate? What is the motivation? How come nobody has broken ranks and answered these questions?

Misquoting is worse than hyperbole. Either answer my question or forget this discussion and have a nice day.

 

[ratiocinator]

Misquoting is worse than hyperbole.

What did I misquote?

Either answer my question or forget this discussion and have a nice day.

I don't know what question you want answering.

And you are still running away from the points I made - if evolution is a fraud, as you said, then most of the scientists involved must be complicit (or stupid).

Your dogmatic claims that evolution is not scientific, ignores the "laws of genetics" and has no evidence, doesn't leave many alternatives - either most of the scientists are lying or stupid - or you are simply wrong.

How about you read a link from a creationist? Tell you what, I'll paste an extract too:

Todd's Blog (my emphasis)

There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

What did I misquote?


I don't know what question you want answering.

And you are still running away from the points I made - if evolution is a fraud, as you said, then most of the scientists involved must be complicit (or stupid).

Your dogmatic claims that evolution is not scientific, ignores the "laws of genetics" and has no evidence, doesn't leave many alternatives - either most of the scientists are lying or stupid - or you are simply wrong.

How about you read a link from a creationist? Tell you what, I'll paste an extract too:

Todd's Blog (my emphasis)

Until you answer my question, I am finished with this discussion.

 

[ratiocinator]

Until you answer my question, I am finished with this discussion.

Wow - you really are scared!

I'll attempt to answer any question, if you'll tell me what it is....