The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[SavedByTheLord]

You don't even know what circular reasoning is. But nice atempt?

I sure do. And the most glaring example is evolution and billions of years.

That is why you have no answer to the origin of anything,

What caused the Big Bang?
What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

 

[The Hammer]

I sure do. And the most glaring example is evolution and billions of years.

That is why you have no answer to the origin of anything,

What caused the Big Bang?
What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

Not until you tell me what circular reasoning is. No mentioning the ToE, big bang or firsts.

I just want to make sure we are on the same page friend.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Not until you tell me what circular reasoning is. No mentioning the ToE, big bang or firsts.

I just want to make sure we are on the same page friend.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.
This is it in a nutshell.
We know that evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

 

[Watchmen]

What is your definition of “circular reasoning?”

 

[Subduction Zone]

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.
This is it in a nutshell.
We know that evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

If that is the case then why do you only have strawman arguments.

You should look into the history of geology. Early Christian geologists refuted the myth of Noah long before Darwin came along and showed that the Earth was very very old.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What is your definition of “circular reasoning?”

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.
This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.
Furthermore, they have no real rational answer to the origin of anything. But they know it must have happened because it must have happened by evolution because they know that evolution and billions of years are true. And they are absolutely sure that the answers will one day be found because they know that evolution and billions of years are true.


Now proving that you use circular reasoning, you will not answer these required and easy origin questions, but will use any technique that evade answering with a real rational answer.

What was the first living creature?
What caused the Big Bang?

 

[Subduction Zone]

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.
This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.
Furthermore, they have no real rational answer to the origin of anything. But they know it must have happened because it must have happened by evolution because they know that evolution and billions of years are true. And they are absolutely sure that the answers will one day be found because they know that evolution and billions of years are true.


Now proving that you use circular reasoning, you will not answer these required and easy origin questions, but will use any technique that evade answering with a real rational answer.

What was the first living creature?
What caused the Big Bang?

Too bad that is now how scientists determine ages.

Once again, we knew that the Earth was very old long before Darwin's time. As usual you have only claims and no evidence. Nor are you even willing to discus how even early geologists knew that the Earth was old.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Too bad that is now how scientists determine ages.

Once again, we knew that the Earth was very old long before Darwin's time. As usual you have only claims and no evidence. Nor are you even willing to discus how even early geologists knew that the Earth was old.

You just used circular reasoning again.

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just used circular reasoning again.

LMAO1 No that is your problem How was I using circular reasoning. If you cannot properly support your claim it is not different from admitting that you are wrong.

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

Oh my,, you still don't know how to debate.

 

[The Hammer]

That is why you have no answer to the origin of anything,

You do understand "origin of everything" isn't really of any concern to science? It's just not a question that is asked. Because it's in the realm of metaphysics. We follow the facts whether that's a Muslim, jew, Hindu, pagan or atheist scientist. Our faiths are separate from our science. Our "God" isn't science. It's whatever our beliefs are. Science didn't make me any less religious or any less of a believer in the other than human world. It has a really strengthened my faith.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You do understand "origin of everything" isn't really of any concern to science? It's just not a question that is asked. Because it's in the realm of metaphysics. We follow the facts whether that's a Muslim, jew, Hindu, pagan or atheist scientist. Our faiths are separate from our science. Our "God" isn't science. It's whatever our beliefs are. Science didn't make me any less religious or any less of a believer in the other than human world. It has a really strengthened my faith.


View attachment 83543

So evolution is not science but a false religion,

 

[Subduction Zone]

So evolution is not science but a false religion,

More projection from the man that claims that God is a liar.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

More projection from the man that claims that God is a liar.

False accusations by you fulfill dozens Biblical prophecies and show you are using circular reasoning.

What existed 1 trillion years before the Big Bang and what caused that to be?

 

[Subduction Zone]

False accusations by you fulfill dozens Biblical prophecies and show you are using circular reasoning.

What are the false accusations/ You never ever support that claim. That indicates that the accusations are accurate. Any rational person would clearly identify the accusations that were false and explain why they were false upon being challenged. Your actions tell us that they are spot on.

What existed 1 trillion years before the Big Bang and what caused that to be?

Already answered. But let me do so again. What is 1 trillion miles south of the South Pole. if you can answer that question you can answer yours.

 

[ratiocinator]

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.
This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

Still waiting for you to cite a single example of an argument like this. It looks just like you blindly repeating some lie you've been told.

 

[The Hammer]

So evolution is not science but a false religion.

Absolutely not what I said?

 

[ratiocinator]

What existed 1 trillion years before the Big Bang and what caused that to be?

If you dragged the tiny morsel of science you seem to almost understand out of the 19th century, you might realise that "1 trillion years before the Big Bang" may well not refer to a time.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If you dragged the tiny morsel of science you seem to almost understand out of the 19th century, you might realise that "1 trillion years before the Big Bang" may well not refer to a time.

So no real answer at all.
Evolution and billions of years is the theory of nothing Because it does not have any real answer to anything Just circular reasoning.
What caused the Big Bang?

 

[ratiocinator]

So no real answer at all.

You not liking it doesn't impact on its reality.

Evolution and billions of years is the theory of nothing Because it does not have any real answer to anything Just circular reasoning.

You haven't provided any evidence for this.

Here is how you describe it:

This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

Now....

Show me even one single example of anybody with relevant qualifications who argues like this.
Just one.​

What caused the Big Bang?

I've already answered this multiple time. Repeating the same question without addressing my answer is running away.

No, I'm not going to post the answer again. I've posted it several times and linked to it even more times. Grow up and face up to what other people are saying.

Are you even being serious? If somebody told me you were a parody act who is trying to make creationist beliefs look absurd, I don't think I could find anything in your posts that would falsify the claim....

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You not liking it doesn't impact on its reality.


You haven't provided any evidence for this.

Here is how you describe it:

Now....

Show me even one single example of anybody with relevant qualifications who argues like this.
Just one.​

I've already answered this multiple time. Repeating the same question without addressing my answer is running away.

No, I'm not going to post the answer again. I've posted it several times and linked to it even more times. Grow up and face up to what other people are saying.

Are you even being serious? If somebody told me you were a parody act who is trying to make creationist beliefs look absurd, I don't think I could find anything in your posts that would falsify the claim....

Wow great job doing that circular reasoning thing but read it to yourself and learn.

Why are all the many millions of chains of missing links missing from the fossil record.
I calculated the odds against as 10^10 million to 1.