Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Speak for yourself, your God has no power over me.
-
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!
The Big Bang Theory is dead.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why would he have done that? Why do you keep claiming that God is incompetent. He is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent. He could have just as easily designed everything from scratch and it would have worked better.
The recurrent laryngeal nerve proves that your God is an Incompetent Designer.
That is not true. Any source of life would do. There is no need for a particular source of life. Of course scientists are much closer to solving that problem than you realize so you will still lose.
No, running and hiding is what you do. You have made this error before. It has been corrected. You just run and hide.
Nope. A computer program could be written that takes the data and gives the same result. No imagination needed.
Nope, you have no evidence. I need to remind you that you ran away from discussing the concept so you have no idea what is and what is not evidence.
You could always discuss it, but with my infinite prophetic powers I predict that you will just run and hide again.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Your post has no substance in it.
First without a first living creature atheism is refuted, and thus God Almighty exists and Created all things.
Evolutionists run and hide from the impossibility of abiogenesis.
Thus atheism and evolution and billions of years are all falsified forever.
As to the recurrent laryngeal nerve, how does that make God an incompetent designer?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
What impossibility? It is logically impossible to prove something to be impossible unless you can show a logical contradiction or claiming to be omniscient. Do you think you are God?
See above. Again, you seem to be claiming omniscience.
What about the common obvious flaws? Why do you have a mutated gene for making egg yoke in your DNA, not to mention multiple mutated (non-functional) sense of smell genes that you share with other species like chimpanzees and gorillas?
Argument by assertion fallacy.
Beyond reasonable doubt: evolution from DNA sequences - PubMed
We demonstrate quantitatively that, as predicted by evolutionary theory, sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. The converse, a non-evolutionary model can be expressed as probabilities, and the test works for chloroplast...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
We demonstrate quantitatively that, as predicted by evolutionary theory, sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. The converse, a non-evolutionary model can be expressed as probabilities, and the test works for chloroplast, nuclear and mitochondrial sequences, as well as for sequences that diverged at different time depths. Even on our conservative test, the probability that chance could produce the observed levels of ancestral convergence for just one of the eight datasets of 51 proteins is ≈1×10⁻¹⁹ and combined over 8 datasets is ≈1×10⁻¹³². By comparison, there are about 10⁸⁰ protons in the universe, hence the probability that the sequences could have been produced by a process involving unrelated ancestral sequences is about 10⁵⁰ lower than picking, among all protons, the same proton at random twice in a row. A non-evolutionary control model shows no convergence, and only a small number of parameters are required to account for the observations. It is time that that researchers insisted that doubters put up testable alternatives to evolution.
Another argument by assertion fallacy. And, of course, it would make your god an incompetent fool and/or a liar.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you merely lack the ability to reason rationally. Your second line alone shows that.
Why are you afraid? Why do you keep running away? How weak is Jesus?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
And how is there any living things without a first living thing?
And how could the first living thing have come into being?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
There are plenty of hypotheses. Claiming that it couldn't have been natural is an argument from ignorance fallacy. A fallacy is a basic failure to think rationally.
The BBT is not only not dead...it even has
a proposal for a 2nd separate Big Bang for
dark matter. Science is fascinating.
Poor Bible thumpers....they have only a single
book to read for the TRUTH about life, the
universe, & everything. They must desperately
try to make reality comport with this poetic
ancient inscrutable scripture.
But science need only gaze upon the vast wonder
of reality, & let people's imaginations run wild,
inventing diverse theories that live & die as
understandings improve. It's dynamic, unlike
religions tapped in the rantings of ignorant
long dead goatherds.
a proposal for a 2nd separate Big Bang for
dark matter. Science is fascinating.
Poor Bible thumpers....they have only a single
book to read for the TRUTH about life, the
universe, & everything. They must desperately
try to make reality comport with this poetic
ancient inscrutable scripture.
But science need only gaze upon the vast wonder
of reality, & let people's imaginations run wild,
inventing diverse theories that live & die as
understandings improve. It's dynamic, unlike
religions tapped in the rantings of ignorant
long dead goatherds.
Last edited:
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I was going to post about that.
They are in panic and scrambling to replace the Big Bang theory.
The evidence keeps refuting it and its predictions have failed to Biblical proportions.
You see "panic".
I see creativity in response to discoveries.
The universe is a very complex place that doesn't
give up its secrets easily. As evidence accumulates,
old theories are replaced by more useful ones.
Change is integral. Replacing old understanding
with new is the nature of science. As G Box said.
"All models are wrong, but some are useful."
This is so much better than the rigid mindless
devotion to scripture, which utterly fails to explain
physics, cosmology, biology, etc, etc. But all the
fundies have is "God did it".
Faith is the mind killer.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Utter nonsense. Where on earth did you get that idea from? The evidence for the basic BB theory remains incredibly strong. There is uncertainty about various things but there are always unknowns and uncertainty in science. If there weren't, science would simply stop.
It's much more honest and interesting to admit we have questions we can't yet answer than the daft dogma of 'answers' we can't question. Doubly so when the unquestionable 'answers' consist of nothing but "god did it", which is basically the same as giving up and saying "I dunno, it must be magic"...
ETA: the second big bang is a tentative suggestion to explain dark matter: A second big bang? The radical idea rewriting dark matter’s origins.
Last edited:
Agent Smith
Member
Most interesting.
It lifts my spirits that at least some of us are thinking; that of course premised on it being good to use one's brains. Anyhow, what I find fascinating is the attention (?) to nuance. Red shift? Ok, galaxies flying away from each other in every conceivable direction. BUT ... like good (?) physicians who inquire into the character of pain, we must find a discriminant to delve deeper into the nature of this, this, red shift, oui mes amies?
It lifts my spirits that at least some of us are thinking; that of course premised on it being good to use one's brains. Anyhow, what I find fascinating is the attention (?) to nuance. Red shift? Ok, galaxies flying away from each other in every conceivable direction. BUT ... like good (?) physicians who inquire into the character of pain, we must find a discriminant to delve deeper into the nature of this, this, red shift, oui mes amies?
The God of fatal childhood cancer.
Adult cancer is no picnic either.
Suffering sure integral to "God's Plan", eh.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Just part of the fall from Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden.
And suffering and death are not good for anyone.
My mother died of breast cancer. Almost 7 years of pain. She fought bravely.
McBell
Unbound
In all honesty I am most curious as to which "God of The Bible" will show up...
Yours
Kent Hovinds
Peter Ruckmans
Mother Teresas
I'm still amazed that in the 21st century
anyone can still believe such a loopy myth
created by ignorant goatherds 2000 years ago.
Biology offers the better explanation, & offers
understanding to curb & treat the disease.
The Bible offers only "God did it. And he
punishes us for the sins of ancestors."
**** that ****.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
So, having already accused your god of being an incompetent liar, you are now claiming it's unjust and vindictive too.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Biology proves God.
McBell
Unbound
Bold empty claim