The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[YoursTrue]

Why is evidence in quotes?


Is this your way of saying that you're preemptively going to shut down any response I make?


Who said that?

Sorry if you didn't understand what I said, no, I'm not shutting you out but I do hope you have a good day. If you can't understand what I said about whatever, sorry, and maybe in time you will. Take care. Look at other posts, maybe you'll come across the one that exclaims science can be wrong and then after revision less wrong. If I come across it again, I'l let you know. Take care again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why is evidence in quotes?


Is this your way of saying that you're preemptively going to shut down any response I make?

YES

Who said that?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Sorry if you didn't understand what I said, no, I'm not shutting you out but I do hope you have a good day. If you can't understand what I said about whatever, sorry, and maybe in time you will. Take care. Look at other posts, maybe you'll come across the one that exclaims science can be wrong and then after revision less wrong. If I come across it again, I'l let you know. Take care again.

So your debate tactic is treating people like an idiot and shifting the blame to them for not "understanding" (see? I can put stuff in quotes, too) what you're saying while dismissing them politely.

Does this work well for you?

 

[Polymath257]

Without abiogenesis, there is no evolution or life forms.

Wrong. The evidence for evolution isn’t dependent on abiogenesis. The evidence would still prove evolution even if a god created life.

And of course then the fossil rock layers have no dating because evolution does nit happen without a first living creature

The dating of rock layers is also not dependent on evolution. The rocks can be dated no matter what happened with living things.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Without abiogenesis, there is no evolution or life forms.

You are quite mistaken. The TOE is completely independent of abiogenesis.

 

[Polymath257]

All that one has to do is to say:

"Look at the stars!!"

If YEC beliefs were true we could not even see out of our own galaxy.

Or even to the center of it.

 

[Polymath257]

Well they are abandoning the Big Bang big time

Funny, no abandonment is seen in the actual scientific journals.

 

[Polymath257]

Not me.

What evidence is there for evolution and billions of years?
None.

Plenty of evidence for billions of years.

Here’s a good one.

In 1986, we detected a supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud, which is a nearby galaxy outside of our own. Some time later we saw the reflection of the light from that supernova in a gas cloud.

Now, even if speed of light was different in the past, we know how much time it took to go from the supernova to that gas cloud. We can also directly measure the angular size of that gas cloud as seen from earth.

So, we know how long it took for light to go a distance corresponding to that angular size in the past. That means that if the speed of light was faster in the past, the supernova would have had to be proportionally farther away from us. So, even with faster light, it still took that light 168000 years to travel to here AT LEAST. That refuted your 10000 years.

But more, the Large Magellanic Cloud is, like I said, a nearby galaxy. Just based on size alone, there are many known galaxies that are thousands of times farther away ( we know the LGC is a small galaxy). That automatically makes for a time period of hundreds of millions of years for light to get here from there.

This is not based on any model of the Big Bang. It is based on simple geometry. And it solidly refutes your young universe ideas.

 

[siti]

And the code for the first living creature was?
And how many proteins did it have?

The code for the "first living creature" was Revelation 4:7 (New International Version)

It had lots of proteins, being, as it was, "like a lion" it was presumably a carnivore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without abiogenesis, there is no evolution or life forms.

No, this has been explained to you.

And of course then the fossil rock layers have no dating because evolution does nit happen without a first living creature

Wrong again. Absolute dating does not rely on fossils at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

So your debate tactic is treating people like an idiot and shifting the blame to them for not "understanding" (see? I can put stuff in quotes, too) what you're saying while dismissing them politely.

Does this work well for you?

Actually I'm not debating, even though this is called a debate forum. I am just registering my thoughts in certain respects. I'm sorry if i offended you, I did not mean to. So if you'd like to tell me again what you did not understand I hope I can help you to understand it. I do recall the supercilious replies of many here on the scientific side of the argument, calling those who do not agree with the concept of evolution as not educated telling them to take a course, etc., rather than those believing in evolution explain their positions succinctly, clearly and logically.

 

[McBell]

867-5309

STOP THE PRESS!!!

It is confirmed that that is the code for Jenny, NOT Stanley....

 

[McBell]

there IS not one iota of "evidence" scientifically that is for the "origin" of the universe. Have a good one. As someone said, scientific theories can be wrong and less wrong.

Ah.
So what is your evidence based theory on the origin of the cosmos?

Don't have one?
No surprise.

 

[McBell]

Actually I'm not debating,

Everyone here already knows this.

I do recall the supercilious replies of many here on the scientific side of the argument, calling those who do not agree with the concept of evolution as not educated telling them to take a course, etc., rather than those believing in evolution explain their positions succinctly, clearly and logically.

Funny how it is you can recall that, but you can not recall the explanations given multiple times by multiple members...

If this is really true than perhaps you should go back and actually read the explanations?
Seems to me that I have already pointed this out to you once or twice before.
Funny how it is you STILL have not been able to find them...

I for one find it extremely difficult to take you seriously when you are completely unable to see that which is right in front of you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Everyone here already knows this.


Funny how it is you can recall that, but you can not recall the explanations given multiple times by multiple members...

If this is really true than perhaps you should go back and actually read the explanations?
Seems to me that I have already pointed this out to you once or twice before.
Funny how it is you STILL have not been able to find them...

I for one find it extremely difficult to take you seriously when you are completely unable to see that which is right in front of you.

I'm giving my reaction or thoughts sometimes. The winners will be decided imo not by a jury of men. Furthermore, I really do see lack of substance by many who negate what the Bible says and align themselves against that as well as again, often bearing no substance beyond imagination and conjecture on the science side. I actually appreciate hearing some of the rhetoric of those believing in evolution. It shows me they really have no answers as to foundation. Take care, and I'm not signing you off by the way.

 

[YoursTrue]

Everyone here already knows this.


Funny how it is you can recall that, but you can not recall the explanations given multiple times by multiple members...

If this is really true than perhaps you should go back and actually read the explanations?
Seems to me that I have already pointed this out to you once or twice before.
Funny how it is you STILL have not been able to find them...

I for one find it extremely difficult to take you seriously when you are completely unable to see that which is right in front of you.

I realize I am in the losing position by popular decree. Because I had doubts about the theory of evolution I decided to examine what evolutionists believe and think. And while I am sure many here know a lot about the theory, I have learned a lot about those beliefs. It has not moved me to accept evolution starting with abiogenesis as the way life came to be as we know it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Without abiogenesis, there is no evolution or life forms.
And of course then the fossil rock layers have no dating because evolution does nit happen without a first living creature

Evolution doesn't require that life exist for any specific reason. From the point of the theory of evolution, life could arise from purely natural processes, be brought in from outer space or by divine action. It is not dependent on a particular origin of life.

It doesn't make any sense that this is so difficult to understand.

What you say doesn't even make any sense in light of your own claims since you believe we have life forms from a purely divine origin without abiogenesis. So, even if it wasn't abiogenesis, we have life forms.

Strata are dated based on radiometric techniques that do not require the presence of fossils. The fossils serve as an index subject to the dates determined by radiometric dating.

Do you seriously believe you are convincing anyone that has even a cursory understanding with your complete confusion of what is claimed in the different branches of science? I certainly don't take you seriously.

 

[McBell]

I'm giving my reaction or thoughts sometimes. The winners will be decided imo not by a jury of men. Furthermore, I really do see lack of substance by many who negate what the Bible says and align themselves against that as well as again, often bearing no substance beyond imagination and conjecture on the science side. I actually appreciate hearing some of the rhetoric of those believing in evolution. It shows me they really have no answers as to foundation. Take care, and I'm not signing you off by the way.

Except you are flat out ignoring the explanations.
Why?
Now we need to get into the fact that not only are you ignoring the explanations, you are flat out claiming they do not exist.

Like I said, extremely difficult to take you seriously.

 

[McBell]

I realize I am in the losing position by popular decree. Because I had doubts about the theory of evolution I decided to examine what evolutionists believe and think. And while I am sure many here know a lot about the theory, I have learned a lot about those beliefs. It has not moved me to accept evolution starting with abiogenesis as the way life came to be as we know it.

except you flat out deny the existence of explanations right in front of you...

How exactly are you 'examining' that which you not only ignore, but flat out deny exist?

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution doesn't require that life exist for any specific reason. From the point of the theory of evolution, life could arise from purely natural processes, be brought in from outer space or by divine action. It is not dependent on a particular origin of life.

It doesn't make any sense that this is so difficult to understand.

What you say doesn't even make any sense in light of your own claims since you believe we have life forms from a purely divine origin without abiogenesis. So, even if it wasn't abiogenesis, we have life forms.

Strata are dated based on radiometric techniques that do not require the presence of fossils. The fossils serve as an index subject to the dates determined by radiometric dating.

Do you seriously believe you are convincing anyone that has even a cursory understanding with your complete confusion of what is claimed in the different branches of science? I certainly don't take you seriously.

Is life on earth possible according to science without a beginning? meaning the emergence of life coming from non-living material.