The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.

[SavedByTheLord]

By definition, miracles do not require God. Perhaps the first living thing/things were the result of miracles. (2 can play that game)

And of course random miracles would not lead to intelligent life. Only an intelligent Creator then is the explanation.
So 2 can play but evolution without God loses.

I am glad that you have admitted that evolution needs miracles to rescue it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again what a defecltion and subtle false accusation.

No deflection and no false accusations.
Instead a direct reply to your gish galloping and continued moving of goal posts.

I'll remind you of the fact that the post you were replying to had nothing whatsoever to do with big bang theory.
That's just you again pretending as if poking holes in scientific theories will advance your religious ideas for even only an inch.

It doesn't.

I am not against real science.

And yet, you are hellbend on arguing against every single scientific idea that you feel is incompatible with your a priori religious beliefs.
And you are not shy at all to argue strawmen and misrepresentations and quote mining to make it seem as if you have an actual argument.

You don't off course.
The ONLY reason you are hellbend on arguing against cosmology, biology, genetics, geology, etc is ONLY because you have a priori dogmatic religious beliefs that aren't compatible with it.

And when you are backed into a corner, just like before, you invoke "magic" as if that solves anything.

What do you want me to say to that..........

There's nothing I can say. I can't reasonably argue with, or against, unreasonable claims. All I can do is point out the unreasonableness. That's it.
If you then insist on double down on that unreasonableness, then there's nothing left to talk about.

I love real science. I am against false science like evolution and billions of years.

See? There you go.
Science can factually demonstrate the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
It can factually demonstrate species share ancestry.

But you aren't interested. You are only interested in handwaving, invoking "magic" and double down on your a priori dogmatic religious beliefs.

All I can do is shrug my shoulders and walk away. There's no point in trying to teach you when you aren't interesting in learning.

If you change this dogmatic attitude and actually start showing a willingness to learn what the evidence and theories are REALLY all about, I'm here for you to help in any way I can. But you insist on arguing strawmen. Nothing I can do about that.

And what about the articles that show that the big bang theory is just a big bust.

James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe

Thousands of disk galaxies like our own Milky Way were spotted in the early universe, where they shouldn't exist.

www.yahoo.com

That article discusses galaxy formation. It doesn't even mention big bang theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you do not understand what a miracle is.
With God all things are possible.

There are many miracles in the Bible that of course violated the laws of nature. 6 day creation is the biggest one.

Oh we understand it much better than you do. When it finally becomes obvious to even you that the Noah's Ark myth is impossible you claim "God magic". Why didn't God just solve all of his problems with one piece of magic? Why did God find it necessary to lie by covering up his evil deeds?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And of course random miracles would not lead to intelligent life. Only an intelligent Creator then is the explanation.
So 2 can play but evolution without God loses.

I am glad that you have admitted that evolution needs miracles to rescue it.

How are you going to prove that? You don't get to make ignorant claims and run away from them.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

How are you going to prove that? You don't get to make ignorant claims and run away from them.

Already have. Let me know what you think.

Big Bang is dead.

Redshift anomalies and other things that invalidate the Big Bang expansion

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ft_Data_and_the_Myth_of_Cosmological_Distance
Click on see the full text.

Anomalies in the count of low red shift quasars.

Anomalies in the Counts of Low Redshift Quasars

https://assa.saao.ac.za/wp-content/...liffe-A-review-of-anomalous-redshift-data.pdf

Redshift Anomalies and the Big Bang – Anthony Beckett

Is a new anomaly affecting the entire Universe?

Galaxies and the Universe - Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy

These two shows that today’s age estimate is a farce. The very exact number may be off by 100%. Of course if 100% is the error, then -100% puts it at about 6000 years.

'Tired light' might make the universe twice as old as we thought

Scientists have revisited the disproven light ageing hypothesis, which suggests the universe has been around for almost 27 billion years

More problems with the Big Bang Theory and the redshift explanation.

Plasma Cosmology .net

Exploring Cosmic Voids and Anomalies: The Mystery of the Cold Spot

Large Scale Cosmological Anomalies and Inhomogeneous Dark Energy

https://medium.com/inserting-philosophy/what-if-the-universe-is-not-expanding-7a6d3d6a2d2e

https://apologeticspress.org/the-big-bang-theory-a-scientific-critique-part-i-whole-1453/

https://www.i-sis.org.uk/Galaxy_making_stars_at_the_edge_of_the_universe.php

https://act.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf1171/files/a9r1o5g11h_6viqvc_3u4_0.pdf

https://www.lppfusion.com/science/c...mology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/

https://creation.com/quasar-with-en...-nearby-spiral-galaxy-with-far-lower-redshift

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-bust-up-auid-2253

Web telescope
Too many spiral galaxies in the early universe.
James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/james-webb-telescope-spots-thousands-173000173.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

Already have. Let me know what you think.

Big Bang is dead.

Redshift anomalies and other things that invalidate the Big Bang expansion

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ft_Data_and_the_Myth_of_Cosmological_Distance
Click on see the full text.

Anomalies in the count of low red shift quasars.

Anomalies in the Counts of Low Redshift Quasars

https://assa.saao.ac.za/wp-content/...liffe-A-review-of-anomalous-redshift-data.pdf

Redshift Anomalies and the Big Bang – Anthony Beckett

Is a new anomaly affecting the entire Universe?

Galaxies and the Universe - Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy

These two shows that today’s age estimate is a farce. The very exact number may be off by 100%. Of course if 100% is the error, then -100% puts it at about 6000 years.

'Tired light' might make the universe twice as old as we thought

Scientists have revisited the disproven light ageing hypothesis, which suggests the universe has been around for almost 27 billion years

More problems with the Big Bang Theory and the redshift explanation.

Plasma Cosmology .net

Exploring Cosmic Voids and Anomalies: The Mystery of the Cold Spot

Large Scale Cosmological Anomalies and Inhomogeneous Dark Energy

What if the Universe Is NOT Expanding?

The Big Bang Theory-A Scientific Critique [Part I] [Whole] - Apologetics Press

Galaxy Making Stars at the Edge of the Universe and Other “Surprises”

https://act.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf1171/files/a9r1o5g11h_6viqvc_3u4_0.pdf

The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang - LPP Fusion

Quasar with enormous redshift found embedded in nearby spiral galaxy with far lower redshift

The Big Bang Bust-Up

Web telescope
Too many spiral galaxies in the early universe.
James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe

James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe

You need more than the work of one author. You appear to be relying almost exclusively on the work of Hilton Ratcliffe. He appears to believe in a steady state. His universe would be even older than the Big Bang.

How does that help you?


And nice shooting. At least one of your sources is a lying pseudoscience source. That makes all of the rest look questionable.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You need more than the work of one author. You appear to be relying almost exclusively on the work of Hilton Ratcliffe. He appears to believe in a steady state. His universe would be even older than the Big Bang.

How does that help you?


And nice shooting. At least one of your sources is a lying pseudoscience source. That makes all of the rest look questionable.

That is lot of splaying to do.

New Cosmologies: Could reconsidering the Big Bang theory save us?

Tao Lin takes a closer look at science’s creation stories, examining their implications for human culture at large

www.documentjournal.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is lot of splaying to do.

New Cosmologies: Could reconsidering the Big Bang theory save us?

Tao Lin takes a closer look at science’s creation stories, examining their implications for human culture at large

www.documentjournal.com

Please try and find science based sources.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Please try and find science based sources.

I have posted many.
what was there 1 trillion years before the Big Dud?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have posted many.
what was there 1 trillion years before the Big Dud?

No, that is a delusion on your part. And your question was answered.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, that is a delusion on your part. And your question was answered.

Where was an acceptable answer?
You do realize that there is none given yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where was an acceptable answer?
You do realize that there is none given yet.

Where was an acceptable question? Did you forget that you need to be able to justify your questions?

If you want a proper answer you need to ask proper questions.

 

[Alien826]

There's nothing I can say. I can't reasonably argue with, or against, unreasonable claims. All I can do is point out the unreasonableness. That's it.
If you then insist on double down on that unreasonableness, then there's nothing left to talk about.

Correct.

Of course, what they say is logically valid (note, not sound). If an omniscient being that doesn't lie has said that a particularly interpretation of certain writings is factually correct, then it follows that any contrary statement must be incorrect. So why go into all these challenges to science if all that is necessary is to establish the validity of the premise? Once that is done, all else follows, right?

The problem is that this particular view of scripture is held by a relatively minor section of believers and efforts to "prove" it don't get far. So what to do? Well, try to weaken people's reliance on science as a tool for understanding the world. First, saying that all science is false is not likely to fly, so throw a bone to science by dividing science into "good science" (that doesn't challenge the religious pov) and "bad science" (that does). OK, that seems like a good start. Now let's attack the "bad science". And so on ....

 

[Alien826]

Where was an acceptable answer?
You do realize that there is none given yet.

You do realize that "acceptable by you" is not the same as "generally acceptable"?

 

[setarcos]

That's a "God of the gaps" argument which has been refuted over and over again. Building block of life found in sample from asteroid Ryugu shows that some precursors exist in space. There's other research eating away at the gaps the OP post depends on.

Good day sun rise. Just scrolling through...replying to what I come across with my opinion. Looks like this thread is a ways along so this may seem like a regress to what's been said but ya gotta start somewhere.
Seems to me the "God of the gaps" refutation is somewhat of a hypocritical misnomer which has been propagated because of well meaning religious peoples who are too over zealous to prove Gods existence and so misapply their ideas. To be clear...the "God of the Gaps" refutation isn't an argument against Gods existence. Its an argument against a persons attempt at proving that existence.
If God exists you'll find it in the gaps, out of the gaps, and in between the gaps but not as a proof of its existence. The reason why God IS in the gaps, if it exists, is that science is. IF God exists and created the universe for a purpose then the rationality of man which gave rise to science exists because of that creation and any so called gaps we think we've scientifically filled in is because God has designed the universe and its workings to be discoverable by us with our God given rational minds.
Why can I refer to science as "A science of the gaps"? Because science fills in the gaps it was created to fill - That is an understanding of the physical universe we find ourselves in. You will notice though that our understanding where we thought we understood is continually being "revised". Some of the the scientific gaps we thought were filled have suddenly become unfilled again. Proofs don't "actually" exist in science either. What exists are presumptions that the observed past will repeat. That itself is unscientific since science ironically is supposedly deterministic not probabilistic .
As far as that goes if I were to use "Science of the Gaps" derogatorily then it would be because scientific hubris has declared that since science has seemingly filled one gap it will eventually fill them all. There is no proof that is the case.
The possibility of life's necessary precursors being found outside of our terrestrial realm has nothing to do with the probability arguments relating to the beginnings of life. If anything you've simply taken the problem and placed it elsewhere.

 

[setarcos]

One of the most well-known theories is the RNA world hypothesis, which proposes that RNA was the first self-replicating molecule on Earth. RNA is a versatile molecule that can both store and transmit genetic information.

Perhaps not as good an example to give as you think. Try this peer reviewed scientific article concerning the hypothesis....

The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)a - Biology Direct

The problems associated with the RNA world hypothesis are well known. In the following I discuss some of these difficulties, some of the alternative hypotheses that have been proposed, and some of the problems with these alternative models. From a biosynthetic – as well as, arguably...

biologydirect.biomedcentral.com

Sorry couldn't get url to import correctly...its on the biology direct site...search for problems with the RNA world hypothesis

 

[McBell]

Good day sun rise. Just scrolling through...replying to what I come across with my opinion. Looks like this thread is a ways along so this may seem like a regress to what's been said but ya gotta start somewhere.
Seems to me the "God of the gaps" refutation is somewhat of a hypocritical misnomer which has been propagated because of well meaning religious peoples who are too over zealous to prove Gods existence and so misapply their ideas. To be clear...the "God of the Gaps" refutation isn't an argument against Gods existence. Its an argument against a persons attempt at proving that existence.
If God exists you'll find it in the gaps, out of the gaps, and in between the gaps but not as a proof of its existence. The reason why God IS in the gaps, if it exists, is that science is. IF God exists and created the universe for a purpose then the rationality of man which gave rise to science exists because of that creation and any so called gaps we think we've scientifically filled in is because God has designed the universe and its workings to be discoverable by us with our God given rational minds.
Why can I refer to science as "A science of the gaps"? Because science fills in the gaps it was created to fill - That is an understanding of the physical universe we find ourselves in. You will notice though that our understanding where we thought we understood is continually being "revised". Some of the the scientific gaps we thought were filled have suddenly become unfilled again. Proofs don't "actually" exist in science either. What exists are presumptions that the observed past will repeat. That itself is unscientific since science ironically is supposedly deterministic not probabilistic .
As far as that goes if I were to use "Science of the Gaps" derogatorily then it would be because scientific hubris has declared that since science has seemingly filled one gap it will eventually fill them all. There is no proof that is the case.
The possibility of life's necessary precursors being found outside of our terrestrial realm has nothing to do with the probability arguments relating to the beginnings of life. If anything you've simply taken the problem and placed it elsewhere.

Whenever an argument boils down to "I do not know, therefore GodDidIt" it is a god of the gaps argument.

 

[Alien826]

Good day sun rise. Just scrolling through...replying to what I come across with my opinion. Looks like this thread is a ways along so this may seem like a regress to what's been said but ya gotta start somewhere.
Seems to me the "God of the gaps" refutation is somewhat of a hypocritical misnomer which has been propagated because of well meaning religious peoples who are too over zealous to prove Gods existence and so misapply their ideas. To be clear...the "God of the Gaps" refutation isn't an argument against Gods existence. Its an argument against a persons attempt at proving that existence.
If God exists you'll find it in the gaps, out of the gaps, and in between the gaps but not as a proof of its existence. The reason why God IS in the gaps, if it exists, is that science is. IF God exists and created the universe for a purpose then the rationality of man which gave rise to science exists because of that creation and any so called gaps we think we've scientifically filled in is because God has designed the universe and its workings to be discoverable by us with our God given rational minds.
Why can I refer to science as "A science of the gaps"? Because science fills in the gaps it was created to fill - That is an understanding of the physical universe we find ourselves in. You will notice though that our understanding where we thought we understood is continually being "revised". Some of the the scientific gaps we thought were filled have suddenly become unfilled again. Proofs don't "actually" exist in science either. What exists are presumptions that the observed past will repeat. That itself is unscientific since science ironically is supposedly deterministic not probabilistic .
As far as that goes if I were to use "Science of the Gaps" derogatorily then it would be because scientific hubris has declared that since science has seemingly filled one gap it will eventually fill them all. There is no proof that is the case.
The possibility of life's necessary precursors being found outside of our terrestrial realm has nothing to do with the probability arguments relating to the beginnings of life. If anything you've simply taken the problem and placed it elsewhere.

I'm not sure how it is general seen, but to me "God of the Gaps" is an observation of religious belief through the ages. Once god/s was considered to be directly responsible for just about everything. Lightning was some god getting angry, planets were pushed around in their orbits by God's power and so on.

Over the years, science has shown that we don't need to attribute these things directly to god/s. We know about electricity and gravity. Over the years, the number of things that still need some non-scientific explanation has steadily shrunk and what is left are the "gaps". It's interesting also to note how the description of God has changed to fit the gaps. God doesn't talk in burning bushes any more, or through donkeys. He's retreated outside the physical universe too. Of course that's not a proof that there is no such thing as god/s. I suspect there will always be some gaps for god/s to lurk in, like where did it all come from in the first place.

I think you are being a little unfair about science. The "gaps" you see in science tend to be at the boundaries of knowledge, not too surprising as those boundaries are being pushed back all the time. And you ignore the vast mass of knowledge that doesn't change. We may not be sure what gravity is, but we can measure how it works with great precision. And there's no doubt it's not God directly doing it. And yes, science doesn't (finally) prove anything, it doesn't claim to, and that's its strength. The presumption that the physical world behaves in a constant manner over time (and space) is presumed. But that's a reasonable assumption, confirmed (as an assumption) every time airplanes don't spontaneously fall out of the sky and the Earth keeps trundling round in its orbit without falling into the sun or flying off into space.

 

[setarcos]

Whenever an argument boils down to "I do not know, therefore GodDidIt" it is a god of the gaps argument.

And as I've said...a poor argument or misapplied argument is what keeps the phrase derogatorily going.

 

[McBell]

And as I've said...a poor argument or misapplied argument is what keeps the phrase derogatorily going.

Calling a god of the gaps argument a god of the gaps argument is derogatory?