Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[james bond]

The Big Bang only shows that the Universe expanded out from a single point - it says nothing about an "ultimate beginning" or even really the origin of matter or energy.


http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/cosmos/bb_evid


So not only do you not understand evolution, Big Bang theory or basic science, you also don't understand how an ad hominem attack works. An ad hominem is when you fail to address an opponent's argument and instead attack their character - i.e "I don't accept your argument because you smell". Saying "You have demonstrated little to no understanding of the subjects you are talking about" is not an ad hominem attack.


Hilarious.

My my my. I demonstrated I understand evo, much more than you, from the evolution.berkeley.edu website that I use. I posted BBT and Genesis which is evidence, and shows understanding of BBT and Genesis. And I understand basic science just fine thank you. I'll assume we discussed that. OTOH, you posted mostly opinions in rebuttal.

Next, I finally get a link, but no explanation of what it contains. What I read until I stopped was redshift, microwave background and mixture of elements. The video and I covered that on the 1st day of Genesis except for the Sun which was the 4th day. Not bad for a book written in the first century. The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible.

I'm still waiting for how the universe expanded X number of billions of years ago from a single point.

Once there was a beginning, then the argument for a Creator was brought up to today's standards by William Lane Craig in his famous Kalam's Cosmological Argument.

From about 0:06:
Dr. Craig addresses the concept of an infinite past by subtracting an infinite set of coins with a different infinite set of coins. The infinite is not reality, but an idea; Some atheist scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson treat this as a reality . He answers where does the universe come from. He answers was there a beginning?

Dr. Craig answers the single point of expansion of the universe from around 16:49. Nothingness has no properties, so the universe could not create itself. OTOH God has properties of beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

From about 30:00:

Is the material universe all that is, or ever was, or ever will be?

Kalam's Cosmological Argument answers it.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

[james bond]

Anyway, more on the belief in aliens by Richard Dawkins. He did state he thinks there "could" have been intelligent aliens that started life on earth. Let's look at the people he hangs around with .

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My my my. I demonstrated I understand evo, much more than you, from the evolution.berkeley.edu website that I use.

That's outright false. You've not demonstrated anything - just posted a link to a website which doesn't support anything you have claimed about evolution. Posting a link is not a demonstration that you actually understand the theory of evolution, and the fact is that you have repeatedly made claims that betray a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. You have failed to answer my challenges.

I posted BBT and Genesis which is evidence, and shows understanding of BBT and Genesis.

Again, no. All you did was post a single video which creatively interpreted the Genesis account and cosmology in order to make them fit, as well as demonstrating little to no understanding of Big Bang theory itself.

And I understand basic science just fine thank you. I'll assume we discussed that. OTOH, you posted mostly opinions in rebuttal.

I've linked you to several science sites and backed up my claims with actual information.

Next, I finally get a link, but no explanation of what it contains.

You asked for evidence of Big Bang theory, and I provided a link. What else do you think that link could have contained?

What I read until I stopped was redshift, microwave background and mixture of elements. The video and I covered that on the 1st day of Genesis except for the Sun which was the 4th day. Not bad for a book written in the first century. The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible.

How on earth are you equating "redshift microwave background radiation" with anything the Bible said? Where, exactly, does the Bible mention cosmic background radiation?

I'm still waiting for how the universe expanded X number of billions of years ago from a single point.

You asked me for evidence that the Big Bang happened, now you're asking me to explain HOW it happened? Try consulting a physicist. As far as I am aware, the precise "how" of the Big Bang is still largely debated.

Once there was a beginning, then the argument for a Creator was brought up to today's standards by William Lane Craig in his famous Kalam's Cosmological Argument.

Except there is no evidence to suggest that the Big Bang was really "the beginning" of anything, as I have repeatedly explained and you have repeatedly ignored. We have no reason to assume that what exists hasn't "always" existed in some form.

From about 0:06:
Dr. Craig addresses the concept of an infinite past by subtracting an infinite set of coins with a different infinite set of coins. The infinite is not reality, but an idea; Some atheist scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson treat this as a reality . He answers where does the universe come from. He answers was there a beginning?

And yet Dr. Craig evokes an infinite cause for the Universe - effectively destroying his own argument.

Dr. Craig answers the single point of expansion of the universe from around 16:49. Nothingness has no properties, so the universe could not create itself. OTOH God has properties of beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

As I have repeatedly explained, nobody claims that the Universe "comes from nothing". In fact, we're not even sure that "nothingness" is even a viable concept, so not only does science not assert anything about it, but it also means that Craig can't make any assessment of it.

Is the material universe all that is, or ever was, or ever will be?

We don't know.

Kalam's Cosmological Argument answers it.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The Cosmological argument (in any form) is, at best, an argument from ignorance. It's a poorly executed argument that can't demonstrate a single one of its premises and is built entirely upon a lack of understanding of Big Bang cosmology, quantum physics, and basically all the general concepts it evokes. We have no basis on which to assert any of the premises are true - but even if we grant them for the sake of argument, there is absolutely no possible way of concluding any kind of God's existence. At best, all you have is "something existed that caused the Universe" without any means to identify or characterize any aspect of this thing and whether it fits any meaningful definition of God or not.

You act as if we haven't been presented with this garbage before. Do you honestly think we're that ignorant?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Anyway, more on the belief in aliens by Richard Dawkins. He did state he thinks there "could" have been intelligent aliens that started life on earth. Let's look at the people he hangs around with

Entertaining the possibility of something isn't the same as actually believing it. You have yet to present any evidence that Dawkins is "coming round to believing in aliens", and your childish simplifications of his, and the scientific community's position on the subject do nothing but indicate your own dishonesty. I very much doubt you have even bothered to watch this video, have you?

 

[leibowde84]

Anyway, more on the belief in aliens by Richard Dawkins. He did state he thinks there "could" have been intelligent aliens that started life on earth. Let's look at the people he hangs around with .

It is possible, but there isn't enough confirming evidence to make it a scientific theory. Dawkins correctly stated that it was a possibility.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Last point first. Ok. I just went by reading what the post said. Not really dishonest. Here's the statement.

"Dawkins appears quite serious about the possibility of Intelligent Alien Design and has mentioned it on a number of occasions. Take a look at this dialogue taken from a controversial documentary debate called “Expelled”:

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Did Dawkins make another similar statement? Yes. What does he mean here?

https://richarddawkins.net/2013/06/richard-dawkins-talks-aliens-and-gods/

That's not him "starting to claim aliens did it."

He clarifies here, "The whole tone of the film is whiny, paranoid — pathetic really. The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein. I had not heard of him, but apparently he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would have been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good voice for conveying the whingeing paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was qualification enough.

Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett).
http://io9.gizmodo.com/375766/richard-dawkins-the-rap-video

Pondering or entertaining a hypothetical is not the same thing as claiming that anything actually happened that way.

The dishonest part comes in with the way the "documentary" was edited and the way it was represented to the people being interviewed for it.

As for the first point, yes, evolution is being taught. No question about that and it is why creationists want their side taught in schools, too. It is a valid argument. The complexity of our planet is evidence for a Creator.

Creationism is not a scientific theory, and therefore has no place in a science classroom. That's about it. So, "evolution is taught in science classrooms, therefore creationism should be taught in science classrooms" is not a valid argument.

By the way, which religion's version of creationism should be taught anyway? The one you believe in?

 

[james bond]

Absolutely nothing like what you're claiming he means - have you even watched the video?


No it is not. Creationism is a religious ideology, not science. You might as well be arguing that we should teach flat-earthism in geology, or teach astrology alongside astronomy, or teach crystal healing alongside medicine. Evolution is taught as science because it is science. Creationism isn't.


Complexity does not require design.

I didn't have time to address before. I didn't claim anything. I asked what is Dawkins claiming? Do you have an answer?

Creation science is science. I pointed out science is science and data is data (the data we have is the same). The difference comes into play with the worldview which I illustrated with the infographs of the timeline and the six days versus billions of years. Can you keep up?

 

[james bond]

You obviously don't understand what the theory of evolution is. It doesn't speak to the origin of the universe in any way shape or form. It merely speaks to speciation and changes in life through mutation and natural selection.

LOL. No one is disputing natural selection and different species. Go look at the evolution.berkeley.edu link that I posted about evolutionary thinking.

 

[james bond]

That's not him "starting to claim aliens did it."

He clarifies here, "The whole tone of the film is whiny, paranoid — pathetic really. The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein. I had not heard of him, but apparently he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would have been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good voice for conveying the whingeing paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was qualification enough.

Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett).
http://io9.gizmodo.com/375766/richard-dawkins-the-rap-video

Pondering or entertaining a hypothetical is not the same thing as claiming that anything actually happened that way.

The dishonest part comes in with the way the "documentary" was edited and the way it was represented to the people being interviewed for it.
Creationism is not a scientific theory, and therefore has no place in a science classroom. That's about it. So, "evolution is taught in science classrooms, therefore creationism should be taught in science classrooms" is not a valid argument.

By the way, which religion's version of creationism should be taught anyway? The one you believe in?

Again, not dishonest. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on the Ben Stein interview. However, Dawkins has discussed aliens more than once and leads one to believe if there were aliens, then they could have started planet earth. He said it is an attractive theory.

Of course, there is absolutely no evidence of it so it is strictly faith-based. Atheists scientists who believed in the existence of aliens were Carl Sagan and now degrasse. Those two are strictly faith-based.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I didn't have time to address before. I didn't claim anything.

You've repeatedly claimed that evolution is "not just a biological science", and that it "goes into the origin of the Universe". Considering neither of these claims are true, and that they are literally the only things you've said about evolution, it doesn't make you sound very informed about the subject.

I asked what is Dawkins claiming? Do you have an answer?

I've answered this twice already. Dawkins is merely entertaining the possibility of intelligent life existing in the Universe.

Creation science is science. I pointed out science is science and data is data (the data we have is the same).

And, again, no you did not. All you did was present a couple of creationist videos, neither of which use science. Where is the application of the scientific method? What experiments demonstrate the truth of "creation science"? What testable predictions does "creation science" make?

The difference comes into play with the worldview which I illustrated with the infographs of the timeline and the six days versus billions of years. Can you keep up?

Again, you have demonstrated no understanding of evolution, you have demonstrated no understanding of the Big Bang, you have done nothing but post spurious links and creationist videos which I have thoroughly rebuked. You are the one who can't appear to "keep up".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

LOL. No one is disputing natural selection and different species. Go look at the evolution.berkeley.edu link that I posted about evolutionary thinking.

He didn't say you disputed it - they said you don't understand it. Which you don't. That Berkeley link you posted says absolutely nothing akin to what you have claimed, and at this stage I very much doubt you have even read the site.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, not dishonest. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on the Ben Stein interview. However, Dawkins has discussed aliens more than once and leads one to believe if there were aliens, then they could have started planet earth. He said it is an attractive theory.

Because, clearly, discussing the topic of aliens more than once when you are a popular scientist who regularly frequents interviews and conventions on a wide variety of subjects (including many on the subject of the formation of biological life in the Universe) can only mean that you must believe in them and that somehow makes you some sort of quack. Hmm?

Of course, there is absolutely no evidence of it so it is strictly faith-based. Atheists scientists who believed in the existence of aliens were Carl Sagan and now degrasse. Those two are strictly faith-based.

Have you even watched the videos where they actually give reasons as to why they believe it? By the way, the Neil deGrasse doesn't exactly believe in aliens, he just thinks it's highly likely that there are; he hasn't reached any decisive conclusion. But, apparently, according to you merely talking about a subject more than once means you must believe it. So I don't know how exactly to convince you otherwise.

 

[james bond]

At this point, let's review comparing the Big Bang Theory (BBT) to the Bible.

I have been given scantily little from the so called atheists on the BBT and why it all happened billions of years ago. Just a lot of rhetoric, noise and ignorance, ad hominem attacks and questions about my credentials and where I went to school .

Today's scientific studies have concluded that the universe came into existence without God. Today, science does not allow for the supernatural or the immaterial while in the past it did. After hundreds of years of hard work, scientists have come up with their own version of the existence of this universe. They call it the Big Bang Theory.

To the contrary, it is "more" evidence for God instead of one that disproves Him.

BBT states that time, space and matter had an absolute beginning at a definite point in time in the distant past billions of years ago. In the beginning a "Big Bang" created all that exists. BBT
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen 1:1 (heavens and the earth means everything that exists in the common Hebrew language).

The high temperature caused by the Big Bang resulted in the condensation of the gaseous particles which lead to the formation of the primitive, formless and barren earth. BBT
"and the earth was without form, and void" Gen 1:2

The high temperature around the formless earth resulted in a thick, dense and dark cloudy atmospheresurrounding the earth. BBT
"and darkness was upon the face of the deep" Gen 1:2

Gravitational force began to come into existence for the first time. BBT
"And the Spirit of God vibrated upon the face of the waters" Gen 1:2

Later, the subatomic source that holds this entire universe came into existence -- electromagnetic energy, radiant energy or light energy. BBT
"And God said, 'Let there be light, and it was so'" Gen 1:3
"And the evening (conclusion) and the morning (beginning) were the first day." Gen 1:5

Then the thick, dark and dense atmosphere started cooling and clouds were formed. BBT
"And God said, 'Let there be a firmament (atmosphere) in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters (clouds)" Gen 1:6
"And the evening and the morning were the second day" Gen 1:8

By this time, the entire earth was covered by a single water body. Then the water body began to dry up forming the first land mass called Panagaea surrounded by the Tethys Sea. BBT
"And God said, 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one side and let the dry land appear on the other side and it was so'" Gen 1:9

Green algae were the primitive organisms that came into existence and provided oxygen to the earth. Latersmall plants, large plants and trees appeared. BBT
"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass' (The Hebrew word used for grass is 'deshe' which means greeness (green algae) and not 'grass')... and the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed (genes) is in itself, upon the earth and it was so" Gen 1:11
"And the evening and the morning were the third day." Gen 1:13

By this time, the clouds started spreading apart and the heavenly bodies (sun, moon and stars) were visible when seen from the earth. Earlier, the cloudy atmosphere made the heavenly bodies invisible, thus allowing
only light to reach the earth. BBT
"And God made two great lights (The Hebrew word for 'made' is 'asah.' This word appears about 1,200 times in the Old Testament and has a wide variety of meanings, some of which include 'made, made to appear, made clear.' According to this verse, God did not 'make' the two great lights rather, God 'made clear' the two great lights (sun and the moon) by clearing the clouds. The fourth day events are written in a 'fact accomplished tense' in the Hebrew Scripture. The Bible though few thousand years ahead of science is not a science book, but it was written for the common man.
"... the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, God also made clear the stars" Gen 1:16

After the appearance of oxygen surrounding the earth, primitive life first began in the sea. BBT
"And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.'" Gen 1:20

Land creatures later appeared on land. BBT
"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping things and beasts of the earth after its kind, and it was so." Gen 1:24

Man was the last to appear on the scene. Scientists call it the Anthropic Principle which states that entire course of the formation of the universe had mankind as its ultimate goal. BBT
"And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Gen 1:26

After mankind appeared on earth, there has been no other creature till date (the Anthropic Principle). BBT
"And on the seventh day, after creating man, God ended his work which he had made." Gen 2:2

Some may argue that the Big Bang Theory states that the universe took billions of years to form, but the universe was created in 6 days. They say God revealed His creation work to Moses in 6 days. However, the words evening and morning literally mean conclusion and beginning. The words "day one, day two, etc." were the days in which God revealed His creation work.

So what is the difference between the Big Bang Theory and Geneis Creation? The Big Bang Theory states that a Big Bang created universe whereas the Bible states that God created the Universe using the Big Bang.

 

[james bond]

Because, clearly, discussing the topic of aliens more than once when you are a popular scientist who regularly frequents interviews and conventions on a wide variety of subjects (including many on the subject of the formation of biological life in the Universe) can only mean that you must believe in them and that somehow makes you some sort of quack. Hmm?


Have you even watched the videos where they actually give reasons as to why they believe it? By the way, the Neil deGrasse doesn't exactly believe in aliens, he just thinks it's highly likely that there are; he hasn't reached any decisive conclusion. But, apparently, according to you merely talking about a subject more than once means you must believe it. So I don't know how exactly to convince you otherwise.

We have discussed very little because you haven't provided much to discuss but opinions and questions to distract from the main points.

At least others brought up aliens. To this aliens point, the Bible states that God did not create any new creature types after humans. Thus, no aliens, and this is what we have confirmed so far. Yet, atheist scientists like degrasse believe they exist and go to great lengths to explain why. If you do not think degrasse believes in aliens, then you are wrong. Didn't I say atheists are usually wrong?

Dawkins thinks there has to be intelligent aliens. I even posted news articles stating scientists claiming that we'll find aliens.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We have discussed very little because you haven't provided much to discuss but opinions and questions to distract from the main points.

I've asked you various questions repeatedly, and you keep bringing up new and increasingly irrelevant things to discuss. You brought up evolution, then went on to talk about Big Bang theory. When I responded, you started talking about Dawkins and aliens. You keep bringing up stuff that has no relevance to what I am addressing, and ignoring any and all facts I present to you which refute your arguments. I'm not "distracting" from anything - you are.

At least others brought up aliens.

That's a lie. You brought it up in post #842.

To this aliens point, the Bible states that God did not create any new creature types after humans. Thus, no aliens, and this is what we have confirmed so far.

That's like saying "This book says there are no black swans, and since I have never seen a black swan in the tiny pond at the bottom of my garden, this is what we have confirmed so far".

Yet, atheist scientists like degrasse believe they exist and go to great lengths to explain why.

That's a lie. Neil deGrasse Tyson simply believes it is probable that they exist.

If you do not think degrasse believes in aliens, then you are wrong. Didn't I say atheists are usually wrong?

Considering almost every claim you have made in this post is false, I'd be careful about throwing stones right now. Also, find me a single quote or video where Neil deGrasses Tyson unequivocally states that he absolutely believes aliens exist, rather than simply believing it is probable that they exist. If you can find that, it will be news to me.

Dawkins thinks there has to be intelligent aliens.

Another lie.

I even posted news articles stating scientists claiming that we'll find aliens.

And? Scientists speculating what may happen isn't the same as claiming outright that aliens exist.

I also have to ask, what relevance does ANY of this have to do with ANYTHING? Please stop distracting from the facts that your presentation of the Cosmological argument has completely failed and you have demonstrated a total lack of knowledge of evolution theory. Again, the sum total of things you have claimed about evolution are:

1) It is "not just a biological science" (FALSE)
2) It "goes into the origin of the Universe" (FALSE)

So, considering you have done nothing but post inane videos, link to irrelevant websites, demonstrate your ignorance of the subjects of evolution and Big Bang theory, repeatedly and desperately lie about the opinions of various scientists, and are constantly attempting to argue about aliens (despite the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with anything you have brought up - and even less to do with the topic of this thread), why on earth should I take a single thing you say seriously? Honestly, I'm asking.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

At this point, let's review comparing the Big Bang Theory (BBT) to the Bible.

I have been given scantily little from the so called atheists

"So called atheists"? Not everyone who has argued with you about the Big Bang in this thread is an atheist. Secondly, are suggesting that those of us who are atheists are lying?

on the BBT and why it all happened billions of years ago. Just a lot of rhetoric, noise and ignorance, ad hominem attacks and questions about my credentials and where I went to school .

I presented you with a website that explained the evidence for the Big Bang. You completely ignored it, except for taking one part of it that talks about cosmic microwave background radiation and somehow claimed it supported a passage in the Bible.

Today's scientific studies have concluded that the universe came into existence without God.

That is a lie.
Science is completely silent on the subject of God. The Big Bang theory doesn't evoke the existence of a God because it doesn't have to, but the question of God's existence is not something that is scientifically testable (at least, not now). Science makes no assumption about the existence or non-existence of God.

Today, science does not allow for the supernatural or the immaterial while in the past it did.

Which is why science is now progressing faster than it ever has in its history.

After hundreds of years of hard work, scientists have come up with their own version of the existence of this universe. They call it the Big Bang Theory.

To the contrary, it is "more" evidence for God instead of one that disproves Him.

BBT states that time, space and matter had an absolute beginning at a definite point in time in the distant past billions of years ago.

That is a lie.
The Big Bang theory doesn't describe the "absolute beginning" of the Universe, but an expansion event that occurred and resulted in the Universe being in the form it is today. What happened "before" the Big Bang (if "before the Big Bang" is even a viable concept) is still largely unknown, but it is posited that the Universe existed as a singularity.

In the beginning a "Big Bang" created all that exists. BBT
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen 1:1 (heavens and the earth means everything that exists in the common Hebrew language).

Surprise surprise. When you interpret something as meaning "the beginning of the Universe" you can make it fit something else that you interpret as describing "the beginning of the Universe". Genius.

The high temperature caused by the Big Bang resulted in the condensation of the gaseous particles which lead to the formation of the primitive, formless and barren earth. BBT
"and the earth was without form, and void" Gen 1:2

This is tenuous at best. The Earth wasn't "formless", it was an oblate spheroid made of rock.

The high temperature around the formless earth resulted in a thick, dense and dark cloudy atmospheresurrounding the earth. BBT
"and darkness was upon the face of the deep" Gen 1:2

Again, this is tenuous.

Gravitational force began to come into existence for the first time. BBT
"And the Spirit of God vibrated upon the face of the waters" Gen 1:2

This doesn't even make any sense - neither of these things are even remotely related. Gravity has existed since at least the Big Bang - it didn't "start to exist" after the earth formed. Also, how could gravity possibly act on "the face of the waters" considering water didn't even exist on Earth until billions of years after its initial formation. Gravity pre-dates water on earth by at least 8 billion years.

Later, the subatomic source that holds this entire universe came into existence -- electromagnetic energy, radiant energy or light energy. BBT
"And God said, 'Let there be light, and it was so'" Gen 1:3
"And the evening (conclusion) and the morning (beginning) were the first day." Gen 1:5

Again, this makes no sense and is completely out of sequence. Earth formed billions of years after the singularity expanded. Light pre-dates earth.

Then the thick, dark and dense atmosphere started cooling and clouds were formed. BBT
"And God said, 'Let there be a firmament (atmosphere) in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters (clouds)" Gen 1:6
"And the evening and the morning were the second day" Gen 1:8

Except "firmament" doesn't mean "atmosphere". It is a literal dome said to surround the planet. Also, you left out the line "And God called the firmament heaven" (Gen. 1:8), which contradicts the earlier passage which said he made "heaven and earth" first.

By this time, the entire earth was covered by a single water body. Then the water body began to dry up forming the first land mass called Panagaea surrounded by the Tethys Sea. BBT
"And God said, 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one side and let the dry land appear on the other side and it was so'" Gen 1:9

Water and land exist. Surprise. Also, it's weird that the Bible only mentions the formation of life AFTER this period of time, despite the fact that life pre-dates the formation of Pangea (SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota)

Green algae were the primitive organisms that came into existence and provided oxygen to the earth. Latersmall plants, large plants and trees appeared. BBT
"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass' (The Hebrew word used for grass is 'deshe' which means greeness (green algae) and not 'grass')... and the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed (genes) is in itself, upon the earth and it was so" Gen 1:11
"And the evening and the morning were the third day." Gen 1:13

Again, see above. Life pre-dates the formation of Pangea. You're dishonestly manipulating what the Big Bang theory says and taking it out of order.

By this time, the clouds started spreading apart and the heavenly bodies (sun, moon and stars) were visible when seen from the earth. Earlier, the cloudy atmosphere made the heavenly bodies invisible, thus allowing only light to reach the earth. BBT
"And God made two great lights (The Hebrew word for 'made' is 'asah.' This word appears about 1,200 times in the Old Testament and has a wide variety of meanings, some of which include 'made, made to appear, made clear.' According to this verse, God did not 'make' the two great lights rather, God 'made clear' the two great lights (sun and the moon) by clearing the clouds. The fourth day events are written in a 'fact accomplished tense' in the Hebrew Scripture. The Bible though few thousand years ahead of science is not a science book, but it was written for the common man.
"... the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, God also made clear the stars" Gen 1:16

Again, this is completely out of sequence. The formation of the ozone layer pre-dates the formation of Pangea by more than 1.8 billion years. (SOURCE: http://www.albany.edu/faculty/rgk/atm101/ozone.htm)

After the appearance of oxygen surrounding the earth, primitive life first began in the sea. BBT
"And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.'" Gen 1:20

See above. Primitive life pre-dates Pangea. Also, I see you missed out the following passage: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." (Gen.1:20). So Genesis is claiming that the creatures of the sea and birds were formed at the same time. This is not what we observe. Birds first appear around 160 million years ago: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06 while aquatic animals first appeared around 530 million years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_fish

Land creatures later appeared on land. BBT
"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping things and beasts of the earth after its kind, and it was so." Gen 1:24

Except land animals pre-date birds, which is probably why you dishonestly left that part out.

Man was the last to appear on the scene. Scientists call it the Anthropic Principle which states that entire course of the formation of the universe had mankind as its ultimate goal. BBT
"And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Gen 1:26

Now that is absolute garbage. The Big bang theory has never claimed that "mankind" was the Universe's "ultimate goal" - that's utterly absurd. The anthropic principle says no such thing either. (SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) It is a philosophical position not that life was the "end goal" of the Universe, but that the necessity of these laws is self-evident as they can only be evaluated by intelligent life anyway. i.e: it is asinine to claim that the Universe was shaped to accommodate life since life has to exist first to make that assessment.

After mankind appeared on earth, there has been no other creature till date (the Anthropic Principle). BBT
"And on the seventh day, after creating man, God ended his work which he had made." Gen 2:2

New species appear constantly: http://www.esf.edu/top10/default.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/plants_animals/new_species/

Again, this is absolutely NOT what the anthropic principle states.

Some may argue that the Big Bang Theory states that the universe took billions of years to form, but the universe was created in 6 days. They say God revealed His creation work to Moses in 6 days. However, the words evening and morning literally mean conclusion and beginning. The words "day one, day two, etc." were the days in which God revealed His creation work.

In other words, if you arbitrarily decide that "days" refer to whatever time period you want, you can make it fit any time period you want.

I will ask again: are you serious? This post has revealed several more lies, including some about your own Bible. You'd be best just admitting your mistake and backing out of this debate now.

 

[McBell]

LOL. You can't deny it. There was a beginning as the BB shows. Second, you have not produced one shred of evidence for a billions years ago Big Bang nor what started it.

Not only did you jump to conclusions about me, you have been resorting to ad hominen attacks. That is a fallacy of logic, so you lose this one.

I suppose you're ImmortalFlame because in matter of a few posts, you've gone down in flames.

interesting how you are so quick to ad hominem in the very post you whine about ad hominem,

 

[leibowde84]

Abuse, no, wrong, yes. Unless it relates to the very narrow issue of church membership. In America the freedom of association is a fundamental right

Technically/legally you are right, as transsexuals/homosexuals aren't yet a protected class. But, that might soon be changing. And, morally I think it is wrong to deny membership based on sexual orientation, but that's just me.

LOL. No one is disputing natural selection and different species. Go look at the evolution.berkeley.edu link that I posted about evolutionary thinking.

I did. It confirms that the theory of evolution does not in any way speak to the origin of life.

 

[leibowde84]

Again, not dishonest. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on the Ben Stein interview. However, Dawkins has discussed aliens more than once and leads one to believe if there were aliens, then they could have started planet earth. He said it is an attractive theory.

Of course, there is absolutely no evidence of it so it is strictly faith-based. Atheists scientists who believed in the existence of aliens were Carl Sagan and now degrasse. Those two are strictly faith-based.

Their view is not based on faith, as that would require them accepting it as true. They merely accept the possibility and note that the probability is stacked in favor of their being extra terrestrial life out there.

 

[leibowde84]

LOL. No one is disputing natural selection and different species. Go look at the evolution.berkeley.edu link that I posted about evolutionary thinking.

So, do you agree that the ToE doesn't speak to the origin of life? It is just as absurd as equating atheism with nihilism.