Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[leibowde84]

"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?


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


Again, this is tenuous.


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.


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


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.


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)


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.


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)


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


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


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.


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.


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.

Well-put.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Haha. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[shmogie]

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.

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

Even if they were a "protected class", that would in no way erode the right to the freedom of association. Yes we all have opinions, which is our right

 

[leibowde84]

Even if they were a "protected class", that would in no way erode the right to the freedom of association. Yes we all have opinions, which is our right

Again, you are technically correct, but only in certain states. The movement is towards less legal protection for prejudice in organizations, and more protection for individuals. Which, imho, is always preferable. "Many states have enacted laws that go well beyond the protections afforded by the Federal laws, both in terms of their scope of prohibited conduct and their application to what might be regarded by some as private clubs or organizations. For example, in March 1998, a divided New Jersey Appeals Court decided that New Jersey's Civil Rights Law prohibited the Boy Scouts from discriminating against a scoutmaster because of gender preferences, while in a similar case across the country, the California Supreme Court held that California Civil Rights Law did not prohibit the Boy Scouts from denying membership to persons who are gay or do not believe in God.

Some cities, including Chicago, New York and San Francisco, also have local Civil Rights Laws that are far broader than the Federal law. For example, New York City defines private clubs that derive certain levels of income from business as places of public accommodation for purposes of its Civil Rights Laws. San Francisco requires employers who do business with the city to offer their employees health insurance for non-marital "partners"." (http://law.freeadvice.com/governmen...vate_discriminate_religious.htm#ixzz42FZ9W1rm)

Every day, the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation and identity is getting smaller and smaller. This right should be recognized far more than KNOWN chosen affiliation with organized religions, as there is no conclusive evidence that sexual orientation can be controlled or changed without tremendous harm. So, it seems to be a commendable course of action for the government to accommodate these individuals that contribute just as much to society (backed by evidence) as their heterosexual counterparts.

Long story short, in the future, it seems more and more likely that old-fashioned ideals, based on nothing more than ancient texts CLAIMING to be God's word, will be forgotten, and hopefully ridiculed, in the interest of societal cohesion, progress, and most importantly human decency.

 

[leibowde84]

Even if they were a "protected class", that would in no way erode the right to the freedom of association. Yes we all have opinions, which is our right

True, but hopefully groups wouldn't be petty enough to deny membership based on our uncontrollable sexual orientation.

 

[shmogie]

True, but hopefully groups wouldn't be petty enough to deny membership based on our uncontrollable sexual orientation.

Groups can deny membership based on any criteria they choose

 

[shmogie]

Again, you are technically correct, but only in certain states. The movement is towards less legal protection for prejudice in organizations, and more protection for individuals. Which, imho, is always preferable. "Many states have enacted laws that go well beyond the protections afforded by the Federal laws, both in terms of their scope of prohibited conduct and their application to what might be regarded by some as private clubs or organizations. For example, in March 1998, a divided New Jersey Appeals Court decided that New Jersey's Civil Rights Law prohibited the Boy Scouts from discriminating against a scoutmaster because of gender preferences, while in a similar case across the country, the California Supreme Court held that California Civil Rights Law did not prohibit the Boy Scouts from denying membership to persons who are gay or do not believe in God.

Some cities, including Chicago, New York and San Francisco, also have local Civil Rights Laws that are far broader than the Federal law. For example, New York City defines private clubs that derive certain levels of income from business as places of public accommodation for purposes of its Civil Rights Laws. San Francisco requires employers who do business with the city to offer their employees health insurance for non-marital "partners"." (http://law.freeadvice.com/governmen...vate_discriminate_religious.htm#ixzz42FZ9W1rm)

Every day, the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation and identity is getting smaller and smaller. This right should be recognized far more than KNOWN chosen affiliation with organized religions, as there is no conclusive evidence that sexual orientation can be controlled or changed without tremendous harm. So, it seems to be a commendable course of action for the government to accommodate these individuals that contribute just as much to society (backed by evidence) as their heterosexual counterparts.

Long story short, in the future, it seems more and more likely that old-fashioned ideals, based on nothing more than ancient texts CLAIMING to be God's word, will be forgotten, and hopefully ridiculed, in the interest of societal cohesion, progress, and most importantly human decency.

The Constitution says what it says. Neither state or federal law can circumvent it. The right to freedom of religion, whatever the religion is in the first amendment, the first amendment for a reason. Your last paragraph in many ways parrots the words of Voltaire, Who said that a hundred years from his writing the Bible would be a forgotten book, he too was dead wrong.

 

[leibowde84]

Groups can deny membership based on any criteria they choose

As I said, legally they can, depending on what state they are in. But, are you OK with denying membership based on race? If not, why not?

 

[leibowde84]

The Constitution says what it says. Neither state or federal law can circumvent it. The right to freedom of religion, whatever the religion is in the first amendment, the first amendment for a reason. Your last paragraph in many ways parrots the words of Voltaire, Who said that a hundred years from his writing the Bible would be a forgotten book, he too was dead wrong.

We aren't talking about what the constitution says, as that is not in dispute. It is how the constitution is interpreted by the courts and the rights of states to go beyond the constitution in protecting individual rights, rather than protecting organizations and corporations. Some states side with you. Some states side with me. My point is that I hope that progress continues in strengthening the rights of individuals rather than organizations.

 

[shmogie]

As I said, legally they can, depending on what state they are in. But, are you OK with denying membership based on race? If not, why not?

No, the state they are in is irrelevant. The First amendment applies everywhere in the country. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. The Bible makes it clear that racial differences are no factor within the Christian community.

 

[McBell]

No, the state they are in is irrelevant.

This does not reflect the reality in the USA...

 

[leibowde84]

No, the state they are in is irrelevant. The First amendment applies everywhere in the country. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. The Bible makes it clear that racial differences are no factor within the Christian community.

I provided evidence that the courts recognize the power of the states to extend the rights of individuals. But, you obviously just ignored that, so it's not worth arguing.

But, you side stepped my question. Apart from the Bible, what is your reasoning for thinking that discrimination based on race is wrong?

 

[shmogie]

We aren't talking about what the constitution says, as that is not in dispute. It is how the constitution is interpreted by the courts and the rights of states to go beyond the constitution in protecting individual rights, rather than protecting organizations and corporations. Some states side with you. Some states side with me. My point is that I hope that progress continues in strengthening the rights of individuals rather than organizations.

The states have no rights to go beyond the Constitution. State law must conform to the Constitution. You are right that courts interpret the Constitution in rather twisted fashion sometimes to
accomodate a particular view. The days of a truly independent and neutral judiciary are long gone, like views in the general populace, the judicial branch is harshly politicized and polarized. This began most probably with the Warren court, where genocide was shielded under an imaginary right, privacy. However, the social war is raging, and it is going to get much more intense. Nevertheless, to attack the freedom of religion to any extent will create an untenable, perhaps revolutionary situation, I hope no court, especially the supremes are that stupid.

 

[shmogie]

This does not reflect the reality in the USA...

If you believe that any state law has curtailed the right to freedom of religion, you don't live in the same country I do

 

[McBell]

If you believe that any state law has curtailed the right to freedom of religion, you don't live in the same country I do

I live in the USA,
So what country do you live in?

 

[shmogie]

Of course, the USA, If you believe state law has curtailed the freedom of religion you must believe in aliens. not the illegal kind. There, a better fit ?

 

[jeager106]

Anyone that believes a State law has curtailed religious freedom please post it
here so I can be better informed.

I googled " U.S. State laws that curtails religious freedom" and got zero hits.

 

[Midnight Rain]

The Constitution says what it says. Neither state or federal law can circumvent it. The right to freedom of religion, whatever the religion is in the first amendment, the first amendment for a reason. Your last paragraph in many ways parrots the words of Voltaire, Who said that a hundred years from his writing the Bible would be a forgotten book, he too was dead wrong.

Actually the ability to regulate religion is something that is part of the assumed powers of the government. For example one cannot do something that is illegal in the name of religion. There were a lot of battles with this with Voodoo. I remember I was talking to someone yesterday about the Mormon religion. Its claim to having multiple wives was beat back by the law.

There are certainly circumstances where we are allowed to circumvent religion through law 1st amendment or not. Its implied that you can have freedom of religion within reason otherwise it leads to some pretty tricky situations you don't want. For example what if someone had a religious belief that they should be able to murder their daughter because she had sex before marriage thus breaking her vow to god and becoming an adulterer? The religious answer is to stone her to death. Should this be allowed for religious freedom?

 

[shmogie]

I provided evidence that the courts recognize the power of the states to extend the rights of individuals. But, you obviously just ignored that, so it's not worth arguing.

But, you side stepped my question. Apart from the Bible, what is your reasoning for thinking that discrimination based on race is wrong?

Do I need another reason ? I ignored it, because it is not true. States cannot abridge a Constitutional right, basic law 101

 

[leibowde84]

The states have no rights to go beyond the Constitution. State law must conform to the Constitution. You are right that courts interpret the Constitution in rather twisted fashion sometimes to
accomodate a particular view. The days of a truly independent and neutral judiciary are long gone, like views in the general populace, the judicial branch is harshly politicized and polarized. This began most probably with the Warren court, where genocide was shielded under an imaginary right, privacy. However, the social war is raging, and it is going to get much more intense. Nevertheless, to attack the freedom of religion to any extent will create an untenable, perhaps revolutionary situation, I hope no court, especially the supremes are that stupid.

Nope. You have that wrong. The constitution is limited to individual rights against state and federal government. Obviously there are rights that aren't included. And, the constitution is not all there is. For example, the right to privacy is not included in the constitution. It only exists because of court interpretation. To limit rights to only those explicitly stated in the conctitution not only goes against original intent, but goes against common sense and human decency as well.