Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Acim]

Science is like plumbing ... if everyone was capable of doing it for themselves everyone would.
Does plumbing work for everyone, or is it limited to those who grasp that water can't flow uphill?

All this confirms elitism. No one advocates that we teach plumbing to grade school children, or that we teach a dumbed down version that would be later ignored as something no practicing plumber actually engages in. Would be like teaching kids that to understand "the" plumbing method, you have to understand the steps in bathing. Then around college realize that no plumber actually considers those exact steps, in that order and has entirely different guidelines for what actual plumbing involves.

I can assure you that everything you might "produce" has already been thoroughly debunked. I'll demonstrate, give us your top three "evidences."

1. That human consciousness, an aspect of existing universe, exists
2. That human consciousness has developed (intelligent) methodology that uses universal phenomenon to manifest/create designs
3. Apart from human consciousness, but only known via human consciousness, the universe has manifested other phenomenon that has discernible instances of design, which are studied and further investigated via intelligence from the universe (see #1)

 

[Skwim]

please show your math.

Here you go, creationist math:

.​

 

[Sapiens]

All this confirms elitism. No one advocates that we teach plumbing to grade school children, or that we teach a dumbed down version that would be later ignored as something no practicing plumber actually engages in. Would be like teaching kids that to understand "the" plumbing method, you have to understand the steps in bathing. Then around college realize that no plumber actually considers those exact steps, in that order and has entirely different guidelines for what actual plumbing involves.

Actually I rather agree with the poor state of science education below the university level. When I moved to Hawaii I taught "Gifted and Tallented" at the local (worst in the nation by test) elementary school. One of the things we did were some plumbing problems, so that puts the lie to "No one advocates that we teach plumbing to grade school children." Granted that I did not teach "dumbed down" plumbing, but did confine my labs to practical demonstrations of siphons and vents and such. In any case, I am glad to find out that you're an elitist in this area also. There is nothing wrong with elitism, per se, why not ask for the best?

I am also glad that when I was building my house here II hired a plumber who did consider "the steps in bathing." He suggested changes to my initial design that I'd not considered. Working on clean sheet of paper from first principles is usually a fruitful exercise.

1. That human consciousness, an aspect of existing universe, exists
2. That human consciousness has developed (intelligent) methodology that uses universal phenomenon to manifest/create designs
3. Apart from human consciousness, but only known via human consciousness, the universe has manifested other phenomenon that has discernible instances of design, which are studied and further investigated via intelligence from the universe (see #1)

Those are claims not evidences. Absurd claims at that. Now ... last chance, your three best evidences..

 

[Acim]

Actually I rather agree with the poor state of science education below the university level. When I moved to Hawaii I taught "Gifted and Tallented" at the local (worst in the nation by test) elementary school. One of the things we did were some plumbing problems, so that puts the lie to "No one advocates that we teach plumbing to grade school children." Granted that I did not teach "dumbed down" plumbing, but did confine my labs to practical demonstrations of siphons and vents and such.

How many of your students became successful plumbers as this is what you were teaching them to become? Or were you lying about teaching them plumbing as a skill, and spinning it that plumbing as a hypothetical could assist with understanding other ideas?

I am also glad that when I was building my house here II hired a plumber who did consider "the steps in bathing." He suggested changes to my initial design that I'd not considered. Working on clean sheet of paper from first principles is usually a fruitful exercise.

You hired a plumber who taught you how to bathe properly? Interesting.

Those are claims not evidences. Absurd claims at that. Now ... last chance, your three best evidences..

You're refuting my claims of evidence by saying that I am unable to demonstrate that human consciousness exists, as an aspect of the existing universe?

Let's start with this one, cause I just wish to be clear with how you are trying to weasel out of this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I see, So the existence of extremely complicated life forms, with no understanding by secularists as to how they came about, is evidence of nothing. Or, faith in a process that cannot be explained, is proof that complicated organisms arose from chemical interactions. Yet, faith in the concept of intelligent design based upon these very complicated organisms, is equivalent to a fairy tale, Pure imbecilic pap. If you propose bio genisis, but cannot provide any evidence to support it, then your proposal is worthless. However, there are many many evidences for intelligent design. Saying something is so, without evidence doesn't make it so

How complicated and complex do you think the god you worship is?

 

[Zosimus]

Curious, where did gnostic say anything like "If BB then CMBR."

Time for Logic 101.

Let's imagine that we're talking about not the Big Bang but the claim that "If it rains, the ground will be wet." In short, we are proposing a causal relationship between rain and wet ground. Rain causes the ground to get wet. This is the same situation as the Big Bang and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. A Big Bang, if one happened, would cause a certain amount of CMBR.

So if it rains, the ground will be wet. But what happens if it doesn't rain? Many people will say that the ground will be dry. But is that necessarily the case? Isn't it possible that John washed his car and the ground is wet? Or that a dam broke and the ground is wet? Or that the sewer has backed up? A fire hydrant has broken? Many things other than rain can and do cause wet ground.

Or what if the ground is wet? Some people will think that it must have rained. But is this necessarily the case? Couldn't a car have run over a hydrant or a water main broke? Wet ground does not guarantee that rain has occurred any more than CMBR guarantees that a BB occurred.

If you don't understand that BB implies CMBR (BB => CMBR) then you don't understand the Big Bang Theory in the slightest.

I looked around and didn't find much of anything, other than a list from the religious web site techreader, much less any explanation that had the consensus of the BB theory among cosmologists. And, of course, one must remember that the BB theory, is just that, a THEORY, and unless you have a better theory the BB appears to be the best explanation to date. Got a better one?

If you can't find alternative explanations, you're not looking in the right place. A simple glance at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology#Other_models shows a large number of alternative explanations.

But let's delve more deeply into your argument. Your argument is basically that unless I have a better theory, then I must accept the BB. Yet, how would you react to someone who said "Unless you have a better theory, then you must accept that God did it?" This wrongly-named "God of the Gaps" logical fallacy is really a subset of the argumentum ad ignorantiam logical fallacy. You are saying, "Unless you can disprove my pet theory (to my satisfaction), I require you to accept it as true." Basically you are saying that the burden of proof rests on me to disprove it, and that you are set up as the judge of whether I have done so. In reality, the only way to demonstrate that the Big Bang Theory is the right one is to disprove every other possible theory, including ones that haven't been thought up yet. It's an impossible task, and that's why the Big Bang is and will always remain a theory. In this case, the theory is almost certainly wrong because it doesn't fit the facts well. Science simply hasn't abandoned it yet because an alternative has yet to be found.

I would guess its proponents do care, but don't find such problems to be deal breakers. However, I assume you do feel they are deal breakers and have an alternative theory of some sort that better fits the facts. Whatcha got?

I needn't propose any model to point out the defects in your model. This is the essence of falsification. A theory that doesn't work is falsified regardless whether a better theory has been found.

And do you know what Dictionary.com defines as belief? it's "something believed; an opinion or conviction.": So, so much for the definitions of Dictionary.com. A far, far better definition of faith is: a trust in belief. AND, a far better definition of belief is: an acceptance of a statement or concept as true without persuasive evidence as to its veracity.

Well, since there never is and never will be persuasive evidence for anything, everything is a belief. You cannot even convincingly argue that you're not a brain in a vat receiving electrical stimulus.

Ah ha, the religious, anti-science bias finally sticks its head out of the muck And yes, I know you've said nothing about religion, but your script simply screams it.

Really? Then PLOS is the biggest religiousm anti-science biased publication in the world because it is there that we find the article Why Most Published Research Findings Are False and while we're at it, we should include Reuters, which published the article In cancer science, many "discoveries" don't hold up, an article that mentions that 47 of 53 "landmark" cancer studies could not be replicated. In case you don't have a calculator at hand, that's 88.7 percent. Shall we also include The Atlantic, which published Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science wherein we read "...as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed."

 

[Sapiens]

How many of your students became successful plumbers as this is what you were teaching them to become? Or were you lying about teaching them plumbing as a skill, and spinning it that plumbing as a hypothetical could assist with understanding other ideas?

Plumbing is a body of knowledge gained over a lifetime ... much like science. It can be both a skill and a hypothetical that can assist with understanding other ideas. You are fatuously attempting to create a false dichotomy that forces one or the other.

You hired a plumber who taught you how to bathe properly? Interesting.

I never said that, nor implied that, and I'm not going to waste time explaining to you, "what I meant" since your comment reveals you as either a mental defective with a reading impediment or (and I suspect this is more the case) as someone who'd rather play word games than engage in an honest dialectic. In either case ... I don't want to play and will not play. I will, if it continues, simply place you on ignore ... your choice, life is too short to waste on such tripe.

You're refuting my claims of evidence by saying that I am unable to demonstrate that human consciousness exists, as an aspect of the existing universe?

Evidently you have trouble understanding the difference between claims and evidence. Here is something that I assume to be at or below your level (English Composition One at a Community College) that should help to fill the gap in your education. If not, you need but ask, I can give you other sources that are at a higher or lower level. Developing Effective Arguments with Claims, Evidence, and Warrants

Let's start with this one, cause I just wish to be clear with how you are trying to weasel out of this.

You propose as "evidences":
1. That human consciousness, an aspect of existing universe, exists
2. That human consciousness has developed (intelligent) methodology that uses universal phenomenon to manifest/create designs
3. Apart from human consciousness, but only known via human consciousness, the universe has manifested other phenomenon that has discernible instances of design, which are studied and further investigated via intelligence from the universe (see #1)

To quote from the English 1 course: "Evidence is also referred to as support or facts. Evidence is just that: facts. Unlike claims, facts are indisputable."

Consciousness is disputable. "Human" consciousness is disputable. Thus, you make three claims and present no facts, no evidence.[/QUOTE]

 

[Zosimus]

The proof is in the pudding. Religion has never falsified either science or plumbing, but science (and I suspect plumbing) has routinely falsified religion

Amusing. Religion isn't science because religion isn't falsifiable and on top of that you have falsified all religious claims. Is that how the argument goes?

 

[Acim]

Plumbing is a body of knowledge gained over a lifetime ... much like science. It can be both a skill and a hypothetical that can assist with understanding other ideas. You are fatuously attempting to create a false dichotomy that forces one or the other.

I have done no such thing. I said we don't teach grade schoolers how to do plumbing, you said you did and stipulated that with a bunch of weasel words and I then asked 2 questions which resulted in more weaseling. All this to get away from the primary point that science utilizes elitism to carefully guard methodologies it actually practices and indoctrinates newbies into the domain of science by teaching a method that most every scientist doesn't actually use.

Evidently you have trouble understanding the difference between claims and evidence. Here is something that I assume to be at or below your level (English Composition One at a Community College) that should help to fill the gap in your education. If not, you need but ask, I can give you other sources that are at a higher or lower level. Developing Effective Arguments with Claims, Evidence, and Warrants

You propose as "evidences":
1. That human consciousness, an aspect of existing universe, exists
2. That human consciousness has developed (intelligent) methodology that uses universal phenomenon to manifest/create designs
3. Apart from human consciousness, but only known via human consciousness, the universe has manifested other phenomenon that has discernible instances of design, which are studied and further investigated via intelligence from the universe (see #1)

To quote from the English 1 course: "Evidence is also referred to as support or facts. Evidence is just that: facts. Unlike claims, facts are indisputable."

Consciousness is disputable. "Human" consciousness is disputable. Thus, you make three claims and present no facts, no evidence.

Well, by this sort of rhetoric, I challenge you do find scientific evidence that is indisputable, in that I can not offer any dispute (reasonable or otherwise) to the assertions you might put forth. For once I write the words "(whatever you come up with) is disputable" that will end that assertion.

The fact that I'm disputing "the" scientific method doesn't bode well for whatever you might bring forth, but you want to take things to level of indisputable, let's see if you can back that up. I predict you can't.

You're also essentially saying that science, which relies on (human) consciousness is inherently disputable. How quaint.

 

[Skwim]

Time for Logic 101.

Let's imagine that we're talking about not the Big Bang but the claim that "If it rains, the ground will be wet." In short, we are proposing a causal relationship between rain and wet ground. Rain causes the ground to get wet. This is the same situation as the Big Bang and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. A Big Bang, if one happened, would cause a certain amount of CMBR.

So if it rains, the ground will be wet. But what happens if it doesn't rain? Many people will say that the ground will be dry. But is that necessarily the case? Isn't it possible that John washed his car and the ground is wet? Or that a dam broke and the ground is wet? Or that the sewer has backed up? A fire hydrant has broken? Many things other than rain can and do cause wet ground.

Or what if the ground is wet? Some people will think that it must have rained. But is this necessarily the case? Couldn't a car have run over a hydrant or a water main broke? Wet ground does not guarantee that rain has occurred any more than CMBR guarantees that a BB occurred.

If you don't understand that BB implies CMBR (BB => CMBR) then you don't understand the Big Bang Theory in the slightest.

Other than yourself, whose credibility is on shaky ground right now, exactly who has claimed "If BB then CMBR," the major premise of your fallacious little argument? And I'm looking for actual quotes from reputable people, not conspiracy theorists or the disaffected tin-hat crowd.

More importantly, however, is your claim that

The logical pattern under which CMBR supposedly verifies the Big Bang Theory is fallacious.

If BB then CMBR.
CMBR
Therefore, BB is confirmed.​

I'm curious as to what reputable cosmologists have ever proposed this. You need only supply two examples; names and exact quotes are expected of course. (My suspicion is that this straw man sprang from your own fertile imagination.)

If you can't find alternative explanations, you're not looking in the right place. A simple glance at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology#Other_models shows a large number of alternative explanations.

But let's delve more deeply into your argument. Your argument is basically that unless I have a better theory, then I must accept the BB.

Not at all. My point is that unless you have a better theory than the BB, then why discard it because not all of its difficulties have been addressed to your satisfaction. No one is insisting you believe anything. There is a difference. But I do understand your dilemma; you have no alternative explanation. You've hanged yourself in mid air and don't know which way to spin, so you lash out at your perceived villain, science, for not having all its ducks in a row. Interesting.

I needn't propose any model to point out the defects in your model. This is the essence of falsification. A theory that doesn't work is falsified regardless whether a better theory has been found.

But defects don't necessarily make the model false, just defective. Defective and false are not the same thing. Sometimes fairly close perhaps, but still not the same thing.

Well, since there never is and never will be persuasive evidence for anything, everything is a belief.

As Stephen Jay Gould once said about fact.

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." ​

So, no, everything is not belief. Just ask anyone who's taken high school math, or even grade school math for that matter. Little Mary Jane will soon set you straight.

Really?

Yup!

 

[gnostic]

Yeah, observation doesn't strike me as the accurate word for this part of the process. Since you brought up measure(ment) and 'need to' that strikes me as more accurate word.

With certain hypotheses, I think need for measurement is understandable, but on others (that I'm familiar with), it strikes me as bias being introduced to say it must be measurable for the experimentation to determine validity of the hypothesis.

Then how do you determine what is true or false?

How do know your creation and creator are true (Genesis 1 - 3)?

Through prayers? Through belief? How do you know that such belief in god is real? How do you know your prayers have been answered?

All these are based on faith, and faith alone?

Evolution is all about how life change, and what causes these change (mechanisms). It explain biology and teaches biology.

Does any part of the bible explain anything about biology? Does it explain anything on anatomy or physiology?

Does it explain why there are different species, subspecies or genus of animals or plants?

Genesis 1 describing fishes, birds and land animals are hardly science. Even the most primitive culture of that time, would know the differences between birds, fishes and land animals.

Genesis 7 describing how Noah and his family brought "kinds" of animals into the ark, and two genders of each kind, is hardly a explanation, let alone scientific.

Let face it. The bible is not science book, and it teach nothing about life or biology, and yet creationists assume that all we need to know, and argue against scientific knowledge, which they clearly have limited understanding and education, is actually absurd in the extreme.

Science can explain how it rain, where clouds come and how clouds form, etc, without the needs for superstition of some gods or angels cause clouds, rain and storm. The best the bible could do is the absurd passages of superstitions in Job 38 to 41. Job explain nothing scientific, just a whole bunch of myths and primitive and superstious ignorance.

C'mon, man. It describe hail and snow are kept in storehouses:

“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow,
or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,

How absurd is this?

Everything in Job 38 to 41, supposedly god's answers to Job, only demonstrate that if God is real than he is knows better than the author of JOB - ignorant to the point of stupidity and even more superstitious than my late mum.

My mum who have limited education in her rural village in the 1930s and 40s, know even more than God in JOB about the weather. And that's saying something.

If you want to believe in the bible or your absurd deity, and worship your God and follow your religion, then you have every rights to. But if you are going to present any claim of your scriptures as being scientific, then you are going to need to present verifiable EVIDENCES, not your ill-conceived fallacious logic.

 

[Zosimus]

Other than yourself, whose credibility is on shaky ground right now, exactly who has claimed "If BB then CMBR," the major premise of your fallacious little argument? And I'm looking for actual quotes from reputable people, not conspiracy theorists or the disaffected tin-hat crowd.

More importantly, however, is your claim that

The logical pattern under which CMBR supposedly verifies the Big Bang Theory is fallacious.

If BB then CMBR.
CMBR
Therefore, BB is confirmed.​

I'm curious as to what reputable cosmologists have ever proposed this. You need only supply two examples; names and exact quotes are expected of course. (My suspicion is that this straw man sprang from your own fertile imagination.)

Let's start with Erik M. Leitch, Senior Technical Staff Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech Astronomy. At http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-cosmic-microw/ Erik says: "The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, or CMB for short, is a faint glow of light that fills the universe, falling on Earth from every direction with nearly uniform intensity. It is the residual heat of creation--the afterglow of the big bang--streaming through space these last 14 billion years like the heat from a sun-warmed rock, reradiated at night."

The second would be George Smoot, Nobel Prize Winner in science, whose discoveries Stephen Hawkings called the "discovery of the century, if not all time." What did Smoot say? Well, it's hard to get a link to his exact words, so I'll have to go with Berkeley Lab Director Steven Chu, a Nobel Laureate (1997 Nobel Prize in Physics), who said "My warmest congratulations goes out to George Smoot and John Mather for being awarded the 2006 Prize in Physics for their precision investigation of the cosmic microwave radiation, first discovered by a pair of Bell labs scientists, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1964. Maher and Smoot led a large team of scientists that showed with the COBE satellite that the radiation is precisely of the form that would be expected as a result of a Big Bang creation of the universe."

I hope these quotes satisfy.

Not at all. My point is that unless you have a better theory than the BB, then why discard it because not all of its difficulties have been addressed to your satisfaction. No one is insisting you believe anything. There is a difference. But I do understand your dilemma; you have no alternative explanation. You've hanged yourself in mid air and don't know which way to spin, so you lash out at your perceived villain, science, for not having all its ducks in a row. Interesting.

I discard the Big Bang Theory because its problems are insurmountable. A simple look at http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.html (note that this is not some fringe publication. It's from the physics department at a major university) shows that there are three major problems with the Big Bang Theory: The Horizon Problem (the universe is too big for light to have traveled across it in the amount of time the Big Bang allows for, yet the CMBR is uniform), The Flatness Problem (the universe is so flat that it's unlikely the Big Bang occurred), and The Monopole Problem (the Big Bang Theory predicts large numbers of magnetic monopoles in the universe, yet no one has ever found one. All magnetic anythings that we've found have two poles: a "north" and a "south" pole).

So sorry! I don't buy into known-wrong theories.

But defects don't necessarily make the model false, just defective. Defective and false are not the same thing. Sometimes fairly close perhaps, but still not the same thing.

You say toMAYto... and I say toMAHto... you say "defective" I say "falsified." Six of one... half a dozen of the other.

As Stephen Jay Gould once said about fact.

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." ​

So, no, everything is not belief. Just ask anyone who's taken high school math, or even grade school math for that matter. Little Mary Jane will soon set you straight.

Well, even ASSUMING that he was right... you have yet to demonstrate that the theory in question is even remotely plausible.

 

[shmogie]

How complicated and complex do you think the god you worship is?

What a bizarre irrelevant question.

 

[Sapiens]

Amusing. Religion isn't science because religion isn't falsifiable and on top of that you have falsified all religious claims. Is that how the argument goes?

Sorry, I misspoke myself, what I meant to say was; "The bible has never falsified either science or plumbing, but science (and I suspect plumbing) has routinely falsified the bible." That is far more objective and testable. Absent special pleadings religion is, however, eminently falsifiable.

 

[Sapiens]

I have done no such thing. I said we don't teach grade schoolers how to do plumbing, you said you did and stipulated that with a bunch of weasel words and I then asked 2 questions which resulted in more weaseling.

You seem to forget that wolverines are weasels. I suspect that all you'd recognize prior to getting badly bit is that they both start with "W".

All this to get away from the primary point that science utilizes elitism to carefully guard methodologies it actually practices and indoctrinates newbies into the domain of science by teaching a method that most every scientist doesn't actually use.

What is wrong with elitism, do you preach, "why not the worst?" or "let's have the dumbest?" I guess you do.

Well, by this sort of rhetoric, I challenge you do find scientific evidence that is indisputable, in that I can not offer any dispute (reasonable or otherwise) to the assertions you might put forth. For once I write the words "(whatever you come up with) is disputable" that will end that assertion.

All things with energy are brought toward one another, including stars, planets, galaxies and even light and sub-atomic particles - that's called gravity.

Want evidence? Defenestrate.

The fact that I'm disputing "the" scientific method doesn't bode well for whatever you might bring forth, but you want to take things to level of indisputable, let's see if you can back that up. I predict you can't.

You're also essentially saying that science, which relies on (human) consciousness is inherently disputable. How quaint.

No, you said that.

 

[gnostic]

But let's delve more deeply into your argument. Your argument is basically that unless I have a better theory, then I must accept the BB. Yet, how would you react to someone who said "Unless you have a better theory, then you must accept that God did it?"

No, skwim said nothing of the kind.

And, of course, one must remember that the BB theory, is just that, a THEORY, and unless you have a better theory the BB appears to be the best explanation to date. Got a better one?

Plainly, skwim is asking you if you know of cosmology that better explain the physical cosmology than the expanding universe model or BB, with better evidences.

And no one, is asking you to accept BB, especially if you disagree with it or you don't understand it. Not every one is a physicist, astronomer or cosmologist.

But if you think or better cosmology than say it and then show what evidences that are available that support your accepted cosmology.

You are saying, "Unless you can disprove my pet theory (to my satisfaction), I require you to accept it as true." Basically you are saying that the burden of proof rests on me to disprove it, and that you are set up as the judge of whether I have done so. In reality, the only way to demonstrate that the Big Bang Theory is the right one is to disprove every other possible theory, including ones that haven't been thought up yet.

That's wrong and ignorant thing to say.

Big Bang cosmologists ONLY have to show verifiable evidences FOR ONLY the Big Bang or inflationary universe, not disprove all other theories. BB cosmologists only need to focus on and test their own model, they are not require to test every other cosmologies. Why should they focus on unrelated theories?

BB would either succeed or not succeed on the evidences that will either it being true or debunk it.

You really don't know science works.

A neurosurgeon only needs to perform surgery on the brain, not set broken bones of limbs or prescribe medicine for flu.

As to those other cosmologies listed in your link (rational wikis), as alternatives to the Big Bang, none of them have ever have evidences to support them, and most of those listed are nothing more than pseudoscience. And the steady state model has already been debunked.

Which of those listed is better than the Big Bang? What do you prefer?

And when I mean "better", I am referring to any that have more conclusive or verifiable evidences.

 

[Acim]

Then how do you determine what is true or false?

Via Reason.

How do know your creation and creator are true (Genesis 1 - 3)?

Through prayers? Through belief? How do you know that such belief in god is real? How do you know your prayers have been answered?

Via Reason.

All these are based on faith, and faith alone?

Kind of. I have a high degree of confidence in Reason.

Evolution is all about how life change, and what causes these change (mechanisms). It explain biology and teaches biology.

And rests on faith. Once that faith is accepted, reason may follow.

Does any part of the bible explain anything about biology? Does it explain anything on anatomy or physiology?

Does it explain why there are different species, subspecies or genus of animals or plants?

Are you presuming I'm a devout follower of the bible? It sure seems like it.

If you want to believe in the bible or your absurd deity, and worship your God and follow your religion, then you have every rights to. But if you are going to present any claim of your scriptures as being scientific, then you are going to need to present verifiable EVIDENCES, not your ill-conceived fallacious logic.

You make some nifty presumptions. Show me your damn verifiable objective evidence for existence of a material universe. See if you can avoid ill-conceived fallacious logic. I'll be waiting.

 

[Acim]

All things with energy are brought toward one another, including stars, planets, galaxies and even light and sub-atomic particles - that's called gravity.

So, you can't provide indisputable evidence. Glad we established that.

 

[Sapiens]

Via Reason.



Via Reason.



Kind of. I have a high degree of confidence in Reason.



And rests on faith. Once that faith is accepted, reason may follow.



Are you presuming I'm a devout follower of the bible? It sure seems like it.



You make some nifty presumptions. Show me your damn verifiable objective evidence for existence of a material universe. See if you can avoid ill-conceived fallacious logic. I'll be waiting.

But reason falsifies Genesis six ways from Sunday.

 

[Acim]

But reason falsifies Genesis six ways from Sunday.

Are you presuming I am believer in Genesis? Do you want me to defend Genesis for sake of argument?