The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[SavedByTheLord]

1. What the hell is the point of quoting a post if you're just going to ignore the conversation it was part of and go off on your own tangent?
   
   
2. These are just more baseless, unargued, unevidenced assertions.

I am nit ignoring the conversation.
Chimps and people have a different number of chromosome,
How did they have a common ancestor?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The second link is in Dutch. Here’s an English version.

Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Whoops

Tnx.

 

[ratiocinator]

I am nit ignoring the conversation.

You do it all the time. You ignore what the current subject is an change the subject by just repeating another one of your pointless, often answered, nonsensical claims. No point in denying it - the evidence is right here in your posting history.

Chimps and people have a different number of chromosome,
How did they have a common ancestor?

There you go again. Yet another piece of indisputable evidence that you ignore conversations and run away by changing the subject.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The point is that I do not believe science is always right. As said, there is no proof in science. I know some will argue that. I do believe that the Bible is inspired of God and for those with understanding, valuable for every good teaching. The idea that men after who knows after how many years evolved genetically to the point they built cities, make documents while gorillas do not, developed reading, writing and arithmetic is beyond rational reason as far as I am concerned. Obviously not everyone shares that. Good for a sci-fi show maybe. Evolutionists will get a kick out of it, I suppose.

I still don't know what your point is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Say what you believe of course.

What he shared are demonstrable facts. Not mere beliefs.

My belief supersedes those beliefs that contradict what the Bible says.

Right. That's what is irrational.
When the demonstrable facts of reality contradict your mere beliefs, it's not reality that is incorrect.
When you flat out state that you will reject at face value anything that contradicts your a priori beliefs, then you are in fact literally acknowledging that you willingly engage in intellectual dishonesty. This is the poison of dogmatic thinking.

You exclude yourself from learning anything. This is about the best way there is to end up holding false beliefs.

That is, of course, what I choose to believe, even if contrary to popular or unpopular opinion.

Not just contrary to opinion. Contrary to demonstrable fact.

The Bible says let God be true though all men are liars. I believe that and look forward to a better earth not by man's efforts but because God foreordained it.

And mentality like that is how you end up with climate change deniers who, if it were upto them, will happily destroy the ecosystems on the planet.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am nit ignoring the conversation.
Chimps and people have a different number of chromosome,
How did they have a common ancestor?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

And he flubbed it too.

The differences in chromosome count are a problem for macro evolution

 

[ratiocinator]

And he flubbed it too.

The differences in chromosome count are a problem for macro evolution

Ignoring the answer and running away again.

The chromosome evidence confirms macroevolution of humans and chimps from a common ancestor. You've actually highlighted very, very good evidence for evolution.

 

[Polymath257]

And he flubbed it too.

The differences in chromosome count are a problem for macro evolution

Exactly how did he flub it? It looks to me like he explained it very well in a way that is irrefutable.

It shows humans and chimps have a common ancestor and that two chromosomes merged. It even shows exactly where they merged.

 

[Polymath257]

Say what you believe of course. My belief supersedes those beliefs that contradict what the Bible says. That is, of course, what I choose to believe, even if contrary to popular or unpopular opinion. The Bible says let God be true though all men are liars. I believe that and look forward to a better earth not by man's efforts but because God foreordained it.

No, your belief does not supersede. It simply ignores anything that contradicts what you have decided to believe. There is a difference.

Your belief does not supersede evidence. Instead, evidence should supersede and inform belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And he flubbed it too.

The differences in chromosome count are a problem for macro evolution

You are literally replying to a clip where it is literally explained, by an evolutionary biologist who is also a christian, why the chromosome count is different and why it is not only NOT a problem for "macro evolution", but actually literally evidence in support of it.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, your belief does not supersede. It simply ignores anything that contradicts what you have decided to believe. There is a difference.

Your belief does not supersede evidence. Instead, evidence should supersede and inform belief.

By supercede I mean that I CHOOSE to believe what the Bible says, regardless of any contrary opinion, scientific or otherwise. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. How He did it is not explained scientifically. And, of course, science changes its theories from time to time. Don't forget about Dr. Hawking who declared the possibility that the universe created itself from -- nothing. In other words, no mass needed to start a "Big Bang." Yes, however it happened, I believe what the Bible says over anything else that is contrary.

 

[ratiocinator]

By supercede I mean that I CHOOSE to believe what the Bible says, regardless of any contrary opinion, scientific or otherwise.

So you ignore evidence and go with your blind faith.

And, of course, science changes its theories from time to time.

That's one reason why it's more rational, yes.

Don't forget about Dr. Hawking who declared the possibility that the universe created itself from -- nothing. In other words, no mass needed to start a "Big Bang."

[Citation missing] Again!

 

[ratiocinator]

Don't forget about Dr. Hawking who declared the possibility that the universe created itself from -- nothing. In other words, no mass needed to start a "Big Bang."

Here's something he actually said:

In the early universe—when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory—there were​

effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. That means that when we speak of the “beginning” of the universe, we are skirting​

the subtle issue that as we look backward toward the very early universe, time as we know it does not exist! We must accept that our​

usual ideas of space and time do not apply to the very early universe. That is beyond our experience, but not beyond our imagination, or​

our mathematics. If in the early universe all four dimensions behave like space, what happens to the beginning of time?​

​

The realization that time can behave like another direction of space means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a​

similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole of the earth, with​

degrees of latitude playing the role of time. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe,​

would expand. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point. To ask what​

happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South​

Pole. In this picture space-time has no boundary—the same laws of nature hold at the South Pole as in other places. In an analogous​

manner, when one combines the general theory of relativity with quantum theory, the question of what happened before the beginning​

of the universe is rendered meaningless. This idea that histories should be closed surfaces without boundary is called the no-boundary​

condition.​

-- Steven Hawking The Grand Design.​

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By supercede I mean that I CHOOSE to believe what the Bible says, regardless of any contrary opinion, scientific or otherwise.

Right, so just like I said. Intellectually dishonest dogmatism.
If your religion tells you that you can jump from the Eiffel Tower and not plummet to your death but instead just float mid-air, then no evidence concerning the laws of gravity will be accepted.

But your belief will off course be wrong, no matter how hard you believe it.

You are literally acknowledging that you don't care the slightest bit about evidence, proof, demonstrability, anything.
The only thing honest about this, is you informing us that this is your stance.

It means that from this point on going forward, we should all completely ignore you when you try to "debate" or when you ask questions or ask for evidence of opposing views etc, because you have just literally stated that you don't care anyway.

We could throw all the evidence in the world at you and you'll just sit there, ignoring it all.
So why should anyone bother discussing topics like evolution with the likes of you?
Seems like a complete waste of time then, right?
Why are you even posting in these threads?

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. How He did it is not explained scientifically. And, of course, science changes its theories from time to time. Don't forget about Dr. Hawking who declared the possibility that the universe created itself from -- nothing. In other words, no mass needed to start a "Big Bang." Yes, however it happened, I believe what the Bible says over anything else that is contrary.

Well, you have just demonstrated that it matters not at all to you what Hawking did or didn't say or demonstrated or didn't demonstrate.
Whatever it was he said or didn't say, you'll go with your a priori religious beliefs anyway, so why even bring him up?

 

[Watchmen]

John Steinbeck is not necessarily my point of reference for truth. His depiction of hard times, however, was sad. Anyway, as far as superseding opinion, they weren't all "goat herders," and even if they were doesn't mean they could not tell the truth. Some goat herders are probably smarter than some scientists. Have a good one.
By supersede I mean my faith overcomes obstacles such as people like you present. And I'm glad about that. Again, have a good one.

And faith trumping common sense and science is a huge problem. Religion served its cultural purpose for early humans. Now it’s time to let go of such fantasies, particularly when they are so damaging to human relations and progress.

 

[YoursTrue]

And faith trumping common sense and science is a huge problem. Religion served its cultural purpose for early humans. Now it’s time to let go of such fantasies, particularly when they are so damaging to human relations and progress.

If I thought every religion was ok I guess I'd feel free to join any religion. But I don't. To believe in evolution as true renders a hopeless condition. We live a few years, then what? I do not believe in transmigration of the soul and I don't believe God has a place with fire called hell for the unsaved. Among other things I don't believe in. So I won't just join any religion just because they profess a belief in God or superpowers or mystical powers.

 

[YoursTrue]

And faith trumping common sense and science is a huge problem. Religion served its cultural purpose for early humans. Now it’s time to let go of such fantasies, particularly when they are so damaging to human relations and progress.

It's just like a subject some might have trouble with understanding. For that a person might need a special teacher who can successfully help the student to learn. Not all teachers have that capacity.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am nit ignoring the conversation.
Chimps and people have a different number of chromosome,
How did they have a common ancestor?

Good question. Very good question.

 

[YoursTrue]

And faith trumping common sense and science isi a huge problem. Religion served its cultural purpose for early humans. Now it’s time to let go of such fantasies, particularly when they are so damaging to human relations and progress.

I looked up a bit about John Steinbeck. Seems he was a deeply religious man but not dogmatic.