The Big Bang and Evolution

[Valjean]

You can blow the smoke of ignorance til the cows come home. You simply do not understand science, especially genetics.

You're projecting.

Once upon a time there was a Big Bang and all the evolutionists lived happily ever after---What is presented as evidence for the BB, is not provable. It is the produce of a vivid, but necessary imagination.

What does the Big Bang have to do with evolution?

Life between species is another fairy tale, disproved by DNA. Something else you don't 'understand.

"Life between species?" What does that mean?
As For DNA, DNA shows the relationships between species. It supports evolution.
I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand science. You clearly don't understand the role of DNA.

I can't prove God said it and you can't prove He didn't . You can prove what He said is true very easily. Plant some corn and in about 90 days, not only will you ALWAYS get corn, you will get the exact same variety. For that to be true, makes it likely that God dis say it.

I don't need to disprove God or any particular scripture. You clearly don't understand the principle of Burden of Truth any more than you understand biology.
Corn (maize) is clearly a product of selective breeding -- a managed form of Natural Selection. It started almost 9,000 years ago as a wild grass. DNA and archaeological evidence clearly shows its transformation -- by the mechanism you deem impossible -- into modern maize.
Evolution of Corn

To say science doe snot prove anything is one of the most disrespectful, and ignorant things one can say about the scientist who do the work. Science has proved there is more than one type of blood, that all living things have DNA, that a tumor is benign or cancerous. The list goes son and on.

Science itself denies proving anything. You're thinking of mathematics. Scientific fact is always provisional.
And not all living things have DNA.
Have you ever had a single biology course?

And you evolutionists like to accuse Christian of not respecting science. We love it, it points to our favorite saying---GO DID IT.

You clearly don't have any understanding of science.

 

[Reggie Miller]

It was your claim, support it yourself.

Shifting burden of proof and argument from ignorance



Hint. Your points are fallacious.

You're funny.

You claim to have something solid when it's all really just smoke and mirrors.

 

[omega2xx]

Omega - I am writing this slowly because I know you don't read very fast...as far as the origin of the biodiversity we observe evolution IS "HOW it happened" and this interpretation of HOW it happened is well-supported by scientific observations some of which were explained in the video that I posted earlier. Did you bother to watch it? I promise it doesn't have too many difficult words in it. Your contention seems to be not about the HOW at all but that evolution did not happen at all.

As for the Big Bang - well the evidence that it happened was in the link (I know you don't like links to those evil 'evo' sites like the BBC) but I did also ask that you find an alternative explanation as to HOW the red shift and the microwave background radiation arose. In fact, the best explanation (regardless of whether God did it or not) of HOW these came about IS the Big Bang. But if you want a simpler explanation of HOW it happened, here goes: it wasn't very big and then it went bang and then it was very, very big. Will that do?

When you start with an insult, I say go back to the childrens playground where you belong. If you want to discuss anything with, act like an adult.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I can do better than that, It's called faith. I have complete faith in what the scriptures say about creation! It states that God did create everything, and He sustains it each and every day. It also states in the Bible that God can not lie. He is essence of truth, if He said something that is good enough for me, I believe Him. That is my belief you cannot change it, so don't feel that you need to call for more facts or evidence, I can only offer my faith in what is written.

ronandcarol

That's great...

But you should realize that it really means nothing at all in modern discourse.

If you replaced the word "God" in your statement with the word "Sacred Rabbit", would it still be a powerful explanation that you felt good about? I imagine not.

The argument is what matters - not your feelings.

If God is real, there should be a sound, supported, and reasoned argument for Him, don't you think?
You don't have to resort to appeals of emotion when something is real - you can simply demonstrate it. (This applies to all theists)

 

[1robin]

If God exists perhaps the big bang was his way of creating the universe making scientist and Religion correct.

Maybe he is also responsible for evolution.

If you want to know far more about what your speculating (correctly I believe) about then check out the formal teleological arguments, Aquinas' 5 ways, and Paley's natural theology.

Teleological argument - Wikipedia
Natural theology: or, Evidences of the existence and attributes of the Deity, collected from the appearances of nature : Paley, William, 1743-1805 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
Summa Theologica : Christian Pecaut : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[siti]

When you start with an insult...

My sincere apologies I didn't know there was a rule about only putting insults at the end - as you did here in the post I was responding to:

This may protect you from revealing your ignorance of scientific evidence really is.

I guess I'll see you in the playground then!

 

[siti]

If you replaced the word "God" in your statement with the word "Sacred Rabbit", would it still be a powerful explanation that you felt good about? I imagine not.

Forgive my interruption, but I do think rabbits can certainly evoke strong feelings and expressions of religious sentiment:

 

[godnotgod]

If God exists perhaps the big bang was his way of creating the universe making scientist and Religion correct.

Maybe he is also responsible for evolution.

Maybe the creator and the creation are one and the same. Why do so many people think there is a creator of the creation? Is there a 'whirler of the whirling water in a whirlpool', or an 'it' that rains? You are not the experiencer of the experience; you are the experience itself.

"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

 

[omega2xx]

My sincere apologies I didn't know there was a rule about only putting insults at the end - as you did here in the post I was responding to: I guess I'll see you in the playground then!

What I said to you was sarcasm. While sarcasm may seem like an insult, it usually is not.

However, if you considered what rI said an insult, I will also sincerely apologize.

Now if you want to discuss the subject on its merits, please continue.

 

[godnotgod]

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

He created all things, (yes, you and me too), and He had the wisdom to have ALL THINGS replenish and reproduce from seed of itself.

Except for the infertile. They're just out of luck, I guess.

I can do better than that, It's called faith. I have complete faith in what the scriptures say about creation! It states that God did create everything, and He sustains it each and every day. It also states in the Bible that God can not lie. He is essence of truth, if He said something that is good enough for me, I believe Him. That is my belief you cannot change it, so don't feel that you need to call for more facts or evidence, I can only offer my faith in what is written.

Have you asked God Himself if the bible was written by Him? Has He answered? Or do you ask a book whether the book was written by God?

I have been studying the Bible for almost 40years, and I have also taught it to adults in Sunday school, and I would guess I have spent more times studying it than you have.

Sunday school is not rigorous academic exploration. It is sermonizing for an hour or so, quoting doctrinal talking points instead of, say, showing up with a skull going "this is how you can tell that Adam was made from dirt" ...

Evidently you belong to some liberal church that thinks they are smarter than God.

We're smart enough not to promote idolatry.

How would a Smart Being create it all that would benefit everyone?

Everyone doesn't benefit, though.

Life between species is not interconnected.

No man is an island.

That also makes it Biblical to defend creationism.

It's also biblical to point out that God Himself makes fun of Job for knowing nothing about creation, and since the most info he'd have would be "creationism", then ...

I can't prove God said it and you can't prove He didn't . You can prove what He said is true very easily. Plant some corn and in about 90 days, not only will you ALWAYS get corn, you will get the exact same variety. For that to be true, makes it likely that God dis say it.

ROFLMAO. You use a plant we KNOW started as just grass and that we evolved into corn (it certainly wasn't that way "in the beginning") as your example?

Forgive my interruption, but I do think rabbits can certainly evoke strong feelings and expressions of religious sentiment

I would've gone with:

 

[Shad]

You're funny.

You claim to have something solid when it's all really just smoke and mirrors.

I never made such a claim. I pointed out Paley's arguments have had objection which are taught in philosophy classes. You then demanded I provide a basis to your assertion which merely doubled down on your fallacious point I already brought up.

When you figure out what you are talking about let me know. When you figure out it is your argument thus you need to support it let me know.

 

[Shad]

If you want to know far more about what your speculating (correctly I believe) about then check out the formal teleological arguments, Aquinas' 5 ways, and Paley's natural theology.

Teleological argument - Wikipedia
Natural theology: or, Evidences of the existence and attributes of the Deity, collected from the appearances of nature : Paley, William, 1743-1805 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
Summa Theologica : Christian Pecaut : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

After reading those you can read all the objections to each arguments which have existed for centuries in many case

 

[Reggie Miller]

I never made such a claim. I pointed out Paley's arguments have had objection which are taught in philosophy classes. You then demanded I provide a basis to your assertion which merely doubled down on your fallacious point I already brought up.

When you figure out what you are talking about let me know. When you figure out it is your argument thus you need to support it let me know.

OKay, then. Let's just throw this whole Big Bang and Evolution junk into the garbage can where it belongs.

 

[omega2xx]

Except for the infertile. They're just out of luck, I guess.

The infertile were not created, they are the result of Adam's sin.

Have you asked God Himself if the bible was written by Him? Has He answered? Or do you ask a book whether the book was written by God?

Don't have to ask. The Bible says He inspired it., Now everyone gets to accept by faith alone that He did or did not.

Sunday school is not rigorous academic exploration. It is sermonizing for an hour or so, quoting doctrinal talking points instead of, say, showing up with a skull going "this is how you can tell that Adam was made from dirt" ...

Just as I thought. You have never been in a Sunday school class in a conservative church.

We're smart enough not to promote idolatry.

That depends on how you define idolatry.

Everyone doesn't benefit, though.

It is necessary to believe something to benefit from it.

It's also biblical to point out that God Himself makes fun of Job for knowing nothing about creation, and since the most info he'd have would be "creationism", then ...

No He didn't.

ROFLMAO. You use a plant we KNOW started as just grass and that we evolved into corn (it certainly wasn't that way "in the beginning") as your example?

Not true. Corn has always been corn since the 3rd day of creation and has remained corn ever since. You don't even believe what you can prove by observation. Plant some corn and tell us all what you harvest. That reminds me of, O what is the cute little phrase the evo hate? O yeah, 'AFTER THEIR KIND"

 

[siti]

What I said to you was sarcasm. While sarcasm may seem like an insult, it usually is not.

However, if you considered what rI said an insult, I will also sincerely apologize.

Now if you want to discuss the subject on its merits, please continue.

Actually mine was a joke...about writing slowly because...well never mind...

Yours was an insult directly attributing the prized quality of ignorance to me

As for responding to your arguments on merit - I certainly will when I find some...

Now that is sarcasm - and really quite funny when you get the hang of it!

Moral of the story: never enter a battle of wits unarmed!

 

[omega2xx]

Actually mine was a joke...about writing slowly because...well never mind...

Yours was an insult directly attributing the prized quality of ignorance to me

As for responding to your arguments on merit - I certainly will when I find some...

Now that is sarcasm - and really quite funny when you get the hang of it!

Moral of the story: never enter a battle of wits unarmed!

Take your own advice. Blather is not evidence.

 

[Shad]

OKay, then. Let's just throw this whole Big Bang and Evolution junk into the garbage can where it belongs.

Stay on topic son and reply accordingly. Try again.

 

[siti]

Take your own advice.

As opposed to yours - no problem with that.

Blather is not evidence.

Oh dear! Really! And blather is my speciality. How disappointing.

 

[Valjean]

OKay, then. Let's just throw this whole Big Bang and Evolution junk into the garbage can where it belongs.

I don't get it.
You believe magic poofing, more reasonable than the conclusions drawn from mountains of empirical evidence?
Where is the evidence for your claim of magic?

The infertile were not created, they are the result of Adam's sin.

Evidence?

 

[siti]

It just occurred to me (yeah, I know, seriously slow on the uptake these days) that one side in this argument consistently provide comments that simultaneously provide evidence against both evolution and intelligent design. Can you guess which side?