Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Freodin]

News Flash: Big Bang is DEAD.

I guess I must have missed the turn this thread took, somewhere, somewhen...
... but I still don´t understand.

In science, it is quite possible for two theories to compete. They have to show that they are both able to explain the observations. Keyword: "show".

It is not enough to proclaim that the one theory is dead, that it is magic, mythical, faith... you have to show your stuff.

Based on what I have seen of the scientific - not the polemic - side of plasma cosmology, I have nothing to be convinced of - none of you have ever shown something to test. Neither, nowhere, not after repeated questioning.

But that´s ok. No problem. It does say nothing about either the validity of the "Big Bang" theory nor the "electrical universe" version.

As yet, nothing I have seen presented by the "plasmatics" has exceeded the "I have won, because you are stupid" level.


But what does that mean in regard to the topic of this thread? Does God had done it, because plasma, but not God had done it because Big Bang? I always heard that the Big Bang was such a great argument FOR God... because it showed that the universe had a beginning and beginning needs a cause and etc...

But now Big Bang is dead. Worse, it is phantasy, a fairy tale, magic, fraud. It isn´t enough that people could be wrong... they must be evil and deluded if they don´t agree with you.

And so I get back to the topic. An early part of Doveman´s argumentation said that, if "Big Bangers" can do their stuff, so could theists.

Well, do you really want to say that, if scientists fraudulently phantazise their fairy tales about magical mythological stuff... then theologists can do the same?

Is theology nothing but a fraud?

 

[3sigma]

Wow --- John 9 all over again.

Here we have yet another religious believer demonstrating his complete failure to produce even a single instance where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here we have yet another religious believer demonstrating his complete failure to produce even a single instance where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all.

Tested and verified by who? 21st century scientists?

 

[3sigma]

Tested and verified by who? 21st century scientists?

Tested and verified by those we could reasonably trust to tell the truth and who can support their results with sound, objective evidence. That clearly excludes the authors of the Bible.

 

[Meshach]

Tested and verified by those we could reasonably trust to tell the truth and who can support their results with sound, objective evidence. That clearly excludes the authors of the Bible.

Faith is the answer. Don't be a doubting Thomas. Do you really think your unbelief is going to affect our (evidence) belief?

Acts 22:7
And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

 

[sandwiches]

Faith is the answer. Don't be a doubting Thomas. Do you really think your unbelief is going to affect our (evidence) belief?

Acts 22:7
And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Faith or evidence? Make up your mind.

 

[corvus_corax]

Gravitational lensing is independent of redshift and was predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity independent of redshift.

Gravitational lensing is an ad hoc explanation of anomalous red-shift.

Yeah, 'cause Einstein was such an idiot.
And you know more than he does.
I await you collecting your Nobel Prize when you can objectively and empirically demonstrate how red-shift is an ad-hoc explanation.

Heck, I'll be in the front row!!

I don’t need papers. I need experimental verification of all those dark, invisible, undetected entities Big Bang theology is composed of.

I don't need papers. I need expermimental verification of your personal interpretation of the Christian deity.

I don’t need data. I need experimental verification of all those dark, invisible, undetected entities Big Bang theology is composed of.

I don't need data.
I need experimental verification of Genesis.

And I’ll be waiting for you to provide experimental verification of all those dark, invisible, undetected entities Big Bang theology is composed of.

And I'll be waiting for you to provide ANY experimental verification for your personal interpretation of the Christian deity.

 

[Meshach]

Faith or evidence? Make up your mind.

My mind is made up. I will follow the Lord ALL the days of my life.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[sandwiches]

My mind is made up. I will follow the Lord ALL the days of my life.

... and not answer any direct questions with straight answers, huh?

 

[corvus_corax]

My mind is made up. I will follow the Lord ALL the days of my life.

Good for you.
Which Lord?
Do you mean the God that was made manifest in the flesh, died and was resurrected?

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is substance of things hoped for?
So if you hope that a person's amputated arm will grow back, then the "substance" (the arm in question) will actually grow back?
Heck, Jesus implied that.
Let me know when that happens.
Or perhaps when you want a mountain to move, assuming you have at least a TINY bit of faith, you can tell me when you move a (literal) mountain.

 

[sandwiches]

Good for you.
Which Lord?


Faith is substance of things hoped for?
So if you hope that a person's amputated arm will grow back, then the "substance" (the arm in question) will actually grow back?
Heck, Jesus implied that.
Let me know when that happens.
Or perhaps when you want a mountain to move, assuming you have at least a TINY bit of faith, you can tell me when you move a (literal) mountain.

Selective literalism would probably disallow taking the mountain-moving passage literally.

 

[Ellinas]

ToE has been proven beyond a doubt. Anyone wishing to refute this sound theory should have more than "Goddidit" and or just plainly dismissing ToE without any valid arguments.

To the creationists I have only this to say:

"Does your God fear Evolution as a dictator would Democracy? Is he is so weak as to fear a theory that neither challenges him nor has intent to replace him from the hearts of those that wish to believe in him? Where is your faith"?

 

[dawiyd]

ToE has been proven beyond a doubt. Anyone wishing to refute this sound theory should have more than "Goddidit" and or just plainly dismissing ToE without any valid arguments.

To the creationists I have only this to say:

"Does your God fear Evolution as a dictator would Democracy? Is he so weak as to fear a theory that neither challenges him nor has intent to replace him form the hearts of those that wish to believe in him? Where is your faith"?

Technically, it hasn't. Seeing how proof belongs in the realm of set axioms.

 

[corvus_corax]

ToE has been proven beyond a doubt. Anyone wishing to refute this sound theory should have more than "Goddidit" and or just plainly dismissing ToE without any valid arguments.

"Proven"?
I would say "demonstrated" (regarding the fact of evolution) and "the current best model explaining the rise of multiple species" (regarding the scientific theory of evolution)
Just my opinion.
But "proven"?
Sorry, but terms like "proof" and "proven" make me uncomfortable.

To the creationists I have only this to say:

"Does your God fear Evolution as a dictator would Democracy? Is he so weak as to fear a theory that neither challenges him nor has intent to replace him form the hearts of those that wish to believe in him? Where is your faith"?

Does their God fear it? No.
Their God should be omniscient and omnipotent, therefore fear would be unknown to their God.
The correct question would be, I think-
"Do you fear the theory of evolution?"

Again, just my opinion (but really, their description of their deity has no fear)

 

[kenblaster5000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKie5aYrTYE

 

[corvus_corax]

Selective literalism would probably disallow taking the mountain-moving passage literally.

Yeah, well, he was the one to bring up "evidence" and "substance".
So either he accepts these terms in a literal sense (that can be demonstrated), or he accepts them in non-literal "metaphorical" ways (which essentially comes down to an acceptance of prose as poetry or double-speak, so to say).

I await his answer.

 

[Meshach]

Good for you.
Which Lord?
Do you mean the God that was made manifest in the flesh, died and was resurrected?


Faith is substance of things hoped for?
So if you hope that a person's amputated arm will grow back, then the "substance" (the arm in question) will actually grow back?
Heck, Jesus implied that.
Let me know when that happens.
Or perhaps when you want a mountain to move, assuming you have at least a TINY bit of faith, you can tell me when you move a (literal) mountain.

How do you know God speaks of a literal mountain?And if it was, I believe it would have to be in God's will to have it moved. Personally I know two ladies in my Church who were healed miraculously. One had a brain tumor and would get severe head aches ,blurred vision and other problems related as well. Many prayers were offered up on her part, then one day she came to Church and shared she believed she was healed, she felt better, normal. She went back to the doctor who did a bunch of tests including two scans of here head (he was sure the tumor was still there)..NOTHING...gone....15 years later, all is well. Another lady just recently was diagnosed with throat cancer, was scared and crying asking for prayer. The Elder who prayed for her placed his hand on her throat and felt a warm sensation pass threw his hand as he prayed. This lady left the next day to go to the hospital for treatment. She told the doctor when there that her throat wasn't hurting anymore. Guess what?
Even prior to this I have heard of many miracle healings, testimonies of such. Off course most are skeptics and like doubting Thomas have to see for themselfs to believe. That would be them spoken of in verse 25, others are spoken of in verse 29.

John 20:25-29
25The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God. 29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

John 4:48
Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

 

[kenblaster5000]

Tested and verified by those we could reasonably trust to tell the truth and who can support their results with sound, objective evidence. That clearly excludes the authors of the Bible.

Where the fire is not quenched and their worm does not die...

 

[kenblaster5000]

My mind is made up. I will follow the Lord ALL the days of my life.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[Meshach]

... and not answer any direct questions with straight answers, huh?

Read post 625 (yours) and 627 (mine) again. I answered your question with a straight answer. Maybe you would prefer to answer it for me?