You must be an old man then -- your English is excellent --I grow old learning! Thanks!
Actually the term Big Bang was coined by a creationist; Fred Hoyle, during a radio broadcast intending it as a derisive term for Lemaitre's theory.Why is that so hard to believe? After all, in the beginning nothing went *BANG*.
Perseverando is my moto! After suffering a brain stroke 3 years ago, my language skills deteriorated to the point where I had difficulty even composing a sentence. But perseverance paid back and I am constantly improving. English is not my mother tongue and I welcome corrections to the mistakes I make!You must be an old man then -- your English is excellent --
So you were wrong, and later you realized you were wrong. How typical.
What this shows is that your conclusions are not based on evidence, but based on your fallible human interpretation of it, resulting in innocent people being condemned.
Your "evidence" can take a hike.
Why is that so hard to believe? After all, in the beginning nothing went *BANG*.
Sorry to hear about your stroke!Perseverando is my moto! After suffering a brain stroke 3 years ago, my language skills deteriorated to the point where I had difficulty even composing a sentence.
Sounds like you had some people praying for you, eh?But perseverance paid back and I am constantly improving.
What this shows is that your conclusions are not based on evidence, but based on your fallible human interpretation of it, resulting in innocent people being condemned.
Actually considering that I live in a country where over 90% of the population believe in God and almost no one believes in creationism as fact but in a spiritual way.Sorry to hear about your stroke!
Sounds like you had some people praying for you, eh?
Thanks for the laugh, I needed that this morning! "Ape does not meet the criteria for human..." Hilarious.
I asked you for evidence that would not support creationism. Let's see what you came up with:
1. Vestigical organs. Well, there's strike one, because yes, the human appendix is vestigial. I can cut it out of you right now and it's absence would have no effect on you. But there are also plenty of others, such as eyes on blind cave fish, wings on flightless birds, dew claws, vestigical legs on pythons, whales' pelvis, etc. And no, having no function at all, is not required for "vestigial." What is required is loss of the function the organ performs in other species.
It appears you have no idea what a vestigal organ means. I told you appendix are no longer thought of as vestigal as they have important function...and I have the research from your own evo researchers to back it.
If you think eyes & wings are touted by your reseachers as vestigal organs then I guess you have demonstrated you need to do a bit more reading perhaps..
"Two years ago, Duke University Medical Center researchers said that the supposedly useless appendix is actually where good gut bacteria safely hide out during some unpleasant intestinal conditions.
Darwin thought that only a few animals have an appendix and that the human version was what was left of a digestive organ called the cecum. But the new study found that 70 percent of rodent and primate groups have species with an appendix. And some living animals have a cecum and an appendix. If Darwin had known about species that had both organs, he probably would have revised his views of the appendix, the researchers note. "
That's No Vestigial Organ, That's My Appendix: Scientific American Podcast
Once again your reply does not refute anything. What it does demonstrate is that you need to catch up on the science you support.
2. Junk DNA. This is not a technical term, nor have biologists ever claimed there was no purpose to any Junk DNA. That said, you could remove much of it with no effect. Much is just repeated sequences coding for nothing. In fact, some organisms don't have any Junk DNA at all, such as the puffer fish. Doesn't seem to hurt them not having any. So, that's strike two.
Again you demonstrate beyond doubt you need to catch up on your science. Of course your researchers used to call the non coding regions of the genome junk dna. I cannot believe you have never heard of this.
Increasing evidence is now indicating that this DNA is not "junk" at all. Especially, it has been found to have various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called "non-coding DNA" influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways.
Junk DNA" - Over 98 percent of DNA has largely unknown function
Read the link, learn and please stop wasting my time.!
3. A Neanderthal discussing the afterlife. You already know they are extinct, so that is a stupid loaded example. I asked for potential tyoes of data we could find, not data we could not find. Nevertheless, since Neaderthals were just as intelligent as us (in fact their brain was slightly bigger), I would infer that they actually did discuss the afterlife while they were around. So, that's strike three.
Neanderthal had a larger brain that we do, was initially sketched as an apeman, when now even your researchers have found neanderthal has the human variant of FOXp2 and was perfectly human.
Do I need to put up this info also.
So the point was that you have no hairy stooped over ape men around as they have all mysteriously gone extinct.
I guess that means that creationism is falsified now.
YOU FAIL so Thanks.
I call it an abuse of evidence to fit a fantasy.Yeah, it's called honesty. You should look into it.
He was always innocent. It is your abuse of the evidence that found him guilty.So which is the fallible interpretation? The finding of guilt or innocence?
I'm closing my eyes to garbage, not evidence.Another creationist closing their eyes to the evidence. How typical.
What position? When it comes to big bang theory your position is always shifting.Firstly, it didn't go bang, and it didn't come from nothing. Why is it that creationists need to misrepresent our position on everything?
There you go with that "tons of evidence" garbage again. Is it the same "tons of evidence" that condemned that innocent man to death?Secondly, we have tons of evidence evidence that the Universe did expand from a singularity.
The facts of the Bible are to a Christian as the facts of nature are to a scientist. We may at times interpret those facts wrong but the Bible still remains a book of facts. And any scientific theory must fit those biblical facts or the scientific theory can take a hike.But I'm guessing with your ad hoc logic and special pleading method of debate, you think that the Bible is somehow exempt of our "fallible human interpretation?"
Actually, no.Actually the term Big Bang was coined by a creationist; Fred Hoyle, during a radio broadcast intending it as a derisive term for Lemaitre's theory.
...
LOL! Hoyle must be turning in his grave at your post!
Sorry to hear about your stroke!Sorry to hear about your stroke!
Sounds like you had some people praying for you, eh?
All Christians? or just a handful of them?The name Big Bang was coined by a mocking Fred Hoyle. But Hoyle wasn't a creationist. He was an atheist who opposed the BBT because he saw it as a sneaky way christians could force creationism back in science.
I stand corrected! I was under the impression that Hoyle being a Steady state proponent was in effect a crypto creationist. Most People I spoke to about Hoyle think he was a creationist too. But as you pointed out I was in err to assume something just because many thought it so.Actually, no.
The name Big Bang was coined by a mocking Fred Hoyle. But Hoyle wasn't a creationist. He was an atheist who opposed the BBT because he saw it as a sneaky way christians could force creationism back in science. Don't forget the BBT was first formulated by a George Lemaître, who was a Catholic priest from Belgium. Pope Pius XII publicly endorsed the BBT.
Hoyle advanced the Steady State Theory, claiming that the niverse had always existed and that there was thus no "Creation Moment", or no "Origin of the Universe". He did this partially to oppose christianity.
You are right that it is funny that creationists forget or ignore this part of the story. That sites like Conservapedia now scream things like ATHEIST BIG BANG etc.
But the BBT wasn't named by creationists. No.
Considering that creationism is basically an American concept then suffice it to say that most Christians do not accept a literal translation of Genesis.All Christians? or just a handful of them?
Why then, does London have one of, if not THE, biggest mosques in Europe?According to polls conducted in the US; most Americans believe in creationism, whereas in Europe it is the opposite:
Because even Muslims who are not fundamentalists, accept evolution.Why then, does London have one of, if not THE, biggest mosques in Europe?