PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
By passing it onto us? You evil genius! *pictures Alfred E. Neuman twirling a mustache while stroking a cat and laughing evilly*
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang
- Thread starter AV1611VET
- Start date
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,210
- 52,660
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Did you read Post #2 in this thread?
I did.
And that made me feel good that I could give someone something to think about.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
-_- I did, but it doesn't alleviate my moderate aggravation at your unwillingness to contribute with your actual views on the subject of this thread.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,210
- 52,660
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Oh, I think I've made plenty of contributions in other threads.
I don't think it's a mystery where I stand on evolution here.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
The saddest thing is that you think the big bang is relevant to evolution. Even if god itself came to me in person and told me that it created the universe, and that the big bang was some sort of illusionary after-effect of all that energy being released, it would not change my opinion on evolution in the slightest.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,210
- 52,660
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Haven't we been down that road already?
The Big Bang is relevant to evolution -- cosmic evolution.
And if you're talking about just biological evolution, biological evolution is the Big Bang's great-great-great-great grandson.*
* Cosmic evolution:
- Big Bang
- Particulate
- Galactic
- Stellar
- Planetary
- Chemical
- Biological
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
That's not how that works. It is more like this:
1. big bang and cosmic evolution starts
1. chemical evolution is a thing
1 biological evolution is a thing.
they aren't connected, even if one had to occur before the other did, this is only because the products of one are involved in the others, not that the processes are interconnected. It is irrelevant how the chemicals of life originated for biological evolution.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,210
- 52,660
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Nevertheless, biological evolution is the Big Bang's great-great-great-great grandson.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
My point is that our entire understanding of the big bang could be wrong, without biological evolution being wrong.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
What? You must not have read my posts carefully, I generally support the Big Bang theory.
Upvote
0
OK, read you posts again. Now I think I see your problem. You believe evolution would have occurred even if no big bang? Right? If so, I reserve the right to disagree. First off, it is a fact that the entire universe evolved and is still evolving. In addition, we are essentially made out of star stuff. That's great, since it makes for a unity between ourselves and the universe. Furthermore, I do not hold that there are two conflicting worlds: the world of the alive and the world of passive, inert, dead matter. I view mind and master as one. I believe that all things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of souls or psyches. That means whatsoever happens in the universe is the same process that goes on in biological evolution. I picture the entire universe as analogous to an organism, not a machine.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,210
- 52,660
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Well they got Thalidomide wrong.
They got Pluto wrong.
They got the Titanic wrong.
They got the Hindenburg wrong.
They got the Deepwater Horizon wrong.
They got Gus Grissom's command capsule wrong.
They got Three Mile Island wrong.
They got Chernobyl wrong.
They got the oil fields of Kuwait wrong.
They got Phlogiston wrong.
They got the depth of the moon dust wrong.
They're off by 4 years as to when AD started.
They got "flying" squirrels wrong.
They got Nebraska Man wrong.
They got embryos wrong.
They got geocentrism wrong.
They might as well add cosmic evolution to Pandora's Clipboard as well.
Upvote
0
Sorry about that, PsychoSarah. I got you mixed up with AV16ll. And that brings me to my next point. The list of the ten things they got wrong does not directly apply to the question of evolution. I mean, I can sit down and write out a longer list of what they got right. Anyhow, we are not perfect and so are apt to make mistakes. We were able to put men on the Moon, even though we have had real tragedies in the space program. I believe reality is in constant evolution, and so we are always moving into new horizons, doing novel things. Since we are always facing new tasks, we are bound to goof due to our lack of familiarity with the material as hand. Sometimes we goof because we weren't able to benefit from our progress. The Titanic probably sunk because it was built out of iron, rather then steel, which was abundantly available at the time So I don't see how this list is at all relevant to how valid evolution is. You certainly don't dump all of astronomy because there is a controversy over Pluto, do you? In fact, the reason science suspects it many not be a planet is a result fo the evolution of better scientific instruments.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
You know you aren't allowed to bring that up. However, I will fully acknowledge that the people in medical research cannot legally test drugs on pregnant women to see if they are safe for them. So yes, this problem persisteth, but not at the fault of science.
Wrong? No, personally, I just think they wanted to be "crap stirrers". For some reason, what qualifies as planet was changed, nothing in regards to Pluto was.
XD XD XD that was the engineers that made those claims. No scientist would claim that any vessel was literally unsinkable.
How so? Not a scientist's fault it crashed, and it was known that helium is flammable.
The what?
I am guessing it failed, structurally, but that isn't a science fail in and of itself.
How?
Mechanical failures are not scientific failures.
What about them?
What?
No, even creationists abandoned that one long ago, AV.
That is wholly unrelated to science. That's a calendar issue, and subject to how we measure time.
I don't recall anyone actually thinking that they fly, common name is not scientific name.
That was actually a journalist that pushed that story, defying the wishes of the person that discovered it. And soon after, SCIENTISTS were the ones to figure out the tooth belonged to a pig, not a hominid.
How? If you are referring to those drawings no one uses anymore, they were remarkably accurate, all things considered.
-_- scientists also corrected it, but that error is in the bible too, you know.
My favorite thing about all of these, is that it isn't as if the bible got them right. In order for the bible to be superior to science in regards to these issues, it not only must address them, but it must be more accurate than the scientific process is, which it is not.
Upvote
0
Good point about the embryos and poor old Heckel. Talk about they didn't got it right. More than one circulated online information calming was a big phony, was fired, etc. Turns out that none of that was true. Actually, a Canadian scientist somehow managed to start that, for which he offered an online apology. Don't believe me? Go check it out for yourself. Now let's talk a bit about creation scientist Chuck Missler. He has absolutely no scientific background, no education in theology, is not ordained by any major church, and, and this is really important, has been twice sued and twice was found guilty of plagiarizing. How about good old "Dr." Baugh? He seems to change the subject he obtained his doctorate in a and the university that granted it about every tie he opens his mouth. How about creation-scientists Bray Settlefield. He's the guy who argues the that c (speed of light) isn't absolute. So if scientists had gotten on the ball and realized it was an infinite speed ant the beginning f the universe and then slowed down, there eyes would be wide open to the fact the universes began just a short time age, and hurrah for that, because that means the biblical account of creation is true. Proof? All he could muster was an argument that if you studied estimates of c given throughout history, the tendency has been to show it is going slower and slower. Only problem is, carefully studying the estimates show that c has been getter faster in its estimates. Another curious point is that Setterfield somehow swiped Stanford University letter heads to place on some of his documents in order to make it seen Stanford backed him. How do we know? He got pinched. So bottom line: If you are going to reject an approach simply because there have been mistakes and fakery associated with it, you would most certainly have to dump all of creation science as well and in addition Scripture, as it carries about 100 contradictions, including the whole Genesis account.
Upvote
0
Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
I don't think you needed to tell anyone that AV, you're not all that hot on your religion either because like your science you change or add to it if you don't like what it says.
Upvote
0
PEOPLE did all of that just as people wrote all the religious books, people are fallible and very often get things wrong,
what else is new?
Evolution is a fact and all religions are myths, everyone knows that even if they won't admit it.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
