My theory on creation.

[Subduction Zone]

Just as worthless as quantum physics explanations for fluctuations in quantum matter that
could result in a matter antimatter imbalance resulting in the formation of something from nothing?
A "big-Bang" so to speak....(in silent space.)

No, the Big Bang theory made several testable predictions. Those predictions were confirmed.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, the Big Bang theory made several testable predictions. Those predictions were confirmed.

After how many tries?

 

[Subduction Zone]

After how many tries?

Your question is poorly formed. What does the "number of tries" have to do with anything?

For example it predicted the cosmic background radiation but we did not have the technology to find it for many years. No one was actively looking for it. It was discovered by accident, so I suppose that was before even the "first" try. Since then it has been observed countless times.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yea actually you do, definitions are part of the process we call scientific methodology. Refusal to do so is called begging the question of proof.

-_- by that logic, people should have to define every single word they use, just to clarify which definition they are using. Unless a person is knowingly using a deviant definition of a word, they don't have to define it. And if a person is using a personal definition, then they are using the word incorrectly and just fostering confusion.

Which is why you define your terms.

-_- I only define evolution if I actually see someone using it incorrectly. I don't legitimize their errors by asking them to define what they view evolution to be, and debating with that incorrect definition in mind. As far as I am concerned, there is only 1 definition of evolution relevant to this debate subforum; the scientific one I posted.

My definition and it it doesn't account for giant leaps in evolution as natural history.

-_- you can disagree with the theory and its implications on natural history all you like, but you don't get to redefine evolution to make it more palatable.

Yes I know, welcome to the discussion.

I only gave you a definition so you wouldn't be able to use "unwillingness to comply with a reasonable request" as an argument against me in debates. It's simple pragmatism to assume that I am referring to the theory in biology when I use the term "evolution". People should only have to clarify if they aren't using it for that. Though, other than using it as a generic term for any "change/development over time", I don't think there are any other recognized uses for the word.

 

[tevans9129]

Not exactly what some would have you to believe. Some words bolded for emphasis.

[The big bang theory describes the development of the universe from the time just after it came into existence up to today. It's one of several scientific models that attempts to explain why the universe is the way it is. The theory makes several predictions, many of which have been proven through observational data. As a result, it's the most popular and accepted theory regarding our universe's development.]

"One of several...attempts to explain" notice it is "why" not where, when and how. "many" have been proven but not all, "most popular" but not the only one. And you can take that to the bank, at least according to some.

 

[Speedwell]

Not exactly what some would have you to believe. Some words bolded for emphasis.

[The big bang theory describes the development of the universe from the time just after it came into existence up to today. It's one of several scientific models that attempts to explain why the universe is the way it is. The theory makes several predictions, many of which have been proven through observational data. As a result, it's the most popular and accepted theory regarding our universe's development.]

"One of several...attempts to explain" notice it is "why" not where, when and how. "many" have been proven but not all, "most popular" but not the only one. And you can take that to the bank, at least according to some.

So what? Science only knows what it knows. Why does that get up your nose?

 

[SkyWriting]

No, the Big Bang theory made several testable predictions. Those predictions were confirmed.

Several is very few. If you are referring to background radiation, I lived through those
years. It was a a total failure fraught with lies about the results.
Here is a map of the radiation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They do, but many are later innovations. The biggest difference between Christianity and any other religion is that Jesus claimed to be God.

I guess? There are a few religions in which people were venerated as gods.

 

[mark kennedy]

-_- by that logic, people should have to define every single word they use, just to clarify which definition they are using. Unless a person is knowingly using a deviant definition of a word, they don't have to define it. And if a person is using a personal definition, then they are using the word incorrectly and just fostering confusion.

Defining your terms is not confusion, it's clarification.

-_- I only define evolution if I actually see someone using it incorrectly. I don't legitimize their errors by asking them to define what they view evolution to be, and debating with that incorrect definition in mind. As far as I am concerned, there is only 1 definition of evolution relevant to this debate subforum; the scientific one I posted.

Actually you talked in circles around it.

-_- you can disagree with the theory and its implications on natural history all you like, but you don't get to redefine evolution to make it more palatable.

There is not one but two definitions.

I only gave you a definition so you wouldn't be able to use "unwillingness to comply with a reasonable request" as an argument against me in debates. It's simple pragmatism to assume that I am referring to the theory in biology when I use the term "evolution". People should only have to clarify if they aren't using it for that. Though, other than using it as a generic term for any "change/development over time", I don't think there are any other recognized uses for the word.

You don't have one, that much is obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Several is very few. If you are referring to background radiation, I lived through those
years. It was a a total failure fraught with lies about the results.
Here is a map of the radiation.

Wrong, amazingly wrong. How does that map that you do not understand support your claim?

You don't seem to understand what that map represents.

Tell me, have you ever been to Fargo North Dakota? Would you describe the topography there as "flat"?

 

[pitabread]

There is not one but two definitions.

According to the Oxford English dictionary, there are actually five: evolution - definition of evolution in English | Oxford Dictionaries

 

[PsychoSarah]

Defining your terms is not confusion, it's clarification.

Clarification is only necessary in the presence of misunderstanding. Otherwise, it is both a waste of time and makes people think you are patronizing.

Actually you talked in circles around it.

A reference to a prior discussion in which I mentioned that people often interchange using evolution to label the scientific theory and the actual observations said theory attempts to explain? Recall how I also said this was a problematic behavior that was a source of confusion; it's swapping between the two different definitions of evolution without there necessarily being cues for which use of the word people are using. However, statements such as "evolution has never been observed" are obvious in their meaning. A theory never being observed is a nonsense statement, so it must mean that they are stating that the "changes in populations over time have never been observed".

There are times when this is a source of confusion... briefly. It never lasts for long. Annoying, certainly, but as misunderstandings are unavoidable in life, you gotta live with it. The only time it becomes a persistent problem is when people use terms like "cosmic evolution" and mistakenly think it is in any way relevant to the theory of evolution.

There is not one but two definitions.

Yes, the theory in biology, and as a generic term for change/development over time.

You don't have one, that much is obvious.

-_- I literally gave you the definition I use for it. Do I need to give it to you again? I'll post it as many times as you request until you are satisfied.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I guess? There are a few religions in which people were venerated as gods.

Yes, but which one(s) leader claimed himself to be God Himself?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not exactly what some would have you to believe. Some words bolded for emphasis.

[The big bang theory describes the development of the universe from the time just after it came into existence up to today. It's one of several scientific models that attempts to explain why the universe is the way it is. The theory makes several predictions, many of which have been proven through observational data. As a result, it's the most popular and accepted theory regarding our universe's development.]

"One of several...attempts to explain" notice it is "why" not where, when and how. "many" have been proven but not all, "most popular" but not the only one. And you can take that to the bank, at least according to some.

When the assertions it makes tell us whether or not life could come into being, that outweighs whether the ocean is blue or brown, generally. Nothing of the Big Bang Theory has yet to be disproven, to my knowledge. That's why it's the most popular.

That said, I'm with you. AGW is a very popular theory I don't see any truth in. Darwinian evolution is another.

 

[mark kennedy]

Clarification is only necessary in the presence of misunderstanding. Otherwise, it is both a waste of time and makes people think you are patronizing.

The lack of clarification is the essence of misunderstanding. You have a responsibility. My conscience is clear, I've defined my terms.

A reference to a prior discussion in which I mentioned that people often interchange using evolution to label the scientific theory and the actual observations said theory attempts to explain? Recall how I also said this was a problematic behavior that was a source of confusion; it's swapping between the two different definitions of evolution without there necessarily being cues for which use of the word people are using. However, statements such as "evolution has never been observed" are obvious in their meaning. A theory never being observed is a nonsense statement, so it must mean that they are stating that the "changes in populations over time have never been observed".

There is not one but two definitions here, being equivocated. Evolution as a phenomenon in nature and a philosophy of history.

There are times when this is a source of confusion... briefly. It never lasts for long. Annoying, certainly, but as misunderstandings are unavoidable in life, you gotta live with it. The only time it becomes a persistent problem is when people use terms like "cosmic evolution" and mistakenly think it is in any way relevant to the theory of evolution.

Your definition(s) please.

Yes, the theory in biology, and as a generic term for change/development over time.

Thanks for admitting the obvious.

-_- I literally gave you the definition I use for it. Do I need to give it to you again? I'll post it as many times as you request until you are satisfied.

My experience, no you won't.

 

[Speedwell]

Let him have it. We all know by now that when Mark says "Darwinism" he means metaphysical materialism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The lack of clarification is the essence of misunderstanding. You have a responsibility. My conscience is clear, I've defined my terms.

It shouldn't be. You used bogus definitions. You are not a resource.

There is not one but two definitions here, being equivocated. Evolution as a phenomenon in nature and a philosophy of history.

Nope, you are trying to use your false definitions again. Evolution as a "phenomenon" has been observed. Sadly you don't understand what observation is. I can provide a definition of the term if you would like.

Thanks for admitting the obvious.

Yet you do not like that definition.

My experience, no you won't.

I am betting that she will.

 

[pitabread]

Let him have it. We all know by now that when Mark says "Darwinism" he means metaphysical materialism.

And we also know that nobody but mark appears to subscribe to that definition.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, but which one(s) leader claimed himself to be God Himself?

In the Ancient Egyptian religion and modern North Korea, to name two.

 

[Speedwell]

And we also know that nobody but mark appears to subscribe to that definition.

Right. Let that be his worry. "Darwinism" as a term describing evolution has already been co-opted and corrupted by Creationists anyway.