Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[Mr Strawberry]

No thats you projecting onto me that i am trying to smear something. Because i ask questions and challenge things doesn't mean i am smearing it. I have seen plenty of people from the evolution side and not just on this site say all sorts of things to religious people. Rarely do i see that same kind of ridicule and name calling from Christians. We have been call everything from ignorant and liars to nut cases and loonies.

If i am debating someone i dont assume anything or categorize individuals into boxes and tar them with the same brush. You have to understand that not everyone is the same and if i happen to ask the same questions as your creationist loonies as you say doesn't mean i am one. I may have a genuine inquiry and need to have it answered. I am not in the business of purposely making false statements and i dont like someone accusing me of such.

I am learning this subject so i will make mistakes and you need to take this into consideration. KWCrazy is allowed to have his own personal beliefs and should be ridiculed because of those beliefs, nor should anyone. You just have to take it as they are an individual with their point of view and beliefs and you cant take that away from them or put them down for having it.

I was talking about KWCrazy's behaviour, not yours. I should have written "...one is trying to smear" to make it clearer.

 

[stevevw]

If you don't understand the science, then how do you know that it is wrong?

I just said i have a good basic understanding and when i read most of what the experts are saying i can get the jist of it. Its only when they start to go into the finer detail of it which is something that only a geneticist will know that i begin to get lost.

Even so i still can follow that but it will take me longer to absorb. After all i think you need to go to uni for about 6 years or so and how many on hear have done that. If you notice my posts i rarely go into any great detail about genetics and subjects i dont fully understand. If i get the general idea of what an expert is saying i will also compare other sites to make sure im getting it right before i feel that i can post their link or comment.

I have included what you call liar sites like the creationists earlier on but now try to avoid this as they are rejected. Sometimes sites seem straight forward but you will say they are not so they dont get far. No believe me with you people on my back i am certainly being shown whats OK and whats not even though i think you are to harsh sometimes.

 

[mzungu]

What evidence? A theorized miraculous Big Bang event where everything in the entire universe was contained in a zero volume space? A theory proposed by a priest btw.

A theory of black holes which Einstein himself did not agree with?

http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

This from a man who still accepts theories devised when we believed the Milky-Way was the only galaxy in existence. So every theory you have was theorized when they thought this galaxy was the only thing that existed in the entire universe. Yeah right!

And it is funny that Columbus was a christian yet believed the world was round. This is why he set out to circumnavigate the globe to find another route to India. he certainly did not believe he was going to reach an edge and fall off. Ancient philosophers, the predecessors of science believed this until around the 6th century B.C. when they began to realize it was round.

Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"During the early Church period, with some exceptions, most held a spherical view, for instance, Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose to name a few."

Scientists on the other hand were once unanimous in their belief that the Milky-Way was the only galaxy in existence, and this a mere 100 years ago. That theory didn't pan out so well did it. And yet you still accept as fact all the theories based upon the believed observation that this galaxy was the only one in existence. This has since been disproved in case you haven't noticed, yet the theory of the Big Bang devised during this period of belief is still claimed as evidence. Fairie Dust.

 

[KWCrazy]

We have evidence and you have hearsay!

We have the same evidence, just different conclusions.

We conclude based on evidence and you "just know".

We conclude based on our evidence. That includes evidence that God is real and that He created the universe.

you have absolutely no evidence apart from your personal opinion that is based on a few paragraphs in a book written by people who thought the world was flat.

Again, we all have the same evidence.
The Bible never states that the earth is flat, and nearly everyone believed it was so until proven otherwise. Conversely, atheists believe there is no God until proven otherwise. However, then it's too late.

 

[KWCrazy]

You know, instead of writing the above you could just say that you've never been within a country mile of the peer review process and haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. As anyone who has ever been through the process of submitting a paper would tell you. Not that you know anyone who has, obviously.

I had a college professor who wrote hundreds of articles for medical and trade journals. The fact is, you sell your article to the editors. Period. If they think you have a new look at something and they can find some agreement with what you write, they'll publish it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I had a college professor who wrote hundreds of articles for medical and trade journals.

What research was your college professor doing? How many technicians, grad students, and postdocs did he have?

 

[Loudmouth]

We have the same evidence, just different conclusions.

The problem is that your conclusions are not supported by the evidence.

 

[stevevw]

When you call tens of thousands of scientists a pack of liars, and never even attempt to back your allegations, that is a smear. That is what KWCrazy does.

But you see i believe what i believe and no one can take that away and i have a right to believe that without being ridiculed. When i challenge things and point out that some of the things that you believe are questionable i am not calling you a liar.

I am merely having a different point of view to you and debating that. You are the one that is calling people liars and other names not us. From what i see its the other way around. I rarely see Christians call people who believe in evolution liars but i see it a lot from evolutionist calling people liars and other names on this site.

At the end of the day people will have different points of view and its not that important that it needs to get personal. If there is disagreement then thats what it is and it can be left at that.

 

[stevevw]

I agree! We give the science side of the argument and you give the religious side. We furnish evidences for ToE and you give evidences for creationism.

I am all ears.

Well thats part of the problem and probably the core of why perhaps Christians should not get to involved in trying to compete with science on this level all the time.

How do you give evidence for a miracle. You can only try to show your opinion and beliefs but delving in a deep scientific debate about a creator and how he created life cannot be discussed on a scientific level i believe. The trouble is some base their belief on proving God and i dont think this is a good path to go down. I think we can discuss certain aspects of the evidence and how things work but at the end of the day the creation of life is a miracle by God.

We can only point out how some of the evidences you promote maybe in question and that there is more to it than meets the eye. That explanations may go beyond the physical and testable world. Like i said before the bible says that everyone has the inherent knowledge that God created the world. Many want proof and will try to find the answers with the material world around them.

I enjoy the topic and like to discover new things. The evidence may not be about proving God and his creation. It maybe about showing how his creation cannot be something that comes from nothing and created every living thing.

 

[Loudmouth]

But you see i believe what i believe and no one can take that away and i have a right to believe that without being ridiculed.

So I don't have a right to say what I want? Only you do?

When i challenge things and point out that some of the things that you believe are questionable i am not calling you a liar.

That is not what is going on here. Scientists are being accused of knowlingly publishing biased papers. That is calling someone a liar.

I am merely having a different point of view to you and debating that. You are the one that is calling people liars and other names not us.

Why don't you cite a specific article from a creationist site, and we will show the lies to you. We have pointed out several instances where creationist sites like the ones you cite from use quotes pulled out of context and misrepresent data.

At the end of the day people will have different points of view and its not that important that it needs to get personal. If there is disagreement then thats what it is and it can be left at that.

The problem comes when people claim that their opinion is supported by facts. The opinion of creationists are not supported by facts. They are contradicted by the facts.

If you want to say that your beliefs are contradicted by the facts then you will have my agreement.

 

[stevevw]

It is not that we are the "guardians of the theory". We get tired of attacks on science by people trying to defend a false belief. It is an attack on the education of our children. That is an attack on our future. And what is even more upsetting is that the side that is running these attacks are supposed to be honest. They are far from that.

I dont attack science and it should have nothing to do with the credibility of science as a whole. It has provided many great things and is a part of everyday life.

 

[stevevw]

So I don't have a right to say what I want? Only you do?

Of course you do and i have never denied anyone that right. In fact i couldn't because you stand up for it strongly which is fair enough.

That is not what is going on here. Scientists are being accused of knowlingly publishing biased papers. That is calling someone a liar.

I am not saying that, Don't tar everyone with the same brush. I have been told many times that the peer reviewed papers are the holy grail of evidence. Though that doesn't mean they should be without criticism.

Why don't you cite a specific article from a creationist site, and we will show the lies to you. We have pointed out several instances where creationist sites like the ones you cite from use quotes pulled out of context and misrepresent data.

It has never got that far any time ive included religious sites it gets a reaction and tossed out without it being read. As someone said we have already judge them to be full of lies so we dont bother anymore. I think i have included peer review papers on several occasions and also have had religious sites with them. But because the religious sites were so criticized everything gets thrown out and they never bother to investigate.

The problem comes when people claim that their opinion is supported by facts. The opinion of creationists are not supported by facts. They are contradicted by the facts.

Some of the things they say are supported by facts or at least evidence that can show that it maybe the case. I agree that some creationist sites go overboard. But what is a creationist site. I have seen some very good sites that may have a christian involved who is a scientists or geneticist but its rejected based on the religious connection.

If you want to say that your beliefs are contradicted by the facts then you will have my agreement.

Well God can be contradicted by the physical and material things we see. That doesn't mean he is now real.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well God can be contradicted by the physical and material things we see. That doesn't mean he is now real.

Don't conflate God with the god of the Bible. They are not necessarily the same thing. In fact the problem with most creationists is that they break the Ten Commandments by using the Bible as an idol.

 

[KWCrazy]

What research was your college professor doing? How many technicians, grad students, and postdocs did he have?

Why, so you can attack his credentials like you do everyone who disagrees with you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well God can be contradicted by the physical and material things we see. That doesn't mean he is now real.

I wasn't aware that creationists were calling themselves God.

If creationism is contradicted by the facts we find in the world around us, then creationists are not using the same evidence that scientists are. It is that simple. Besides, it was laughable to think that they were in the first place.

Have you ever seen a creationist use transitional fossil hominids to show that humans were created separately from other apes?

Have you ever seen a creationist use a comparison of the chimp, gorilla, orangutan, and human genomes to show that humans were created separately?

Have you ever seen a creationist use the ratio of isotopes in rocks to show that the Earth is young, or that there was a recent global flood?

The answer is no. They don't use evidence to reach their conclusions. All they can hope to do is discredit the facts. Their only hope is to foster ignorance so that creationism is not challenged.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why, so you can attack his credentials like you do everyone who disagrees with you?

Your argument rests on credentials. You were trying to bolster your claims with those credentials. Is it too much to ask to see those credentials so we can verify your claims? Or do you just get to make stuff up?

 

[KWCrazy]

Your argument rests on credentials.

No, the argument rests with experience with the process, which is what we were discussing. You made it personal, because that's what you do.

Frankly, I would think that getting published multiple times in medical trade publications would be credentials in themselves, but perhaps these publications accept submissions from unqualified sources. By the way, you just discredited the "peer reviewed" journals you hold up as some evidence of credibility.

It might surprise you that evolutionists don't get their articles published in creationist literature. Using your standard, that then discredits their arguments.

 

[EternalDragon]

Don't conflate God with the god of the Bible. They are not necessarily the same thing. In fact the problem with most creationists is that they break the Ten Commandments by using the Bible as an idol.

2 timothy 3:16-17

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

 

[KWCrazy]

Don't conflate God with the god of the Bible. They are not necessarily the same thing. In fact the problem with most creationists is that they break the Ten Commandments by using the Bible as an idol.

Taking the advice of an atheist about God is like taking the advice of a fat man on dieting. You who are so quick to call others liars seem to spend a lot of time talking about the characteristics of a God you claim doesn't exist. It kind of seems disingenuous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Taking the advice of an atheist about God is like taking the advice of a fat man on dieting. You who are so quick to call others liars seem to spend a lot of time talking about the characteristics of a God you claim doesn't exist. It kind of seems disingenuous.

Extremely poor analogy.

In fact it would be better to say asking an atheist about god is like asking a person who lost 500 pounds about dieting.

I mean really, you can't find a flaw in my claim so that was the best you could come up with?