Discussion on the how it all started

[Larniavc]

Can you physically look at the beginning of everything? Lol, this ain't hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy. You time traveling?

Can you physically look at your birth? If you can’t how do you know how you were born? I assume you cannot time travel.

 

[renniks]

To you.

Fortunately, in the overall scheme of things, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. The study of cosmology and physics will happily go on without your input.

Not just me. There's plenty of other theoretical possiblities. Some scientists now think the bb wasn't the beginning at all. And so it goes.

 

[renniks]

One does not need to replicate events for them not to be a guess. By your standards most convicted murderers should be set free.

Also it is bearing false witness against your neighbor to denigrate their work and call it a "guess" when it is not. Christians should not do this.

There's plenty that is still not explained as you well know. New theories will emerge and the current ones will be considered obsolete. There's always Guess work involved.

 

[renniks]

Sure it is.

(It's also not the actual source of the universe, just how the early universe developed).

Nope, they are now saying it may not have had a beginning. ( Again) Even if there was an expansion, we don't know what happened prior.

 

[renniks]

Which specific theory of cosmology are incorrectly thrown out as if fact?

which ones specifically?

That the BB was the beginning for one. That's very much in question. Not fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's plenty that is still not explained as you well know. New theories will emerge and the current ones will be considered obsolete. There's always Guess work involved.

There is plenty that is not explained in any murder case. What did the murderer have for breakfast? Is one example of a very likely unanswered question. Not having everything explained does not make what has been explained a guess. And now you are trying to use an Equivocation Fallacy by using multiple meanings of the word "guess". You used the term derisively earlier, and it was a false claim in context to boot. You have to know that you should not do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That the BB was the beginning for one. That's very much in question. Not fact.

Well that is because you misstate it. It is the begging of our universe as we know it. What you are doing now is a Strawman Fallacy, misrepresenting the arguments of those debating against you. This is also improper.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, they are now saying it may not have had a beginning. ( Again) Even if there was an expansion, we don't know what happened prior.

Yes, currently there is a limit of how far we can go back. About 10^-43 sec after the onset of the Big Bang. Perhaps you could learn a little bit more before calling it "guesswork". Scientists try to be very clear on what they can determine and what they cannot.

 

[solid_core]

No, you really do not. You may have more faith in God's existence than mine but that does not help you in an argument. In fact faith based beliefs can be proven to be wrong most of the time. Faith is not a pathway to the truth.

Without God, you have no basis to make any valid claims, because there is not certainity that what you perceive as true today was true yesterday.

You also have no basis to think that your experiences are real.

You may have more faith in your own existence and that your brain or your body are giving you the right picture of the Universe than in God, but its just your faith and faith is not a pathway to the truth.

 

[Larniavc]

That the BB was the beginning for one. That's very much in question. Not fact.

What I meant was the specific theory that was stated as fact within Big Bang cosmology?

 

[Larniavc]

Some scientists now think the bb wasn't the beginning at all. And so it goes.

That’s been the case since at least the 90s. M-Branes and such like with the Bulk (if I remember correctly).

 

[Larniavc]

Without God, you have no basis to make any valid claims, because there is not certainity that what you perceive as true today was true yesterday.

You also have no basis to think that your experiences are real.

You may have more faith in your own existence and that your brain or your body are giving you the right picture of the Universe than in God, but its just your faith and faith is not a pathway to the truth.

What do you mean? God could have made us all last Thursday and we cannot be certain he hasn’t.

So your statement is a non sequitur.

 

[solid_core]

What do you mean? God could have made us all last Thursday and we cannot be certain he hasn’t.

So your statement is a non sequitur.

We all walk in faith. Some faiths are more credible, some are foolish.

 

[Larniavc]

We all walk in faith. Some faiths are more credible, some are foolish.

I’m sorry, is the day of non sequiturs?

How does that any of that refer to my previous post?

 

[Godistruth1]

Whoa! Major infraction there. Just because you do not understand the nature of evidence does not mean that there is no evidence. I can prove that I have evidence, you, not so much. And to tell someone that they do not believe something of a religious nature is a big no no here. I would suggest a retraction. I would be in big trouble if I said "You don't really believe in Jesus". That cuts both ways.

We understand,you do not understand the concept of either.

Yes, your logical skills need some work too. We share a common ancestor with bananas, but that would be over six hundred million years ago. The common ancestor we share with chimps is about one one hundredth of that time. We did not evolve from chimps either. We share an ancestor with them. That ancestor of course was an ape, not a modern one of course, and you and I are still apes.



Yes, some people can reason rationally and some can't. And yes, the details of the theory of evolution are ever changing. That is a feature and not a bug. That is how people advance in the sciences. Hypotheses are formed, tested, and confirmed or refuted. Our knowledge increases as a result. Creationists on the other hand refuse to properly test their ideas. Probably because those that understand the sciences well enough know they will fail such a test.

I was having a real conversation until u showed up. I mean honestly. Im just gonna ignore u since u keep on moving away from real question on evidence which u are still to provide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without God, you have no basis to make any valid claims, because there is not certainity that what you perceive as true today was true yesterday.

You also have no basis to think that your experiences are real.

You may have more faith in your own existence and that your brain or your body are giving you the right picture of the Universe than in God, but its just your faith and faith is not a pathway to the truth.

That is nonsense. You can't even begin to support that. In fact the same applies to you and your belief in God. Massive circular reasoning on your part.

Faith is your downfall. Don't accuse others of that flaw. Concepts in the sciences can be tested. Faith is not allowed. The only "faith" is that the natural world can be explained. And since that is regularly done it passes on from faith to a reasonable expectation based upon past results.

 

[Godistruth1]

Wow. After hundreds of years worth of human scientific endeavor, I would have thought people would know the difference between evidence and hypothesis.

I guess I was wrong.

U see i may not be going by the book. But what im looking at is something that can be verified. The link between the fossil records is a hypothesis and we cant be sure that evolution of human being happened as is described in the theory of evolution. You do agree it can be wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was having a real conversation until u showed up. I mean honestly. Im just gonna ignore u since u keep on moving away from real question on evidence which u are still to provide.

The problem is that you appear to be the sort that rejects evidence out of hand. And that is a terribly dishonest thing to do. You keep pretending that there is no evidence for evolution when there clearly is. This means one of two things, you either do not understand the concept of evidence, or you are lying. I doubt if you are lying. That leaves us with an inability to understand what evidence is.

And by the way, your claim is incorrect. Early on I did provide you with the definition of hypothesis, since you did not understand that concept. You merely denied it. That indicates that you are apt to deny evidence as well. Which in a debate is, as I already said, very dishonest.

But if you do not want to learn what is and what is not evidence I can't make you learn. You will only continue to make yourself look rather ignorant in your future posts. You will not be able to understand what you are trying to refute so you will be like a baseball player wearing a blindfold. Swinging your bat at nothing.

 

[Speedwell]

U see i may not be going by the book. But what im looking at is something that can be verified. The link between the fossil records is a hypothesis and we cant be sure that evolution of human being happened as is described in the theory of evolution. You do agree it can be wrong?

Potentially, scientific theories can always turn out to be wrong. But in the case of the theory of evolution, there is much evidence which appears to confirm it, no evidence against it, and no credible alternative theory. So, we accept it as is pending new developments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

U see i may not be going by the book. But what im looking at is something that can be verified. The link between the fossil records is a hypothesis and we cant be sure that evolution of human being happened as is described in the theory of evolution. You do agree it can be wrong?

We know that to a rather close degree. We know that we are evolved beings. We know that we are apes. It is merely the detail that is being filled in right now, and that gets clearer every year.

Scientists do not just form hypotheses. They test them regularly. They try to refute them and in doing so learn even more.

What part of evolution do you think is in doubt?