Disproving Evolution And Big bang Challenge

[the atheist no god]

Hey I'm The_Atheist_No_God


I Have a challenge can anyone disprove evolution, big bang or proof god
with an valid agument that i cant come with a agument aginst


please feel free to try at my email : theatheistnogod@gmail.com

I Will try to anwar as many emails as posible


( this is not to say your nessesaryly wrong, i also want to know if there is
a good disprove of what i belive )

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Hey I'm The_Atheist_No_God

I Have a challenge can anyone disprove evolution, big bang or proof god
with an valid agument that i cant come with a agument aginst

please feel free to try at my email : theatheistnogod@gmail.com

I Will try to anwar as many emails as posible

( this is not to say your nessesaryly wrong, i also want to know if there is
a good disprove of what i belive )

Can I try?

 

[FreedByte]

- redacted -

 

[freezerman2000]

Welcome to CF!!

 

[freezerman2000]

Hey,I'm a TE,who believes that the Big Bang was the initial moment in Creation,and has faith that God exists,but can not provide any tangible evidence on the last part..2 out of 3 ain't bad,huh?

 

[nuttypiglet]

What we term the big bang is the process by which the Universe came into existence. There is no argument here from a religious side and so doesn't require disproving. God said he created the Universe from 'nothing', but this isn't actually quite true. God did make it from something, just nothing that already existed in the visible realm. He used materials from his own invisible realm and made them visible. It simply means nothing existed here, and then something did. It doesn't mean that God made the universe out of nothing, like something appearing through magic.
There are basically 3 possible reasons this fine tuned universe exists, perfect for life. The first being, it had to be that way, there is no other way it could have formed. This is of course false and can be proved. The second is that it just happened by chance. However, the mathematical odds of this happening with each of the many laws being 'just right' is profoundly improbable. The third is that the Universe was deliberately designed with a purpose with given laws to govern it This is the only option which is plausible. Astrophysicists hate this, hence the invention of the infinite Universe cluster, of which we are just one. Our Universe is not eternal, and was not designed to be. It does have a purpose, but that purpose is soon to end. A new Universe will be created that will be joined to Gods realm, so he can live among us and then it will be eternal.
With regards to evolution, I stick to the bible. Laws state that one kind can only give birth to the same kind. This is against evolution, but allows adaptation which we do see. Ever since someone dug up some Dinosaur bones, evols think they have wrecked religion. Some religious people try desperately to find ways to fit dinosaurs into Eden etc, but they didn't exist then. Dinosaurs were created, along with many other creatures, and they all suffered the same fate, destruction by God because they were not made by him.

 

[abysmul]

Disprove a theory?

 

[FreedByte]

Disprove a theory?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Can I try?

Maybe you should start with something easier, like gravity.

 

[KentuckyAtheist]

Disprove a theory?

Please tell me you know what the word theory means when used in a scientific context versus what it means in non-scientific discussions.

 

[nuttypiglet]

It does make me laugh when I see this question. A theory to non-scientists is just a hypothesis which has been around a while and not proved wrong YET. Theories are NOT facts and indeed are often tinkered to make them continue to work and theories throughout history have been proved wrong. I'm guessing that you will be asking proof of this too, because on the scientific side of the fence you can't take anything at face value.
The planet Vulcan was an accepted theory until Einstein came along with the theory of relativity. The Earth increasing in size was another theory until the theory of tectonic plates was raised. There was the blank slate theory, the aether theory, Einsteins static universe theory, cold fusion. You could write a book filled with failed theories.

 

[Oafman]

I'm guessing that you will be asking proof of this too, because on the scientific side of the fence you can't take anything at face value.

Can I use that in my signature please?

 

[nuttypiglet]

sure

 

[KentuckyAtheist]

It does make me laugh when I see this question. A theory to non-scientists is just a hypothesis which has been around a while and not proved wrong YET. Theories are NOT facts and indeed are often tinkered to make them continue to work and theories throughout history have been proved wrong. I'm guessing that you will be asking proof of this too, because on the scientific side of the fence you can't take anything at face value.
The planet Vulcan was an accepted theory until Einstein came along with the theory of relativity. The Earth increasing in size was another theory until the theory of tectonic plates was raised. There was the blank slate theory, the aether theory, Einsteins static universe theory, cold fusion. You could write a book filled with failed theories.

The advantage of science is that it is willing to change when new evidence comes foward. Only religion claims to be perfect and never changing.

A planet named Vulcan was put foward because of observed discrepancies in the orbit of Mercury compared to what Newton's laws predicted. Astronomers worked to test whether that idea was correct or not, until Einstein's theory came along and explained the orbit's behavior just fine. But there was never a Vulcan Theory in place.

The theory of the aether I will grant you as being an actual theory, and until equipment became advanced enough to give an accurate measurement of the speed of light there was no evidence to challenge the Newtonian model of aboslute space and absolute time. Once experiments were done that showed the speed of light was constant though, it cast doubts on classical mechanics and lead to eventually the theory of relativity and quantum theory.

Saying "well evolution is just a theory so why teach it to students?" would be identical to saying "well gravity is just a theory so why are you teaching that in schools?" Or the theory of electromagnetism, or the atomic theory, or germ theory? If you're going to discount something because it uses the word theory, you're not going to get very far in the modern world.

 

[Loudmouth]

A theory to non-scientists is just a hypothesis which has been around a while and not proved wrong YET.

A theory is a set of hypotheses that have been tested, and have passed testing. As you say, theories are not facts. Theories explain facts and help tie them together, so theories are just as important and maybe even more important than facts. Without theories, science would be little more than stamp collecting where you just collect facts but never attempt to see how they relate to one another.

I'm guessing that you will be asking proof of this too, because on the scientific side of the fence you can't take anything at face value.

I am guessing that you accept hundreds of scientific theories as being true. Do you accept the scientific theory that germs are the cause of infectious diseases? Do you accept the theory of gravity? Do you accept the theory that atoms are made up of small particles?

The planet Vulcan was an accepted theory until Einstein came along with the theory of relativity. The Earth increasing in size was another theory until the theory of tectonic plates was raised. There was the blank slate theory, the aether theory, Einsteins static universe theory, cold fusion. You could write a book filled with failed theories.

The difference here is that theories are allowed to fail unlike religious dogmas that are clung to even when the evidence is stacked against them.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Of course, until you 'prove' reality, all your theories are meaningless pies in the sky.

 

[KentuckyAtheist]

Yeah, that's the annoying part of science alright. It actually cares if what it teaches is real or not. It would be so much easier if it operated the same way that religions do.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Oh and religion does get updated. In fact some substantial translation errors have been discovered over the decades. Perhaps you should try looking over the other side of that big fence sometimes, it's quite nice over here.

 

[CabVet]

Oh and religion does get updated. In fact some substantial translation errors have been discovered over the decades. Perhaps you should try looking over the other side of that big fence sometimes, it's quite nice over here.

Haha, good one, tell me, which religious dogma was overturned in the last 2,000 years because of a translation error? I am actually curious.

 

[nuttypiglet]

If you don't know anything about religion, why do you criticise it?