Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[AV1611VET]

AV, you can say whatever you like to anyone who'll listen.

--- thank you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Can adults just say 'no' to science as well?

That is --- you know --- without be considered ... well ... "funny"?

Sure. They're welcome to go live as savages. Just don't force that lifestyle on our kids.

 

[Doveaman]

*yawn*
Refute the argument or concede defeat. Your choice.

I choose neither.

As I said, house lights just don't cut it.

 

[3sigma]

We are still waiting for any Christian here to provide a single instance, ever, where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all?

Come on Christians. If it’s true then surely you can present at least one instance of it being true, can’t you?

 

[Nostromo]

As I said, house lights just don't cut it.

At least I did an experiment to show that the appearance of luminous bridges can happen when light halos overlap, even when the sources are separated by a relatively great distance.

You're content to sit there and talk down to people about a subject you don't understand.

 

[Jnwaco]

We are still waiting for any Christian here to provide a single instance, ever, where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all?

Come on Christians. If it’s true then surely you can present at least one instance of it being true, can’t you?

I'm still waiting for any atheists to admit that science isn't the end-all-be-all of finding things out. Surely you can tell us what caused the big bang and provide empirical proof. Some tangible evidence or observation evidence of the mutliverse... something.

 

[Doveaman]

Your whole argument has been based around the fact that the "anomalous" redshift objects cannot be explained by the current cosmology!

You are claiming that Big Bang cosmology cannot account for anomalous redshift objects, thereby falsifying the theory.

It would seem you misunderstood me. I am sure I explained to you that the observations are considered anomalous because the Big Bang theory which cannot explain them is flawed, and that the Big Bang theory is flawed because of bad interpretation of red-shift. But I guess you missed all that.

In fact, the official explanation of the NASA image states,

"Appearances can be deceiving. In this NASA Hubble Space Telescope image, an odd celestial duo, the spiral galaxy NGC 4319

and a quasar called Markarian 205 [upper right], appear to be neighbors. In reality, the two objects don't even live in the same city. They are separated by time and space. NGC 4319 is 80 million light-years from Earth. Markarian 205 (Mrk 205) is more than 14 times farther away, residing 1 billion light-years from Earth. The apparent close alignment of Mrk 205 and NGC 4319 is simply a matter of chance."​

​

That's not an explanation, that's an excuse. Besides, it cannot be an "explanation" and "anomalous" at the same time. If there is an explanation, then it's not anomalous. There is no explanation, that's why its "anomalous".

That seems like a perfectly fine explanation to me and even fits with the image that SithDoughnut posted.

Was it Sith or Nos? I thought it was Nos.

He used neither the observed physics nor the math to create the image. So don't be misled by it, because I am not.​

 

[Doveaman]

At least I did an experiment to show that the appearance of luminous bridges can happen when light halos overlap, even when the sources are separated by a relatively great distance.

What experiment? And what great distance? The house don't look that big to me.

 

[Doveaman]

That's probably not the best analogy since they almost certainly did evolve from each other in the sense that most auto manufacturers develop a style and then modify it across different vehicles, and then they modify it again for the next generation. They don't start from scratch with each, that's why you can recognise a BMW or a Honda, and often pin it down to within a couple of years based on design trends even if you don't know the model.

But the vehicles did not evolve by natural selection. They were all created separately. And the manufacturers did it.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It's a fact that life on Earth has changed over time, that much is clear from looking at fossils. It doesn't necessarily mean that common descent is true or natural selection, but evolution at it's most basic means 'change'.

That's where evolution the theory comes in to describe how this change occurred.

I was taking about the ape thing. There is nothing factual about that. It's not even a theory. It's an assumption.

No it doesn't. If something is unexplained it is just that, unexplained. That doesn't lend any credibility to any theory.

What it shows is that the better theory has an explanation while the other theory does not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure. They're welcome to go live as savages. Just don't force that lifestyle on our kids.

Saying 'no' to science is tantamount to 'living as savages'?

 

[Doveaman]

We are still waiting for any Christian here to provide a single instance, ever, where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all?

Come on Christians. If it’s true then surely you can present at least one instance of it being true, can’t you?

The "God did it" hypothesis is on par or even better than the "dark-energy" hypothesis.

The observed effect of "dark-energy" (rapid expansion) is said to be the evidence for "dark-energy".

The observed effects of "God did it" (rapid universe) is the evidence for "God did it".

We even have well evidenced documented support for the "God did it" hypothesis:

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. - Rom 1:20.

Based on all this, I think it might be more appropriate to call it the "God did it" theory, and not hypothesis, scientifically speaking, of course.

 

[MoonLancer]

I'm still waiting for any atheists to admit that science isn't the end-all-be-all of finding things out. Surely you can tell us what caused the big bang and provide empirical proof. Some tangible evidence or observation evidence of the mutliverse... something.

If its real and testable science WILL find it. If its just another unfalsifiable claim, don't hold your breath.

 

[Nostromo]

He used neither the observed physics nor the math to create the image. So don't be misled by it, because I am not.

I used a photograph enhanced to bring out areas of equal brightness, which is the same thing you did to imply a physical connection of two objects.

Let's say everyone just suddenly saw the light (so to speak) and accepted that Plasma Cosmology was the best description of the real world. What then?

 

[MoonLancer]

But the vehicles did not evolve by natural selection.

They could and would if they are alive, reproduce and have imperfect replicators. we would never need to create another car again. Evolution and natural selection would do it for us.

 

[AV1611VET]

We are still waiting for any Christian here to provide a single instance, ever, where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all?

Come on Christians. If it’s true then surely you can present at least one instance of it being true, can’t you?

In my opinion, history would just repeat itself.

1

Anything at all?

Okay --- how would you test someone who claims they can speak in tongues?

 

[MoonLancer]

Saying 'no' to science is tantamount to 'living as savages'?

It is when you currently reep the benefits of its research. By saying no you reject these benefits. Ofcouse man creationists like yourself want it both ways.

 

[Nostromo]

I'm still waiting for any atheists to admit that science isn't the end-all-be-all of finding things out.

This is tantamount to saying that you can't trust your senses to tell you anything about the world. If that's the case, how can you believe whatever it is you believe, regardless of where it came from?

If you study book(s) and the world around you and then come to the conclusion that an omnipotent deity may have created everything, that's a scientific hypothesis.

 

[MoonLancer]

The "God did it" hypothesis is on par or even better than the "dark-energy" hypothesis.

The observed effect of "dark-energy" (rapid expansion) is said to be the evidence for "dark-energy".

The observed effects of "God did it" (the Universe) is the evidence for "God did it".

So god is an empty explanation but a word to explain a phenomena and nothing more?

Rather if we said dark energy was a he, and that he didn't like sin and kills the babies of his enemies but loves us and when we die we will be at dark energy side... you know i could go on but i think i need to, seeing how how ridicules this is getting.

We even have documented support:

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. -

The anomalous red shift have been recorded. The same cannot be said for god creating.

 

[Doveaman]

So god is an empty explanation but a word to explain a phenomena and nothing more?

It's a scientific argument subject to falsification on par with "dark-energy".

Scientists cannot detect "God did it", neither can they detect "dark-energy", which make them on par.

If one is a valid scientific argument ("dark-energy"), then so is the other ("God did it").

The anomalous red shift have been recorded. The same cannot be said for god creating.

Did you read the verse? It's recorded:

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. - Rom 1:20.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is when you currently reep the benefits of its research. By saying no you reject these benefits. Ofcouse man creationists like yourself want it both ways.

So, in other words, every time I turn my computer on, I have to agree with science in general, and evolution in particular, or I should conscientiously abstain from using it?

Like I said, I pray the Rapture occurs before evolutionists come to power.

We "savages" look forward to it.