• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evolution - and their take over/destruction of science

Status
Not open for further replies.

Arius

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 31, 2017
681
201
Phoenix
✟149,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
The historicity of Jesus, should be tested using the historical method, like all other written claims.

When this method is applied with any level of rigor, the majority of NT historians will agree the following has historical credibility:

-Jesus was likely a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond the above, there is little if anything about Jesus, that meets even minimum standards of historical review and credibility.

Now if they could find some fossilized bones of his, even a partial skull, or a jawbone with some teeth left in it like they found of Lucy, now THAT would be something! This could be reconstructed to the point we would know what he ate, what was his occupation, how much calorie intake he had, and his lifestyle, like if he prayed on his knees a lot or not? Now that would be proof that he existed.

But his message written by non-accredited scientists, by some goat herders and dumb fisherman about all that love, peace, afterlife mumbo-jumbo, .. well, .. that's not really proof of anything. In Evolution (which in itself means; science, history, truth and science, .. must emphasize the science part) paleontologists look for evidence, not some holy-books about some magical sky daddy, .. right?
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Arius

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 31, 2017
681
201
Phoenix
✟149,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
We have no empirical evidence that "kinds" (by creationist meaning, whatever that is) even exist.
Oh come now, you know "them kind', .. like those dark skinned kind like Ota Benga, .. them kind. Or the Aborigines kind whose skulls fill in a lot of gaps in the Evolution, .. err I mean scientific Theory!
 
Upvote 0

Arius

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 31, 2017
681
201
Phoenix
✟149,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
That is a new one to me, and I had to look it up.

This article indicates that that definition of kinds is based on a misunderstanding of how science works.

https://www.quora.com/With-regards-...m-one-order-or-class-or-even-genus-to-another

To sum it up, a change in family does not happen all at once, it happens slowly and requires a die off of the connecting species. So you won't see a species change into an existing family, but it is possible for it to change into a whole new family, over time.

Yes, .. a whole new family, in only one generation. What's that have to do with speciation from one distinct species into another completely different species, like a gorilla into a human?

God didn't create us, or anything else like it all just came off a production line.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Now if they could find some fossilized bones of his, even a partial skull, or a jawbone with some teeth left in it like they found of Lucy, now THAT would be something! This could be reconstructed to the point we would know what he ate, what was his occupation, how much calorie intake he had, and his lifestyle, like if he prayed on his knees a lot or not? Now that would be proof that he existed.

But his message written by non-accredited scientists, by some goat herders and dumb fisherman about all that love, peace, afterlife mumbo-jumbo, .. well, .. that's not really proof of anything. In Evolution (which in itself means; science, history, truth and science, .. must emphasize the science part) paleontologists look for evidence, not some holy-books about some magical sky daddy, .. right?

LOL
 
Upvote 0

Arius

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 31, 2017
681
201
Phoenix
✟149,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
I said that you can believe what you like, I've got no desire to try and convince you of anything, especially when you ignore what I say and plough on regardless with your strange parody of evolution.

I joined this thread to point out that what you said about speciation is wrong (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that given your ignorance of the topic you weren't lying)......



This is wrong because there are thousands of peer reviewed papers showing examples of speciation, of which I provided a few examples......


What Darwin's Finches Can Teach Us about the Evolutionary Origin and Regulation of Biodiversity | BioScience | Oxford Academic

Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands are particularly suitable for asking evolutionary questions about adaptation and the multiplication of species: how these processes happen and how to interpret them. All 14 species of Darwin's finches are closely related, having been derived from a common ancestor 2 million to 3 million years ago.

...........

Populations of the same species occur on different islands, and in some cases they have different ecologies. This allows us to investigate the reasons for their divergence. Closely related species occur together on the same island and differ. This allows us to investigate the nature of the reproductive barrier between them and the question of how and why species stay apart. Thus, considering populations across the entire archipelago, we can see all stages of the speciation process, from start to finish, at the same time.

.............

Speciation is completed when two populations that have diverged in allopatry can coexist with little or no interbreeding. Medium ground finches and cactus finches occupy different ecological niches, although their diets overlap. The ecological differences presumably permit coexistence in sympatry, in an environment (e.g., Daphne Major) whose food supply fluctuates in abundance and composition. To paraphrase David Lack (1947), the species are ecologically isolated through niche differences that evolved by natural selection in allopatry. The differences may have been enhanced by selection in sympatry, thereby reducing interspecific competition for food. But how do the species maintain coexistence without interbreeding? What are the differences that keep them reproductively isolated, and how did the differences evolve?

..............

The radiation began when the initial species split into two lineages of Certhidea warbler finches (figure 8) after the initial pathway had been taken. One group of populations (Certhidea olivacea) inhabits moist upland forest, and the other group (Certhidea fusca) occupies lower habitats on other, mainly low, islands. Remarkably, despite their long separation, the two groups have retained similar mate recognition systems, and for that reason we refer to them as lineages and not species .

.............

One of the warbler finch lineages gave rise to all other finch species. Early products of the diversification were the vegetarian finch (Platyspiza crassirostris), the Cocos finch (Pinaroloxias inornata) on either Galápagos or Cocos Island (Grant and Grant 2002b), and the sharp-beaked ground finch (G. difficilis). The most recent products were a group of ground finch species (Geospiza) and a group of tree finch species (Camarhynchus and Cactospiza) (figure 8).

...............

According to the standard allopatric model, speciation begins with the establishment of a new population, continues with the divergence of that population from its parent population, and is completed when members of two diverged populations can coexist in sympatry without interbreeding. We stand a virtually negligible chance of observing the whole process under natural circumstances. Nevertheless, it is possible to make relevant observations in nature of all steps in the process. We have described the strong role played by environmental change at each of the three steps in the speciation of Darwin's finches.

.......................................................


We have also observed examples of speciation in the fossil record, especially in locations that are favourable to fossilization....

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia

During the Eocene, an Eohippus species (most likely Eohippus angustidens) branched out into various new types of Equidae. Thousands of complete, fossilized skeletons of these animals have been found in the Eocene layers of North American strata.

In the early-to-middle Eocene, Eohippus smoothly transitioned into Orohippus through a gradual series of changes

In response to the changing environment, the then-living species of Equidae also began to change. In the late Eocene, they began developing tougher teeth and becoming slightly larger and leggier, allowing for faster running speeds in open areas, and thus for evading predators in nonwooded areas

In the early Oligocene, Mesohippus was one of the more widespread mammals in North America. It walked on three toes on each of its front and hind feet (the first and fifth toes remained, but were small and not used in walking). The third toe was stronger than the outer ones, and thus more weighted; the fourth front toe was diminished to a vestigial nub.

Mesohippus was slightly larger than Epihippus, about 610 mm (24 in) at the shoulder. Its back was less arched, and its face, snout, and neck were somewhat longer. It had significantly larger cerebral hemispheres, and had a small, shallow depression on its skull called a fossa, which in modern horses is quite detailed.


Miohippus was significantly larger than its predecessors, and its ankle joints had subtly changed. Its facial fossa was larger and deeper, and it also began to show a variable extra crest in its upper cheek teeth, a trait that became a characteristic feature of equine teeth.


Etc, etc until we find the modern horse fossils which date back about 3.5 million years.

.......................................

We can observe speciation unfolding in real time...

Speciation in real time

The Central European blackcap spends its summers in Germany and Austria and, until the 1960s, had spent its winters in balmy Spain. About 50 years ago, however, backyard bird feeding became popular in Britain. With a ready supply of food waiting for them in Britain, blackcaps that happened to carry genesthat caused them to migrate northwest, instead of southwest to Spain, were able to survive and return to their summer breeding grounds in central Europe. Over time, the proportion of the population carrying northwest-migrating genes has increased. Today, about 10% of the population winters in Britain instead of Spain.

This change in migration pattern has led to a shift in mate availability. The northwest route is shorter than the southwest route, so the northwest-migrating birds get back to Germany sooner each summer. Since blackcaps choose a mate for the season when they arrive at the breeding grounds, the birds tend to mate with others that follow the same migration route.

In December of 2009, researchers from Germany and Canada confirmed that these migration and mating shifts have led to subtle differences between the two parts of the population. The splinter group has evolved rounder wings and narrower, longer beaks than their southward-flying brethren. The researchers hypothesize that both of these traits evolved via natural selection. Pointier wings are favored in birds that must travel longer distances, and rounder wings, which increase maneuverability, are favored when distance is less of an issue — as it is for the northwest migrators. Changes in beak size may be related to the food available to each sub-population: fruit for birds wintering in Spain and seeds and suet from garden feeders for birds wintering in Britain. The northwest migrators' narrower, longer beaks may allow them to better take advantage of all the different sorts of foods they wind up eating in the course of a year. These differences have evolved in just 30 generations and could signify the beginning of a speciation event.


.........................

- Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands are particularly suitable for asking evolutionary questions about adaptation and the multiplication of species: how these processes happen and how to interpret them. Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands are particularly suitable for asking evolutionary questions about adaptation and the multiplication of species: how these processes happen and how to interpret them. All 14 species of Darwin's finches are closely related, having been derived from a common ancestor 2 million to 3 million years ago.

You see, right there, telling humans how to interpret animals after their own kind, and then they add after 2 to 3 million years those finches have turned into anything, .. like a flying lizard for instance, and then point to fossil record to prove it.

Yes, good observation Mr. Darwin: "All 14 species of finches are closely related!" you have found 14 finches "after their kind", .. very good. But what you didn't observe is: "having been derived from a common ancestor 2 million to 3 million years ago" That part comes from your Religion Mr. Darwin.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Heissonear
Upvote 0

Arius

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 31, 2017
681
201
Phoenix
✟149,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
So what would a change at the level of family look like?

Start with a species. That species evolves into two species, by speciation. Now you have two species--and you can create a genus. Keep that process going until you have so many and such a variety of species that one genus isn't enough and so you classify your species into two genera. If you have two or more genera you can create a family. More speciation and more genera and one family isn't enough so you classify your genera into two families. If you have two or more familes you can create an order. All this happens just through repeated speciation. I don't even understand what "change at the level of family would look like. Clearly it is impossible for a species to change from one existing family to another existing family. The only way a species can move to a different family is if that family is created de novo.

You said: "Start with a species. That species evolves into two species, by speciation.", .. YES, that's what I want to see, how does a species evolve into two separate species, when we both agree that "No family of one species evolves/speciate/morphs or give birth to another distinct individual species"!?
 
Upvote 0

Arius

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 31, 2017
681
201
Phoenix
✟149,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Hi Arius,
You rightly divided you first post Scriptures. And rightly infomed of a war with principalities and powers that have enveloped many, including many of those on Christian Forums Science Section, unfortunately.

Keep up the Shield. And the Sword.

Many are ensnared in what you have addressed in your post, that deal with Reality in our day and age.

Many have a background in religious principles, including when young going to Christian churches. Need I say they were churchy, and not sensitive to the Holy Spirit. At this point many are earnest in putting down the principles you presented. They find interest in coming to Christian Forums to push Christians around, in there eyes they see them as deceived, unenlightened, and twist science.

But you well know God On High will only bring Truth to awaken them by His doing, His Spirit opening up their eyes to verses in the Bible they need in order to be recovered from the snare of darkness that has them.

God recovered me from such, we know He can do the same for others.

May God lead and bless.

Wow, thank you and God bless you my Brother!

Yes, it is them (hiding behind the scenes) principalities and powers that I am hoping to bring to the forefront, to reveal them, their intentions, which is best shown in this relatively new but the most powerful, and most dangerous Religion of all times, this atheistic Big-Bang Evolution Religion that has caused hundreds of millions of lives by creating seemingly positive ideologies like Communism which is really what Jesus taught (love one another, do not see yourself above others, share with those who have not etc.) yet as we seen the death toll in its wake shows what it was really about.

Evolution and the BB-theory has taken over science, just as the RCC-under Constantine has taken over both the writings of the Prophets, and those of the Apostles.

Yes, I agree with you about: "Keep up the Shield. And the Sword.", .. only that too has been switched on us, from Ephesians 6:10-18 to Constantine's version of sword, with which he went to slaughter the last remaining Believers with his new Christian army who refused to bow to their Trinity-gods.

I also agree that it is God who will move anyone towards Him, all we can do is blow that trumpet, and make sure it is a distinct sound of an alarm (not somebody playing music to entertain, which is what the Christian churches are doing) Talking about sound, I found this interesting:


Nice to have someone who actually understands.

God bless you my friend.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
- Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands are particularly suitable for asking evolutionary questions about adaptation and the multiplication of species: how these processes happen and how to interpret them. Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands are particularly suitable for asking evolutionary questions about adaptation and the multiplication of species: how these processes happen and how to interpret them. All 14 species of Darwin's finches are closely related, having been derived from a common ancestor 2 million to 3 million years ago.

You see, right there, telling humans how to interpret animals after their own kind, and then they add after 2 to 3 million years those finches have turned into anything, .. like a flying lizard for instance, and then point to fossil record to prove it.

Yes, good observation Mr. Darwin: "All 14 species of finches are closely related!" you have found 14 finches "after their kind", .. very good. But what you didn't observe is: "having been derived from a common ancestor 2 million to 3 million years ago" That part comes from your Religion Mr. Darwin.

You originally said scientists hadn’t found examples of speciation, I demonstrated that this is not the case. Your answer shows that you don’t actually know what speciation actually means so maybe these debates aren’t really suitable for you if your level of understanding is so poor.

Your post also utterly fails to address the empirical evidence presented, mere hand waving only demonstrates your ignorance of what those papers show and why.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You said: "Start with a species. That species evolves into two species, by speciation.", .. YES, that's what I want to see, how does a species evolve into two separate species, when we both agree that "No family of one species evolves/speciate/morphs or give birth to another distinct individual species"!?

A) that’s what the links I gave showed.
B) this debate was settled over 100 years ago. Your ignorance of science is your own responsibility, maybe try reading proper scientific literature rather than creationist propaganda sites if you are genuinely interested in learning.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,144
✟349,292.00
Faith
Atheist
Ring species of seagulls, are seagulls on both ends, same with your beetles, lizards, moths, bacteria, all the different kind of apes, .. and the 7 billion humans covering every corner of the world, are still the same species.
Ring species are an interesting example of how speciation involves populations that, over many generations, have become different enough to be considered separate species. What you mean by "beetles, lizards, moths, bacteria..." being "still the same species" isn't clear - as you quoted in your post there are hundreds of thousands of beetle species alone, so they're clearly not "still the same species".

... why not get some camera on them, an entire population of them, and see when it speciate into another distinct species!? If it wakes up the next day as a seagull, or lays a seagull egg, you have no proof for this 'Evolution Theory'.
Because it doesn't happen that way; the population gradually changes over many generations; there is no overnight change. The process is analogous to the changing stages of human life; there's no overnight change between baby and child, child and youth, youth and adult, etc., life is a continuous process of change; so different cultures and societies make a decision on when they will consider a transition to have occurred according to some selected criteria, e.g. appearance of body hair, or voice change, or age in years, or arrival of periods, etc.

Declaring that speciation has occurred is a similar process - it means we've decided to distinguish two populations as distinctively different based on selected criteria, e.g. reproductive capability, or genetic differences, or stable phenotypic differences, etc.

We both agree that no distinct species of one kind has, or will ever evolve into another completely distinct/different species (like a duck into a crocodile, a gorilla into a human, a seagull into dolphin or whatever), not in the lifetime of the species.
No species will ever evolve into another existing or past species - they will always evolve into new species; and those new species will eventually evolve in turn (unless they go extinct) into one or more new species, and so-on. The species they evolve into will become ever more distinct/different from the original parent species until, many species down the line, they may appear to be completely different from the original parent species. Ring species show a speciation stage of this process in detail, where the intermediate populations between one species and the next still exist.

The tree of all life on Earth is the result of this process of branching speciation, where so many changes have occurred between early species and contemporary species that the contemporary species look very different from the original ancestor species, and the many ends of the branches (lineages) look different from each other according to how far up the tree their branches separated.

What you do tell me is that this does happen in the grave, and the proof is all the millions of 'transitional fossils, and skull & bones' they have on display as 'evidence', enhanced by Peleoartist's paintings to look like the desired "common ancestors" you are looking for, these paintings all lined up in sequences to give the illusion of speciation, .. like a gorilla morphing into a human.
Fossils are the evidence of past speciation of populations that lived in those times.

So why continue defending something that even you Evolutionists admit to never happens, that Evolution/speciation of one distinct species into another distinct species NEVER happens in real life, or while the species are alive!? We are on agreement with that, so why push your religious belief of something we both agree never happens?
You've misunderstood - a species can give rise to a new species and still continue to exist. If part of a population of a species is isolated in a new environment, it will progressively adapt to that environment over many generations, eventually becoming a new species. Meanwhile, the other population(s) of the species, if well-adapted to the original environment, may remain relatively unchanged; so you will have a new species that has branched off from the original species, where both species exist at the same time. This has often occurred when breeding pairs become isolated on islands, for example. Of course, given enough time, the original species (if it doesn't go extinct) will change sufficiently to be considered a new species too.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked

Should a religion like Darwinism be allowed to take over and destroy the core meaning of science, including the word faith?

The Godless Religion Darwinism has kidnapped the word "science" through deception, trickery and magic, and made it synonymous with the word 'evolution', and continues to redefine its definition in support of their own godless doctrines.

It has also redefined the word "faith" to mean "blind faith" which is what all Religions require;

Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine


By reinterpreting the word "faith" into just a religious concept based on nothing but blind faith (see synonyms of faith above)

Actual, Biblical definition of
Faith: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

True faith requires evidence with substance, while Religion requires 'blind faith'

in its 1,700 years existence has allowed tens of thousands of different denominations to derive from the RCC, which itself is the founder of the Big Bang Evolution theory.

Evolution:
1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.

Science:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.


The irony is strong in this post.

2 words: cdesign proponentsists

In this discussion, I ask Darwinians, who support and proselytize their BB-Evolution doctrines to;

1. prove that either biological or cosmological Evolution is based on "science"?

Pick up a scientific journal.

2. show why the word 'faith' can only mean 'blind faith'?

It doesn't.
It only does when you prefix it with "religious". As in: religious faith.

In the colloquial, every-day, use of the word, it can also mean "trust" (which is evidence-based).

"Religious faith", is not evidence based. It is "faith based". Faith based beliefs are not based on evidence by definition. Making it blind.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
No evidence you say?

What do you call the new Testament, that is not evidence?

The bible is the collection of claims.
Claims are not evidence of themselves. It is, in fact, the claims of the NT that are in need of evidence. And since such evidence does not exist, the claims must be believed "on faith".

It's what makes christianity a religion. If "faith" wasn't required, and thus actual evidence would exist, then christianity would not be a religion. Then it would just be common knowledge.

How do you understand the growth of the Christian church through the centuries, not any evidence?

In the exact same way as the growth of any other religion.

In 1945, scientology did NOT exist.
Today, it has millions of followers. And that's even during times that are also called "the information age", where an answer to just about anything is potentially only a few clicks away.

The world's religions are mostly of ancient times.... During those times, superstitution was pretty much the law of the land. Everything was magical because almost nothing was understood.

So seeing how EASY it seems to be to make people today believe just about anything, I have no problem at all understanding that it must have been even easier during the bronze age.

The apostle Paul said, there were more than five hundred witnesses of the risen Christ, that is not evidence?


No, that's a claim in need of evidence.

The messianic prophecies predicted the advent of the Christ, that is not evidence?

No because there is no way to independently verify them, as both the supposed "prophecy" and supposed "fullfilment" are in the same biased source. They are, again, just claims in need of actual evidence.

Scholars do not even doubt that Jesus Christ existed and was crucified.

That is not really accurate.

The Christian faith is a weighty fact with overwhelming evidence.

That is demonstrably false.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
False, faith is not purely a set of beliefs backed by no evidence.
Having faith in your spouse, is backed by evidence that your spouse is a good person.
Having faith that an elevator wont snap, is backed by the evidence that it's structurally sound.

True, but having faith that an undetactable non-natural entity is looking out for you and knows all your thoughts, is not really backed by anything.

It's just blind faith.

Religious faith in supernatural things, is blind faith not backed on evidence.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I noted that, there exists abundant evidence for the death and resurrection of the Christ.

What evidence of that exists?

Remember that the bible is the claim and claims aren't evidence.

Simply without the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christianity would not exist.

Actually.... christianity would not exist if there would be no people who believe those claims of christianity.

You ARE aware that people can believe things that never actually occured, right?

For example, muslims frantically believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse.
Do you believe that?

Because the quran says so and muslims believe it.
Following your logic, that would be enough evidence to not only believe it, but even call it a fact.

The existence of the Christian religion is the proof of the reality of the resurrection.

Then the existance of any religion is the proof of the supernatural claims of that religion being true.

The Gospel is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

Every religion is about something.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
That's what it means, having faith in Jesus, trusting Jesus.

The convenient re-defining of faith was a tricky trick.
Important to study where words come from, to know what you're talking about.

I can certainly say that I "trust" the undetectable cookie monster under my bed.

But I bet that you'ld immediatly notice that there is something wrong with the use of that word, correct?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Energy, infinite energy or approaching an infinite energy, sorry about that.

If science permits the use of undefined concepts such as, 'infinite'.

Science doesn't claim at all that the energy of the universe is infinite.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
To make the claim that there existed a singularity, is not a claim that is subject to a scientific test or even to falsification. The claim of the existence of a singularity, is a claim that an entity existed before the natural laws of science even existed. This claim should be rejected by the scientific community. Science is defined as observation, measurement, repeatable experiments, hard evidence supporting a valid theory through objective agreement.

Science cannot progress unless an idea can be tested and is subject to being falsified.

Any claim, theory, hypothesis, that cannot be tested is not in the domain of science.

The Big Bang as a scientific explanation is mere science fiction.

The Big Bang at the initial phase (singularity) is undefined, unbounded, not finite, thus cannot be measured or tested!

The big bang theory makes scientific predictions that can be tested.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.