Aron-Ra said:
you're making another strawman.
Not at all I was simply trying to cover every angle.
Ignoring every critical point is not covering any angle. Now get me the citation I asked for.
I never eliminated God as a creator. I only eliminated the anti-science claims of creationism.
What anti-science(?) claims?
Your rejection of scientific principles, processes, perspectives, and methodolgy, allowing unsubstantiated subjective emotonal assumptions of untestable magic to be used in place of science. That, followed by your other erroneous assumptions:
(1) that sacred scriptures were written by a god rather than the actual human authors,
(2) that any human's interpretation of their various and conflicting sacred scriptures should, or even could, be considered infallibly or inerrently accurate,
(3) that perspectives opposed to faith and religion somehow still require faith as religion,
(4) that accepting evolution requires the rejection of theism, if not all other religious or spiritual beliefs as well,
(5) that evolution explains the origin of life, the universe, and everything -rather than just how lineages diversify.
(6) that support for evolution is waning among scientists,
(7) that no evidence of evolution exists, or that it is invalid,
(8) that evidence for creationism actually does exist somewhere and is valid,
(9) that no transitional or intermediate species have ever been found,
(10) that macroevolution isn't what it is, and has never been observed
(11) that the Christian Bible is the only supposedly sacred doctrine out there, as if there weren't any Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, or Zoroastrian scriptures making the same claims of divine inspiration and authority.
(12) that evolution is "just" a theory and not a fact.
I still have The fourth option I already explained in the closing comments of post # 678.
You mean Anotherdimensiondidit?
No, the rift in space and time. All the evidence implies that the galaxies are flying apart now. So there had to be a single cosmic expansion at some point in the past; and quantum mechanics suggests that it was the sort of singularity which would exceed anything possible even of atoms deprived of all their internal 'space'.
Another dimension, (according to string theory).
And I suppose that dimension popped into existence from another dimension and so on and so on ad infinitum.
You mean like who created God? And who created the guy who created God? And what was God doing sitting alone in the dark for eternity before creating the universe? No, its nothing like that. Whether you're talking to string thoerists or Taoists, it was two different amorphous extracosmic entities in contact which prompted the rift. Myself, I think that if a rupture in the space-time continuum really is the answer, then it might be that our universe erupted from it like a bubble seems to appear in the bottom of a nearly boiling pot of water, along with myriad others just like it. That's another analogy, but at least its mine. It really doesn't matter to me what the orgin of the universe is. If we were 'destined' to know all things, then it wouldn't be this way. But we don't appear to have any 'destiny', and I think we'll all be extinct before anyone really knows the answer you're pleading for. That's why I prefer to concentrate on what I can know and can show to be true, like evolution, the topic you're trying to avoid.
Imagine you're watching a movie. You can pause it wherever you like, or even rewind it. You reference of time doesn't even relate to that within the sequence of the film. That's sort of what we're talking about here.
I dont think you know what youre talking about here
.. I certainly dont.
Obviously you don't understand the analogy. I do, but I won't pretend to understand quantum mechanics. I know a whole lot more than you. But quantum physicists know a whole lot more than I, and they've admitted to me that even they don't really know what they're talking about. No one does.
String theorists say it was a rupture caused by the collision of two dimensions.
So now its was twodimentionsdidit?Sounds more like the collision of two dementias to me.
Me too. I only even remember that much because it sounded so much like what I read in the TaoTe Ching of Lao Tsu.
It was energy first. Energy can be converted into matter and vice versa.
What form did this energy take?
Particulate.
if I had faith in them, I obviously wouldn't be asking someone to come up with a better explanation, would I?
Yeah, LOL. As long as you hold to it you have faith in it.
Even if I did "hold to" it, (which I don't) it still wouldn't be faith, because I'm forced to concede that big bang cosmology is the best-supported explanation available at this time. But because I still hold significant doubt that it is adequately accurate as stated at present, then I cannot have be said to faith in it even if I did "hold to" it.
Yet I keep proving my point,
The only thing you have proved is that you have faith but cant bring yourself to admit it
in these forums at least.
I cannot "admit' what is not true. Nor should you keep trying to project your own worst faults onto others who will not have them.
I cited every definitive source for the word, "faith", and you cited only one, one of the same ones, and you had to ignore every other reference and edit that one out of context to do even that. So no, you haven't proven your point about that, or anything else, one time yet.
and you too have proved my point every time you refer to the opinion of this individual or those individuals as if that alone is sufficient to prove your point
That never happened. So I demand that you support your accusation or retract it.
you have demonstrated faith and the longer this goes on the more you do so.
All that will happen between us is; you will falsely accuse me of having faith. I will prove that I don't have faith, and I will present you with some critically relevent point which you will thoughtlessly ridicule without consideration. Then you will again falsely accuse me of having faith, and I will again prove that I don't have faith, and present some new critically relevant point which you will thoughtlessly ridicule and ignore. Then you will again falsely accuse me of having faith, and I will again prove that I don't have faith, and present some new critically relevant point which you will thoughtlessly ridicule and ignore. Then....
All your arguments can be reduced to you being right only cuz you say so -while I have to provide proof of my position, and you automatically reject that too, again, only because you say so.
You have provided no proof for your own arguments beyond the opinions of others which I do not accept as proof.
Unlike science, when we're arguing over the definition of a word, then we have no choice but to turn to authorative sources. If it is a common language term, we have to turn to dictionaries, and I have shown a concensus of them to support me -just to prove that it is not based on the 'opinion' of any individual, but that it really does mean what I say it does according to every difinitive source. If it is a specialized term, then common dictionaries alone may not suffice. If it is a scientific term, then we have to cite the original sources and compare them for consistency, which I had done before ever using such terms here. If that word has special religious meaning, then we have to turn to the source of it too, and again I have -with consistent references to "faith" as defined by adherents and theologians, past or present, in sermons or in hymnals or even in "sacred" scriptures, be it the Bible or any other "holy" boot you'd care to talk about. None of these count as "opinion".
Now what's your excuse? Because in post # 675, you said you had more important things to do, and all this time, I've been wiping the floor with you.
I need no excuse since I am right which makes your last comment nothing more than wishful thinking.
Well that's obviously not the view of the outside observer.
