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.
Hello Obliquinaut.The argument is always accepted that scientists don't know the precipitating cause of the universe. But by the same metric religious people also do not know.
The only difference is the scientist hypothesizes a cause, the religious claims a known cause.
Hello SZ.By the way, I never said that energy exists without a cause. I even told you the cause.
Hello SZ.You are not understanding. The only evidence out there is for a natural causation. That we cannot fully answer the question is not evidence for a god.
You are the one that should not be claiming a divine cause since you do not have any evidence at all.
You see, I am aware of what we know and don't know. I am merely not repeating your errors.
Hello SZ.
Energy cannot exist without a first cause.
Your claiming natural causation, simply because your claiming that events have natural causes. The history of the universe is a simple series of natural causes, thus there must be an initial first cause, a singularity?
So what caused the singularity?
Hello SZ.
You are my evidence for the existence of God.
Hello SZ.klutedavid, you really should watch this video:
I know, an hour is a long time to watch something that you will probably disagree with. But the physics is all very sound. It will help you to understand what scientists are talking about when they speak of the universe as a whole.
Like so many before you - you are trying to interpret why there are fossils within the sedimentary layers of the Earth.If it is true that 'life forms appear in the fossil record abruptly', where do you think that the first fossilised member of a species came from? I assume that you accept that fossils are the remains of animals and plants that were once alive, that you don't think that they were planted in the rocks by God or the Devil to test our faith or to deceive us.
Not quite. We don't understand the laws that may have come into play at that time.Hello Obliquinaut.
Science offers no causation, because the initial instance of the Big Bang occurred before physical laws came into play.
Totally wrong. Again, please support such claims with some sort of evidence.Hello SZ.
Science claims that no physical laws acted at the initiation of the Big Bang. Hence, science is not qualified to discuss the singularity, especially not the physical sciences. Mere scientific speculation.
Hello SZ.Sorry, but you do not appear to understand the nature of evidence.
What evidence would refute your God?
Hello SZ.Not quite. We don't understand the laws that may have come into play at that time.
A god could have been involved. No one is denying that. But no one has found any evidence for a god yet.
Hello SZ.
There does not exist a refutation of God, He is the principal cause.
I do understand what is claimed to be evidence by the scientific community.
I am not actually making the claim, God did that Himself.
I am simply pointing out that science is not qualified to speak of a first cause.
Hello SZ.
You cannot be serious, no evidence for God?
Science offers no causation, because the initial instance of the Big Bang occurred before physical laws came into play.
You cannot be serious, no evidence for God?
There does not exist a refutation of God, He is the principal cause.
I am simply pointing out that science is not qualified to speak of a first cause.
Re-read. The post specifies transition fossils. A sequence of succession.Thanks for confirming that you do not understand how science is done.
No single fossil can ever "prove" evolution. But when one looks at the patter of fossilized life there is only one conclusion that one can draw:
Life is the product of evolution.
ALL creationists explanations have been refuted. Quite often by creationists themselves since they tend to be self contradicting.
And there are countless transitional fossils. Your statement only underscores the fact that you do not understand what a transitional fossil is. Please give me your definition of a "transitional fossil". I can give you the proper definition of it and tell you how we know that there are transitional fossils, but since you made your claim first you put the burden of proof upon you.
And no, you never "learned" such facts.
I am betting that you simply run away from your unsupported assertions. You can't win a debate by doing so, you can only make yourself look bad.
Hello SZ.Totally wrong. Again, please support such claims with some sort of evidence.
And please, do not make false claims against others that you cannot support.
There are zero transition fossils.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?