Why this debate forum doesn't matter

[Jjmcubbin]

PS: If you would like some evidence for evolution, look at taxonomy, or ask me, I'll paste the post I made a long time ago.

 

[KyleSpringer]

The Bible isn’t just “a book”.

It’s history. Provable, verifiable, accurate, history.

No one is siting her

 

[KyleSpringer]

The Bible isn’t just “a book”.

It’s history. Provable, verifiable, accurate, history.

No one is siting here telling you to stop studying history are we?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

The Bible isn’t just “a book”.

It’s history. Provable, verifiable, accurate, history.

No one is siting her

If it is provable, prove it.
If it is verifiable, verify it.
If it is accurate, why haven't geologists found any signs of a global flood?
If it is history, why are the stories included in the bible not taught in history, but rather history books talk of an era of spread of Christianity, but not the teachings of said religion?

 

[Theodoric]

There is not really any "evidence" for evolution, scientifically. There is simply material that has been interpreted from the assumption that evolution must be true.

Real science requires two things: observation and repeatability. Lacking those what you have is faith-based. Not science.

Creation seems absurd only from the preconception that God does not exist. But this is not a scientific proposition, it's philosophical.

Evolutionists choose to believe that a rock of infinite density floated around in empty space, then spontaneously blew up in violation of one of the primary laws of thermodynamics. To me, this is a silly belief. Certainly not scientific in any real or useful sense of the word. The only evidence for it is that we can seemingly trace the event backwards to a point in time and space.

But from a theistic perspective, this is simply the place from which God spoke.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

There is not really any "evidence" for evolution, scientifically. There is simply material that has been interpreted from the assumption that evolution must be true.

Real science requires two things: observation and repeatability. Lacking those what you have is faith-based. Not science.

Creation seems absurd only from the preconception that God does not exist. But this is not a scientific proposition, it's philosophical.

Evolutionists choose to believe that a rock of infinite density floated around in empty space, then spontaneously blew up in violation of one of the primary laws of thermodynamics. To me, this is a silly belief. Certainly not scientific in any real or useful sense of the word. The only evidence for it is that we can seemingly trace the event backwards to a point in time and space.

But from a theistic perspective, this is simply the place from which God spoke.

....this post is so full of wrong that it's not even wrong.

 

[Theodoric]

....this post is so full of wrong that it's not even wrong.

Explain. What is wrong exactly? Very easy to just throw that out and go away as if you've made a point.

 

[Theodoric]

Is it my interpretation of the big bang theory that you think is wrong? Please explain, scientifically, where the rock came from.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

PS: If you would like some evidence for evolution, look at taxonomy, or ask me, I'll paste the post I made a long time ago.

This is incredibly simplistic, and it would take a book (not trying to be punny) in order to explain why neither academia nor religion is a good thing for humanity.

Notice: I said academia, and religion.

 

[Theodoric]

This is incredibly simplistic, and it would take a book (not trying to be punny) in order to explain why neither academia nor religion is a good thing for humanity.

Notice: I said academia, and religion.

Well, you and John Lennon (still trying to get that horrible song out of my head)

Society without religion has been tried. It resulted in the Soviet Union. But next time, we'll do it better. After all, we are the ones we've been waiting for.

 

[Speedwell]

There is not really any "evidence" for evolution, scientifically. There is simply material that has been interpreted from the assumption that evolution must be true.

Real science requires two things: observation and repeatability. Lacking those what you have is faith-based. Not science.

Creation seems absurd only from the preconception that God does not exist. But this is not a scientific proposition, it's philosophical.

Evolutionists choose to believe that a rock of infinite density floated around in empty space, then spontaneously blew up in violation of one of the primary laws of thermodynamics. To me, this is a silly belief. Certainly not scientific in any real or useful sense of the word. The only evidence for it is that we can seemingly trace the event backwards to a point in time and space.

But from a theistic perspective, this is simply the place from which God spoke.

If your case is so strong, why do you have to misrepresent Big Bang theory? Why do you have to twist the discussion to be about theism versus atheisim when it is not? If you can't be honest about your opponents' position, why should we suppose that you are being honest about your own?

 

[Theodoric]

If your case is so strong, why do you have to misrepresent Big Bang theory? Why do you have to twist the discussion to be about theism versus atheisim when it is not? If you can't be honest about your opponents' position, why should we suppose that you are being honest about your own?

How did I misrepresent big bang theory? I simplified it, but I don't think it's fair to say it's a misrepresentation.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Well, you and John Lennon (still trying to get that horrible song out of my head)

Society without religion has been tried. It resulted in the Soviet Union. But next time, we'll do it better. After all, we are the ones we've been waiting for.

Religion is different from a relationship with a deity.

Religion almost always involves gross spiritual indoctrination system (along with its artifacts), and ultimately leads to cultural degeneracy. Socialism is a political indoctrination system just like every other political system. Academia is a scientific indoctrination system.

A world without religion - where there are no other men telling other men how to have a relationship with their Creator - would be a revolutionary paradigm that will never happen (when it does the first time, it will be a deception.)



I don't like John Lennon one bit, nor do I like his musical industrial indoctrination either. He doesn't have a point; I didn't say the world without [a] God would be the best thing for humanity. Religion destroys spiritual growth; the world would be better without religion. It will never happen, though.

 

[Theodoric]

Are you offended because I referred to the "singularity" as a rock? Sorry. For the record, I know it wasn't a rock. It's just a useful mental image. But how is the theory made better or more scientific by replacing my choice of words?

 

[Speedwell]

Is it my interpretation of the big bang theory that you think is wrong? Please explain, scientifically, where the rock came from.

What rock? The BB theory proposes no rock. Nor does it propose anything floating around in empty space. Last and most important--if you ignore the "rock" in "empty space" crap, and refer to the hypothesized singularity from which matter, energy, space and time are thought to have expanded--science does not claim to know where it came from. So if you think you are setting up for the standard creationist lie, "science says the universe came from nothing without a cause" you might as well forget about it.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

What rock? The BB theory proposes no rock. Nor does it propose anything floating around in empty space. Last and most important--if you ignore the "rock" in "empty space" crap, and refer to the hypothesized singularity from which matter, energy, space and time are thought to have expanded--science does not claim to know where it came from. So if you think you are setting up for the standard creationist lie, "science says the universe came from nothing without a cause" you might as well forget about it.

The problem I have is that academia does, in fact, purport itself as the truth. It is axiomatic at best. The big bang is axiomatic. The theory of evolution is not only a crude theory, but it is a crude and improper axiom. Just because something is an axiom does not mean it is right; it speaks more to the qualification of acceptance of something.

Academia also tries to justify itself as the truth by pointing to the millions of dollars in grant money it is given to do research.

The entire research apparatus is there to be a vector for verification and, therefore, canonization.

Academics cannot say on one hand that, "[scientific research] is not necessarily the truth, but a hypothetical model for the world around us" and then ridicule the people who take the research with a grain of salt because, "they refuse to accept science."



Academia, and its affects on society, reek of religion and its affects on human history.

 

[pitabread]

There is not really any "evidence" for evolution, scientifically.

This is entirely false and is usually predicated on a complete misunderstanding of science coupled with old-fashioned denial.

Which appears to be the prerequisite for believing in creationism if this forum is anything to go by...

 

[Theodoric]

What rock? The BB theory proposes no rock. Nor does it propose anything floating around in empty space. Last and most important--if you ignore the "rock" in "empty space" crap, and refer to the hypothesized singularity from which matter, energy, space and time are thought to have expanded--science does not claim to know where it came from. So if you think you are setting up for the standard creationist lie, "science says the universe came from nothing without a cause" you might as well forget about it.

OK, and thanks for actually answering instead of just going away.

As to my visualization of the big bang theory, nothing that science proposes is substantively different from a rock floating in empty space. You're just using sciency language to obscure that. So a hypothesized singularity which contained everything we now know as the universe suddenly blew up in violation of a known law of thermodynamics. But we have no idea where the singularity came from. It just was.

A useful definition of God, for me anyway, is intelligence plus force plus directed will.What science has done is taken God and subtracted out intelligence and directed will.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Explain. What is wrong exactly? Very easy to just throw that out and go away as if you've made a point.

Is it my interpretation of the big bang theory that you think is wrong? Please explain, scientifically, where the rock came from.

Yep, you're right, my apologies - I guess you haven't been here too long to see the thousands of statements and their corrections before so let's re-examine:

There is not really any "evidence" for evolution, scientifically. There is simply material that has been interpreted from the assumption that evolution must be true.

Have you seen the numerous sites on evidence for evolution?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent​

then Berkeley has a wide range of laypeople articles on understanding evolution

Understanding Evolution <== this links to everything below

Welcome to Evolution 101! <== Primer
Understanding Evolution Resource Library <== Contains a number of links such as:

What is the evidence for evolution?
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
​

so now the question is, will you read these links? Maybe come back and ask questions on anything you're not sure about?

Real science requires two things: observation and repeatability. Lacking those what you have is faith-based. Not science.

Sure. Evolution is observable and repeatable - in fact, so much so that it's a Theory all on its own, probably the most well supported Theory in all of Science.

Creation seems absurd only from the preconception that God does not exist. But this is not a scientific proposition, it's philosophical.

No, it is not even addressed by the science because of the lack of any verifiable evidence whatsoever.

Evolutionists choose to believe that a rock of infinite density floated around in empty space, then spontaneously blew up in violation of one of the primary laws of thermodynamics.

No they don't.

To me, this is a silly belief.

same to me too.

Certainly not scientific in any real or useful sense of the word.

Agreed.

The only evidence for it is that we can seemingly trace the event backwards to a point in time and space.

and all the observations and evidence that correlates to a very dense and very hot singularity approximately 13.8 billion years ago from the best science we have right now. The Big Bang model of cosmology has provided quite a number of predictions. From Big Bang Confirmed Again, This Time By The Universe's First Atoms :

"If anything could throw the Big Bang into crisis, it would be if a truly pristine sample of gas disagreed with the predictions of how the elements should turn out. But everything lines up so incredibly well, between the theory of what we should observe just three-to-four minutes after the Big Bang and the observations we make billions of years later, that it can only be considered a remarkable confirmation of the most successful theory of the Universe ever. From the smallest, subatomic particles to the largest cosmic scales and structures, the Big Bang explains an enormous suite of phenomena that no other alternative can touch. If you ever want to replace the Big Bang, you're going to have to explain some tremendously disparate observations, from the cosmic microwave background to Hubble expansion to the first atoms in the Universe. The Big Bang is the only theory that can get us all three, and now it's gotten them to greater precision than ever before."​

But from a theistic perspective, this is simply the place from which God spoke.

What verifiable evidence do you have for this asserted extra layer of unexplained and unexplainable mystery that causes more questions than it answers?

 

[Theodoric]

This is entirely false and is usually predicated on a complete misunderstanding of science coupled with old-fashioned denial.

Which appears to be the prerequisite for believing in creationism if this forum is anything to go by...

OK then. Your scientific evidence in support of macroevolution will of course follow.