24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
-->
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051
Likes: 2
T
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
T
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,051
Likes: 2
You responded to the OP not by impeaching his facts or logic, but because he had not submitted his theory to peer review. I pointed out that that was an appeal to authority---a logical fallacy. You then denied that appealing to peer review to determine whether something was true or not is a fallacious way of thinking (even though it is). You then falsely accused me of misrepresenting the scientific method even though that was not the subject of your original post or any of my responses. You then accused me of overlooking or downplaying "actual evidence (genetics, fossil record...upon which theory is built) even though neither your response or any of my replies had anything to do with discussing genetics or the fossil record. Then you deny the obvious---that the big bang theory implies a "beginning" just as Genesis explicitly states a beginning. You think this concordance between Biblical religion and science is wrong because science has nothing to say about conditions prior to expansion but then go on to discuss scientific theories which attempt to account for the beginning of the Universe, such as whether it is cyclic or expanding within a greater system (in other words, you try to have your cake and eat it too). In short you admit science does indeed have something to say about conditions before the big bang, even though what it says is rather feeble. The salient point is that science now says the Universe had a discrete beginning. Genesis says the same thing. As far as science not dealing with gods, demons, goblins, etc., this is just you employing yet another pejorative strawman in a feeble attempt to avoid discussing facts and logic. Science and logic deal with inferences to the best explanation. This is the logic Darwin employed and it is the method Darwin's critics have employed to show that his theory is not likely to be true.

Last edited by Tarquin; 01/27/20.

Tarquin

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,664
Likes: 1
DBT Offline
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,664
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Tarquin
You responded to the OP not by impeaching his facts or logic, but because he had not submitted his theory to peer review. I pointed out that that was an appeal to authority---a logical fallacy. You then denied that appealing to peer review to determine whether something was true or not is a fallacious way of thinking (even though it is). You then falsely accused me of misrepresenting the scientific method even though that was not the subject of your original post or any of my responses. You then accused me of overlooking or downplaying "actual evidence (genetics, fossil record...upon which theory is built) even though neither your response or any of my replies had anything to do with discussing genetics or the fossil record. Then you deny the obvious---that the big bang theory implies a "beginning" just as Genesis explicitly states a beginning. You think this concordance between Biblical religion and science is wrong because science has nothing to say about conditions prior to expansion but then go on to discuss scientific theories which attempt to account for the beginning of the Universe, such as whether it is cyclic or expanding within a greater system (in other words, you try to have your cake and eat it too). In short you admit science does indeed have something to say about conditions before the big bang, even though what it says is rather feeble. The salient point is that science now says the Universe had a discrete beginning. Genesis says the same thing. As far as science not dealing with gods, demons, goblins, etc., this is just you employing yet another pejorative strawman in a feeble attempt to avoid discussing facts and logic. Science and logic deal with inferences to the best explanation. This is the logic Darwin employed and it is the method Darwin's critics have employed to show that his theory is not likely to be true.


You are still misrepresenting what I say.

The big bang is considered to the beginning of the universe, I did say it isn't. but it has not been established that this was the beginning of time.

In other words, there may have been time before the BB, the universe may be cyclic, an endless series of big bangs and big crunches or colliding brands, etc, or the universe may be an expanding bubble within a larger system, multiverse. In which case the beginning of the universe, the big bang, is the beginning of the universe in its current form or its current cycle....but not the beginning of time or existence of something, a singularty, a multiverse, quantum fluctuations, etc.

Nobody knows.

I said all of this, but you prefer your own version. Which appears to be typical of your tactics.

Last edited by DBT; 01/27/20.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,876
Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
Online Content
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,876
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Tarquin
You responded to the OP not by impeaching his facts or logic, but because he had not submitted his theory to peer review. I pointed out that that was an appeal to authority---a logical fallacy. You then denied that appealing to peer review to determine whether something was true or not is a fallacious way of thinking (even though it is). You then falsely accused me of misrepresenting the scientific method even though that was not the subject of your original post or any of my responses. You then accused me of overlooking or downplaying "actual evidence (genetics, fossil record...upon which theory is built) even though neither your response or any of my replies had anything to do with discussing genetics or the fossil record. Then you deny the obvious---that the big bang theory implies a "beginning" just as Genesis explicitly states a beginning. You think this concordance between Biblical religion and science is wrong because science has nothing to say about conditions prior to expansion but then go on to discuss scientific theories which attempt to account for the beginning of the Universe, such as whether it is cyclic or expanding within a greater system (in other words, you try to have your cake and eat it too). In short you admit science does indeed have something to say about conditions before the big bang, even though what it says is rather feeble. The salient point is that science now says the Universe had a discrete beginning. Genesis says the same thing. As far as science not dealing with gods, demons, goblins, etc., this is just you employing yet another pejorative strawman in a feeble attempt to avoid discussing facts and logic. Science and logic deal with inferences to the best explanation. This is the logic Darwin employed and it is the method Darwin's critics have employed to show that his theory is not likely to be true.


You still misrepresent what I said. The big bang is the beginning of the universe, but it has not been established that this was the beginning of time. In other words, there may have been time before the BB, thuniverse may be cyclic, an endless series of big bangs and big crunches or colliding brands, etc, or the universe may be an expanding bubble within a larger system, multiverse.

Nobody knows.

I said all of this, but you prefer your own version. Which appears to be typical of your tactics.


You are arguing against lots of folks a lot more respected than you. Starting with Albert Einstein .

No one knows? Only those who choose willful ignorance don't know from where the universe came.


"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,079
Likes: 4
A
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
A
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,079
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Tarquin
You responded to the OP not by impeaching his facts or logic, but because he had not submitted his theory to peer review. I pointed out that that was an appeal to authority---a logical fallacy. You then denied that appealing to peer review to determine whether something was true or not is a fallacious way of thinking (even though it is). You then falsely accused me of misrepresenting the scientific method even though that was not the subject of your original post or any of my responses. You then accused me of overlooking or downplaying "actual evidence (genetics, fossil record...upon which theory is built) even though neither your response or any of my replies had anything to do with discussing genetics or the fossil record. Then you deny the obvious---that the big bang theory implies a "beginning" just as Genesis explicitly states a beginning. You think this concordance between Biblical religion and science is wrong because science has nothing to say about conditions prior to expansion but then go on to discuss scientific theories which attempt to account for the beginning of the Universe, such as whether it is cyclic or expanding within a greater system (in other words, you try to have your cake and eat it too). In short you admit science does indeed have something to say about conditions before the big bang, even though what it says is rather feeble. The salient point is that science now says the Universe had a discrete beginning. Genesis says the same thing. As far as science not dealing with gods, demons, goblins, etc., this is just you employing yet another pejorative strawman in a feeble attempt to avoid discussing facts and logic. Science and logic deal with inferences to the best explanation. This is the logic Darwin employed and it is the method Darwin's critics have employed to show that his theory is not likely to be true.


You still misrepresent what I said. The big bang is the beginning of the universe, but it has not been established that this was the beginning of time. In other words, there may have been time before the BB, thuniverse may be cyclic, an endless series of big bangs and big crunches or colliding brands, etc, or the universe may be an expanding bubble within a larger system, multiverse.

Nobody knows.

I said all of this, but you prefer your own version. Which appears to be typical of your tactics.


You are arguing against lots of folks a lot more respected than you. Starting with Albert Einstein .

No one knows? Only those who choose willful ignorance don't know from where the universe came.



Einstein died in 1955. We've learned a lot in the last 65 years.

Unlike faith, science continues to progress.


You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,664
Likes: 1
DBT Offline
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,664
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Tarquin
You responded to the OP not by impeaching his facts or logic, but because he had not submitted his theory to peer review. I pointed out that that was an appeal to authority---a logical fallacy. You then denied that appealing to peer review to determine whether something was true or not is a fallacious way of thinking (even though it is). You then falsely accused me of misrepresenting the scientific method even though that was not the subject of your original post or any of my responses. You then accused me of overlooking or downplaying "actual evidence (genetics, fossil record...upon which theory is built) even though neither your response or any of my replies had anything to do with discussing genetics or the fossil record. Then you deny the obvious---that the big bang theory implies a "beginning" just as Genesis explicitly states a beginning. You think this concordance between Biblical religion and science is wrong because science has nothing to say about conditions prior to expansion but then go on to discuss scientific theories which attempt to account for the beginning of the Universe, such as whether it is cyclic or expanding within a greater system (in other words, you try to have your cake and eat it too). In short you admit science does indeed have something to say about conditions before the big bang, even though what it says is rather feeble. The salient point is that science now says the Universe had a discrete beginning. Genesis says the same thing. As far as science not dealing with gods, demons, goblins, etc., this is just you employing yet another pejorative strawman in a feeble attempt to avoid discussing facts and logic. Science and logic deal with inferences to the best explanation. This is the logic Darwin employed and it is the method Darwin's critics have employed to show that his theory is not likely to be true.


You still misrepresent what I said. The big bang is the beginning of the universe, but it has not been established that this was the beginning of time. In other words, there may have been time before the BB, thuniverse may be cyclic, an endless series of big bangs and big crunches or colliding brands, etc, or the universe may be an expanding bubble within a larger system, multiverse.

Nobody knows.

I said all of this, but you prefer your own version. Which appears to be typical of your tactics.


You are arguing against lots of folks a lot more respected than you. Starting with Albert Einstein .

No one knows? Only those who choose willful ignorance don't know from where the universe came.


Crock. Now you are invoking the argument from authority fallacy. Plus the God of Einstein is not the God of Christianity. Not even close. His was the God of Spinoza, more a concept than a reality.

IC B2

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,876
Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
Online Content
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,876
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Tarquin
You responded to the OP not by impeaching his facts or logic, but because he had not submitted his theory to peer review. I pointed out that that was an appeal to authority---a logical fallacy. You then denied that appealing to peer review to determine whether something was true or not is a fallacious way of thinking (even though it is). You then falsely accused me of misrepresenting the scientific method even though that was not the subject of your original post or any of my responses. You then accused me of overlooking or downplaying "actual evidence (genetics, fossil record...upon which theory is built) even though neither your response or any of my replies had anything to do with discussing genetics or the fossil record. Then you deny the obvious---that the big bang theory implies a "beginning" just as Genesis explicitly states a beginning. You think this concordance between Biblical religion and science is wrong because science has nothing to say about conditions prior to expansion but then go on to discuss scientific theories which attempt to account for the beginning of the Universe, such as whether it is cyclic or expanding within a greater system (in other words, you try to have your cake and eat it too). In short you admit science does indeed have something to say about conditions before the big bang, even though what it says is rather feeble. The salient point is that science now says the Universe had a discrete beginning. Genesis says the same thing. As far as science not dealing with gods, demons, goblins, etc., this is just you employing yet another pejorative strawman in a feeble attempt to avoid discussing facts and logic. Science and logic deal with inferences to the best explanation. This is the logic Darwin employed and it is the method Darwin's critics have employed to show that his theory is not likely to be true.


You still misrepresent what I said. The big bang is the beginning of the universe, but it has not been established that this was the beginning of time. In other words, there may have been time before the BB, thuniverse may be cyclic, an endless series of big bangs and big crunches or colliding brands, etc, or the universe may be an expanding bubble within a larger system, multiverse.

Nobody knows.

I said all of this, but you prefer your own version. Which appears to be typical of your tactics.


You are arguing against lots of folks a lot more respected than you. Starting with Albert Einstein .

No one knows? Only those who choose willful ignorance don't know from where the universe came.


Crock. Now you are invoking the argument from authority fallacy. Plus the God of Einstein is not the God of Christianity. Not even close. His was the God of Spinoza, more a concept than a reality.


I agree I appeal to authority. You are appealing to hope in what is not known!


"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,664
Likes: 1
DBT Offline
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,664
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Tarquin
You responded to the OP not by impeaching his facts or logic, but because he had not submitted his theory to peer review. I pointed out that that was an appeal to authority---a logical fallacy. You then denied that appealing to peer review to determine whether something was true or not is a fallacious way of thinking (even though it is). You then falsely accused me of misrepresenting the scientific method even though that was not the subject of your original post or any of my responses. You then accused me of overlooking or downplaying "actual evidence (genetics, fossil record...upon which theory is built) even though neither your response or any of my replies had anything to do with discussing genetics or the fossil record. Then you deny the obvious---that the big bang theory implies a "beginning" just as Genesis explicitly states a beginning. You think this concordance between Biblical religion and science is wrong because science has nothing to say about conditions prior to expansion but then go on to discuss scientific theories which attempt to account for the beginning of the Universe, such as whether it is cyclic or expanding within a greater system (in other words, you try to have your cake and eat it too). In short you admit science does indeed have something to say about conditions before the big bang, even though what it says is rather feeble. The salient point is that science now says the Universe had a discrete beginning. Genesis says the same thing. As far as science not dealing with gods, demons, goblins, etc., this is just you employing yet another pejorative strawman in a feeble attempt to avoid discussing facts and logic. Science and logic deal with inferences to the best explanation. This is the logic Darwin employed and it is the method Darwin's critics have employed to show that his theory is not likely to be true.


You still misrepresent what I said. The big bang is the beginning of the universe, but it has not been established that this was the beginning of time. In other words, there may have been time before the BB, thuniverse may be cyclic, an endless series of big bangs and big crunches or colliding brands, etc, or the universe may be an expanding bubble within a larger system, multiverse.

Nobody knows.

I said all of this, but you prefer your own version. Which appears to be typical of your tactics.


You are arguing against lots of folks a lot more respected than you. Starting with Albert Einstein .

No one knows? Only those who choose willful ignorance don't know from where the universe came.


Crock. Now you are invoking the argument from authority fallacy. Plus the God of Einstein is not the God of Christianity. Not even close. His was the God of Spinoza, more a concept than a reality.


I agree I appeal to authority. You are appealing to hope in what is not known!



You assume that what it says in old scrolls as having authority. It is the believer who endows their chosen old scrolls with authority, be it the Gita, Qur'an, bible or something else. This is an assumption of authority. In this instance, your own assumption of authority.

Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
AX24

464 members (1minute, 1beaver_shooter, 1OntarioJim, 2500HD, 219 Wasp, 1234, 49 invisible), 2,167 guests, and 1,212 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,193,267
Posts18,504,938
Members73,998
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 


Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.132s Queries: 29 (0.011s) Memory: 0.8577 MB (Peak: 0.9317 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-05-11 19:19:30 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS