An explosion does not result in life or balance or programmed order. Even if you were brainwashed into believing that crap as a child in school, like dimocraps were brainwashed into believing Rs bad, Ds good.
It's purely anti- scientific. Science proves the exact opposite. See of you can disprove science.
String theory is not the final word, it's not even the only proposition in town. Astrogenesis is a work in progress.
Unlike Faith, nobody is claiming to have the last word or the final answer.
The universe may be cyclic or a part of a greater system, etc, so regardless of religious claims, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, New Age or whatever, the fact is that nobody knows.
Well, yes, and the 5th dimensional me is a very orderly person and because of the principle of the Conservation of Disorder the this dimensional me is very disorderly. Why can't my woman understand this?
String theory is not the final word, it's not even the only proposition in town. Astrogenesis is a work in progress.
Unlike Faith, nobody is claiming to have the last word or the final answer.
The universe may be cyclic or a part of a greater system, etc, so regardless of religious claims, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, New Age or whatever, the fact is that nobody knows.
You obviously don't understand the word "faith". You use it all the time and don't seem to realize it. Just like the child and dog tracks in another thread, what can't be tested is accepted by faith.
String theory is not the final word, it's not even the only proposition in town. Astrogenesis is a work in progress.
Unlike Faith, nobody is claiming to have the last word or the final answer.
The universe may be cyclic or a part of a greater system, etc, so regardless of religious claims, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, New Age or whatever, the fact is that nobody knows.
You obviously don't understand the word "faith". You use it all the time and don't seem to realize it. Just like the child and dog tracks in another thread, what can't be tested is accepted by faith.
You assume that it's me who doesnt understand faith. You are wrong. You base your assumption on faith.
Faith is often used as a blanket term, sometimes referring to trust or reliance or good will, done in 'good faith' etc, etc. But the essential meaning of faith in religion is a belief held without the support of evidence.
You can find it in the dictionary. It's nothing controversial.
Religions are systems of belief held on the basis of faith, the Hindu faith, the Christian faith, Islam and so on...all being faith based religions.
Now, you probably don't like this, but it's just how it is. If you aren't sure, check your dictionary.
String theory is not the final word, it's not even the only proposition in town. Astrogenesis is a work in progress.
Unlike Faith, nobody is claiming to have the last word or the final answer.
The universe may be cyclic or a part of a greater system, etc, so regardless of religious claims, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, New Age or whatever, the fact is that nobody knows.
You obviously don't understand the word "faith". You use it all the time and don't seem to realize it. Just like the child and dog tracks in another thread, what can't be tested is accepted by faith.
As for the dog and child tracks, if they exist anyone who cares to can verify their existence. The problems arise when people start making assumptions about about them that is not supported by the evidence.
Well one thing I have noticed and you may have also observed is that as the belief in a faith has fall the violence in the world has exponential increased. Would like for you to explain that. Have a good day. Cheers NC
OP: whatever you are trying to prove has nothing to do with the video you posted, which is simply a summary of relativity principles which have been accepted by science for 100 years or so.
I suspect what you're trying to get to is, "you can't have creation without God because the universe becomes more disordered, not ordered," or words to that effect. (Layman's description of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.) If so, you didn't quite get there.
Here's where you're wrong.
While any process creates more disorder as a whole, you can create more order in a localized process provided disorder is created externally.
If that were not possible, it would be impossible to make steel our of iron ore.
I should also note that nothing in the video talked about any 5th dimension. Perhaps you made that up.
As for string theory and 11 dimensions, of which 4 survive, the theory explains certain things we observe in the universe but not others, and is not universally accepted.
Well one thing I have noticed and you may have also observed is that as the belief in a faith has fall the violence in the world has exponential increased. Would like for you to explain that. Have a good day. Cheers NC
You think Americans were more faithful from 1861 to 1865??
I should also note that nothing in the video talked about any 5th dimension. Perhaps you made that up.
As for string theory and 11 dimensions, of which 4 survive, the theory explains certain things we observe in the universe but not others, and is not universally accepted.
The point of mentioning string theory was the video started to talk about "hyperdimensions." Very new age. Dimensions beyond the ones we observe directly are hypothetical simply because we cannot observe them. You can mold extra dimensions into whatever you want. That happened (for better or worse, I don't know) with string theory. Equations were pumping out infinity which is obviously a wrong answer. Add another dimension and infinities go away. So if the equations tested at the margins start throwing out infinities maybe we'll get another dimension. (Is it the tenth that's supposed to be complete in Planck space?) Since it's all hypothetical why not?
You get these conundrums when you try to conflate Science and Theology.
At the quantum level, metal is a liquid, if your a rock. Its all frame of reference.
What happens in the physical world and human's perception to define it (control it) are different things and perhaps will never conjoin. Exemplified by the example of fuzzy sets (and their role in AI and neural nets) vs. Bertrand Russells "hard" set theory. None the less, the usefulness of any model is the isolation (linerizations) of certain parts to illuminate and inquire into some of the other workings.
Good examples in the area of the manifolds of differential geometry and Topology (not the map kind). Moebis strips, Klein bottles, the infinite square shown earlier, folding a doughnut into a coffee cup. However these only give a "picture" and higher manifolds are very difficult (4 and up) to visualize. In any case they do not describe the process. At what point does chaos return to order or vice versa? Generally anything over 5 orders is considered (Thoms theory) catastrophe. The field of Bifurcation theory deals with this area. A new area that has grown out of this is fractional derivatives. Looking at the fractal levels hidden in between what was previous considered as modern thinking.
good example is the arguments seen here in the hunting sections. . Is kinetic energy the big deal or is it momentum? Momentum cannot exist without kinetic energy, it is the first derivative if kinetic energy. what would the analysis look like if we looked at the the 1/2 or 7/8 first derivative using very small samples of time?
Faith--- hmm oh your talking about game theoretic modeling.
String theory is not the final word, it's not even the only proposition in town. Astrogenesis is a work in progress.
Unlike Faith, nobody is claiming to have the last word or the final answer.
The universe may be cyclic or a part of a greater system, etc, so regardless of religious claims, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, New Age or whatever, the fact is that nobody knows.
You obviously don't understand the word "faith". You use it all the time and don't seem to realize it. Just like the child and dog tracks in another thread, what can't be tested is accepted by faith.
You assume that it's me who doesnt understand faith. You are wrong. You base your assumption on faith.
Faith is often used as a blanket term, sometimes referring to trust or reliance or good will, done in 'good faith' etc, etc. But the essential meaning of faith in religion is a belief held without the support of evidence.
You can find it in the dictionary. It's nothing controversial.
Religions are systems of belief held on the basis of faith, the Hindu faith, the Christian faith, Islam and so on...all being faith based religions.
Now, you probably don't like this, but it's just how it is. If you aren't sure, check your dictionary.
"Faith is often used as a blanket term, sometimes referring to trust or reliance or good will, done in 'good faith' etc, etc. But the essential meaning of faith in religion is a belief held without the support of evidence."
This is the kink of faith you practice. You believe what is called scientific facts that have no way to be tested, much less proven.
String theory is not the final word, it's not even the only proposition in town. Astrogenesis is a work in progress.
Unlike Faith, nobody is claiming to have the last word or the final answer.
The universe may be cyclic or a part of a greater system, etc, so regardless of religious claims, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, New Age or whatever, the fact is that nobody knows.
You obviously don't understand the word "faith". You use it all the time and don't seem to realize it. Just like the child and dog tracks in another thread, what can't be tested is accepted by faith.
You assume that it's me who doesnt understand faith. You are wrong. You base your assumption on faith.
Faith is often used as a blanket term, sometimes referring to trust or reliance or good will, done in 'good faith' etc, etc. But the essential meaning of faith in religion is a belief held without the support of evidence.
You can find it in the dictionary. It's nothing controversial.
Religions are systems of belief held on the basis of faith, the Hindu faith, the Christian faith, Islam and so on...all being faith based religions.
Now, you probably don't like this, but it's just how it is. If you aren't sure, check your dictionary.
"Faith is often used as a blanket term, sometimes referring to trust or reliance or good will, done in 'good faith' etc, etc. But the essential meaning of faith in religion is a belief held without the support of evidence."
This is the kink of faith you practice. You believe what is called scientific facts that have no way to be tested, much less proven.
That's not an argument. You are merely asserting your belief in defence of your faith.
Not looking all that good for String Theory, yet still better than God theory...which, being a matter of faith, doesn't even rate as a theory.
Again you are showing your faith. Either the universe is self organized or organized by an outside force. One appeals to fairy tales of infinite nothingingness. The other appeals to an Infinite Adequate Cause.
String theory is not the final word, it's not even the only proposition in town. Astrogenesis is a work in progress.
Unlike Faith, nobody is claiming to have the last word or the final answer.
The universe may be cyclic or a part of a greater system, etc, so regardless of religious claims, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, New Age or whatever, the fact is that nobody knows.
You obviously don't understand the word "faith". You use it all the time and don't seem to realize it. Just like the child and dog tracks in another thread, what can't be tested is accepted by faith.
You assume that it's me who doesnt understand faith. You are wrong. You base your assumption on faith.
Faith is often used as a blanket term, sometimes referring to trust or reliance or good will, done in 'good faith' etc, etc. But the essential meaning of faith in religion is a belief held without the support of evidence.
You can find it in the dictionary. It's nothing controversial.
Religions are systems of belief held on the basis of faith, the Hindu faith, the Christian faith, Islam and so on...all being faith based religions.
Now, you probably don't like this, but it's just how it is. If you aren't sure, check your dictionary.
"Faith is often used as a blanket term, sometimes referring to trust or reliance or good will, done in 'good faith' etc, etc. But the essential meaning of faith in religion is a belief held without the support of evidence."
This is the kink of faith you practice. You believe what is called scientific facts that have no way to be tested, much less proven.
That's not an argument. You are merely asserting your belief in defence of your faith.
Again you are wrong. I am showing you you constantly depend on faith. What evidence to you have for something from nothing? Your faith!
Not looking all that good for String Theory, yet still better than God theory...which, being a matter of faith, doesn't even rate as a theory.
Again you are showing your faith. Either the universe is self organized or organized by an outside force. One appeals to fairy tales of infinite nothingingness. The other appeals to an Infinite Adequate Cause.
Not at all.
It is clear that matter/energy has certain properties and that it is these properties that shapes and forms the universe on every scale, gravity forming stars, planets, galaxies and clusters on the grand scale and forming interactions in chemistry on Earth and other planets.
There is no sign of a magic man orchestrating all of this, it is self organising on the principles and attributes of physics - electromagnetism, strong force, week force, gravity, etc, etc.
String theory is not the final word, it's not even the only proposition in town. Astrogenesis is a work in progress.
Unlike Faith, nobody is claiming to have the last word or the final answer.
The universe may be cyclic or a part of a greater system, etc, so regardless of religious claims, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, New Age or whatever, the fact is that nobody knows.
You obviously don't understand the word "faith". You use it all the time and don't seem to realize it. Just like the child and dog tracks in another thread, what can't be tested is accepted by faith.
You assume that it's me who doesnt understand faith. You are wrong. You base your assumption on faith.
Faith is often used as a blanket term, sometimes referring to trust or reliance or good will, done in 'good faith' etc, etc. But the essential meaning of faith in religion is a belief held without the support of evidence.
You can find it in the dictionary. It's nothing controversial.
Religions are systems of belief held on the basis of faith, the Hindu faith, the Christian faith, Islam and so on...all being faith based religions.
Now, you probably don't like this, but it's just how it is. If you aren't sure, check your dictionary.
"Faith is often used as a blanket term, sometimes referring to trust or reliance or good will, done in 'good faith' etc, etc. But the essential meaning of faith in religion is a belief held without the support of evidence."
This is the kink of faith you practice. You believe what is called scientific facts that have no way to be tested, much less proven.
That's not an argument. You are merely asserting your belief in defence of your faith.
Again you are wrong. I am showing you you constantly depend on faith. What evidence to you have for something from nothing? Your faith!
You are not showing anything. You are making statements in the assumption that your assertions are actually true.
In order to show or demonstrate something you need to produce an actual argument...and that entails an example, evidence and a logical explanation for your proposition.
You do none of these things. You just make statements in an irritated manner.
Not looking all that good for String Theory, yet still better than God theory...which, being a matter of faith, doesn't even rate as a theory.
Again you are showing your faith. Either the universe is self organized or organized by an outside force. One appeals to fairy tales of infinite nothingingness. The other appeals to an Infinite Adequate Cause.
Not at all.
It is clear that matter/energy has certain properties and that it is these properties that shapes and forms the universe on every scale, gravity forming stars, planets, galaxies and clusters on the grand scale and forming interactions in chemistry on Earth and other planets.
There is no sign of a magic man orchestrating all of this, it is self organising on the principles and attributes of physics - electromagnetism, strong force, week force, gravity, etc, etc.
You are again using faith to believe matter/energy have certain properties. You believe they get these properties simply be existing! That is the height of arbitrary. I can just as easily say matter/energy have no properties unless given and sustained by The Infinite Intelligent Energy Source. The very things you believe just popped into existence are the very things I use to demonstrate the need for a Creator.
OK, so what's an example of order being created without an intelligent individual applying non-random controlled energy?
How about gas clouds in teh galaxy condensing into stars and planets? Or many reproductive processes of lower animal and plant life? But...as yet we don't know how the first life started.
OP: whatever you are trying to prove has nothing to do with the video you posted, which is simply a summary of relativity principles which have been accepted by science for 100 years or so.
I suspect what you're trying to get to is, "you can't have creation without God because the universe becomes more disordered, not ordered," or words to that effect. (Layman's description of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.) If so, you didn't quite get there.
Here's where you're wrong.
While any process creates more disorder as a whole, you can create more order in a localized process provided disorder is created externally.
If that were not possible, it would be impossible to make steel our of iron ore.
Not looking all that good for String Theory, yet still better than God theory...which, being a matter of faith, doesn't even rate as a theory.
Again you are showing your faith. Either the universe is self organized or organized by an outside force. One appeals to fairy tales of infinite nothingingness. The other appeals to an Infinite Adequate Cause.
"Either the universe is self organized or organized by an outside force."
Where did you get the idea that the universe is organized at all? There's no end to the universe in any direction as far as we know and we'll never what's out there. Why worry about it anyway? We're all going to end up as buzzard bait at some point so just try to enjoy the time you have left on this beautiful planet.
.... I'm not aware of any predictions made by string theory that have be experimentally confirmed.
Well, it is a knotty problem.
yes it is and for that we can thank Knot theory, and using least coloring, can determine the order of the knot (eg.Trifoil, torus, and 4 dimensional manifolds.
Three strings walked into bar and the first one order 3 scotches bartender said we don't serve your kind here second string said give us 3 scotch bartender said like I told your friend we don't serve your kind here. third string tied himself in a nasty tangle, pulled strands out of his end to create a wild mop hairdo and said to the bartender give us 3 scotches bartender says your not fooling me, your one of those strings, 3 string looked straight in the eye and said Nope I,m a frayed knot.
Not looking all that good for String Theory, yet still better than God theory...which, being a matter of faith, doesn't even rate as a theory.
Again you are showing your faith. Either the universe is self organized or organized by an outside force. One appeals to fairy tales of infinite nothingingness. The other appeals to an Infinite Adequate Cause.
Not at all.
It is clear that matter/energy has certain properties and that it is these properties that shapes and forms the universe on every scale, gravity forming stars, planets, galaxies and clusters on the grand scale and forming interactions in chemistry on Earth and other planets.
There is no sign of a magic man orchestrating all of this, it is self organising on the principles and attributes of physics - electromagnetism, strong force, week force, gravity, etc, etc.
You are again using faith to believe matter/energy have certain properties. You believe they get these properties simply be existing! That is the height of arbitrary. I can just as easily say matter/energy have no properties unless given and sustained by The Infinite Intelligent Energy Source. The very things you believe just popped into existence are the very things I use to demonstrate the need for a Creator.
There you go making declarations again. The properties of matter/energy/space/time demonstrably exist. Electromagnetism demonstrably exists, nuclear energy demonstrably exist, the relativity of time is proven, gravity can be calculated to the point where we can land probes on other planets.
But nothing in the way of a magical creator has been detected, planets orbit because of gravity and mass, planets form, rain falls, rivers flow according to principles of physics, not magic, not a magical puppet master.
We understand that the world works on the principles of physics. We do not know why they have the values they have.
To assume that because we don't know why matter/energy has these values it must be the work of god, is a faith faith based belief.
It's a fallacy called the God of the Gaps.
It's not faith to realize that we don't know why matter/energy has a set of values, but it become a matter of faith to say ''God did it''
''The 747 Junkyard argument, also known as the tornado argument, is made by creationists and proponents of intelligent design and states that attributing the development of life to natural forces such as evolution by natural selection is like expecting a tornado moving through a junkyard to result in a fully functional Boeing 747 aircraft.''
''The tornado argument depends on the common fallacy of equating "natural" explanations of life with "randomness". Only a small part of evolutionary theory is actually based on randomness. Genetic mutations and natural genetic variation present in populations are, to a large extent, random; and the kinds of selective pressures encountered by individuals (predation, food supply fluctuations, etc.) are to some extent random in nature. However, the differential benefit of one characteristic over another in dealing with these environmental pressures (that is, the "fitness" part of "survival of the fittest") is not random. Some adaptations are clearly beneficial to the organism and some are clearly not. This means that Darwin's proposed driving force behind evolution, natural selection, is anything but random.
In addition, evolution doesn't work quickly by way of massive, uncontrolled forces, as tornadoes do. Evolution theory suggests that small changes, accumulated over extremely long periods of time, result in the current diversity of life.
Most importantly, the tornado analogy lacks the two main elements that make evolution work: reproduction (which enables "descent with modification") and selection (which enables increasing complexity). The lack of these aspects reinforces the improbability of anything useful coming out of the process.
If rephrased to account for time, natural selection and different outcomes, it should be asked what the odds are of achieving some functional transportation device from a tornado moving through a junkyard of airplane parts for three billion years, where any parts that combine successfully remain while any parts that do not match will not stay together, and assuming that no parts are ever damaged and they are interchangeable.''
Probably why no more than three people actually believe it.
Oh, there might more than you think. Flat Earth conferences are held quite regularly. Answers in genesis .org and their like spruik young earth creationism.
Well one thing I have noticed and you may have also observed is that as the belief in a faith has fall the violence in the world has exponential increased. Would like for you to explain that. Have a good day. Cheers NC
As the population of Earth has exponentially exploded, so has the rate of violent acts.
But as to the rate of violence per 1000 population? I think it is lower than at any time in history. It is certainly a lot lower today than it was in 1917-1918, or in 1938 through about,,,,,,oh say 1975. There might have been a bit of violence even back in feudal Europe and Asia. Remember that Ghengis Kahn guy, and Alexander, oh and Xerxes.
''The 747 Junkyard argument, also known as the tornado argument, is made by creationists and proponents of intelligent design and states that attributing the development of life to natural forces such as evolution by natural selection is like expecting a tornado moving through a junkyard to result in a fully functional Boeing 747 aircraft.''
''The tornado argument depends on the common fallacy of equating "natural" explanations of life with "randomness". Only a small part of evolutionary theory is actually based on randomness. Genetic mutations and natural genetic variation present in populations are, to a large extent, random; and the kinds of selective pressures encountered by individuals (predation, food supply fluctuations, etc.) are to some extent random in nature. However, the differential benefit of one characteristic over another in dealing with these environmental pressures (that is, the "fitness" part of "survival of the fittest") is not random. Some adaptations are clearly beneficial to the organism and some are clearly not. This means that Darwin's proposed driving force behind evolution, natural selection, is anything but random.
In addition, evolution doesn't work quickly by way of massive, uncontrolled forces, as tornadoes do. Evolution theory suggests that small changes, accumulated over extremely long periods of time, result in the current diversity of life.
Most importantly, the tornado analogy lacks the two main elements that make evolution work: reproduction (which enables "descent with modification") and selection (which enables increasing complexity). The lack of these aspects reinforces the improbability of anything useful coming out of the process.
If rephrased to account for time, natural selection and different outcomes, it should be asked what the odds are of achieving some functional transportation device from a tornado moving through a junkyard of airplane parts for three billion years, where any parts that combine successfully remain while any parts that do not match will not stay together, and assuming that no parts are ever damaged and they are interchangeable.''
Well said
Evolution's concept of time is the Fourier transform, frequency, and the repeated precipitated event has the highest information content in that entropy
in Bifurcation theory "Chaos theory" the garbage dump is the natural state, and the (plane, Bible etc.) is the bifurcation, and depending on the degree, can be "stable" or a "catastrophe" (cusp)
Again you are wrong. I am showing you you constantly depend on faith. What evidence to you have for something from nothing? Your faith!
Rich, I will not attack your faith. But will explain mine in similar terms. You believe God is eternal and omnipresent. You know not from whence God came, nor do you care. Correct??
I believe in conservation of matter and energy. I know not where the matter/energy of the universe came from. I know only that it exists.
OK, so what's an example of order being created without an intelligent individual applying non-random controlled energy?
How about gas clouds in teh galaxy condensing into stars and planets? Or many reproductive processes of lower animal and plant life? But...as yet we don't know how the first life started.
The outward pressure is greater than the gravity to cause star formation.
Not looking all that good for String Theory, yet still better than God theory...which, being a matter of faith, doesn't even rate as a theory.
Again you are showing your faith. Either the universe is self organized or organized by an outside force. One appeals to fairy tales of infinite nothingingness. The other appeals to an Infinite Adequate Cause.
Not at all.
It is clear that matter/energy has certain properties and that it is these properties that shapes and forms the universe on every scale, gravity forming stars, planets, galaxies and clusters on the grand scale and forming interactions in chemistry on Earth and other planets.
There is no sign of a magic man orchestrating all of this, it is self organising on the principles and attributes of physics - electromagnetism, strong force, week force, gravity, etc, etc.
You are again using faith to believe matter/energy have certain properties. You believe they get these properties simply be existing! That is the height of arbitrary. I can just as easily say matter/energy have no properties unless given and sustained by The Infinite Intelligent Energy Source. The very things you believe just popped into existence are the very things I use to demonstrate the need for a Creator.
There you go making declarations again. The properties of matter/energy/space/time demonstrably exist. Electromagnetism demonstrably exists, nuclear energy demonstrably exist, the relativity of time is proven, gravity can be calculated to the point where we can land probes on other planets.
But nothing in the way of a magical creator has been detected, planets orbit because of gravity and mass, planets form, rain falls, rivers flow according to principles of physics, not magic, not a magical puppet master.
We understand that the world works on the principles of physics. We do not know why they have the values they have.
To assume that because we don't know why matter/energy has these values it must be the work of god, is a faith faith based belief.
It's a fallacy called the God of the Gaps.
It's not faith to realize that we don't know why matter/energy has a set of values, but it become a matter of faith to say ''God did it''
You constantly assume your position is the only one. If it was so convincing why do phd evolutionists become Creationists? Your faith in the untestable is to be lauded.
''The 747 Junkyard argument, also known as the tornado argument, is made by creationists and proponents of intelligent design and states that attributing the development of life to natural forces such as evolution by natural selection is like expecting a tornado moving through a junkyard to result in a fully functional Boeing 747 aircraft.''
''The tornado argument depends on the common fallacy of equating "natural" explanations of life with "randomness". Only a small part of evolutionary theory is actually based on randomness. Genetic mutations and natural genetic variation present in populations are, to a large extent, random; and the kinds of selective pressures encountered by individuals (predation, food supply fluctuations, etc.) are to some extent random in nature. However, the differential benefit of one characteristic over another in dealing with these environmental pressures (that is, the "fitness" part of "survival of the fittest") is not random. Some adaptations are clearly beneficial to the organism and some are clearly not. This means that Darwin's proposed driving force behind evolution, natural selection, is anything but random.
In addition, evolution doesn't work quickly by way of massive, uncontrolled forces, as tornadoes do. Evolution theory suggests that small changes, accumulated over extremely long periods of time, result in the current diversity of life.
Most importantly, the tornado analogy lacks the two main elements that make evolution work: reproduction (which enables "descent with modification") and selection (which enables increasing complexity). The lack of these aspects reinforces the improbability of anything useful coming out of the process.
If rephrased to account for time, natural selection and different outcomes, it should be asked what the odds are of achieving some functional transportation device from a tornado moving through a junkyard of airplane parts for three billion years, where any parts that combine successfully remain while any parts that do not match will not stay together, and assuming that no parts are ever damaged and they are interchangeable.''
You seem to think a lot of words substitute for the truth. Evolution stared by random actions. The idea of randomness assembled the necessary constituents of life. Survival of the fittest is also random. Otherwise it would be directed and evolution is contrary to the concept of directed.
Again you are wrong. I am showing you you constantly depend on faith. What evidence to you have for something from nothing? Your faith!
Rich, I will not attack your faith. But will explain mine in similar terms. You believe God is eternal and omnipresent. You know not from whence God came, nor do you care. Correct??
I believe in conservation of matter and energy. I know not where the matter/energy of the universe came from. I know only that it exists.
Our faith is actually quite comparable.
You are mistaken. I know Infinite Intelligent Energy had no beginning. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and be omnipresent. All matter and energy come from Him. He created conservation of energy AND entropy.
Ringman, thanks. I choose not to argue with DBT as I have better things to do. I will from time to time presents explanations of mine or others regarding GODs word or prophecies, fulfilled by this time or soon to be so.
I have no interest in trying to convince any of Gods fallen Angel's (spell check )or Satans minions.
Likewise, it's not worthwhile to explain to zero or Hillary how they are traitors.
AFAIC even if all the elements were present and an explosion caused a spark of life that became a single cell which could, if it desired to continue to live (humm, low IQ life along with a drive to live?) replicate by dividing, why would it decide to give up that simple ability and decide to want to become specialized into a more complex life form involving two different sexes and thus the increased efforts that would require to multiply. The more those life forms specialized and became more complicated, less numbers of the resultant life form would be able to exist, resulting in less chance of the species survival. There are a lot more ameboas on this earth than there are lions.
Even then, the question of where did the elements come from in the first place dont add up to point to support for their explanation of how life began.
Feral hogs left in the wild long enough revert back to less specialized forms of pigs. Their tail straightens and they lose their more specialized color variations. It's fine with me whatever they believe.
Chuck should publish his thesis for peer review...oh, that's right, he's an evangelist spruiking faith, not an astrophysist.
A community service provided for the sake of balance.
I've not seen the video. I only want to point out making "peer review" the arbiter of truth is to employ a logical fallacy---an appeal to authority. A scientific proposition is either true or not based on its predicate facts, premises and conclusions, not because it has been approved by someone or some group of thinkers. That's very sloppy thinking.
Not looking all that good for String Theory, yet still better than God theory...which, being a matter of faith, doesn't even rate as a theory.
Again you are showing your faith. Either the universe is self organized or organized by an outside force. One appeals to fairy tales of infinite nothingingness. The other appeals to an Infinite Adequate Cause.
Not at all.
It is clear that matter/energy has certain properties and that it is these properties that shapes and forms the universe on every scale, gravity forming stars, planets, galaxies and clusters on the grand scale and forming interactions in chemistry on Earth and other planets.
There is no sign of a magic man orchestrating all of this, it is self organising on the principles and attributes of physics - electromagnetism, strong force, week force, gravity, etc, etc.
You are again using faith to believe matter/energy have certain properties. You believe they get these properties simply be existing! That is the height of arbitrary. I can just as easily say matter/energy have no properties unless given and sustained by The Infinite Intelligent Energy Source. The very things you believe just popped into existence are the very things I use to demonstrate the need for a Creator.
There you go making declarations again. The properties of matter/energy/space/time demonstrably exist. Electromagnetism demonstrably exists, nuclear energy demonstrably exist, the relativity of time is proven, gravity can be calculated to the point where we can land probes on other planets.
But nothing in the way of a magical creator has been detected, planets orbit because of gravity and mass, planets form, rain falls, rivers flow according to principles of physics, not magic, not a magical puppet master.
We understand that the world works on the principles of physics. We do not know why they have the values they have.
To assume that because we don't know why matter/energy has these values it must be the work of god, is a faith faith based belief.
It's a fallacy called the God of the Gaps.
It's not faith to realize that we don't know why matter/energy has a set of values, but it become a matter of faith to say ''God did it''
You constantly assume your position is the only one. If it was so convincing why do phd evolutionists become Creationists? Your faith in the untestable is to be lauded.
It's not my assumption or my position. Evolution is an established fact, organisms evolve. The only question being the mechanisms and drivers of evolution.
As to why some PhD's become creationist, that is a matter of their personal belief and not a matter of science....
The natural instinct for survival would preclude the protozoan to divide itself.
The presence of life does not necessarily require the presence of an instinct for survival. In fact, often life exists beyond the desire or drive for the instinct for survival.
Not looking all that good for String Theory, yet still better than God theory...which, being a matter of faith, doesn't even rate as a theory.
Again you are showing your faith. Either the universe is self organized or organized by an outside force. One appeals to fairy tales of infinite nothingingness. The other appeals to an Infinite Adequate Cause.
Not at all.
It is clear that matter/energy has certain properties and that it is these properties that shapes and forms the universe on every scale, gravity forming stars, planets, galaxies and clusters on the grand scale and forming interactions in chemistry on Earth and other planets.
There is no sign of a magic man orchestrating all of this, it is self organising on the principles and attributes of physics - electromagnetism, strong force, week force, gravity, etc, etc.
You are again using faith to believe matter/energy have certain properties. You believe they get these properties simply be existing! That is the height of arbitrary. I can just as easily say matter/energy have no properties unless given and sustained by The Infinite Intelligent Energy Source. The very things you believe just popped into existence are the very things I use to demonstrate the need for a Creator.
There you go making declarations again. The properties of matter/energy/space/time demonstrably exist. Electromagnetism demonstrably exists, nuclear energy demonstrably exist, the relativity of time is proven, gravity can be calculated to the point where we can land probes on other planets.
But nothing in the way of a magical creator has been detected, planets orbit because of gravity and mass, planets form, rain falls, rivers flow according to principles of physics, not magic, not a magical puppet master.
We understand that the world works on the principles of physics. We do not know why they have the values they have.
To assume that because we don't know why matter/energy has these values it must be the work of god, is a faith faith based belief.
It's a fallacy called the God of the Gaps.
It's not faith to realize that we don't know why matter/energy has a set of values, but it become a matter of faith to say ''God did it''
You constantly assume your position is the only one. If it was so convincing why do phd evolutionists become Creationists? Your faith in the untestable is to be lauded.
It's not my assumption or my position. Evolution is an established fact, organisms evolve. The only question being the mechanisms and drivers of evolution.
As to why some PhD's become creationist, that is a matter of their personal belief and not a matter of science....
Whether it is an established fact depends on what you mean by evolution. Until you define the term, your merely arguing by assertion, which is to say you're making no sensible argument at all.
Not looking all that good for String Theory, yet still better than God theory...which, being a matter of faith, doesn't even rate as a theory.
Again you are showing your faith. Either the universe is self organized or organized by an outside force. One appeals to fairy tales of infinite nothingingness. The other appeals to an Infinite Adequate Cause.
Not at all.
It is clear that matter/energy has certain properties and that it is these properties that shapes and forms the universe on every scale, gravity forming stars, planets, galaxies and clusters on the grand scale and forming interactions in chemistry on Earth and other planets.
There is no sign of a magic man orchestrating all of this, it is self organising on the principles and attributes of physics - electromagnetism, strong force, week force, gravity, etc, etc.
You are again using faith to believe matter/energy have certain properties. You believe they get these properties simply be existing! That is the height of arbitrary. I can just as easily say matter/energy have no properties unless given and sustained by The Infinite Intelligent Energy Source. The very things you believe just popped into existence are the very things I use to demonstrate the need for a Creator.
There you go making declarations again. The properties of matter/energy/space/time demonstrably exist. Electromagnetism demonstrably exists, nuclear energy demonstrably exist, the relativity of time is proven, gravity can be calculated to the point where we can land probes on other planets.
But nothing in the way of a magical creator has been detected, planets orbit because of gravity and mass, planets form, rain falls, rivers flow according to principles of physics, not magic, not a magical puppet master.
We understand that the world works on the principles of physics. We do not know why they have the values they have.
To assume that because we don't know why matter/energy has these values it must be the work of god, is a faith faith based belief.
It's a fallacy called the God of the Gaps.
It's not faith to realize that we don't know why matter/energy has a set of values, but it become a matter of faith to say ''God did it''
You constantly assume your position is the only one. If it was so convincing why do phd evolutionists become Creationists? Your faith in the untestable is to be lauded.
It's not my assumption or my position. Evolution is an established fact, organisms evolve. The only question being the mechanisms and drivers of evolution.
As to why some PhD's become creationist, that is a matter of their personal belief and not a matter of science....
Nonsense. James Tour doubts evolution on the basis of scientific evidence, or rather, the lack thereof.
Again you are wrong. I am showing you you constantly depend on faith. What evidence to you have for something from nothing? Your faith!
Rich, I will not attack your faith. But will explain mine in similar terms. You believe God is eternal and omnipresent. You know not from whence God came, nor do you care. Correct??
I believe in conservation of matter and energy. I know not where the matter/energy of the universe came from. I know only that it exists.
Our faith is actually quite comparable.
You are mistaken. I know Infinite Intelligent Energy had no beginning. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and be omnipresent. All matter and energy come from Him. He created conservation of energy AND entropy.
You don't know any such thing. You appear to be conflating knowledge with faith.
Nor is it a solution to propose an even more complex assumption, a God (whatever that is), as an explanation for a vast and complex universe.
Chuck should publish his thesis for peer review...oh, that's right, he's an evangelist spruiking faith, not an astrophysist.
A community service provided for the sake of balance.
I've not seen the video. I only want to point out making "peer review" the arbiter of truth is to employ a logical fallacy---an appeal to authority. A scientific proposition is either true or not based on its predicate facts, premises and conclusions, not because it has been approved by someone or some group of thinkers. That's very sloppy thinking.
It's not an appeal to authority to have someone knowledgeable in the field to review your work in order to pick up any flaws or mistakes.
That is what makes science the most successful method of discovery in the history of humankind.
And the absence and discouragement of questioning is what makes religion and faith the worst, dogma, contradictions, resentment of questioning, etc.
Not looking all that good for String Theory, yet still better than God theory...which, being a matter of faith, doesn't even rate as a theory.
Again you are showing your faith. Either the universe is self organized or organized by an outside force. One appeals to fairy tales of infinite nothingingness. The other appeals to an Infinite Adequate Cause.
Not at all.
It is clear that matter/energy has certain properties and that it is these properties that shapes and forms the universe on every scale, gravity forming stars, planets, galaxies and clusters on the grand scale and forming interactions in chemistry on Earth and other planets.
There is no sign of a magic man orchestrating all of this, it is self organising on the principles and attributes of physics - electromagnetism, strong force, week force, gravity, etc, etc.
You are again using faith to believe matter/energy have certain properties. You believe they get these properties simply be existing! That is the height of arbitrary. I can just as easily say matter/energy have no properties unless given and sustained by The Infinite Intelligent Energy Source. The very things you believe just popped into existence are the very things I use to demonstrate the need for a Creator.
There you go making declarations again. The properties of matter/energy/space/time demonstrably exist. Electromagnetism demonstrably exists, nuclear energy demonstrably exist, the relativity of time is proven, gravity can be calculated to the point where we can land probes on other planets.
But nothing in the way of a magical creator has been detected, planets orbit because of gravity and mass, planets form, rain falls, rivers flow according to principles of physics, not magic, not a magical puppet master.
We understand that the world works on the principles of physics. We do not know why they have the values they have.
To assume that because we don't know why matter/energy has these values it must be the work of god, is a faith faith based belief.
It's a fallacy called the God of the Gaps.
It's not faith to realize that we don't know why matter/energy has a set of values, but it become a matter of faith to say ''God did it''
You constantly assume your position is the only one. If it was so convincing why do phd evolutionists become Creationists? Your faith in the untestable is to be lauded.
It's not my assumption or my position. Evolution is an established fact, organisms evolve. The only question being the mechanisms and drivers of evolution.
As to why some PhD's become creationist, that is a matter of their personal belief and not a matter of science....
Nonsense. James Tour doubts evolution on the basis of scientific evidence, or rather, the lack thereof.
More like his own flawed interpretation of evidence. An interpretation that is not shared by the vast majority who work in the field, or anyone who is not looking at the world through the filter of faith.
OK, so what's an example of order being created without an intelligent individual applying non-random controlled energy?
How about gas clouds in teh galaxy condensing into stars and planets? Or many reproductive processes of lower animal and plant life? But...as yet we don't know how the first life started.
The outward pressure is greater than the gravity to cause star formation.
Simply not true. Try telling that to an astrophysicist.
Again you are wrong. I am showing you you constantly depend on faith. What evidence to you have for something from nothing? Your faith!
Rich, I will not attack your faith. But will explain mine in similar terms. You believe God is eternal and omnipresent. You know not from whence God came, nor do you care. Correct??
I believe in conservation of matter and energy. I know not where the matter/energy of the universe came from. I know only that it exists.
Our faith is actually quite comparable.
You are mistaken. I know Infinite Intelligent Energy had no beginning. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and be omnipresent. All matter and energy come from Him. He created conservation of energy AND entropy.
You don't know any such thing. You appear to be conflating knowledge with faith.
Nor is it a solution to propose an even more complex assumption, a God (whatever that is), as an explanation for a vast and complex universe.
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Originally Posted by DBT
Chuck should publish his thesis for peer review...oh, that's right, he's an evangelist spruiking faith, not an astrophysist.
A community service provided for the sake of balance.
I've not seen the video. I only want to point out making "peer review" the arbiter of truth is to employ a logical fallacy---an appeal to authority. A scientific proposition is either true or not based on its predicate facts, premises and conclusions, not because it has been approved by someone or some group of thinkers. That's very sloppy thinking.
It's not an appeal to authority to have someone knowledgeable in the field to review your work in order to pick up any flaws or mistakes.
That is what makes science the most successful method of discovery in the history of humankind.
And the absence and discouragement of questioning is what makes religion and faith the worst, dogma, contradictions, resentment of questioning, etc.
It most assuredly is an appeal to authority when you imply that the only way to establish the truth of a postulate is to have others learned in the field confirm its truth. Your preferred mechanism for achieving that is "peer review" (since you faulted the video initiating this thread on the basis of a lack of peer review rather than attacking its facts and logic) but truth is not established by the consensus opinion of experts. That is indeed a fallacy---an appeal to authority. It is certainly possible the experts will arrive at the correct conclusion but often, they do not (witness global warming/cooling/the food pyramid, etc.). That however, is quite beside the point, the truth isn't so because consensus of experts declare it thus, but because the factual predicates, premises and conclusions of any proposition under consideration are themselves demonstrably true. This happy outcome is is not something established by a consensus of experts. If some experts ultimately arrive at the truth, it is on the same basis as everyone else, not on the basis of them constituting a "group of experts" specially endowed by virtue of education or training to decide what is truye. It is certainly true that reason and the ability of a postulate to be falsified have contributed mightily to the discovery of truth, but all of that is predicated on the premise that the mind is free to apprehend truth. This is something virtually all religions agree with but which the philosophy of materialism (your a priori metaphysical commitment) denies.
Again you are wrong. I am showing you you constantly depend on faith. What evidence to you have for something from nothing? Your faith!
Rich, I will not attack your faith. But will explain mine in similar terms. You believe God is eternal and omnipresent. You know not from whence God came, nor do you care. Correct??
I believe in conservation of matter and energy. I know not where the matter/energy of the universe came from. I know only that it exists.
Our faith is actually quite comparable.
You are mistaken. I know Infinite Intelligent Energy had no beginning. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and be omnipresent. All matter and energy come from Him. He created conservation of energy AND entropy.
You don't know any such thing. You appear to be conflating knowledge with faith.
Nor is it a solution to propose an even more complex assumption, a God (whatever that is), as an explanation for a vast and complex universe.
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Originally Posted by DBT
Chuck should publish his thesis for peer review...oh, that's right, he's an evangelist spruiking faith, not an astrophysist.
A community service provided for the sake of balance.
I've not seen the video. I only want to point out making "peer review" the arbiter of truth is to employ a logical fallacy---an appeal to authority. A scientific proposition is either true or not based on its predicate facts, premises and conclusions, not because it has been approved by someone or some group of thinkers. That's very sloppy thinking.
It's not an appeal to authority to have someone knowledgeable in the field to review your work in order to pick up any flaws or mistakes.
That is what makes science the most successful method of discovery in the history of humankind.
And the absence and discouragement of questioning is what makes religion and faith the worst, dogma, contradictions, resentment of questioning, etc.
It most assuredly is an appeal to authority when you imply that the only way to establish the truth of a postulate is to have others learned in the field confirm its truth. Your preferred mechanism for achieving that is "peer review" (since you faulted the video initiating this thread on the basis of a lack of peer review) but truth is not established by the consensus opinion of experts. That is indeed a fallacy---an appeal to authority. It is certainly possible the experts will arrive at the correct conclusion but often, they do not (witness global warming/cooling/the food pyramid, etc.). That however, is quite beside the point, the truth isn't so because consensus of experts declare it thus, but because the factual predicates, premises and conclusions of any proposition under consideration are themselves demonstrably true. This happy outcome is is not something established by a consensus of experts. If some experts ultimately arrive at the truth, it is on the same basis as everyone else, not on the basis of them constituting a "group of experts" specially endowed by virtue of education or training to decide what is truye. It is certainly true that reason and the ability of a postulate to be falsified have contributed mightily to the discovery of truth, but all of that is predicated on the premise that the mind is free to apprehend truth. This is something virtually all religions agree with but which the philosophy of materialism (your a priori metaphysical commitment) denies.
Your post is not only a misrepresention of the scientific method and the role of peer review, but the nature of evidence itself.
You seem to deny the existence of observable, testable, falsifiable evidence and the role it plays in forming theory, which is in turn reviewed and tested.
Nor do you see the utter contrast between this process of weeding out errors and religious faith....which, in stark contrast to science, is accepted without evidence.
As is par for you, you misrepresent. Nowhere did I state or imply the non-necessity of observable, testable, falsifiable evidence or the role it plays in forming theory and then testing and refining that theory. Nowhere did I state or imply that the scientific method is other than hypothesizing, testing and refining. But it is simply false to categorically state that religious faith and science are always and necessarily in conflict. Science seems to confirm that the Universe had a beginning, just as Genesis teaches. Science also seems to confirm the truth of the Biblical proposition that "in the beginning was the Word (logos)" because in all of human experience, intelligence and information always precede the existence of specified complexity. There are thousands of other examples. And it remains the case that appealing to "peer review" as the ultimate measure of ascertaining scientific truth is fallacious. It is to employ a logical fallacy---the appeal to authority.
As is par for you, you misrepresent. Nowhere did I state or imply the non-necessity of observable, testable, falsifiable evidence or the role it plays in forming theory and then testing and refining that theory.
You imply it quite regularly. You misrepresented what I said when you claimed - ''I only want to point out making "peer review" the arbiter of truth is to employ a logical fallacy---an appeal to authority'' - when I clearly and simply pointed to the role of peer review in science. That's just one example.
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Nowhere did I state or imply that the scientific method is other than hypothesizing, testing and refining.
You overlook or downplay actual evidence, the physical fossil record, genetics, traits, etc, upon which theory is built,
Originally Posted by Tarquin
But it is simply false to categorically state that religious faith and science are always and necessarily in conflict.
They are two entirely different ways and means of seeing the world. It's just a matter of chance If they ever coincide. Science doesn't deal with things that cannot be detected, gods, goblins, angels demons....these are the things of religion and faith, not science.
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Science seems to confirm that the Universe had a beginning, just as Genesis teaches. Science also seems to confirm the truth of the Biblical proposition that "in the beginning was the Word (logos)" because in all of human experience, intelligence and information always precede the existence of specified complexity. There are thousands of other examples. And it remains the case that appealing to "peer review" as the ultimate measure of ascertaining scientific truth is fallacious. It is to employ a logical fallacy---the appeal to authority.
No such thing. You are writing your own narrative. Science says nothing about conditions prior to expansion, what caused it or whether time began with the BB. The universe may be an expanding bubble within a greater system or it may be cyclic....nobody knows. In contrast, religion claims to know. God, whatever that is, did it.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
![[Linked Image from upload.wikimedia.org]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/8-cell.gif)
)or Satans minions. ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/T1mc9B6w/52-EA9-B29-BD2-A-4-AE7-95-B0-CBE021823-DB2.jpg)
