A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

originally posted by: craterman
Big bang is a theory.

a reply to: Phantom423

Once again, what does that mean? What does it mean when you say "it's just a theory"?

a reply to: craterman

Apparently you just like to repeat false claims. Germs are just a theory, so it must be wrong, right? Nope. You just have double standards and have been programmed by your religion to hate evolution.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: craterman
It is still just a theory.

a reply to: Phantom423

What exactly does that mean "It's just a theory"? Please explain.

It means that they don’t actually grasp the difference between a Scientific Theory based on the scientific method and the Scooby Doo version of a theory when they’re trying to unmask the bad guy.

But that’s all rhetorical because you already knew that. Unfortunately ignorance is rampant in people because they view anyone with a higher education or those working in academics with derision, suspicion and fear. And as a result if that they choose to engage in willful ignorance while grasping on to confirmation bias and willful ignorance. It’s the only explanation for someone to say “hey! There’s no way to test this or understand it through our current understanding of science so instead of saying “I don’t know” (the only rational response when there is no clear answer) I’m going to use logical fallacies and insert God as my preferred reply”.

a reply to: peter vlar

It also means "please don't expect me to be honest". Please do not expect me to acknowledge that there is evidence contrary to what I believe. I think every one of us, who works in science is willing to accept that there are alternatives, but the evidence in something implies the strongest likely reason for something, even if it annoys our pet ideas.

a reply to: peter vlar

Yeah but RedBull gives you wings!

Coomba98

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: edmc^2

Well, the answer “nobody knows" was already given so why do you keep asking?

Some also said that the universe might not have a beginning so that is yet another answer.

We know your history and know you would love to prove a create and I wish you luck with that but you are far from there.

What? Am I hiding? I don't have a history? You mean my threads are hidden? This is news to me. This is unbelievable.

Nah, I wasn't hiding, but the question was pointed towards atheists to see how you will answer the question.

But as expected, "Nobody knows - end of discussion" seems to be the default answer for most if not all atheists.

And the fascinating thing is, they offer themselves to be the arbiter of the truth even though the obvious is staring straight at them.

The finite emanates from the infinite.

And even if the universe is eternal, you have yet to sufficiently explain how that correlates with a God. How many gods have you diagnosed with eternal existence? How did you test them for it? Honestly, how does a god even prove it is eternal? That's a paradox. They could only prove it to themselves. Very Descartes.

Based on scientific evidence (CMB and others), the material universe had a beginning (13bya), hence not eternal. Where it came from, is eternal.

That's a huge leap, from a finite universe to an infinite 'something the universe is growing inside of'. Where are your sources for the second statement? You have any data to demonstrate beyond hypothetical speculation that eternity is an actual measurable phenomena? Unless you have some revolutionary research to drop on us, there is no evidence that eternnity is anything but a hypothesis, a concept unable to be tested or recorded except as an abstract expression that acts as a placeholder for something we have never actually observed. It functions more or less as a shortcut that dishonestly circumnavigates real scientific inquiry/processing because solving the infinite regression problem is just too bothersome for someone who isnt equipped for cracking the riddle and hasnt earned it. Which is why you insist on publishing under a pseudonym in a conspiracy forum instead of dazzling credible professionals in a competitive market with your flawless logic. You are fortunate that some of us are bored enough to play your unoriginal game. 60+ pages and all you have proven is that you still think sinking a bunch of ships will make your own rowboat a little more respectable in lieu of building a truly unsinkable ship to shame us all...because you know how seaworthy it would end up being, figuratively speaking. Your titanic has nothing on the iceberg of science. All you can do is fall back on your eternity argument with no real logistics to show for it, just "hypothetically, god can do blah blah blah". Learn a new trick, pretty please.

a reply to: peter vlar

All true. There's a willful dishonesty that's pervasive in that community. They want you to believe that white is black and black is white even though any sane person without a bias would see the truth.

Of course, the ironic part of the whole thing is that by their own standards, God is also only a theory. In fact, God isn't even a hypothesis. Go figure that out!! Great analytical thinking here.

I must have posted this a hundred times, but I'll post it again:

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
www.scientificamerican.com...

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

a reply to: Phantom423

Thats beautiful man.

Coomba98

a reply to: Phantom423

God qualifies as a hypothesis, but one that can't be tested in any meaningful way...like a coffee mug that has no bottom. Or dehydrated water. Or a "Gotcha!" thread designed to stymie easily confused audiences who aren't well versed critical thinking and the finer points of the scientific method. Good thing folks like us are around to even the odds.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Phantom423

God qualifies as a hypothesis, but one that can't be tested in any meaningful way...like a coffee mug that has no bottom. Or dehydrated water. Or a "Gotcha!" thread designed to stymie easily confused audiences who aren't well versed critical thinking and the finer points of the scientific method. Good thing folks like us are around to even the odds.

I like the dehydrated water. I have to remember that!

This thread will end like all the others have. No winners, only those came out of boredom and left for much the same reason. An exercise in futility, the lot of it.

a reply to: TzarChasm

That is what happens when you have two diametrically opposed groups, and no active mediation (moderators). Lets be honest here, it almost always ends in an ad hominem from the usual suspects.

I will not call it futile however. Because a number of people read these threads who don't comment, or even log in. So someone might learn something, that opens their mind just a little.

a reply to: Noinden

But ultimately, no conclusion. We end where we began. Circles upon circles, no?

a reply to: TzarChasm

In these threads there are many conclusions, much like in research. Someone brings in new evidence, people angst over it, and it may or may not change the outcome.

a reply to: TzarChasm

At the very least we can show others the ignorance of Creationist fundies...

Perhaps people will avoid them after reading a thread like this on ATS

so thats a win

a reply to: Akragon

As I repeatedly say (usually to TzarChasm) some of us post here to refute the Creationists. If a meaningful change in information for myself happens, more power to it. But in the end I live by "An Fhírinne aghaidh an tSoail, (the Truth against the World)

Nope. I have evolved. Spiritually.

a reply to: Barcs

No one has witnessed it, and it was, what is the claim? 13 Billion years ago? The history of this world is in question let alone that of the universe.

a reply to: Phantom423

a reply to: craterman

If you have evolved spiritually, then why are you posting lies about science? That's not very spiritual of you.

originally posted by: craterman
No one has witnessed it, and it was, what is the claim? 13 Billion years ago? The history of this world is in question let alone that of the universe.

a reply to: Phantom423

That's ridiculous. You didn't observe the guys who wrote the bible, did you? You didn't observe Jesus changing water into wine. You didn't see him rise into heaven.

And yes, we can see 13 billion years ago. It'called cosmic background radiation. The Big Bang happened everywhere so every point in the universe is a source of the cosmic background radion. The radiation we detect today comes from regions of the universe that were about 13 billion light years away at that moment when the radiation was emitted. Those regions are farther away now. How do we see this? A microwave telescope. Spectroscopy is amazing, is it not??

The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE /ˈkoʊbi/), also referred to as Explorer 66, was a satellite dedicated to cosmology, which operated from 1989 to 1993. Its goals were to investigate the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) of the universe and provide measurements that would help shape our understanding of the cosmos.

COBE was originally planned to be launched on a Space Shuttle mission STS-82-B in 1988 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, but the Challenger explosion delayed this plan when the Shuttles were grounded. NASA kept COBE's engineers from going to other space agencies to launch COBE, but eventually, a redesigned COBE was placed into sun-synchronous orbit on November 18, 1989 aboard a Delta rocket.A team of American scientists announced, on April 23, 1992 that they had found the primordial "seeds" (CMBE anisotropy) in data from COBE.The announcement was reported worldwide as a fundamental scientific discovery and ran on the front page of the New York Times. The Nobel Prize in Physics for 2006 was jointly awarded to John C. Mather, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and George F. Smoot, University of California, Berkeley, "for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation."[7]

Now what was that you said? We can't see it? I know one thing for sure - ignorance sees nothing.