Creation is a Scientific Fact

reply to post by Bigwhammy


" This conclusion tells us that God is not the Universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."


Which completely agrees with the concept, that The Bible, is a Supernatural Message System, from outside our time domain.

[ credit to Chuck Missler for that ]


nice vid, and excellent effort!!!!!

how long did it take to compile then produce that?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
And how does that relate to creation?

Nah, it doesn't. Just to your use of the Bible.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Oh it doesn't - just yet another ATS Christian hater rant.

I don't hate Christians, I was one until not...that long ago. It's just the whole faith part I don't like - the part where you have to reject logic and common sense to accept something that makes little sense.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
It makes you uncomfortable to think the Bible is true doesn't it? Yeah it did me too when I didn't want to admit God was there. He's watching it all my friend.

I actually think it feels safer to think that it's God is there and the Bible is true and all that. It's a sense of security, knowing absolute right and wrong, an afterlife, an invisible being looking out for you... It's a nice way to feel better.

But the Bible being true...it would make me uncomfortable, just because of some of the repulsive, anti-human things contained within. I would like it if it was a work of man rather than of God directly.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
If you would stop the simple minded bigotry approach you might learn that. I was like you and I did. But probably just start another Bible bashing thread - I'm sure it will be popular.

I don't normally bash the Bible. I don't like to get involved in religion, because I don't believe in believing in something for no reason other than that it feels nice to do so. Like Santa Claus, sort of. No bigotry here...aside from that contained within the Bible. But at least the Bible isn't as bad as some other books, like the Qur'an.

Want to stop coming back at me with little childish remarks and assuming my atheism?


And I got warned for complaining about how immature toasted's post was. And how immature and assuming (calling me a darwhining atheist, like a child) Conspiriology's post was. That's the deleted post there, and a defense against Conspiriology's accusations which I'm not going to repeat (sadly).

Originally posted by toasted
" Replacing an o with an asterisk is pretty immature. "

Au contrare...it's considered respectful.

Yeah, but it's ultimately a childish sort of censorship. It bothers me for that, I think it's disrespectful to the concept of God (which I do sort of believe in).

Originally posted by Conspiriology
...between the two trolls and Johnmike the Atheist posing as a person

What? Can you stop acting like a child now? Please? Even if you are?


...And Bigwhammy, the big bang is only one theory. Scientific consensus doesn't really do much, and I can tell you're not a scientist just because of how you don't understand that. Well, and because of the fact that you don't know how to apply the scientific method to the world around you, but that's beside the point. At one point, bloodletting was a universal cure, as was drilling a hole into your skull, as were lobotomies. The Earth used to be flat, the sun used to go around the Earth, atoms used to be the smallest, indivisible form of matter. Fungus and bacteria would arise spontaneously from rotting food, illness was caused by an imbalance of fluids rather than bacteria and viruses, and proteins were thought to code for our genes! I really don't think anyone alive right now can make such conclusions regarding cosmology, let alone you!

reply to post by Johnmike

I don't normally bash the Bible. I don't like to get involved in religion, because I don't believe in believing in something for no reason other than that it feels nice to do so. Like Santa Claus, sort of. No bigotry here...aside from that contained within the Bible. But at least the Bible isn't as bad as some other books, like the Qur'an.

Want to stop coming back at me with little childish remarks and assuming my atheism?

There are very good reason to believe it. My faith is evidenced based. I was not a Christian until age 37. I was a lot like you. Very critical of it. However after some study the evidence is way in favor of the Bible- if you can get past the Christians with attitudes that bother you and the rules that intimidate your lifestyle. Science does not disprove anything in scripture that is a flat out lie. You don't need to check your brain at the door. One of the deciding influences in my life was my Organic Chemistry professor when I was in Engineering school, a PhD tenured Chemist who also taught Sunday school at a Southern Baptist church. In my talks with atheist here at ATS I have found atheism is usually anger based rather than evidenced based. Sorry but you sound like an atheist. I apologize if you are not one. Nobody deserves to be called that if they truly aren't one. But you behave like so many non believers that don't understand there were extremely good reasons for the Old testament passages you are acting so appalled by.

It's funny how knuckleheads like Richard Dawkins can say the Bible is not true but then when they want to criticize God it is true so you can quote the passages that seem offensive - of course completely taken out of their socio-spiritual historical context they "sound" barbaric. But they don't ever even consider it was a barbaric world in the BC millennia and God was protecting his chosen people to preserve a libne fior a savior.

Anyway I let you get me off topic. I'm working on my "The Social Taboo of Criticizing Gullible Darwinists Who Airbrush History" film. Movie Trailer

Romans 10:9-10 says: "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

[edit on 7/6/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Oh come off it mel that statement was so ignorant, it made me whince reading it. The only post more asinine was johnny Atheists

- Con

There's actually an important point in there about the Kalam argument. It's something philosophers of science go to extremes to make clear to scientists about the truth value of statements and claims. About taking the specific and generalising.

I did originally have a somewhat long-winded post, but I remembered you saying that whammy was the logical thinker (lulz) in your little team. So I thought he could work it out for hisself and hence deleted it before posting.

Hey-ho (or perhaps gobble gobble).

[edit on 6-7-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by Johnmike


Sorry I missed this..

..And Bigwhammy, the big bang is only one theory. Scientific consensus doesn't really do much,

Funny how Darwinists get their panties in a wad when Christians say the same thing about evolution. ROFL

couldn't resist...

Originally posted by toasted
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

" This conclusion tells us that God is not the Universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

Which completely agrees with the concept, that The Bible, is a Supernatural Message System, from outside our time domain.

[ credit to Chuck Missler for that ]

nice vid, and excellent effort!!!!!

how long did it take to compile then produce that?

Thank you very much my friend! I worked on it a couple weeks off and on. The Prelinger internet archive has lots of media available for free use.

Chuck Missler is God send to me. He is a conservative Bible believing Christian but he was a CEO for several large technology companies before he started his ministry. He follows science and has great wisdom. Truth is truth - and Gods word has nothing to fear from Science. But materialism has everything to fear from truth and the more they find the more they prove the Bibles claims are true.

Science and God -Chuck Missler pt 1


Science and God -Chuck Missler pt 2

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
If I had a nickel for each time I heard "Evolution is a scientific fact" around here I would be a rich man. So how ironic the very same folks shift the goal posts and call the Big Bang Creation "just a theory". ZOMG hypocrisy abounds :shk:

Lulz.

Evolution is a fact and theory. It is an observable scientific fact that life has evolved and diversified over time on the earth. The theory of evolution accounts for how this occured.

There is no big bang creation, that's just your wishful-thinking. There is a big bang cosmology in physics though, and that is a theory. It is essentially an inflationary theory. So, using the same ideas, it is an observable scientific fact that cosmological background radiation exists, and BB theory accounts for it.

The facts are the data. The theories the explanations. Pick up a book on the philosophy of science, it might explain this sort of stuff for you. It might also cure your naive inductivism.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Funny how Darwinists get their panties in a wad when Christians say the same thing about evolution. ROFL

Darwinism isn't really evolution. And vice versa. Evolution...some parts of it are true, period. Like natural selection. Random mutation and microevolution is pretty much fact, as you see in bacteria and viruses. The question is more about macroevolution and speciation. You can't point and laugh at evolution as a whole, because it's too broad.

reply to post by melatonin


Mel has a wedgie.

You are the one I was thinking of when I said "gets their panties in a wad." As predicted by my hypothesis you did.

My hypothesis has graduated to theory. Write it down I might get a nobel prize for it!

"Gullible evolutionists & biology tutors get wedgies at a higher frequency than Physicists and Engineers."

Pure BS as usual mel ! Macroevolution has never been observed.

Bacterial micro evolution doesn't equate to evidence of new species being formed. Your fact ( Faux) is mere conjecture after 150 years of effort.

In fact, the so called "theory" needs a complete rewrite as recently admitted by it's top proponents.

Evolution is more accurately described as still a hypothesis. A poor one for the origin of species - a pretty good one for variation within a species.

Evolution form a common ancestor isn't even a good hypothesis let alone a theory. Fact ROFLMAO !!! The Cambrian explosion fossil evidence utterly refutes it.

your expelled

The Big Bang Creation Event has a lot more evidence. the only field the word proof comes into is Math. the Big Bang has mathematical PROOF.

All Darwinists have is conjecture and faith. Huge difference.

now the special pleading fallacy for biology begins

la dee daa

I understand why people find it appealing to argue Creation as a whole. But using a scientific base to argue absolute concepts is shaky.

Now there are different types of absolutes.

The speed of light is absolute in a vacuum, but even this is circumvented by quantum tunneling.

The concept and necessity of God- argued a priori recursively until we reach day 0- is undeniable. But this is only God as an abstract concept, a word to imply what was there before this -everything- was there.

The concept and necessity of God- argued from a humanistic/philosophical point of creator, requires at least two things to hold:
1. He is absolute
2. He is unique

There cannot be any connect between necessary-God and philosophical-God because to imply they are the same he must have existed before AND now- which naturally leads to one of two conclusions:


1) He is separate from everything/existence and as such nothing can ever bridge this gap- most definitely not science (its not even trying to) for if it could, the bridge-builder would become God.

This invalidates the philosophical tenants of absoluteness and oneness of God.

Which logically leads to:

2) He is not separate meaning that God is part of existence, and as such part of every single one of us. By self-ontology every single person is god, ergo your proof reduces to proving the existence of self.

But if you could prove the existence of self, then so can everyone else and again the premises of absoluteness and oneness are invalidated, and a proof by contradiction occurs- eg: He must be separate.
___________________________________________________________


Of course as a stopgap to 2) you can simply argue that all humans are interconnected and share a commonness - which is where current mainstream philosophy is at- and so God is part of everyone and everyone is part of everyone- but in practice this hasn't really worked out so well, what with all the war famine poverty and malice humans have for each other.

Please note that at no point should you use science to prop up any type of belief, its bad science to have bias before beginning an argument. I hope I have convinced you that you do not need (or should use) science to prove or disprove the existence of God, since that is a philosophical debate and nothing to do with evidence, theorems or research.


If you think about it logically, imagine the universe as a jar of ants covered by a blanket, and God is someone outside of the jar- you are arguing something we can never see, since we can never remove the blanket, only look back to the exact moment the blanket was put on top of us. But who knows maybe one day we will tunnel through it

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Funny how Darwinists get their panties in a wad when Christians say the same thing about evolution. ROFL

Darwinism isn't really evolution. And vice versa. Evolution...some parts of it are true, period. Like natural selection. Random mutation and microevolution is pretty much fact, as you see in bacteria and viruses. The question is more about macroevolution and speciation. You can't point and laugh at evolution as a whole, because it's too broad.

I mostly agree with you here Johnmike. That's your best post yet. I am impressed.

Darwinism is pretty much a neoatheist religion these days.

Mel is one of the altar boys.

reply to post by painkiller


Very interesting post. You seem to be well versed in philosophy. Thanks for contributing your thoughts!

Please note that at no point should you use science to prop up any type of belief, its bad science to have bias before beginning an argument. I hope I have convinced you that you do not need (or should use) science to prove or disprove the existence of God, since that is a philosophical debate and nothing to do with evidence, theorems or research.

First I am not doing science. More like reporting science. I just reported that science is agreement with my Christian beliefs. Which adds support to both as being true. Which is also an encouragement to believers and evangelism to non believers. I will agree it is not necessary to use science to prove God. Truly, to most people of reason, he is self evident.

I am also not attempting to be a philosopher in a pure sense.

I completely disagree that it has nothing to do with evidence. My faith in God is completely evidence based. Most Christians will tell you the same. I used to be an agnostic until my late 30s and I converted due to evidence and experience. I was not raised to be a Christian or indoctrinated as many like to accuse.

Atheists love to bring up the other Gods in history -- but see Thor and Zeus have no evidence like Christianity does. Created gods are false gods. My God is the Creator God. Buddha Mohamed Krishna & L Ron Hubbard all have graves where they are buried. Jesus Christ does not. That's evidence. There were many first hand witnesses - that's evidence. Archeology confirms biblical accounts - that's evidence. The Bible accurately predicts the future thats evidence. Evidence based faith is the only reasonable faith to have in my opinion. the next blob is not to you...

as a side note to this response
For those who don't care for evidence in your faith try Darwinism. Of all the religions they have the corner on that market right now.

So when science refutes a long held materialist stronghold like the steady state theory of an infinite universe to support the Bibles claim of creation. I am going to incorporate that into my evidence as well. I think it would be rather short sighted not too.

That's how my faith work I use everything. Science Philosophy spiritual mathematics - they are all uncovering the thoughts of the Creator. How can they not he created them after all.







[edit on 7/6/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Uggggh....

*shakes head*

Ok, Whammy, this is going to be my last post most likely, as debating with you is like debating with a child. I hope YOU feel proud now.

You are being immature and attempting to make a mockery of me when your brain cannot seem to comprehend my statements. You rely on 'satire' and insults to win your stances, and it's really, really sad that you seem to be so desperate to find God or defend him that you're willing to shut off your mind and remain in the dark.

Victor Stenger is just a foamy mouthed rabid atheist.

Uh-huh. And what did you call people who believe or have developed the String Theory? I believe the term was:

desperate materialists

Is this how you handle anyone who doesn't share your views? You call people like Dr. Michio Kaku, one of the foremost physics authorities on the planet, a 'desperate materialist', in order to explain why he developed the String Theory in the first place.

Oh, forgive me, I keep forgetting I truly am in a 'Logic-free zone'.

And then, instead of reading the arguments to your stances (something a good debater is usually sure to do) just because it's on, guess what, an ATHEIST site, you just decide to dismiss the whole thing because it has an 'agenda'. OF COURSE IT HAS A FRIGGIN' AGENDA!!! C'mon Whammy, think before you talk. It's providing some information as an argument to your Kalam Cosmological Argument. Do you think it would just be some random site that posts random letters on it and happen to make up a debate stance?

Duh!

Science is just a search of causes. So either bigberts argument just destroyed the foundation of the scientific method or we live in world of random miracles, or bigbert merely proved he is a really desperate atheist grasping at straws.

Guess what, big guy, go ahead and insert your foot into your mouth......NOW.

You are once again mistaking the wording. When I showed you this quote from Victor himself:

Furthermore, everything that begins does not have to have a cause.

It is of course referring to complete randomness, NOT 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction', which seems to be the point you're trying to push.

When Victor or I say 'cause', once again YOU are thinking CAUSE and EFFECT, while I am talking RANDOMNESS, therefore WITHOUT CAUSE. You see, there's more than the one definition for the word 'cause', but you seem to have forgotten that in your haste to use, yet again, another 'satirical' post.

Bask in your glory...

Oh, I intend to, because you just stuck your foot in your mouth.

reply to post by bigbert81



Thanks for for giving my thoughts so much of your time and effort bigbert! Your passion for argument is genuine. I applaud your zeal. Best of luck to you.

reply to post by painkiller


Nice read there pain, I think have pushed this link since I first got here and have even seen astyanax using it since. I still haven't seen one more complete.

plato.stanford.edu...

- Con

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

First I am not doing science. More like reporting science.....

Okay, can you please elaborate on the evidence you believe supports/connects a creator mechanism of existence being a Christian God. Now it's fine that you believe since Christianity follows the one true God- he must also be the creator God, but that is not really evidence.

I do agree with you that using astronomy and constructing possible models of universe beginnings we can leave the door open for an unknown spark, or many sparks, or deterministic action outside the scope of everything we can currently measure and foresee.

But I have to remind you there is a big difference between how the universe was created the resulting radiation/mass pressure war that ensued and lead to star formation- and the chance factor of how the Solar System was created, and namely how life on Earth evolved.

Changing the classical theistic argument "God created life on Earth" to "God created the universe, which/then (in)directly created life on Earth" has problems, because it implies- at the mathematical level- complete determinism, meaning whilst we may have free will- the universe and everything in it, including the spin state of particles, the past and future evolution of stars, galaxies, nebulae, clusters- is already determined. But we as humans can affect things around us, and change them- so the problem is pretty simple- either we have no free will, or God inbuilt the universe to react in a certain way to all our actions so no true randomness exists, meaning we don't really have any free will anyway, since at the 'God' level, it's always possible for him to predict what will happen.
But he can do that since he's God.

Do you see how there is a break in logic here? It's hard to use a rational argument against God, since he can simply invalidate it by being God- hithero any irrational argument for God can be rationalized by invoking that God is God.

I completely disagree that it has nothing to do with evidence.

But evidence is not belief, you can turn evidence into a belief but not a belief into evidence. Please do not think I am trying to offend you or test your faith in the slightest. You are free to believe as you wish, but not as free to interpret and extrapolate data to fit that belief- since here you begin trying to justify something you should not be trying to justify at all.

...all have graves where they are buried. Jesus Christ does not. That's evidence. There were many first hand witnesses - that's evidence.

Sorry not evidence.

Archeology confirms biblical accounts - that's evidence.

If parts of the Bible are true does this mean all of it is true?

The Bible accurately predicts the future thats evidence.

Oh? Do you really think this is plausible?

So when science refutes a long held materialist stronghold like the steady state theory of an infinite universe to support the Bibles claim of creation. I am going to incorporate that into my evidence as well. I think it would be rather short sighted not too.

I'm sorry but using divisive rhetoric merely reinforces a long standing point.

The crux of the issue (no pun intended) is this-

Common sense dictates that the Bible is a collection of allegories to help people live their lives in a good honest way, cherish each other, love God.

Taking any other view, such as 'there is only one true creator God' or the 'us versus them' mentality just creates problems for the entire world. What happens when everyone has converted to Christianity, and you no longer think you have to defend your beliefs? Heaven-on-Earth like a switch?

Inbuilt inside all religions is dissent. If everyone was good and righteous there would be no sinners, no hell- so trying to convert others, even spreading your message is ultimately doomed- since you know at the coming of the Rapture not all are saved

reply to post by painkiller


Hey I will try to reply tomorrow I'm too tired to handle it now -you brainiac

But you might as well realize that I believe the Bible is Gods word to mankind. So I take it very seriously. And I firmly believe it is the one true religion. But that was not really the topic of this... but that's where I am coming from and not ashamed of it. But I will put some effort in responding to your point tomorrow. Thanks!

Originally posted by bigbert81


When Victor or I say 'cause', once again YOU are thinking CAUSE and EFFECT, while I am talking RANDOMNESS, therefore WITHOUT CAUSE. You see, there's more than the one definition for the word 'cause', but you seem to have forgotten that in your haste to use, yet again, another 'satirical' post.

Bask in your glory. - whammy

Oh, I intend to, because you just stuck your foot in your mouth.

Is THAT what you think??

Naw,, sorry smart guy,, but again,, you keep spitting out more pieces of your broken argument. Burt you remind me of lash because, like him, you can talk like you think you know what you are talking about but again,, you can't even keep track of your own arguments much less whammy's. Do you have ANY idea the many times you have accused him of insulting you while in the same post, imply you have superior debate skill??

Hell, you're so vain, you even come off as cocky as someone who actually thinks WE see you as YOU see yourself!

So in the intertest of putting your best foot foward, lets not assume it is whammy whose foot is in his mouth as I show you the whole shoe store you are going to put in yours.

ready???

SPLENDID!

READ your posts troll and, lets see what the facts are and the facts are undeniable

The most telling example of your so called logical critical thinking mind (as if) is when you whammy calls it like it clearly is with you Bert, when he said:

but savage might be a more apt term for your displayed demeanor. - whammy

yeah,, savage whoo that is one harsh expletive there! Gee rather than just acknowledge what is and HAS been so obvious for quite sometime now, that being your mouthy monosyllabic diatribe trolling him like a rabid wolverinve in every thread. You go on pushing your self puffery and alleged superior intellect with your highly esteemed educated calls to atheist's highest authority in all academia.

Again, you expected us to go Gah Gah!
Pffffft!

Then when we don't get all Gah Gah as you do, not being as easily impressed, you get your undies in a bunch over it. Another wedgie as seen here in these posts.

So far you have been called savage! Jeez I should BE so insulted!

Whammy, this is going to be my last post most likely, as debating with you is like debating with a child.- bigbert81

You are being immature and attempting to make a mockery of me when y our brain cannot seem to comprehend my statements - bigbert81

I keep forgetting I truly am in a 'Logic-free zone'.- bigbert81

C'mon Whammy, think before you talk - bigbert81

I don't think I've ever dealt with anyone as delusional as you are.- bigbert81

Now up to this point all you had was the suggestion your demneanor was "savage" I guess the the more whammy tried to hint at that "demeanor" you got. but THIS??

Ahhh yes, and here come the insults. Boy, it's a good thing that you felt your post wasn't quite complete without the usual insult thrown in at the last moment. I was getting worried there.

Wow it amazes me just reading your "stuff" and you wonder why he doesn't read what you post or links you leave. I mean it is one thing to get lippy, I do,, but C'mon?? Savage?? HA HA HA

Then came the creme de la creme of your tete e tete where you really lay em out with this line

When Victor or I say 'cause', once again YOU are thinking CAUSE and EFFECT, while I am talking RANDOMNESS, therefore WITHOUT CAUSE. You see, there's more than the one definition for the word 'cause', but you seem to have forgotten that in your haste to use, yet again, another 'satirical' post.

you just stuck your foot in your mouth.

Funny thing is,, you never said any such thing about randomness in fact it was whammy who brought up Cause and Effect and THAT is the only reason YOU mention it.

It says because the universe began to exist it has a cause. - whammy

No, Whammy. Just because it exists does not mean it has a cause. You're making stuff up again. - bigbert81

So as far as who is thinking what,, whammy had every reason to think cause and effect and no reason to think you meant random. He had every reason to think cause and effect and you have NO excuse to think any other possible "cause" was on the table, and ya know why smart guy???

I never said "it exists therefore it has a cause".

Science is founded on the law of causation which is premise one.
Read the first premise over 3 times until the difference sinks in:

1."Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
2. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
3. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"

Do you deny that? Well you can throw out science then. Science is a search for causes. - whammy

That's why, and it would of been a pretty good idea to bring up that random crap about that time, so unless you think whammy is a mind reader..

Enjoy the shoe leather!

you lose

- Con







[edit on 7-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Sorry I didn't mean to derail the topic so much, but basically my idea is:

If God gave us the choice to believe in him or not, and this choice holds for all time- then we can never directly prove he exists (we might be able to convince others, but that's not a proof/fact in the scientific/mathematical sense). If we could prove his existence- then that choice he originally gave us is taken away since we are pretty much forced to accept him (just like we accept gravity, rainbows and ice-cream). Since this was not his intended goal it would go against the theory that all of his actions are true and good forever. (see Conspiriology's link above)

I think that's the strongest possible defense religion has, it can never be proven wrong because it can never be proven right- by its very tenants/definitions.

From the scientific/mathematical viewpoint- since we can never prove anything completely (only approximately to a very small scale- planck length, or very vaguely in an axiomatic system- Godel's work on Incompleteness) , even if someone would suddenly claim to disprove God or vice versa, there would be some uncertainty there; so you see science in many ways mirrors religion in that both are imperfect tools used by imperfect people.

The same sort of problems are faced in various fields, in particular Artificial Intelligence. It's all a matter of self-reference, computers get faster and faster until we can model a human brain completely with all neuron pathways mapped out, but because of the way we built the computers (just like how we built our mathematics) they will always have this fuzzy 'what's outside the box we are inside of' aspect to them, of course people claim to have solved this (its called the Frame Problem) in theory and also claim that cracking the problem of natural language is within decades if not less...

(as an aside that's why most scientific research these days is approximations using computational modeling, whilst the theoreticians deal with complex mathematics that have little direct application yet)

Personally, I'm a bit skeptical If you answer all of life's questions, it becomes a pretty dull thing to be alive, but there's always a point in asking them- because if you have no questions to ask, you have nothing new to learn.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by melatonin

 

Mel has a wedgie.

You are the one I was thinking of when I said "gets their panties in a wad." As predicted by my hypothesis you did.

Aww, thanks for thinking of my lulz harvest. Sometimes it's worth poking you with a stick, as the responses and intellectual gymnastics are funny enough. But I never expect a real discussion. Discussing the meaning of life with Gumby would be more fruitful.

You misinterpret how I react to you, dear.

But I'm sorry for replying to 'infesting' your thread, but I guess feeding your ego is important and making the most ridiculous threads is one way to achieve it. Very masochistic though.

My hypothesis has graduated to theory. Write it down I might get a nobel prize for it!

"Gullible evolutionists & biology tutors get wedgies at a higher frequency than Physicists and Engineers."

Yeah, don't give up the day job.

Pure BS as usual mel ! Macroevolution has never been observed.

And neither has a 'big-bang'. But you think one fits your faith-based ideology, the other doesn't. Your confirmation bias is great stuff.

Bacterial micro evolution doesn't equate to evidence of new species being formed. Your fact ( Faux) is mere conjecture after 150 years of effort.

In fact, the so called "theory" needs a complete rewrite as recently admitted by it's top proponents.

We have evidence of speciation.

But, of course, whammy. All the top proponents have been watching your sterling rapier logic and have now decided to they need to rewrite the theory.

As stated earlier, but your willful ignorance again gets in the way, cosmologists accept that the physics underpinning inflationary theory is incomplete and will be 'rewritten'.

The theory of evolution doesn't need no grand rewrite. That's another fantasy of yours. I suppose this is related to this Altenberg thing, well what does the organiser say?

Did I say anything about intelligent designers, or the rejection of Darwinism, or any of the other nonsense that has filled the various uninformed and sometimes downright ridiculous commentaries that have appeared on the web about the Altenberg meeting? Didn’t think so. If next week’s workshop succeeds, what we will achieve is taking one more step in an ongoing discussion among scientists about how our theories account for biological phenomena, and how the discovery of new phenomena is to be matched by the elaboration of new theoretical constructs. This is how science works, folks, not a sign of “crisis.”

Linky

You are so removed from reality it is funny. Nonsense, uninformed and ridiculous? Yeah, sounds about right.

Evolution is more accurately described as still a hypothesis. A poor one for the origin of species - a pretty good one for variation within a species.

Evolution form a common ancestor isn't even a good hypothesis let alone a theory. Fact ROFLMAO !!! The Cambrian explosion fossil evidence utterly refutes it.

As noted, don't give up the day job.

your expelled

My expelled?

The Big Bang Creation Event has a lot more evidence. the only field the word proof comes into is Math. the Big Bang has mathematical PROOF.

All Darwinists have is conjecture and faith. Huge difference.

now the special pleading fallacy for biology begins

la dee daa

And string theory also depends on mathematical 'proof'. Your inability to fully grasp science shines through as usual.

Again, don't give up the day job. Evolutionary biology is actually much more robust than BB theory. If you can give me 29+ repeatedly verified hypotheses derived from BB theory, I'll give you a cookie.

No, thought not...

Originally posted by bigbert81
Uggggh....

*shakes head*

Ok, Whammy, this is going to be my last post most likely, as debating with you is like debating with a child. I hope YOU feel proud now.

QFT

And as we know, children are one of our greatest sources of lulz. They do tend to play dress-up and imitate grown-ups. Indeed, they also like to play sockpuppet.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by melatonin]