Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Into the Night]

you are very ignorant

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

get lost bozo

No. You can't order me away. Put me on your ignore list and remove yourself from the conversation if you want to. I'll just talk about you and your idiot arguments anyway.

 

[Into the Night]

The Big Bang is getting more and more empirical support; it can be empirically tested.

How? Please describe this test of the Theory of the Big Bang itself. How are you able to go back in time to see what actually happened?

 

[Darth Omar]

So where was God before a universe existed for God to be in?

If an intelligent agent created the universe ex nihilo, that agent would have to exist separate from the universe.

Simple logic is your friend.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

A forum isn't a manifesto. You can join that forum there if you like. Nothing's stopping you.

INT/IBDa/gfm; if you weren't such a deluded poor little fuck then you'd realize that a forum is a medium, a tool. A manifesto is a product.

In the case of your faux forum, your manifesto. It's a clear insight into the deeper worries of your paranoia. Hopefully you're already getting help and taking your meds. If not, then you should get some because whatever the fuck you are doing now isn't working.

 

[Darth Omar]

Matter is not energy. It can be converted to energy, but is not energy. See Einstein's theories.

Light IS radiation.

Because light IS one form of radiation.

Frankly, they didn't care.

Nope. It doesn't. It only describes the creation of Earth. If any entity exists 'outside the universe', then it isn't a universe. It isn't universal. Paradox.

Time is not a place. You can't have a universe that is not universal. Nothing can exist outside the universe, not even God.

Nope. You are locked in paradox.

As best I can tell, you’re trying to construct an argument out of semantics.

This ‘thing’ where we exist, whatever you want to call it, with stars and galaxies had to begin to exist at some point; or, it has at least one attribute of the Biblical God—eternal existence.

 

[AProudLefty]

How? Please describe this test of the Theory of the Big Bang itself. How are you able to go back in time to see what actually happened?

Can detectives go back in time to see what happened at crime scenes?

 

[AProudLefty]

If matter is not energy, then what is it?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Can detectives go back in time to see what happened at crime scenes?

Not yet but I have faith they'll find a City on the Edge of Forever.

 

[BidenPresident]

How? Please describe this test of the Theory of the Big Bang itself. How are you able to go back in time to see what actually happened?

Your ignorance science is astounding.

 

[Into the Night]

From what I saw her statement is accurate.

Which is it, dude?

Humans and other hominids of the genus Homo evolved from a common primate ancestor which diverged into the genus Homo and the genus Pan (chimps, bonobos) about 8 to 10 million years ago.

How do you know? Were you there?

As it stands, the DNA of homo sapiens and chimps is 98 percent identical.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are quoting random numbers as data. Common DNA portions does not denote lineage.

For that matter, our genetic code is about 70 percent identical to jelly fish.

Common DNA portions does not denote lineage.

All life on earth is genetically interrelated at the level of genes and DNA, and all modern complex multicellular life ultimately originated from single celled organisms in the pre-Cambrian remote past. This is demostrated by the fossil record

Fossils do not have DNA. They are images in stone. There is no lineage information in fossils.

and genetic science.

What theory of science are you using?

The 64,000 dollar question is how molecules managed to make the leap from an inert chemical soup to organize themselves into proteins, organelles, and self-replicating cells.

How does such a cell reproduce? What does it eat? It can't use sunlight. That requires complex structures.

No one knows the answer to that and abiogenesis is an active area of research.

Maybe by your religion, but no more.

Natural selection as a mechanism does not explain abiogenesis, we need a different mechanism.

The Theory of Natural Selection does not meet the internal consistency check. It builds a paradox. It never addressed abiogenesis. The Theory of Abiogenesis is independent of the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope, it is based on science,

Religion isn't science. Science isn't religion. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.

inference, and logical induction.

Same as any religion then.

The so-called mitochondrial Eve was not even the first homo sapien,

You seem pretty sure of your religion.

so it would make no sense to call her the first woman in a biblical sense.

Yet you deny the Bible. You are not even making sense.

Homo sapiens existed tens of thousands of years prior to the so-called mitochondrial Eve.

How do you know? Were you there?

Paleoanthropological evidence suggests homo sapien population plummeted to perhaps a few dozen individuals 70,000 years ago, for reasons unknown. Perhaps environmental catastrophe.

Not evidence. Speculation.

In that case, population genetic statistics make it emminently plausible that most if not nearly all the surviving female genetic lines reached a genetic dead end, at some point before the modern era, explaining the mitochondrial DNA evidence, and why there is such little genetic diversity in modern humans.

There is no such thing as 'genetic statistics'. Math errors. Failure to use unbiased raw data. Failure to publish raw data. Failure to declare variance. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to publish margin of error. Failure to calculate average. Failure to publish averaging information. You deny statistical math.

There is no mitochondria in a fossil. The DNA in mitochondria is not the DNA of a cell.

Buzzword fallacies. Circular argument fallacies (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

Because those concepts are incoherent. Mathematicians deal with infinity quite well.

Really? Explain how mathematicians deal with infinity quite well.

 

[Into the Night]

Agreed. We're all forced to deal with things that we don't completely understand.
Everything that makes sense in an equation isn't possible to actually visualize.

Depends on the equation.

 

[BidenPresident]

Really? Explain how mathematicians deal with infinity quite well.

No one can explain anything to you. Seriously, you have the knowledge of a high school student and think you have a PhD in physics.

 

[Darth Omar]

Matter is not energy. It can be converted to energy, but is not energy. See Einstein's theories.

Light IS radiation.

Because light IS one form of radiation.

Frankly, they didn't care.

Nope. It doesn't. It only describes the creation of Earth. If any entity exists 'outside the universe', then it isn't a universe. It isn't universal. Paradox.

Time is not a place. You can't have a universe that is not universal. Nothing can exist outside the universe, not even God.

Nope. You are locked in paradox.

And you can be tedious lol.

The OT most certainly implies that God created the _________ whatever the word is for universe that meets your approval. Creation may be a better word, actually. All that is created was created by God.

Job for example, talks about God ‘stretching out the heavens’. Psalms say ‘the heavens declare the glory of his name’ and etc.

I’m not saying it proves anything or that it’s a scientific theory just that it fits the facts. If this were a criminal investigation trying to discover who or what created the creation, the God of the Bible remains ‘a person of interest’.

 

[Into the Night]

Rightys lack such basic understanding.

Bigotry.

Theories are the best possible explanations of phenomena and are based in data, observations and predictability.

Data is the result of an observation. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. No theory predicts. They only explain. To gain the power of prediction, a theory must be transposed into a closed functional system such as mathematics or logic. Most scientific theories transpose into mathematics. The resulting equation is called a 'law'.

If a theory of science is falsified, it is destroyed...utterly. Nonscientific theories cannot be falsified. They cannot be proven neither True nor False.

If any part of them changes or fails, the theory is changed to fit the new circumstances, it completely discarded.

No. The theory is destroyed.

Religions are absolutely not under such rigor.

Nonscientific theories cannot be proved either True nor False. All religions are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. It is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist or whether they do not exist.

They are based on ancient fables that can produce zero facts.

Learn what 'fact' means. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. All religions have facts.

You just gotta believe.

As I said. All religions are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

I cannot believe you could actually type such a stupid post.

The Theory of Creation, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of the Big Bang, and the Theory of Abiogenesis are all nonscientific theories. NONE of them can be proven True nor False. NONE of them are falsifiable. NONE of them are science. ALL of them remain the circular arguments they started as, and have become religions.

 

[Into the Night]

You are correct. Amazing how many right wingers pontificate on science without even a high school knowledge of science.

High schools do not define 'science'.

 

[BidenPresident]

High schools do not define 'science'.

you're an idiot

 

[Into the Night]

The multiverse theory is quite a stretch lol.

Agreed. At the least, none of them could be said to be a universe.

The point is ‘light’ could be interpreted to be any or all wavelengths of EMR since there’s no ancient Hebrew words for any specific wavelengths of it. And there’s no reason to expect there would be.

The light recognized as 'light' in those days would be visible light. Yes. The specific wavelengths of visible light.

Again, the early verses of Genesis 1 describe the BB in rough outline.

Paradox. If the Universe at one did not exist, and God caused the Big Bang, where was God? The Universe that doesn't exist?