Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Well he would look silly eating sushi when there's roast highlands beef with Yorkshire pudding and gravy and roast King Edwards with sprouts to get his laughing tackle round. Sushi sound like peasant fodder tarted up with a fancy name for the skint poseurs.

I asked around and nobody has ever tried it nor knows anybody else who has. So it's fair to assume that Mr Bean has passed it by.

Do they play Johnny Cash music where it's dished up?

So, how are the concepts (BB vs. Black hole) different?

I don't need to waste time disproving events. I only need to illustrate that the magical element of the mythology does not exist.

real life wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

the conservation law (real life) is touting didn't start to take effect until about 1x10EXP-35 seconds AFTER the big bang.

So you are very sure that the scientific laws that apply today DID NOT 'take effect' until AFTER the BB, eh?

To know this, you must know what the scientific laws were that DID apply then.

What were they?

What were the properties of the 'singularity' that produced the BB?

Where did it come from, of what was it composed and why did it BANG?

Why would you want me to answer questions about something that happened in the past, since you say science can't know anything about that type of stuff?

That sounds right for someone who believes in talking snakes.

Diest TKO wrote:

I don't need to waste time disproving events. I only need to illustrate that the magical element of the mythology does not exist.

OK, so prove that the supernatural does not exist.

The glorious part of this for me is that I don't have to actually do anything to disprove god. The universe does not default to any truth. The burden of proving god exists is for those who believe in god, not me. I only need to evaluate their evidence through a scientific lense.

The glorious part of this for me is that I don't have to actually do anything to disprove god. The universe does not default to any truth. The burden of proving god exists is for those who believe in god, not me. I only need to evaluate their evidence through a scientific lense...


T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

The glorious part of this for me is that I don't have to actually do anything to disprove god. The universe does not default to any truth. The burden of proving god exists is for those who believe in god, not me. I only need to evaluate their evidence through a scientific lense...


T
K
O

Actually - your "need" - much like other members who interact on the religion/spirituality thread, but do not believe even in the chance of God, is to have a safety net of sorts. No matter the case - you can default to; 'it's not my burden to disprove God...", therefore in your own mind - you can never lose.

the universe does not default to any truth

I only need to evaluate their evidence through a scientific lense.

I only need to illustrate that the magical element of the mythology does not exist.

..........I don't have to actually do anything to disprove god.........

...If you are going to maintain that the only tool you need is the scientific method, then you need to show that it can apply to all facts at all times. Your inability to 'scientifically prove' most ordinary events of life will prove a significant roadblock.

Can you 'scientifically prove' that your next door neighbor read the newspaper yesterday?

Science, by nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything.

Quote:

Science, by nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything.

Sounds like a Seinfeld episode.

Can you 'scientifically prove' that your next door neighbor read the newspaper yesterday?

The universe does not default to any truth.

Quote:

Science, by nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything.

Sounds like a Seinfeld episode.