Brandon9000 wrote:real life wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:real life wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:real life wrote:mesquite wrote:real life wrote:mesquite wrote:real life wrote:So you believe in the Big Bang. Matter and energy interacted in such a way to produce the physical universe that we now see, etc. We are all familiar with the idea.
So where did that matter and energy come from?
Whatever rationalization you can come up with for where your creator came from will work equally well for the above question.....
Do I understand you to imply that belief in an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation) and belief in eternally pre-existent matter/energy which by blind chance produced the universe (the Big Bang) are ideas which carry EQUAL validity?
I doubt that this is what you meant, but your meaning was rather vague.
c.i.'s post reminded me that I had missed replying to this one.
real life, I am saying that if it is valid for you to conjur up "an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation)" then it is equally valid to propose an eternally pre-existant universe that needed no creator.
I'll go along with equally valid. I think both the idea of Creation by an incredibly intelligent and eternally pre-existent God and the idea of random generation of complex systems and organisms by eternally pre-existent matter and blind chance are both ideas that
are statements of faith, since no human being has actually observed either or has anything more direct than circumstantial evidence and inference to support the idea.
Thanks for negating most of science and Man's struggle to understand the world in one sentence.
You are welcome. Doesn't science require observable, verifiable data?
Yes, but the phenomenon under study doesn't have to be directly observable, e.g. atoms. Fossils are observable. The adaptability of bacteria to medicines is observable.
When the phenom is not directly observable we draw inferences from data. Atoms, at least, can be experimented with.
Science does not require that the object under study be observable, as long as there is evidence of what happened, or in this case is happening, from which conclusions may be drawn. So, do you think Crime Scene Investigation is invalid because it is making deductions about a past crime? Logic may be applied to any evidence. How do you even have the gaul to criticize potential imperfections in scientific deduction when you favor drawing conclusions from an ancient text?
real life wrote:What experiment has even come close to reproducing the Big Bang so that we may obtain even circumstantial evidence or infer anything, much less observe it directly?
On what basis do you conclude that direct observation of a phenomenon is necessary, as opposed to examination of evidence it left behind? If people were foolish enough to listen to you, the study of past events would forever be the province of superstion, when, in fact, the events left behind evidence which can lead to logical deductions about what happened. Furthermore, much of the Big Bang work is purely mathematical, and the input from observation is very minor and basic.
real life wrote:Same question for showing one creature changing into another kind of creature (over whatever period of time you would like to postulate) ?
How about fossils that show a gradual change finally culminating in a difference big enough to be called a new species over time? You choose simply to say it isn't there.
real life wrote:Yes fossils are observable. We have direct evidence that something died. We do not have direct evidence what it's predecessors looked like, how they lived, etc. Those are inferences, often put forward on the basis of assumption ( 'we know evolution is true, therefore where does this fossil likely fit in?' ).
Dated fossil records can show gradual change of characteristics over time.
How dare you criticize some hypothetical imperfections in the application of the scientific method when you favor reversion to accepting magic without any logical basis at all? Even a wrong theory arrived at by logic and deduction has more integrity than one arrived at by reliance on the blind acceptance of magic.
Hi Brandon,
When observation is not possible that evidence is circumstantial, not direct. The conclusions drawn from this evidence are inferential.
Circumstantial evidence is open to a variety of interpretations. The problem is that evolutionists want to maintain that circumstantial evidence can only be understood when assuming evolution. They are in error.
The fossils that evolutionists interpret to have followed one another in succession over periods of time are placed in the phylogenetic tree based on the assumption that they MUST fit into the evolutionary story somehow.
An evolution-friendly article on Hennig describes this type of circular reasoning this way:
Quote:Using firm evolutionary arguments, however, Hennig justified this method as the most appropriate classification technique for estimating evolutionary relationships generated by lineal descent.
see
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#fig1
In other words, by assuming evolution he was able to demonstrate evolutionary relationships. ( A true scientific milestone, I am sure.)
'Difference(s) big enough to be called a new species over time' sound very impressive.
There are many varieties of birds, for instance. Simple variation which a taxonomist chooses to dub "a separate species" doesn't necessarily mean that we are talking about anything more than a creature that is still, after all is said and done..................a bird.
--------------------
Differences in creatures are interpreted to be gradual changes from one creature to another, often with strange results.
The jawbone-to-ear story that evolutionists touted for years, comes to mind. How did those poor creatures manage to eat, generation after generation when each generation's jawbone is assumed to have been shrinking until it became one of the bones of the middle ear?
A shrinking jawbone and reduced capacity to eat would normally make a creature LESS competitive in the wild, not more. Yet evolution states that the fittest are the ones who survive and thrive , and those less able fall by the wayside. Yet in this story, those with shrinking jawbones are seen as the fittest who survive by their eventual (After how many thousands of years?) gain of improved hearing.
-------------------
"Crime scene investigation" and "historical" investigation of various kinds have different standards of proof and certainty than that which terms itself "scientific". Certainly you must be aware of this.
Harvard Law professor Simon Greenleaf's
The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administrated in Courts of Justice is an interesting start to the application of the proofs derived from this type of evidence as it applies to the New Testament if you are really interested. I rather think you are not, but hope you might be. Greenleaf's perspective is quite interesting because he started his investigation from the position of a skeptic.
