Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

real life wrote:

Where it's going is just exactly where you brought it --- backing out before producing ANY evidence that such a singularity really DID exist...

I don't know if it really did exist, RL. All I know is that the model says it did.

I know it's the most accurate model we've got, and it's a model which has made some very detailed predictions which have since been validated by evidence.

What else do you want exactly?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Based on evidence(existing data), eh?

So what evidence do you have that a singularity actually DID exist?

Or what evidence do you have to show what it was composed of?

Where it came from?

How it got there?

Why it exploded?

That it did NOT exist in space/time as we know it prior to an explosion?

It's all predicted by the model. Do you understand what a model is?

Sure - many consider the Bible to be the "model". :wink:

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Sure - many consider the Bible to be the "model". :wink:

Although not a scientific model.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Where it's going is just exactly where you brought it --- backing out before producing ANY evidence that such a singularity really DID exist...

I don't know if it really did exist, RL. All I know is that the model says it did.

I know it's the most accurate model we've got, and it's a model which has made some very detailed predictions which have since been validated by evidence.

What else do you want exactly?

Evidence. Got any? You said you did:

rosborne979 wrote:

The BB model is an estimation of reality based on evidence .............it is highly accurate and precise in its match to existing data.

And my response was:

real life wrote:

Based on evidence(existing data), eh?

So what evidence do you have that a singularity actually DID exist?

Or what evidence do you have to show what it was composed of?

Where it came from?

How it got there?

Why it exploded?

That it did NOT exist in space/time as we know it prior to an explosion?

Or is it simply -- 'Big Bang happened, this I know; for the model tells me so' ?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Or is it simply -- 'Big Bang happened, this I know; for the model tells me so' ?

Yeh, that's pretty much it.

Unlike the bible however, the model is based on evidence. It's an actual result of the evidence.

Of course, since it's a scientific theory, we reserve the right to adjust the model based on any new evidence, or any more accurate theories which are presented.

Does that bother you?

Do you find it more comforting to base your views on the Bible, rather than a scientific model (derived from empirical evidence)?

0 Replies

One thing I find particularly amusing is that Young Earthers dont like BB, its anti Genesis literalism. Ol Earthers like BB because it "proves " Genesis. I say let them fight it out and we go get a brew.

0 Replies

Hi Farmerman,

I don't think I said I 'didn't like' the BB theory. I tend to agree with some of it, i.e. the universe had a beginning point.

I think that's obvious, because the alternative, i.e. the universe is eternal, has major problems.

What I was asking for evidence on was the unproven assumptions that some feel obligated to tack on, i.e. the universe resulted from an explosion, a 'singularity' existed prior to the formation of the universe, etc.

If one wants to accept these things on faith, I think they should be straightforward and admit that that is their position.

But making noise about evidence and then providing none is detrimental to those who claim their position is scientific, and not faith based.

Let's call it what it is.

Christians admit that their position is a faith position. Why can't BBers admit that theirs is also?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Or is it simply -- 'Big Bang happened, this I know; for the model tells me so' ?

Yeh, that's pretty much it.

Unlike the bible however, the model is based on evidence. It's an actual result of the evidence.

Of course, since it's a scientific theory, we reserve the right to adjust the model based on any new evidence, or any more accurate theories which are presented.

Does that bother you?

Do you find it more comforting to base your views on the Bible, rather than a scientific model (derived from empirical evidence)?

What empirical evidence do you have of the Big Bang, ros?

Are you saying that you, or someone else actually observed it?

0 Replies

are you aware, rl, of some of the evidence that has been forwarded that is consistant with a BB?

0 Replies

real, Try this link which shows proof for BB. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

None for creationism - just "faith."

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Christians admit that their position is a faith position. Why can't BBers admit that theirs is also?

Because it isn't.

The definition of faith is believing something without evidence. Those who give credence to the theory of the Big Bang are basing their beliefs on the best scientific knowledge that we have.

The key difference between Christians and "BBers" is that, were a new, more plausible, more evidence-based model of the universe to emerge a true scientist would helplessly abandon all talk of the Big Bang for the new theory.

Absolutely nothing similar to that could be said about Chrisitans. EVEN WHEN WE FIND EVIDENCE that contradicts the Bible, Christians shrug it off as irrelevant, biased, inaccurate data.

But they are immediately impressed with the truth-finding power of science when it seems to support what they already believe.

It somewhat angers me that Biblically-based models of how the world came into existence are being put on equal footing with scientific explanations. It was a tremendous win for the Christians to get "debates" like this posted on websites and printed in editorial columns, but it really should never have happened in the first place.

Personally, I like the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster more than the story of Genesis.... but no one engages in serious debate about its ability to challenge the Big Bang theory (despite the fact there is exactly the same body of evidence supporting the FSM theory's validity as the Bible's).

0 Replies

Welcome STL to A2k, I live in the horrible town of Rolla MO, just down I-44 west of you.

I swear, anytime I bring up the flying spegetti monster, I must be typing in white, because no Theist wanst to entertain the notion that their platform is the like of the FSM.

Nice to "meat" a pastafarian.

0 Replies

My, my, two Missourians.

Have you guys been watching the PBS documentary on the Mormons? Did you know that Joseph Smith, after extensive biblical study and some coaching from the archangel Moroni, discovered that the Garden of Eden was a real place and had actually been located on the site of what would in the future be Independence, Missouri?

Y'all are living in the Promised Land. Can't argue with biblical facts like that.

0 Replies

username wrote:

My, my, two Missourians.

Have you guys been watching the PBS documentary on the Mormons? Did you know that Joseph Smith, after extensive biblical study and some coaching from the archangel Moroni, discovered that the Garden of Eden was a real place and had actually been located on the site of what would in the future be Independence, Missouri?

Y'all are living in the Promised Land. Can't argue with biblical facts like that.

I live in Missour-ee, not Missour-uh. If I had my way St. Louis would secede from this otherwise backwards state.

Independence, MO? For those of you unfamiliar with the vast swaths of this state that are blood red, envision NASCAR, morbidly obese 30-somethings using motorized carts in Wal-Mart and gnawing on chicken fingers, and "W the President" stickers on Ford pickups left and right.

Ah... God Bless America.

0 Replies

username wrote:

Y'all are living in the Promised Land. Can't argue with biblical facts like that.

A promise to suck.

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

username wrote:
My, my, two Missourians.

Have you guys been watching the PBS documentary on the Mormons? Did you know that Joseph Smith, after extensive biblical study and some coaching from the archangel Moroni, discovered that the Garden of Eden was a real place and had actually been located on the site of what would in the future be Independence, Missouri?

Y'all are living in the Promised Land. Can't argue with biblical facts like that.

I live in Missour-ee, not Missour-uh. If I had my way St. Louis would secede from this otherwise backwards state.

Independence, MO? For those of you unfamiliar with the vast swaths of this state that are blood red, envision NASCAR, morbidly obese 30-somethings using motorized carts in Wal-Mart and gnawing on chicken fingers, and "W the President" stickers on Ford pickups left and right.

Ah... God Bless America.

Ah....ignorance.

Jackson County, in which Independence (the home of Harry Truman) is the county seat, is solidly 'blue' and has been for decades.

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

real life wrote:

Christians admit that their position is a faith position. Why can't BBers admit that theirs is also?

Because it isn't.

The definition of faith is believing something without evidence.

That's certainly one of many definitions of 'faith'. That means that the word is used thusly by some people.

'Belief' , which is listed as a synonym of 'faith' in Merriam Webster, is ALSO defined thus:

Quote:

Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan -- more at BELIEVE
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/belief

So to try to make a case, or imply as you did, that ALL belief (faith) is credulous acceptance without evidence is basically demagoguery.

Your definition isn't THE definition of faith, it is A definition. And by no means the only one.

stlstrike3 wrote:

Those who give credence to the theory of the Big Bang are basing their beliefs on the best scientific knowledge that we have.

Since ros has been unwilling or unable to supply empirical evidence of the BB, (which he claimed existed), you wanna give it a shot?

Some honest-to-goodness empirical evidence would be very entertaining, but I suspect what we'll get instead is circumstantial evidence, inferrentially handled to try to convince us what COULDA happened (really! it coulda!)

Some points I asked him to confirm with evidence were:

----that a singularity actually DID exist

----that an explosion actually DID occur

----where said singularity came from

----of what the singularity was composed

----why it exploded

0 Replies

Only someone with no understanding of the basics of space-time would ask the question as "where said singularity came from".

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real, Try this link which shows proof for BB. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

Yes, CI, I've seen this before. Pick out what YOU believe is the STRONGEST evidence on this link you've funished, and we'll discuss.

(I'm not going to try to answer dozens of links that you've simply cut and pasted. Whenever I have, I am inevitably accused of trying to 'cherry pick' the evidence because I wouldn't devote mega-hours to typing a response to each and every point.)

0 Replies

In 'real life' cause and effect must always follownot!

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know