The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[NoGodaloud ?]

Where is the difference ?

Evidence. Proof. Evolution/big bang/science has it. "Creation science' does not.

there is no proof in historical sciences.

http://creationwiki.org/Argument_from_incredulity

We are talking about evolution, a theory that tries to tell us what happened in an unseen, unobservable, unrepeatable past. The fact that someone invents a natural "explanation" for something that is unseen, unobserved — and hence unscientific — does not mean that that explanation has any basis in reality. Without supporting evidence, it is a mere suggestion, a speculation.

I HAVE been showing you proof.

You have not. And i am not saying that to make fun of you. I mean it seriously.

The fact that you've apparently chosen to ignore the scientific papers showing results of scientists posting about these topics has apaprently done nothing to dispel these icipid requests.

ok. lets make things clear. About which issue exactly do you believe, you have some proofs ? this thread is starting to get confused. So i thinki we should stick to this topic, and if you want to discuss something else more in detail, you can open a new thread.

Aside from showing you scientific reports, pointing you toward museums and libraries that'll most certainly have far more information than you need on evolution, human and otherwise, then aside from getting research funding myself, doing twenty or more years of research, and video recording and sending you all of the results, what more do you honestly want me to do?

ok. You want to discuss the evolution theory ?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-4545.html

you can present the proof you have. I will make some specific questions, which you might want to answer.

I'm telling you that either you're misquoting them, bring them out of context, or blatantly falsifying what they're saying.

Please show that your accusations are true.

You certainly have gone to zero lengths to at least prove that what you say they said is written somewhere.

at the webpages, where you find the quotes, you will find the source mentioned. That will be your tool to prove me wrong.

The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephan Hawking
The Nature of Space and Time by Stephan Hawking and Roger Penrose
The Grand Design by Stephan Hawking and Mlodinow Leonard
I've also read this book by Brian Greene on the nature of space-time

you need to be more specific. You wont ask me to read these books, to give you an answer tomorrow morning, right ?

I've been reading books like tihs since I was in Jr. High School and there are probably a good deal more than I'm forgetting about that I've read. So, I think I know what I'm talking about when I say that your quote-mined and out-of-context quotes that you did not provide a link for or even have you pointed me in the right direction of where these individuals stated these things gives me enough authority to say that no you're absolutely wrong. They either didn't say those things or they did but in a context that means something different than what you think it means.

Ok. Pick just one quote of mine, and show me, how i misleaded you.

Evidence. Proof. Science has it. Creationism and theism do not.

You have a excellent oportunity now to show me that your assertions are true. Please begin at the new thread.

I never attempted to prove string theory, so I don't know what you attempted to prove here.

You start being funny.

I quote what you said in your previous post :

String theory, just like any other hypothosis that hasn't been answered yet, is of course supported by evidence. Specially all evidence on the topic of quantum phyiscs and astrophysics and everything in between. it is much more than a guess. It's a guess based on literally the entire body of scientific evidence from virtually all fields of physics.

Now compare to what i quoted :

David Gross a Nobel Laureate made some startling statements about the state of physics including: "We don't know what we are talking about" whilst referring to string theory as well as "The state of physics today is like it was when we were mystified by radioactivity."

Coming from a scientist with establishment credentials this is a damning statement about the state of current theoretical models and most notably string theory.The end result of string theory is that we know less and less and are becoming more and more confused. Of course, the argument could be made that further investigations will yield more relevant data whereby we will tweak the model to an eventual perfecting of our understanding of it. Or perhaps 'We don't know what we are talking about.'

David Ross admits "We don't know what we are talking about"

So, where is your claimed evidence, if Nobel Laureate David Ross admits openly they don't not even know what they are talking about......

String Theory is a unification of all physics-related sciences related to things big and small from the atom to the super-cluster. There's plenty of evidence that forms the basis of which string theory is postulated among other possible theories as well.

It seems you know it better then than a Noble laureate in physics.... Amazing. Congrats.....

Which does mean that string theory has not been proven and hasn't been for some time. However, that does NOT mean someone just guessed it and now they're trying to prove it. That's not how science works.

But you have made the assertion there is evidence to back it up. Please show the evidence.

What evidence for dualism? Where in that paper is it?

i have shown you some already. But you might tell me, how do you explain our ability of free choice ?
If there is no mind, our choices should be made strictly based on brain stimulus. Beside this, how do you explain our ability of speech and thinking ? Why are whe as humans so distinct, and fare above any kind of animal ? How can you cross Einstein's Gulf ?

http://www.christiscreator.com/evolutionclass101.htm

Albert Einstein,undoubtedly one of the greatest scientists of all time, described the "gulf' that logically separates the concrete world of hard objects on the one hand from the abstract world of ideas on the other. He wrote: We have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf-logically unbridgeable which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

I have a bias, such that it is, against using imagination in place of fact.

you have a chance now, to show what facts you have on hand, over the other thread, i have opened. i want to see you only argumenting with facts on hand, no imagination.

And religion in place of science.

I don't see a reason, why both should be excludent. You might explain, why.

Your website has an agenda, like all creationist, religious, and biased websites.

And you want me make believe, you don't have one, too ?

They do not go where the evidence leads them

How do you know ? How do you know, what convinces me, what not ? Can you read my mind, to know what convinces me ?

they make a conclusion and attempt to find evidence to support it.

yep. Darwinists don't....

That's the difference between theism and science.

There is no dilemma between theism and science. There is only a disagreement between atheists, and theists. Between creationists, and evolutionists. But rely on speculation and personal opinions. Nothing else. Prove me wrong over at the other thread.

That's why science is consistent and can make contributions to society in a meaningful manner.

no doubt science does. I love science.

This process has led to evolution, big bang, heliocentrism of the solar system, a round earth, gravity, computers, the steam engine, and just about everything else you can think of.

Which had based through some of the greatest scientists of all time, which were theists. Just a list , you might change a littlebit your pressupositions.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/christia...s-t149.htm

and how do you explain, that 40% of the scientists in america believe in god ??

This is why alchemy and astrology are not science and chemistry and astronomy are.

and what do these have to do with theism ?

This is why evolution is taught in high school biology.

teaching microevolution and speciation makes perfectly sense.

This is why relativity is widely 'believed' to be true.

who said i don't accept it ?

This is why we think the earth is 4.54 billion years old instead of 6010 years old.

The bible doesnt say the earth is 6 th years old.

I do not choose my own facts. They are not a choice. My bias, such as you call it, is because I have chosen to reject fantasy in place of science.

Who told you i choose fantasy over science ?

The reason I choose to have a bias toward proof, evidence, testibility, and science, is because it provides me with answers that change only with new evidence and not a change of opinion or delusion.

you have proofs only in mathematical formulas and equations. But you think differently. I am waiting you to show me i am wrong.

That is why in a contest of facts, science will eventually bring us again to the moon, to the stars, and unlock the secrets of our past and our future while religion will still quibble over who is going to hell and who isn't, who doeserves god's wrath and who doesn't, and how many virgins I get in the afterlife for killing as many people as I can when I blow myself up.

please don't mix up things. First : i am not a muslim. Secondly, the sectrets science has unlocked have been shown in complete accordance with the bible.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics...bible.html

then you should try to explain, how our ability to speak, and to think, has evolved..... good luck.

Human Speech (articles):

throwing me a number of links will not add absolutely nothing to this debate. start with just one paper, which can be read online , and we go over it.

And?

As a authority, you should open your ears, and hear what he has to say about the issue. he has proven you wrong. Archeopterix was just a early bird. Nothing more.

It's not necessary for me to convince you. I've told you where you can find the evidence.

Thats how you want to debate ? I want to see you presenting the evidence , so we can discuss it. One by one.

I've proven that the evidence is quite overwhelmingly in favor of evolution by pointing to you the people who have studied it from the articles they write about it.

you said you have conclusive proofs. Not just overwhelming evidence. such i have as well to make my case.

You've made that point quite evident. They certainly do.

And thats what its all about. Different viewpoints based on the same scientific knowledge. Thats why creationism isnt less scientific than macro evolution. Both are based on faith and belief. Both just represent a different world view.

Baseless means my assertions have niether merit nor evident backing. I can reasonably say that I've proven the opposite case over the course of this discussion.

no, you have not. you have not even started.

They're not scientists because instead of getting their work peer-reviewed by other scientists and putting their work up to scrutiny, they've decided to allow a biased viewpoint to intercede on any scientific supposition they propose, which prevents anything they do from being anything like science.

I am wondering why you do not know the difference between operational science, and historical science, and its implications, even if i mentioned already......