The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[NoGodaloud ?]

You HAVE supporting evidence. Mountains of it. Your ability to accept it in lieu of whatever fantasy you've concocted is not required.

what you have, is supporting evidence for any kind of interpretation. Neither one or the other is more scientific. The evidence cannot be testet, to make one claim true over the other.

You know what? whatever. Don't answer. I've already proven my point beyond a reasonable doubt.

No, you have absolutely not. You can make this same assertion thousand times, it wont change anything. Who is credulous, is you, not me. i doubt neodarwinism is true, based on rational and reasonable skeptiscism.

You've already proven that no matter what I show you, no matter how much science and positive proof that I have to back up my claims, you're doing nothing but demanding that I keep doing more.

stop claiming you showed the proofs, and start actually showing it.

I've already proven that your cosmological arguement is bunk.

wishful thinking.

I've provided numerous scientific papers backed with scientific study in support of evolution and all of the sciences that have been brought up in this discussion.

you should start and not throw a buch of papers on me, but start with one subject.

It's not the same thing. Science goes where the evidence points and changes its theories with new evidence.

again, it seems you dont want to understand. The evidence is subject to personal interpretation.

Theism uses evidence to prove a preconcieved point and discards evidence that don't point in that direction. Theism has no evidence in support of any of its supernatural claims. Not one of any of the so called creation scientists you've showed me can even be publishd in scientific circles precisely because of this reason and thus you haven't even provided anything to counter any of the overwhelming evidence for the big bang, evolution, or any of the other topics that have been brought up.

have i not answered this already ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosop...w-t335.htm

Science has been redefined to include only naturalistic explanations. All observed and hypothesized processes in the universe must be the result of natural causes. No supernatural explanations are allowed.

"Naturalistic science" points to naturalism, whether philosophical or methodological, both of which are essentially the same. Neither of which will allow the supernatural as a cause for anything in this world, even if logical. Natural causes must account for everything. So if scientific findings shows limits in natural causes, it doesn't matter because natural causes must have done everything. This shows that it is not the science that is important, but the reigning philosophy of naturalism. By definition, it will exclude any other possible explanation, whether presuppositional or logical or even rational, including the possibility of the supernatural, so it is true that naturalistic "science", or rather the naturalistic interpretation of scientific evidence will always miss a supernatural explanation. Whatever the supernatural is, the naturalistic mind will not accept it. That's why it is true that research today is not about finding real answers, but only confirming a naturalistic philosophy.

naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation.

the essence of science is the testing of hypotheses against the evidence. The definition we just heard is that science starts with the assumption that everything in the world can be explained without recourse to supernatural causes."

This entire thread has been about the big bang being evidence for the supernatural. I've already thoroughly debunked this notion and you've given me nothing to scientificially counter any of my statements or whatever proofs I've provided.

of course not. The Kalaam cosmological argument is philosophic, not scientific. Why should only science be able to lead us to the truth ?

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

Both of your prior quotes from Hawking and from... yahoo answers or whatever it was. You quoted both of them but the context of neither one supported any theological implications of a supernatural origin. Hawking even specifically refuted that point.

nope, and i showed already , why i don't agree.

Sorry, things don't really work like that. That's why I'm not really taking this particular arguement seriously.

The bible states that the universe was created in six days,

where ?

the earth is flat

where ?

and has a giant dome over it which cracked to let the water in to cause Noah's flood, bushes that happen to have been lit on fire can talk to people, people can be transformed into salt, and all the animals that exist now were there within the first six days of creation.
No. Science has refuted anything in the bible that matters. Genesis is just the blatantly obvious one.

prove me, miracles don't happen.

And he's wrong.

prove me why.

Evolution has proof in genetic markers,

proof it, pleeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase. throwing assertions, without backing it up, makes no sense.
And please , no book quotes, that wont help.

archeological finds from all around the world, modern day evidence from observation both in nature and in laboratory conditions.

these are historical sciences, and the findings do aloud different interpretations.

Creation science has NOTHING. All of the above is repeatable, testable,

historical sciences cannot repeat macroevolution to test it true.

and there's mountains of evidence in the fossil record and genetic codes of all living things to support the conclusion that things have evolved over time in accordance with speciation.

the fossil record does not necessarly proof macroevolution. If you think it does, show the evidence at theother thread.

Simply put, you are equating belief and fact as the same thing.

nope, thats actually exacty what you are doing.

It's as if I walked into a murder scene, made up the conclusion, and ignored all of the evidence because it is 'unprovable', 'untestible', and whatever else you've mentioned.

the murder scence can proof with collecting blood for example, and dna testing, the murder was at the scene. At historical sciences, evidence can lead to one or the other direction. Interpretations are always grounded on personal bias and preferences.