Creation/evolution3

[Mister Agenda]

Before you respond remeber we are going to be using the dictionary defination of 'empirical evidence' not the atheist/butchered version.

Please cite the definition 'we' are going to be using.

Belief: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

Excellent point, Drich, I hate it when people conflate faith and belief, he should have just said 'faith'.

faith/fāTH/
noun
1.complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

The problem you guys have (those Atheist without reading disorders) is that you think you understand the terms you use.

That's a good example of a claim that will be easy for you to prove with examples if it's true.

Where as I have to look everything up. but, when I do I see that many of you misuse terms and misunderstand principles like how the big bang and Evolution are not supported by empirical evidence as they are just pure theory and can not be verified/vetted by following the steps in the scientific method.

It might help if you looked up scientific issues on sites run by scientists instead of dishonest creationists who have never met a lie they weren't willing to tell for Jesus.

While belief in God literally follows the definations provided by the term "empirical evidence," and on a personal level one can apply the 'scientific method' to what God provides you.

Yet, you didn't bother to demonstrate how belief in God literally follows the definition of 'empirical evidence'. I think it's because you know your assertion won't stand up to scrutiny, so the less you support it, the better.

But again they are both just PURE theory based on logic.

But again, they are not. They are based on evidence, as is required for a theory to be considered scientific. They explain observed phenomena better than any alternative explanation known. That the universe is expanding is based on observation. Predictions were made of what evidence we would expect to find if the universe was once in a hot, dense state; and that evidence was found. And to increase the absurdity of your position, many Christian apologists point to the 'Big Bang' as evidence of God 'poofing' the universe into existence.

The application of the theory in these cases takes observiable phenominoma like the fossile record and 'old light' and assimilates them into what is believed. Nothing conclusive in the fossile records point to the viablity of Evolution, nor can the theory of evolution be vetted through the scientific method.

Among the many evidences of the theory of evolution is that it can be used to make useful predictions, such as what sort of fossils we can expect to find in a previously unexplored sedimentary bed. The funny thing about 'missing links' is that they're only 'missing' if evolution is true. Each one we find is another board in the scaffold of evolution and another nail in the coffin of creationism.

That why it remains pure theory with no empirical evidence that supports it.

You keep using that term 'pure theory'. I don't think it means what you think it does.

Rahter it works backwards from real science. In real/applied science the observation of emperical evidence supports a theory from the ground up.

In real science, we don't form the theory in advance of observations that it explains. Evolution and cosmological theories are no exception.

In fringe sciences like with evolution and the big bang, their creators (darwin and Lemaître 'a priest') postiulated their theories LONG before we have anything to support what they thought.

I guess we can add fringe science to the list of terms you don't really understand. Darwin traveled the world and based his theory on what he observed, and Wallace nearly beat him to publication drawing the same conclusions from similar evidence. Lamaitre was also an astronomer and physicist (him being a priest is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand) who proposed an expanding universe to explain astronomical observations of the radial velocity of certain nebulae. The important thing about both of those theories that you seem unable to comprehend is that they were used to make predictions which had the potential to falsify them, but instead the evidence that they were essentially correct continues to mount to this day.

So in the cases of the big bang as well as evolution we are working from the top down.

That would be a good point if it weren't a lie.

Meaning we have a core theory and then we look for anything to support what is already believed. (confirmation bias).

Another lie. What you look for with a theory, including and perhaps especially with these two, is evidence that they are wrong. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can actually do that. People have been trying to tear down Darwin's theory for nearly two centuries, and there's no way to better support a theory than sincere and repeated efforts to dismantle it continually failing.

Which aagain has been attributed to belief in God.

Which again is completely irrelevant. At any point in the history of these theories, we could have found evidence that disproves them, if it exists, whether God is real or not...unless you're proposing that there is evidence, which God is hiding from scientists?

It seems to me 'science' is the faith based system of belief while Belief in God is supported by evidence.

It seems that way to you because fundamentalist religion has nearly ruined the mind which, if he exists, God gave you.

You do know that everything we have observed in space that supports our current throies come from relitivly one single point in time and in space.

One can't be said to truly know something that is false. With the Hubble Telescope we have peered about 13.2 billion years into the past, when the universe was probably less than a billion years old. We can see the universe's youngest galaxies. We have had literally millions of chances to discover something that disconfirms the essentials of the initial expansion model of the universe. And that's not taking into accound the centuries we've been making observations or the distance our solar system has traveled in that time.

That would be like trying to witness events going on 1000 years ago in China sitting from the observation deck on top of the empire state building two days from now. Yes your really high up and yes you can really see a long way, but your vantage point will not allow you to witness what it is you want to see.

As an astronomer, what do I actually want to see? Our solar system or China? Because if I was a thousand light years away with a telescope as powerful as the Hubble, I could see our solar system as it was 1,000 years ago. We'll likely never be able to view our own past directly because we would have to travel faster than the speed of light to do so, but we can learn a lot about the history of our universe, galaxies, and solar systems by seeing them as they were a long time ago.

Why? because you are tied to one point in time and space, and what you want to see occupies another.

Except that you've misidentified what we want to see in order to learn about the history of the universe. Earth has no special significance in that story. Galaxies that formed before the universe was half-a-billion years old do...and we can see them.