The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[LastPoet]

you are boring me, in asking for proofs.

I know, I know, such a nuissance I am.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

But these are what historical sciences do. And they are called science. The Big Bang for example cannot be proven to have happened. Its a conclusion based on the evidence we have on hand. Nevertheless, its a guess, it happend, as the current most accepted theory shows it did.

We're sure it happened because that's where all of the evidence points. That's how we know for the exact same reason that if we find a bloody knife in someone's back with the fingerprints of a specific jilted lover, we can conclude with a great deal of certainty that someone at a specific moment in time, based on evidence, that the jilted lover murdered the poor sap with the knife in the back.
The same sort of science goes into finding out things during the past. There's no guessing involved so much as following where the evidence of that time leads us. That's why we can only 'see' back to a certain point. It also means that scientists are using evidence to conclude with a great deal of certainty over something specific happening in the past.

Speciation is NOT Macro-evolution. If you want to prove Macro-evolution, you need to show, how animals developed new features, like feathers, new limbs etc. This has not been demonstrated so far. So Macro-evolution remains a theory. At best.

That's nice that you think that, but again, the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. All of these things have been already found, catagorized, labelled, studied, and written about at some length by evolutionary biologists, archeologists, etc etc etc from around the world for well over a century and a half with a great deal of accuracy.
So, despite what you may think, you're still wrong that it hasn't been proven.

More to a related point, I'm interested in how you can think micro-evolution can happen but macro-evolution can't, considering that there's no distinction between the two except the amount of time available. Microevolution happens over short time scales but macroevolution is the same thing, but with significantly more time allowed to happen. Proving one exists is the same as proving hte other exists since they're both the same thing.

The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing.

Theorems by Hawking and Penrose show that as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity-or beginning-is inevitable, and that it's impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state. And there's no known physics that could reverse a contracting universe and suddenly make it bounce before it hits the singularity. The whole theory was simply a theoretical abstraction. Physics never supported it.

Oh please. I've actually read articles by both of those phyiscists and neither of them postulate what you just said. Utter nonsense.

You can speculate about a oscillating universe, but these theories have gone out of consideration because of the implications, which make these hypotheses very unlikely.

You know, you've been stating things like this over and over again when I've already made clear and with a great deal of scientific backing that BS like this just isn't true. The only thing I'm not sure of right now is whether or not you've simply retreated to repeating talking points based on the kool-aid you've been drinking off the creationist/christian websites or if you're deliberately attempting to mislead me into believing you because you say them.
Even if an oscillating universe is less likely than other postulations, the possibility hasn't been ruled out based on certain evidence-backed theories and even if that specific model is proven completely wrong, there is certainly other possibilities that can exist both in theory and others that haven't even been considered yet.

but you can try to provide another possible scenario. What else is left, if we include the possibility of a eternal universe in some form, and a universe, which came to be a finite time ago,at the Big Bang, from absolutely nothing ? Either the universe is finite, or its not. Thats all we have. I am wondering, why you try to attack this statement, if its plainly clear and logical.

A clear and logical statement does not absolutely imply that either option must be correct.
The only honest answer, as I've told you numerous times with evident backing, is that we don't know. No one does. So any attempt to provide such an answer, no matter how logical, is ultimately irrelevant because no answer can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

String theory is also pure speculation, without any evidence whatsoever to backup these models.

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's one of several attempts to explain the nature of the universe. It's favored among physicists because it very well unifies all known physics but its predictions haven't been proven experimentally yet.

As such, 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. As such, the reason the theory exists is because the evidence we have point to this as enormously possibile as an account to unify all physics.

As such, you're absolutely wrong. It is not 'mere speculation.' It's a scientific hypothosis with a great deal of evident backing, similarly to many other theories based on the same evidence. All are equally possible until experimentation is done to prove one thing over another and a theory goes from hypothosis to theory - just like many other theories that have undergone the same process, like the heliocentric solar system.

wrong. I cited :

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivi...et_NDE.htm

Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands
Pim van Lommel, Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, Ingrid Elfferich

... okay, fair enough. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as I may have clicked on the wrong link.
... skimming through the paper, I see no ties with any supernatural event. No attempt is made to explain the reason behind these NDEs and I have no reason whatsoever to believe this at all refutes my position on the matter.

As to your link with heavenforums, stop it. It's annoying, clearly biased (and thus their 'conclusions' are skewed toward the desire to find a specific answer), and therefore utterly irrelevant.

>snipped for space<
So she not only heard what was said to her, but she understood, and complied with the researchers’ requests to think about specific activities like playing tennis and walking across a room.

And what is this supposed to prove? If anything, all this tells me is that the parts of the patient's brain that recognizes words wasn't as dead as the rest of the patient's brain. It's very interesting, but I don't see how it proves conciousness outside of the body.

that is not a proven fact.

It doesn't at all surprise me that you share the position that theists and creationists have in which they can say that they can be convinced if enough proof were only uncovered. Yet, in all the time since the archeoptrix was uncovered, the proof has been piling up, and this goalpost has been becoming increasingly demanding. Still, it only proves that there are certain people win which no amount of evidence is proof.
We have a complete fossil record connecting humans to the animal kingdom. It was even proven that human beings are a kind of ape species even before Darwin penned his book and we've been a species of apes ever since with only more and more confirmation evidence to back this up.

"Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.

That's not even a question that anyone has attempted to answer. That's not even how evolution works, and no amount of biased ignorance from people who blatantly reject evolution despite the demonsterable evidence to the contrary that you can quote is going to be capable of proving otherwise.
Evolution - micro and macro, as you call it - is the basis of several forms of science to the point that the 101 classes of these branches of science are required to teach it to know anything about these subjects. It's a fundemental part of nature that's been proven with every archeological find for centuries, every new detail we uncover from the genome of any living or sometimes unliving creature (such as RNA, viruses, and proteins).

My point is that you can reject the science behind it all you want and there are certainly creationists who agree with you. I don't doubt that. My point is that your viewpoint does not represent any kind of credible scientific viewpoint.

So where is the evidence through genetics, that we have a common ancestor, with all animals ?

... I'm starting to think that you really aren't reading my posts.
As I said in the last post, it's the same way we can prove that we're related to our family can show how much or how little we are related to, say chimpanzees, the hippopotomus, a red oak tree, a paramecium, and Kevin Bacon. Genetics not only can determine from what degree to which two subjects are related but also by looking at the similar and different genes (with knowledge of what these things do) and active and inactive genes we can determine how we're related.
For example, I can determine quite easily that a human is far more in common as well as the ways that a human is related to a cat simply by using this method. Having fossils also can confirm this as can genetics confirm fossils toward this end.

So yes, there is evidence. Mountains of it.

in a 2003 paper Dr. Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin showed that that the exact same issues of entropy that plagued earlier cyclic models still plagued Steinhardt and Turok’s model and that while it was possible for the cyclic model to be eternal into the future, it had to have a definitive beginning in the past.

Two things. First, once more, heavenforums and all the links I've managed to see once I got there is not science. At best, it's a rational arguement based on no evidence.

Second, even in the wikipedia article acknowledges that despite some difficulties with certain cyclic models, others and more modern versions do not have as many difficulties. Still, 'less likely' does not mean 'unlikely' - it simply means that other models are believed to be more likely given current data, but none of the possibilities, including some cyclic models, are ruled out as distinct possibilities with firm footing in the science that it is concerned with.

[Tiberius]

@TheDarkestOfAngels, @NoGodaloud

I wasn't saying that NoGodaloud used an argument from authority; I was only rebutting his statement that there was nothing wrong with saying one. I was explaining the fallacy behind it.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I wasn't saying that NoGodaloud used an argument from authority; I was only rebutting his statement that there was nothing wrong with saying one. I was explaining the fallacy behind it.

Fair enough. I must have misconstrued your statement.

[NoGodaloud ?]

We're sure it happened because that's where all of the evidence points. That's how we know for the exact same reason that if we find a bloody knife in someone's back with the fingerprints of a specific jilted lover, we can conclude with a great deal of certainty that someone at a specific moment in time, based on evidence, that the jilted lover murdered the poor sap with the knife in the back.
The same sort of science goes into finding out things during the past. There's no guessing involved so much as following where the evidence of that time leads us. That's why we can only 'see' back to a certain point. It also means that scientists are using evidence to conclude with a great deal of certainty over something specific happening in the past.

And based on the same reasoning, i conclude with a great deal of certainty, God exists.
The very existence of our universe, its beginning, the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, the constants of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe, the contained specific and complex information in DNA, the complexity of a cell and its irreducible complexity, human consciousness and ability of speech and thinkink, its consciousness of morality, and the bible do let me conclude with a great deal of certainty, God exists. Where is the difference ?

That's nice that you think that, but again, the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. All of these things have been already found, catagorized, labelled, studied, and written about at some length by evolutionary biologists, archeologists, etc etc etc from around the world for well over a century and a half with a great deal of accuracy.
So, despite what you may think, you're still wrong that it hasn't been proven.

Show me the proof then.

More to a related point, I'm interested in how you can think micro-evolution can happen but macro-evolution can't, considering that there's no distinction between the two except the amount of time available. Microevolution happens over short time scales but macroevolution is the same thing, but with significantly more time allowed to happen. Proving one exists is the same as proving hte other exists since they're both the same thing.

then you should have no difficulty to show you are right. Please show me. Bring examples.

Theorems by Hawking and Penrose show that as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity-or beginning-is inevitable, and that it's impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state. And there's no known physics that could reverse a contracting universe and suddenly make it bounce before it hits the singularity. The whole theory was simply a theoretical abstraction. Physics never supported it.

Oh please. I've actually read articles by both of those phyiscists and neither of them postulate what you just said. Utter nonsense.[/quote]

That was not ME saying this. That was THEM. Show me wrong.

Even if an oscillating universe is less likely than other postulations, the possibility hasn't been ruled out based on certain evidence-backed theories and even if that specific model is proven completely wrong, there is certainly other possibilities that can exist both in theory and others that haven't even been considered yet.

a amazing faith you have..... amazing.....in naturalism. however, you reject theism at ANY cost as probable rational explanation. Why ?

A clear and logical statement does not absolutely imply that either option must be correct.
The only honest answer, as I've told you numerous times with evident backing, is that we don't know. No one does. So any attempt to provide such an answer, no matter how logical, is ultimately irrelevant because no answer can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

your evasion is evident.

As such, you're absolutely wrong. It is not 'mere speculation.' It's a scientific hypothosis with a great deal of evident backing, similarly to many other theories based on the same evidence. All are equally possible until experimentation is done to prove one thing over another and a theory goes from hypothosis to theory - just like many other theories that have undergone the same process, like the heliocentric solar system.

Last December ('05), physicists held the 23rd Solvay Conference in Brussels, Belgium. Amongst the many topics covered in the conference was the subject matter of string theory. This theory combines the apparently irreconcilable domains of quantum physics and relativity. 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.'

great evidence you have.....

... okay, fair enough. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as I may have clicked on the wrong link.
... skimming through the paper, I see no ties with any supernatural event. No attempt is made to explain the reason behind these NDEs and I have no reason whatsoever to believe this at all refutes my position on the matter.

of course. Its a scientific paper...... dualism is clearly evidenced. Does not see it, who does not want to.

As to your link with heavenforums, stop it. It's annoying, clearly biased (and thus their 'conclusions' are skewed toward the desire to find a specific answer), and therefore utterly irrelevant.

thats my personal virtual library. As long as i cite secular scientists, what matters, if my website is biased? How about you ? your bias is obvious too......

And what is this supposed to prove? If anything, all this tells me is that the parts of the patient's brain that recognizes words wasn't as dead as the rest of the patient's brain. It's very interesting, but I don't see how it proves conciousness outside of the body.

http://worldview3.50webs.com/naturalism.html

The first proposition we've listed for naturalism states that "Matter/Energy is all there is for eternity,..." and if this is true, then the totality of man is only matter. If there is some degree of consciousness and thought in the brain of man, that thinking is still only a result of matter's properties. Why would these "thoughts" produced by matter (the chemical brain of man) correspond to the truth of reality? Matter has no known interest in truth. Why should chemicals be able to distinguish illusion from reality, since there is no rational and purposive cause for the existence of man or his mind,? ...Of course, naturalists may appeal to scientific inquiry and the laws of logical thought. But this begs the question, because it is the chemical brain which is "thinking" and using the scientific method and the laws of thought ...all of which might still be an illusion, and not reality. C.S.Lewis quotes Prof. Haldane as saying, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms" ("Miracles", p.18). This may be like the motion of atoms to create "thoughts" in a computer ...what is to determine whether those computer "thoughts" are true or not? If naturalism is right, and matter is all there is, then even our "thoughts" about thinking and the brain and everything else may be nothing but illusion.

It doesn't at all surprise me that you share the position that theists and creationists have in which they can say that they can be convinced if enough proof were only uncovered. Yet, in all the time since the archeoptrix was uncovered, the proof has been piling up, and this goalpost has been becoming increasingly demanding. Still, it only proves that there are certain people win which no amount of evidence is proof.
We have a complete fossil record connecting humans to the animal kingdom. It was even proven that human beings are a kind of ape species even before Darwin penned his book and we've been a species of apes ever since with only more and more confirmation evidence to back this up.

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

That's not even a question that anyone has attempted to answer. That's not even how evolution works, and no amount of biased ignorance from people who blatantly reject evolution despite the demonsterable evidence to the contrary that you can quote is going to be capable of proving otherwise.

it seems you forgot were the answer came from :

Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London

Evolution - micro and macro, as you call it - is the basis of several forms of science to the point that the 101 classes of these branches of science are required to teach it to know anything about these subjects. It's a fundemental part of nature that's been proven with every archeological find for centuries, every new detail we uncover from the genome of any living or sometimes unliving creature (such as RNA, viruses, and proteins).

Show the evidence. Baseless assertions wont do it to convince me.

My point is that you can reject the science behind it all you want and there are certainly creationists who agree with you. I don't doubt that. My point is that your viewpoint does not represent any kind of credible scientific viewpoint.

The viewpoint isn't scientific in any case. Its just a viewpoint. Creationists just interprete the scientific discoveries in a different way.

... I'm starting to think that you really aren't reading my posts.

i am reading them. What you are doing so far, is just throwing around baseless assertions. Please start to present the evidence.

As I said in the last post, it's the same way we can prove that we're related to our family can show how much or how little we are related to, say chimpanzees, the hippopotomus, a red oak tree, a paramecium, and Kevin Bacon. Genetics not only can determine from what degree to which two subjects are related but also by looking at the similar and different genes (with knowledge of what these things do) and active and inactive genes we can determine how we're related.

Present the evidence. Where is it ?

For example, I can determine quite easily that a human is far more in common as well as the ways that a human is related to a cat simply by using this method. Having fossils also can confirm this as can genetics confirm fossils toward this end.

Present a scientific paper to back up your claims.

Two things. First, once more, heavenforums and all the links I've managed to see once I got there is not science. At best, it's a rational arguement based on no evidence.

So Guth and Vilenkin are not scientists, just because cited at my forum ? and what they say, isnt science neither ? i think i am starting wasting my time......

Second, even in the wikipedia article acknowledges that despite some difficulties with certain cyclic models, others and more modern versions do not have as many difficulties. Still, 'less likely' does not mean 'unlikely' - it simply means that other models are believed to be more likely given current data, but none of the possibilities, including some cyclic models, are ruled out as distinct possibilities with firm footing in the science that it is concerned with.

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

The oscillating model appears to be physically impossible. For all the talk about such models, the fact seems to be that they are only theoretically, but not physically possible. As the late Professor Tinsley of Yale explains, in oscillating models "even though the mathematics say that the universe oscillates, there is no known physics to reverse the collapse and bounce back to a new expansion. The physics seems to say that those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, then end."[22] In order for the oscillating model to be correct, it would seem that the known laws of physics would have to be revised. (ii) The oscillating model seems to be observationally untenable. Two facts of observational astronomy appear to run contrary to the oscillating model. First, the observed homogeneity of matter distribution throughout the universe seems unaccountable on an oscillating model. During the contraction phase of such a model, black holes begin to gobble up surrounding matter, resulting in an inhomogeneous distribution of matter. But there is no known mechanism to "iron out" these inhomogeneities during the ensuing expansion phase. Thus, the homogeneity of matter observed throughout the universe would remain unexplained. Second, the density of the universe appears to be insufficient for the re-contraction of the universe. For the oscillating model to be even possible, it is necessary that the universe be sufficiently dense such that gravity can overcome the force of the expansion and pull the universe back together again. However, according to the best estimates, if one takes into account both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos) as well as any possible contribution of neutrino particles to total mass, the universe is still only about one-half that needed for re-contraction

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Where is the difference ?

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

Show me the proof then.

I HAVE been showing you proof. 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.
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?

That was not ME saying this. That was THEM. Show me wrong.

I'm telling you that either you're misquoting them, bring them out of context, or blatantly falsifying what they're saying. You certainly have gone to zero lengths to at least prove that what you say they said is written somewhere.
I've read several books and articles from both of those physicists and you're telling me the opposite thing that they've written about.
Since I'm sure I'm going to get slammed by 'which books' - I'll point to the one's I've read:
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

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.

a amazing faith you have..... amazing.....in naturalism. however, you reject theism at ANY cost as probable rational explanation. Why ?

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

your evasion is evident.

I haven't evaded anything. I've given you your answer. I've already stated it more than twice.

Last December ('05), physicists held the 23rd Solvay Conference in Brussels, Belgium....

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

of course. Its a scientific paper...... dualism is clearly evidenced. Does not see it, who does not want to.

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

thats my personal virtual library. As long as i cite secular scientists, what matters, if my website is biased? How about you ? your bias is obvious too......

I have a bias, such that it is, against using imagination in place of fact. Fantasy in place of truth. And religion in place of science.
Your website has an agenda, like all creationist, religious, and biased websites. They do not go where the evidence leads them, they make a conclusion and attempt to find evidence to support it. That's the difference between theism and science. That's why science is consistent and can make contributions to society in a meaningful manner.
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.
This is why alchemy and astrology are not science and chemistry and astronomy are.
This is why evolution is taught in high school biology.
This is why relativity is widely 'believed' to be true.
This is why we think the earth is 4.54 billion years old instead of 6010 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. Replacing making up my own answers for discovering the answers that I can prove to others and can be proven to me.
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.

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.

http://worldview3.50webs.com/naturalism.html

That's nice to see what a christian website decides to think about what is and is not a worldview. If I wanted to buy into what religious websites thinks, I'd go to conservapedia to be told that atheism is a disease that causes me to perform abortions on every pregnant woman I see and gradually become hitler or that Einstein's theory of relativity is the cause for moral relativism and is wrong because of Jesus performing 'action at a distance.'
Once more you've provided me with nonsense.

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

Human Speech (articles):

The Evolution of Human Speech
MIT: No Easy Answers for the Evolution of Human Speech
(The above article explains that the process was complex - not that it did't happen or whatever ID nonsense you're likely to retort with.)
The Origin of Speech
Evolution of Human Speech

Human Speech (Books):
Eve Spoke: Human Language and Human Evolution
On the Evolution of Human Speech
The Human Speech Sounds
Strickburger's Evolution 4th Edition
(The above is actually a textbook concerning evolution in general. I do not know if it is a high school or a college textbook, but I find it more likely to be the latter given the presentation of the content and the book is far more specific than a textbook you'd get for a biology class. Still, it covers human evolution.)
On the Evolution of Human Behavior: The Arguement from Animals to Man
Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language
The Evolutoin of the Chinese Language: As Examplifying the Origin and Growth of Human Speech

The Evolution of the Human Mind (Articles):

Humans: THe Mind's Big Bang
Evolutoin and Human Origins
The Evolution of the Human Brain
Evolution of the Human Mind
THe Origins of the Human Mind: Insights from Brain Imaging and Evolution

The Evolution of the Human Mind (Books):

Evolution of the Huma Mind: Modularity, Language, and Meta-Cognition
Kludge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind
On the Origin of the Human Mind
Cosmic Conciousness: A Study of the Evolution of the Human Mind
The Evolution of Mind: Fundemental Questions and Controversies

And for the Bonus: Animal Language (Books and Articles):

Animal Talk: Breaking the Codes of Animal Language
Animal Language Institute
Website featuring published papers and books that have evidently been peer reviewed
Animals: Animal Language
Animal Cognition

Everything above has their own cited sources, studies, scientifically peer reviewed, or have plenty of evidence to back up their claims or some combination of all of the above. Not one like that you've shown me that supports any claim you've made has even one of qualifiers.
That's just what I can search for on google as I sit here on this computer, it doesn't include the mountains of work done that has been published in libraries, library articles, museums, professional papers, news/web/digital articles, book stores (barnes and noble, college, etc), etc. etc. etc.

Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London

And?

Show the evidence. Baseless assertions wont do it to convince me.

It's not necessary for me to convince you. I've told you where you can find the evidence. I've shown you many articles and books on the topic just from google searches. You can find all of the infomormation you'll ever need on the topic simply by looking for it. I've even given it to you as much as I can from here.
I've no need to convince you. I've given you the evidence and whether or not you choose to accept it is irrelevant. 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.

The viewpoint isn't scientific in any case. Its just a viewpoint. Creationists just interprete the scientific discoveries in a different way.

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

i am reading them. What you are doing so far, is just throwing around baseless assertions. Please start to present the evidence.

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.

For example, I can determine quite easily that a human is far more in common as well as the ways that a human is related to a cat simply by using this method. Having fossils also can confirm this as can genetics confirm fossils toward this end.

Present a scientific paper to back up your claims.

Genetic Similarity of Intestinal Spirochetes from Humans and Various Animal Species
Functional and Comparative Genomics Fact Sheet
Mouse in Science: Why Mice?
Ask a Biologist: Human DNA vs. Other Species
Human Genetics: Problems and Approaches (Page 607)

The second to last one I suppose technically isn't a scientific paper, but it's still someone asking a biologist a relevant question, but that's at least four.

So Guth and Vilenkin are not scientists, just because cited at my forum ? and what they say, isnt science neither ? i think i am starting wasting my time......

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.
It's not 'just because' they submitted their work to your website, it's because they've confused belief with fact and evidence.

The oscillating model appears to be physically impossible.

That's nice. So you've managed to find someone who supports the cosmological arguement with all the same zero evidence supporting his position. Swell.

[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......

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

there is no proof in historical sciences.

Well, what you call 'historical science' has more going for it than any theory you've presented in response.

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.

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

ok. You want to discuss the evolution theory ?

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

I've already proven that your cosmological arguement is bunk.
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.
The scant few secular scientists you've managed to drudge up against me have only supported me when I've brought them into their proper context.

All you've managed to provide me with are links to people who make things up and pass it as science because you seem to have the preconcieved notion that making things up and trying to find evidence for it is the same thing is scientific research.

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

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.

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

When you provide for me a link to an actual scientific paper, I'll address it.

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.

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

Missed my point entirely... no matter. Then provide evidence that he is speaking for every physicist who has ever acknowledged and/or works with string theory. You've managed to grab one guy at a physics conference who says 'I don't know what the F we're doing" and the amusing thing is that you think this completely invalidates the entire idea.
Sorry, things don't really work like that. That's why I'm not really taking this particular arguement seriously.

Since you still haven't bothered to show me where you got the quote, I can't even confirm if it isn't BS or not like your other religious-laden "science" links.

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

What evidence is going to satisfy you? I don't mean to this particular response, but over any of the topics? I've provided you with link after link to legitimately scientific papers with all the results of decades of study and those papers themselves reference other works from researchers on the same topic.

i have shown you some already.

No you haven't. You've provided a link to the entire paper and basically said "here. this proves blah."

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

Beyond simply proving my point and dispelling ignorance that I see, no. Don't mistake my ferverant attempts to dispel your false ideas about what science is and is not to be attempting to prove something that cannot be proven.

no doubt science does. I love science.

You clearly only acknowledge parts of science and not others. Like many other theists, you've discarded any science that seems to disprove whatever superstitians you hold dear.
That's why 'creation science' isn't. That's why they've chosen to ignore almost all of the science that has to do with astronomy, archeology, biology, medicine, genetics, and numerous other fields because they rely heavily on evolution and a cosmology that does not agree with the accounts of the bible or whatever other superstitions regarding the birth of humanity and existence.

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.

Some of them certainly were as many of them still are. The point is irrelevant.

and what do these have to do with theism ?

If you would stop responding to every. single. sentence.
You might see an overall point.

Who told you i choose fantasy over science ?

The entire premise of this thread and all of your statements against evolution and what you call 'historical science.'

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.

The bible states that the universe was created in six days, adam and eve were birthed from dirt, animals can talk, humans can come back from the dead, the earth is flat 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.

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.

Oh, for crying out loud. Then pick one and go with it. I don't care which one.

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.

And he's wrong.

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.

Evolution has proof in genetic markers, archeological finds from all around the world, modern day evidence from observation both in nature and in laboratory conditions.
Creation science has NOTHING. All of the above is repeatable, testable, 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.
Simply put, you are equating belief and fact as the same thing. You are wrong and I have given you several scientific papers AND a readable textbook on evolution to further my point.

You have nothing.

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

The only difference between those two sciences is that to actually believe that rubbish, you have to chose to ignore the overwhelming amont of historical evidence in support of the theories espoused in modern understanding in past events - that being evolution and the beginnings of the universe.
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.

Despite this being very clearly not the case, one can only conclude that your attempt to put a label on self-ignorance is utter rubbish.

[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.

[Minimalist]

i doubt neodarwinism is true, based on rational and reasonable skeptiscism.

LOL. This from a guy who thinks a dead jew came back to life!