The Bible

[betsy]

Oh btw, Mighty AC,

Your copycat-fact statement - Fact: Hindu Creation Story closest to Modern Cosmological Model - is true. In the sense that they both share similar assumptions. It makes me wonder if these scientists - in their desperation to discredit Christian belief - had latched on to Hinduism!

Hmmmm.....re-births. "Born-again," on a different take.

Hinduism believes in reincarnation. Are these atheists scientists tampering with the supernatural now?

If that's the case, GOOD! It's about time! Long overdue! Everything moving forward except science in that respect!

It ought to catch up with technology - and not be trapped in the past! OPEN THOSE MINDS!

We can kick-out the century-old science doctrine and include the supernatural in it - the only reason Intelligent Design is being rejected.

Furthermore, the disciplines of science was established by a great numbers of Christian Creationist scientists.

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

http://www.mapleleaf...pic=18914&st=15

<yawn>

<very wide yawn>

Edited December 5, 2012 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

They're all spouting off their personal opinion.....and basing it on their ASSUMPTION!

We're talking about facts supported by science. NOT personal opinion

Interesting... Please help me to understand how you determine what is "science", "fact", "assumption" and "personal opinion". This list below is how I think your truth seeking process works; let me know if I am missing something or if I am off the mark in some way.

1) The Bible is fact (except where it is allegorical)

2) The information in the Bible is reliable because it is old and you believe it.

3) If a biblical passage can be interpreted in a way that is in agreement with scientific knowledge then the science is automatically real, reputable and factual.

4) If a passage does not align with scientific understanding:

i) In most cases the science is wrong, unproven or based on deliberately misleading atheistic assumptions.

or

ii) The passage is not wrong it is an allegory and should not be taken as fact.

5) The arbiter of truth in science is not testable, repeatable evidence; rather, it is the belief or whim of an individual or community.

6) The same body of scientific knowledge produced by the same scientists can simultaneously be factual and simply personal opinion based on assumptions depending on the scripture it is compared to.

Does that accurately describe the process? If not please explain why.

[Sleipnir]

They're all spouting off their personal opinion.....and basing it on their ASSUMPTION!

Just like you and the bible.

We're talking about facts supported by opinion. NOT science

These rabid theist like me just want to latch onto nonsense - and are either ignorant of science or simply disregarding facts

So what can we deduce of a person like me who easily turn a blind eye on a fact - then spout off with total disregard of that fact?

That's better, a much more accurate reflection of what's been happening in this tread.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Sleipnir

[betsy]

Interesting... Please help me to understand how you determine what is "science", "fact", "assumption" and "personal opinion".

You were the one who lectured me about science, and like I said I was just responding to this lecture:

I understand how science separates fact from fiction but I'm unclear on the criteria you use to do the same.

With science, hypotheses are made, then tested, the experimental process is reviewed by peers and if deemed to be acceptable the results are published. Others then attempt to reproduce the same results and also devise new tests in an attempt to disprove the findings. Those results are reviewed and published. If the conclusions hold up, we have facts. Theories are designed to explain ALL the facts. If a new fact disproves a theory, the theory falls and new theories must be developed and tested.

You claimed the Big bang as a scientific fact. So I ask the simplest and logical question:

Did anyone ever observe something coming out from nothing?

A few post later, you seemed to have abandoned or had a change of heart about that so-called fact - otherwise you wouldn't be giving this other theory about re-births. And of course, you failed to understand that you still have to deal with the same question. With a little variation.

Did anyone ever observe something being born out of nothing?

I'm just following up what you said, Mighty AC. Make up your mind, will you?

Edited December 6, 2012 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Did anyone ever observe God create something out of nothing?

[Mighty AC]

You claimed the Big bang as a scientific fact.[/Quote] You still struggle with the terminology. I believe explanations of the terms theory, fact and hypothesis were covered in the video. You should watch it. The big bang is a theory that explained the known facts about the universe. Cosmologists have recently discovered radiation ripples that suggest that THE big bang could really be just the latest of many big bangs. The radiation ripples are a newly discovered fact; for which, cosmologists are now seeking more information to help them understand.

Unfortunately for you, this fact happens to more closely align with Hindu mythology than Christian mythology.

So I ask the simplest and logical question: Did anyone ever observe something coming out from nothing?[/Quote] Virtual particles in quantum physics seem to come from nothing. I don't claim that there was nothing before the Big Bang though, why do you?

We have evidence which supports expansion from a very hot, infinitely dense point a little less than 14 billion years ago. At present we can only speculate as to what came before that point. Some will say nothing existed, some say a previous universe collapsed into the infinitely dense point, some say multiple universes exist simultaneously, etc. There are many theories.

[g_bambino]

Did anyone ever observe God create something out of nothing?

She's been asked that same question a number of times.

As she does with whatever clashes with her pre-set beliefs, she's just ignored it.

The only similar question she responded to was: Did anyone see God created out of nothing? To which she replied: "That's faith!"

As far as I know, the Big Bang theory is based on tangible evidence. The faith-created-God-(and-God-created-the-universe) theory is based on... Pure imagination. (Cue Willie Wonka...)

[ed: +]

Edited December 6, 2012 by g_bambino

[Mighty AC]

You were the one who lectured me about science, and like I said I was just responding to this lecture.

Yes, but you do not use scientific inquiry to discover facts and seek truth. Instead you claim to have a magical answer key. If observable facts clash with this key, you claim the science is wrong. If observable facts align with your key, you claim the science is correct and now helps to validate your book. You can't have it both ways.

When asked why you believe the book to be true, you claim faith. Strong belief is not evidence of veracity; at least to the rational. Thus, you deny observable facts based on your belief in a book; which, you verify with your own belief. Since, this house of cards is solely supported by your own strong, unsupported belief in a concept, I must ask: Why do you believe in the first place?

[Sleipnir]

So I ask the simplest and logical question:

There is nothing logical what you've been asking.

Did anyone ever observe something being born out of nothing?

I doubt any person will answer to that fallacy.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Mighty AC]

I think that it is really cool that we are all made of stardust....

Me too, if find this very inspiring.

[jbg]

Do you not know what 'proof' is, or 'assumption' for that matter?

A proof is a proof. What is a proof. It's a proof. A proof is a proof.

[Sleipnir]

A proof is a proof. What is a proof. It's a proof. A proof is a proof.

You can't define something by its name, especially if you are trying to find the meaning of the said name.

[betsy]

You still struggle with the terminology. I believe explanations of the terms theory, fact and hypothesis were covered in the video. You should watch it. The big bang is a theory that explained the known facts about the universe.

Well, isn't a theory considered a fact, scientifically speaking? Hence they say the "theory of evolution" is not simply a theory - but a fact?

Yes or no.

[betsy]

Did anyone ever observe God create something out of nothing?

God is not science. We're talking about science. Duh.

[betsy]

Do you not know what 'proof' is, or 'assumption' for that matter?

Do you?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that, you know.

[cybercoma]

God is not science. We're talking about science. Duh.

Answer the question!

Did anyone observe God create something out of nothing?

[The_Squid]

Answer the question!

Did anyone observe God create something out of nothing?

His little sister once saw him pull a coin from her ear! Came from nothing! A coin!! From thin air!! Something... From nothin.... God is great!

[Sleipnir]

Do you?

You always have a tendency to avoid answering questions that is directed at you.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Sleipnir]

His little sister once saw him pull a coin from her ear! Came from nothing! A coin!! From thin air!! Something... From nothin.... God is great!

Ha, makes you wonder at times.

[Mighty AC]

Well, isn't a theory considered a fact, scientifically speaking? Hence they say the "theory of evolution" is not simply a theory - but a fact?

Yes or no.

A scientific theory is not a fact itself. The theory is the explanation of the facts. Many people confuse the two concepts (sometimes deliberately) which is why I wanted you to watch the video. It succinctly explains what a theory is.

Think of a murder investigation. It has facts like murder weapon, time of death, footprints, witnesses, DNA evidence, motives, security cam footage, etc. A theory is like the explanation of how the crime took place, pieced together from the discovered facts.

Like the murder story, a theory falls and has to be revised anytime a newly discovered fact no longer fits the explanation. Again, like an investigation a story built on relatively few facts is weaker and more likely to fall than one supported by many facts. The various theories surrounding the origins of the universe are supported by relatively few facts, whereas the cell theory and the theory of evolution are built around an enormous quantity of facts.

[betsy]

A scientific theory is not a fact itself. The theory is the explanation of the facts.

So you're saying, Big Bang is not a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is also not a fact.

They're both assumptions, in other words. Or conjectures (another poster did mention that word somewhere here).

For the record, that's what you're saying.

[betsy]

Think of a murder investigation. It has facts like murder weapon, time of death, footprints, witnesses, DNA evidence, motives, security cam footage, etc. A theory is like the explanation of how the crime took place, pieced together from the discovered facts.

A murder investigation that could not find any motive, murder weapon, witnesses or any blood/skin/spit/hair samples to get DNA can only SPECULATE, based on what information they do have: victim last seen where, when and by whom, etc.

And if there is no body - they don't even know what exactly they're looking at!

Like the murder story, a theory falls and has to be revised anytime a newly discovered fact no longer fits the explanation. Again, like an investigation a story built on relatively few facts is weaker and more likely to fall than one supported by many facts. The various theories surrounding the origins of the universe are supported by relatively few facts, whereas the cell theory and the theory of evolution are built around an enormous quantity of facts.

And the reason it can be easily revised anytime: the theory was built on an assumption.

And the old theory is debunked. Like the theory that, the universe had always existed.

It's replaced by either another assumption....or a conclusive fact.

[cybercoma]

So you're saying, Big Bang is not a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is also not a fact.

They're both assumptions, in other words. Or conjectures (another poster did mention that word somewhere here).

For the record, that's what you're saying.

Read the rest of his post. He's not saying it's an assumption or conjecture. He's saying it's an explanation of the facts. People aren't convicted in trials on conjecture.

Edited December 7, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

A murder investigation that could not find any motive, murder weapon, witnesses or any blood/skin/spit/hair samples to get DNA can only SPECULATE, based on what information they do have: victim last seen where, when and by whom, etc.

And if there is no body - they don't even know what exactly they're looking at!

What's your point? There's thousands if not millions of facts that add up to support evolutionary theory.

And the reason it can be easily revised anytime: the theory was built on an assumption.

And the old theory is debunked. Like the theory that, the universe had always existed.

It's replaced by either another assumption....or a conclusive fact.

No. It's not built on an assumption. Stop being dishonest or ignorant. This has been explained to you numerous times, but you continue to call it an assumption because you think that gives it equivalence to your unfounded and untestable assumption about a God creating it all.

[cybercoma]

Seriously, betsy... just watch the video about evolution that was posted. It explains everything and points out exactly what is wrong with your arguments.