The Bible

[eyeball]

"No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion." - David Hume, Philosopher

Okay, I can still look at one type of deist and know I've seen them all.

[betsy]

If you believe that science is a gift from your god, why do you continuously quote articles that willfully lie and misrepresent scientific findings?

Science is a gift from God. Not pseudo-science.

[cybercoma]

Right. Evolution: pseudo-science. Intelligent Design: "real" science.

[betsy]

Sigh. I put them in order to make it easy for you to follow too. Here they are again: Big Bang - Coalescing star dust - Abiogenesis - Evolution. You follow now?

I know the order they were supposed to have occurred. The issue is not about that. The issue is that you guys seem to think that the Big Bang and Evolution are TOTALLY SEPARATE and UNRELATED from/with one another.

What I'm trying to say is that there is an inevitable link between them! This is the order you gave:

Big Bang - Coalescing star dust - Abiogenesis - Evolution.

Following your assumption: If there is no Big Bang, would there be these so-called, "coalescing star dust" to form the earth? Well, it's another magical moment where these so-called "star dust" came from ...but okay, I'll roll along with it.

Without this so-called, "coalescing star dust," there wouldn't have been a magical earth.

Without this magical earth, there wouldn't have been life.

And without life, there wouldn't be evolution....since there's no life to diversify at all! THEREFORE: When you backtrack, inevitably, evolution is related with origin!

I don't know what happened before the big bang, neither do you.

You don't know. But, I do. I may not know the details (for now) - but I KNOW that God created everything.

We will likely never know. I am honest about it; but, you believe in a magic, timeless being without evidence and then fail to ask how it was created.

Come again? I'm honest enough to admit that I know and I believe in Creation (and have given at least some substantial evidence(s) by the facts listed here)....and so far all you've given is an assertion of ASSUMPTIONS upon ASSUMPTIONS - with no evidence at all!

Nebulas and dust cloud and coalescing stardust my foot! Your source describes how planets are formed.

We're talking about the very beginning! What started it all!

Have you observed how something came from NOTHING?

Can you wrap your mind how NOTHING is like? We're not talking, space! We're talking, nothing! Nada.

Who believes in magic? Just look at your "coalescing stardust" assumption - HOW CAN THERE BE ANY STARDUST at all????

From NOTHING? You sure they're not "fairy dust?"

So saying ....

Mighty AC:

Diversification of life: Evolution

Origin of life on earth: Abiogenesis is plausible

The Earth: Coalescing star dust

This Universe: The Big Bang

Prior to this Universe: I don't know, we may never know.

Never mind about not knowing prior to the so-called Big Bang. You don't know any of the above! Period. They're all assumptions!

Edited November 28, 2012 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

Science is a gift from God. Not pseudo-science.

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.

How do you and the people of the ICR, etc. determine what is real and what is fake?

[betsy]

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.

How do you and the people of the ICR, etc. determine what is real and what is fake?

Never mind trying to change the channel. We're talking Big bang, and you give an article about how planets are formed, and spout phrases that one would normally see in fairytales......

MightyAC:

With science, hypotheses are made, then tested, the experimental process is reviewed by peers and if deemed to be acceptable the results are published.

So answer the question: Still on Big Bang. Did anyone ever observe how something came from nothing?

Edited November 28, 2012 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

And without life, there wouldn't be evolution....since there's no life to diversify at all! THEREFORE: When you backtrack, inevitably, evolution is related with origin![/Quote] Sigh... You are back peddling and still wrong. You were originally trying to group atheism, evolution, the Big Bang, etc into a belief system. Now you are arguing some sort of relation based on an order of events. Evolution follows the origin of life, which follows the origin of the earth, which follows the origin of the universe. They are a sequence of events but they are not related.

Example: A drunk killing a pedestrian with his Chevy Cruze is not related to the construction of the GM assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio, even though the two events follow chronologically.

You don't know. But, I do. I may not know the details (for now) - but I KNOW that God created everything.[/Quote] How was your god created?

Come again? I'm honest enough to admit that I know and I believe in Creation (and have given at least some substantial evidence(s) by the facts listed here....[/Quote] Really? How does a book written by man provide evidence of creation? How is your book any more valid than the Book of Mormon, The Pyramid Texts or The Rigveda? You've already admitted that science has proven portions of the Bible to be fables.

[Mighty AC]

So answer the question: Still on Big Bang. Did anyone ever observe how something came from nothing?

I've answered this already. We don't know what came before the Big Bang and we may never know. Humble...honest. You claim it was all started by a magic being. How was your magic being created? Did it come from nothing?

You claimed:

Science is a gift from God. Not pseudo-science.

How do you determine what is science and what is pseudo science?

[betsy]

Why don't you answer the question? It's a simple yes or no!

MightyAC:

With science, hypotheses are made, then tested, the experimental process is reviewed by peers and if deemed to be acceptable the results are published.

So answer the question: Still on Big Bang. Did anyone ever observe how something came from nothing?

[Mighty AC]

See post #1833

[g_bambino]

Still on Big Bang. Did anyone ever observe how something came from nothing?

As many people as saw some god create something out of nothing. Or as saw a god come to be out of nothing.

[ed.: +]

Edited November 28, 2012 by g_bambino

[betsy]

See post #1833

I'm not asking about what came before the Big Bang.

My question is simple: Did anyone ever observe how something (Big Bang) came from nothing?

Answer. YES or NO?

[cybercoma]

As many people as saw some god create something out of nothing. Or as saw a god come to be out of nothing.

[ed.: +]

...I started to reply when I noticed you took the words right off my keyboard.

[Mighty AC]

I'm not asking about what came before the Big Bang.

My question is simple: Did anyone ever observe how something (Big Bang) came from nothing?

Answer. YES or NO?

No. Did anyone observe the creation of your god or your god's creation of the universe?

[Mighty AC]

Please answer the question: Who or what created your god?

I find it hard to follow your logic, but it seems that you are implying that since we do not know what came before the Big Bang that everything that follows is an assumption.

Using my drunk driver analogy from earlier:

A drunk hits a pedestrian with his Chevy Cruze, the pedestrian is killed. We may not immediately know if the car was produced in Lordstown, Ohio; Elizabeth, Australia; Hanoi, Vietnam; or created by a magic being; but, the car striking the pedestrian is still a fact.

Similarly, evolution, which is the change in inherited characteristics of populations over time, is a proven fact. It does not depend on knowing the origin of life or the origin of the universe.

[Sleipnir]

I know the order they were supposed to have occurred. The issue is not about that. The issue is that you guys seem to think that the Big Bang and Evolution are TOTALLY SEPARATE and UNRELATED from/with one another.

That's because it is. Evolution refers to a continual biological process, big bang refers to an immediate event. Two separate things. Not remotely comparable.

What I'm trying to say is that there is an inevitable link between them! This is the order you gave:

Big Bang - Coalescing star dust - Abiogenesis - Evolution.

If that premise was true, than life would exist on all planets - which obviously isn't the case at the moment.

Without this so-called, "coalescing star dust," there wouldn't have been a magical earth.

What is this 'star dust'? Pixie dust?

Without this magical earth, there wouldn't have been life.

Without the right conditions, life would not exist. Has nothing to do with Earth being magical.

And without life, there wouldn't be evolution....since there's no life to diversify at all! THEREFORE: When you backtrack, inevitably, evolution is related with origin!

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of species, it refers to changes in genetic makeup over successive generation.

Come again? I'm honest enough to admit that I know and I believe in Creation (and have given at least some substantial evidence(s) by the facts listed here)....and so far all you've given is an assertion of ASSUMPTIONS upon ASSUMPTIONS - with no evidence at all!

lol what you've given isn't fact - just someone's else opinion that hold no merit in modern day science.

Have you observed how something came from NOTHING?

Yes, math. Answers from the back of the book seems to come from nothing.

Can you wrap your mind how NOTHING is like? We're not talking, space! We're talking, nothing! Nada.

Illogical statement because to wrap your mind around something would not be nothing.

Who believes in magic? Just look at your "coalescing stardust" assumption - HOW CAN THERE BE ANY STARDUST at all????

From NOTHING? You sure they're not "fairy dust?"

You're jumping around from sanitary terms in the bible, to evolution, to big bang, to star dust (whatever that is). Can't you present a solid case?

Never mind about not knowing prior to the so-called Big Bang. You don't know any of the above! Period. They're all assumptions!

And assumptions are wrong?

[Sleipnir]

I'm not asking about what came before the Big Bang.

My question is simple: Did anyone ever observe how something (Big Bang) came from nothing?

Answer. YES or NO?

There's a rule against spamming the same post over and over again.

[The_Squid]

star dust (whatever that is)

Lawrence Krauss used the term in a lecture and I think in his book.

The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.

• A Universe from Nothing - Lawrence Krauss
  

Edited November 28, 2012 by The_Squid

[Sleipnir]

Lawrence Krauss used the term in a lecture and I think in his book.

Uh and I was thinking of pixie dusts

[Mighty AC]

Betsy was quoting a phrase from one of my posts. I used the phrase coalescing star dust referring to the elements in the disc of material that forms around a star and eventually coalesces into planets. I did also provide a link to a page which explains how planets form.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Mighty AC

[GostHacked]

Betsy is stuck in one of those endless logic loops. Or logic-less loops.

[Sleipnir]

Betsy was quoting a phrase from one of my posts. I used the phrase coalescing star dust referring to the elements in the disc of material that forms around a star and eventually coalesces into planets. I did also provide a link to a page which explains how planets form.

Not sure what formation of planets has to do with biological evolution or sanitary cleaning techniques in the bible.

To be honest, I'm getting a little confused which direction the argument 'logic' (or lack thereof) is heading.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Mighty AC]

I think Betsy is either trying to claim that the Big Bang, formation of planets, abiogenesis and evolution are all part of her belief that atheism is a faith.

Or

She is trying to claim that because we don't know what came before the Big Bang, everything else we believe is an "assumption".

By refusing to learn the basics of what she is arguing against she can be very hard to follow.

[Sleipnir]

1) I think Betsy is either trying to claim that the Big Bang, formation of planets, abiogenesis and evolution are all part of her belief that atheism is a faith.

Or

2) She is trying to claim that because we don't know what came before the Big Bang, everything else we believe is an "assumption".

1) If that is the case, betsy failed to understand the concept of science, atheism and faith. Those three terms are not related to each other. Example; you can be a theist faith and still be an ardent supporter in science.

2) If that is the case, I fail to see how evolution has anything to do with events prior to the big bang. Beside, does betsy even know what scientific 'assumption' means? Doubtful.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Sleipnir

[cybercoma]

You know what betsy didn't do? She didn't watch the videos. If she did, she didn't understand them.