Science Proves the Bible Again

[WinterBorn]

You can support that with scientific evidence in the Bibles?

Perhaps some research from the Henry Morris college for the silly.

The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.

The space time that we are aware of was created billions of years ago as the result of a major disturbance to matter and energy.

See? I have addressed your question multiple times.

We know who created your particular version of the gods. Why are your human invented versions of the gods to be accepted as opposed to other, human invented versions of gods? You keep avoiding answering that question.

That's no explanation and why you have little-to-no chance of success. How did matter and energy exist if there was no spacetime and what caused the matter and energy? It goes back to my original question of what caused spacetime. Your life must be one of endless circular logic.

God didn't cause it. That's the long and the short of it.

Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question: what caused God?

Nothing caused God. He's not like us nor things in the material world. God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, and personal. An excellent explanation is below.

If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?

Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement -- Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause. We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist. Both sides agree on that.

I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning. Can you link to such evidence?

 

[james bond]

Check your post #745. You're the one who stated ToE is falsifiable but have not provided any evidence. In order for common descent as part of tree of life to be true, there should be transitional evidence of tailed to tailless monkeys but there isn't any. Clearly, it doesn't happen today. To falsify your statement using this as an example, we have to show that it is valid first. Like duh.

The ToE is falsifiable. The basis for the ToE is decent from a common ancestor. So far every fossil ever found fits into the ToE. Should a fossil be found that does not fit the ToE ,the ToE would be proven false. Trillions of fossils have been found and NONE contradict the ToE.

Are there any studies of tailed/tailless monkeys or did you invent a strawman?

You are the one arguing strawman. I provided one example of no transitional fossils which disproves the ToE. This is falsifiable with finding a transitional fossil. Another would be no chimp-gorilla hybrids. They do not mingle in the wild. There are chimp hybrids and gorilla hybrids, but they are separate. Again, the theory is falsifiable by finding a chimp-gorilla hybrid (which the researchers are trying to do).

The only falsifiable for ToE I can think of is chimp-humans or ape-humans based on Lucy and Ardi. One could argue they were chimp hybrids or gorilla hybrids and not human. Or they evolved into bears or something silly like that. Bears are bipedal for short stretches of time and we found one bear that was bipedal all the time because of an injury.

Thus, your statement does not hold water unless you specify what you are referring to. You do not appear to know what ToE is from the way you describe it .

 

[james bond]

The creation scientists did a peer-review paper on this.

That's no explanation and why you have little-to-no chance of success. How did matter and energy exist if there was no spacetime and what caused the matter and energy? It goes back to my original question of what caused spacetime. Your life must be one of endless circular logic.

God didn't cause it. That's the long and the short of it.

Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question: what caused God?

Nothing caused God. He's not like us nor things in the material world. God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, and personal. An excellent explanation is below.

If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?

Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement -- Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause. We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist. Both sides agree on that.

I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning. Can you link to such evidence?

I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning. How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?

 

[bripat9643]

Check your post #745. You're the one who stated ToE is falsifiable but have not provided any evidence. In order for common descent as part of tree of life to be true, there should be transitional evidence of tailed to tailless monkeys but there isn't any. Clearly, it doesn't happen today. To falsify your statement using this as an example, we have to show that it is valid first. Like duh.

The ToE is falsifiable. The basis for the ToE is decent from a common ancestor. So far every fossil ever found fits into the ToE. Should a fossil be found that does not fit the ToE ,the ToE would be proven false. Trillions of fossils have been found and NONE contradict the ToE.

Are there any studies of tailed/tailless monkeys or did you invent a strawman?

You are the one arguing strawman. I provided one example of no transitional fossils which disproves the ToE. This is falsifiable with finding a transitional fossil. Another would be no chimp-gorilla hybrids. They do not mingle in the wild. There are chimp hybrids and gorilla hybrids, but they are separate. Again, the theory is falsifiable by finding a chimp-gorilla hybrid (which the researchers are trying to do).

The only falsifiable for ToE I can think of is chimp-humans or ape-humans based on Lucy and Ardi. One could argue they were chimp hybrids or gorilla hybrids and not human. Or they evolved into bears or something silly like that. Bears are bipedal for short stretches of time and we found one bear that was bipedal all the time because of an injury.

Thus, your statement does not hold water unless you specify what you are referring to. You do not appear to know what ToE is from the way you describe it .

A lack of transitional fossils doesn't disprove the TOE. All it proves is that you have a lack of transitional fossils. Also, the TOE doesn't say there should be chimp-gorilla hybrids.

I don't know why you bother with this debate since you're so damn ignorant about science and the TOE.

 

[bripat9643]

God didn't cause it. That's the long and the short of it.

Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question: what caused God?

Nothing caused God. He's not like us nor things in the material world. God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, and personal. An excellent explanation is below.

If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?

Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement -- Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause. We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist. Both sides agree on that.

I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning. Can you link to such evidence?

I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning. How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?

Some secular scientists say the universe had a Big Bang. That don't claim that was the absolute beginning of the universe. They all acknowledge that something may have come before the Big Bang.

Many other secular scientists are starting to warm up to the theory of the multiverse. There is a number of new theories out there, so your obsession with the Big Bang is not a good argument.

 

[WinterBorn]

God didn't cause it. That's the long and the short of it.

Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question: what caused God?

Nothing caused God. He's not like us nor things in the material world. God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, and personal. An excellent explanation is below.

If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?

Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement -- Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause. We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist. Both sides agree on that.

I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning. Can you link to such evidence?

I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning. How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?

Belief is not the issue. It is about science. No one in the scientific community, that I have seen, claims the universe was created in the Big Bang. There was matter and energy before the Big Bang. All of the matter in the known universe is moving outward from the center of the bang. It was not created by the bang. It was sent flying outward by the bang.

 

[WinterBorn]

God didn't cause it. That's the long and the short of it.

Whenever you claimed God must have caused this or that, you then have to answer the inevitable question: what caused God?

Nothing caused God. He's not like us nor things in the material world. God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, and personal. An excellent explanation is below.

If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?

Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement -- Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause. We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist. Both sides agree on that.

I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning. Can you link to such evidence?

I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning. How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?

Easy to find? Yes it is.

from: Big Bang - Wikipedia
"The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state,[7][8] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble's law (the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from Earth)" (the Bold and underline is mine)

The universe expanded. It was very dense. It had a very high temperature. That means it was not created, but changed.

 

[james bond]

A lack of transitional fossils doesn't disprove the TOE. All it proves is that you have a lack of transitional fossils. Also, the TOE doesn't say there should be chimp-gorilla hybrids.

I'm not ingnorant. You are, and dumb to boot bripat9643. Otherwise, the fossil evidence is lacking and we should not assume that humans came from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. Due to ToE stating tree of life, common ancestor and long-time, there should be evidence for ALL the transitions. Instead, creation scientists and I are finding contradictions. It just goes to show that secular (atheist) scientists fit the facts to their ToE theory. It is circular logic and a logic error. Furthermore, I stated that we do not see it happen today with our monkeys and trying to reverse engineer chickens. Neither can it be demonstrated via experiment.

As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps. How did that happen? What change caused that? We have no fossil evidence. Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate? Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none. The evo researchers keep looking tho.

 

[james bond]

Nothing caused God. He's not like us nor things in the material world. God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, and personal. An excellent explanation is below.

If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?

Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement -- Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause. We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist. Both sides agree on that.

I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning. Can you link to such evidence?

I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning. How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?

Some secular scientists say the universe had a Big Bang. That don't claim that was the absolute beginning of the universe. They all acknowledge that something may have come before the Big Bang.

Many other secular scientists are starting to warm up to the theory of the multiverse. There is a number of new theories out there, so your obsession with the Big Bang is not a good argument.

Why would I argue for big bang when I have creation haha? Like I said, you cannot figure things out to put it nicely.

 

[james bond]

Nothing caused God. He's not like us nor things in the material world. God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, and personal. An excellent explanation is below.

If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?

Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement -- Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause. We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist. Both sides agree on that.

I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning. Can you link to such evidence?

I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning. How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?

Easy to find? Yes it is.

from: Big Bang - Wikipedia
"The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state,[7][8] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble's law (the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from Earth)" (the Bold and underline is mine)

The universe expanded. It was very dense. It had a very high temperature. That means it was not created, but changed.

That's not what Stephen Hawking said. Singularity was described as infinite temperature and infinite density. Then in the microseconds after that, we had cosmic inflation as stated by Alan Guth. Of course, both are impossible in the material world. Moreover, it requires spacetime. Where did that come from?

You didn't answer my question. How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?

 

[Hollie]

A lack of transitional fossils doesn't disprove the TOE. All it proves is that you have a lack of transitional fossils. Also, the TOE doesn't say there should be chimp-gorilla hybrids.

I'm not ingnorant. You are, and dumb to boot bripat9643. Otherwise, the fossil evidence is lacking and we should not assume that humans came from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. Due to ToE stating tree of life, common ancestor and long-time, there should be evidence for ALL the transitions. Instead, creation scientists and I are finding contradictions. It just goes to show that secular (atheist) scientists fit the facts to their ToE theory. It is circular logic and a logic error. Furthermore, I stated that we do not see it happen today with our monkeys and trying to reverse engineer chickens. Neither can it be demonstrated via experiment.

As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps. How did that happen? What change caused that? We have no fossil evidence. Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate? Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none. The evo researchers keep looking tho.

Humans didn’t “ come from monkeys”. That’s a typically ignorant canard you cut and paste from the fundie cranks at creation.com.

You should understand that when you don’t have the first clue as to the subject matter you rail against, such ignorant statements make the rest of your commentary just useless noise.

 

[Hollie]

If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?

Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement -- Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause. We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist. Both sides agree on that.

I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning. Can you link to such evidence?

I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning. How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?

Easy to find? Yes it is.

from: Big Bang - Wikipedia
"The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state,[7][8] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble's law (the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from Earth)" (the Bold and underline is mine)

The universe expanded. It was very dense. It had a very high temperature. That means it was not created, but changed.

That's not what Stephen Hawking said. Singularity was described as infinite temperature and infinite density. Then in the microseconds after that, we had cosmic inflation as stated by Alan Guth. Of course, both are impossible in the material world. Moreover, it requires spacetime. Where did that come from?

You didn't answer my question. How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?

If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?

Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement -- Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause. We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist. Both sides agree on that.

I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning. Can you link to such evidence?

I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning. How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?

Some secular scientists say the universe had a Big Bang. That don't claim that was the absolute beginning of the universe. They all acknowledge that something may have come before the Big Bang.

Many other secular scientists are starting to warm up to the theory of the multiverse. There is a number of new theories out there, so your obsession with the Big Bang is not a good argument.

Why would I argue for big bang when I have creation haha? Like I said, you cannot figure things out to put it nicely.

There is no reason for anyone to blindly accept your claims to supernatural creation when supernaturalism is entirely absent in the natural world.

 

[Hollie]

A lack of transitional fossils doesn't disprove the TOE. All it proves is that you have a lack of transitional fossils. Also, the TOE doesn't say there should be chimp-gorilla hybrids.

I'm not ingnorant. You are, and dumb to boot bripat9643. Otherwise, the fossil evidence is lacking and we should not assume that humans came from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. Due to ToE stating tree of life, common ancestor and long-time, there should be evidence for ALL the transitions. Instead, creation scientists and I are finding contradictions. It just goes to show that secular (atheist) scientists fit the facts to their ToE theory. It is circular logic and a logic error. Furthermore, I stated that we do not see it happen today with our monkeys and trying to reverse engineer chickens. Neither can it be demonstrated via experiment.

As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps. How did that happen? What change caused that? We have no fossil evidence. Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate? Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none. The evo researchers keep looking tho.

The hyper-religious are not finding evidence of anything.

You are free to counter that statement by presenting “findings” made by any of the fundamentalist ministries which they have presented for peer review.

It should be a simple matter to provide a link to the journal Nature, for example, where creation.com has submitted a detailed account of their “findings” that support magic as the cause of existence.

How about an article that examines a 600 year old Noah.

How about a gene study that identifies the affects of Noah and his immediate family being left to repopulate the world. Would the charlatans at creation.com like to opine on your gods allowance for incestuous and familial relations?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Otherwise, the fossil evidence is lacking

Says no qualified scientist on the planet. Bond, you are embarrassing yourself, you colossal fraud. I have told you many times to stop this idiotic dog and pony show, and just admit that your beliefs are purely faith based. Instead, you lie and cheat and plagiarize, while knowing less than nothing factual about this material. You say things that would make a 6th grader cringe, and that would make a 10th grader laugh your dumb ass out of the room.

 

[alang1216]

I'm not ingnorant.

As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps. How did that happen? What change caused that? We have no fossil evidence. Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate? Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none. The evo researchers keep looking tho.

You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did NOT beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR. And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.

 

[bripat9643]

A lack of transitional fossils doesn't disprove the TOE. All it proves is that you have a lack of transitional fossils. Also, the TOE doesn't say there should be chimp-gorilla hybrids.

I'm not ingnorant. You are, and dumb to boot bripat9643. Otherwise, the fossil evidence is lacking and we should not assume that humans came from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. Due to ToE stating tree of life, common ancestor and long-time, there should be evidence for ALL the transitions. Instead, creation scientists and I are finding contradictions. It just goes to show that secular (atheist) scientists fit the facts to their ToE theory. It is circular logic and a logic error. Furthermore, I stated that we do not see it happen today with our monkeys and trying to reverse engineer chickens. Neither can it be demonstrated via experiment.

As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps. How did that happen? What change caused that? We have no fossil evidence. Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate? Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none. The evo researchers keep looking tho.

We don't assume anything. We know it.

The only thing a lack of fossils proves is that we have a lack of fossils. The idea that we should have a complete fossil record is idiotic. The lack of one sure as hell doesn't prove the Bible theory of creation.

The rest of your post is unintelligible gibberish.

 

[bripat9643]

If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?

Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement -- Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause. We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist. Both sides agree on that.

I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning. Can you link to such evidence?

I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning. How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?

Some secular scientists say the universe had a Big Bang. That don't claim that was the absolute beginning of the universe. They all acknowledge that something may have come before the Big Bang.

Many other secular scientists are starting to warm up to the theory of the multiverse. There is a number of new theories out there, so your obsession with the Big Bang is not a good argument.

Why would I argue for big bang when I have creation haha? Like I said, you cannot figure things out to put it nicely.

When you quote the Bible, you aren't arguing anything. You're retreating into mysticism. You have abandoned the playing field.

 

[james bond]

I'm not ingnorant.

As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps. How did that happen? What change caused that? We have no fossil evidence. Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate? Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none. The evo researchers keep looking tho.

You are ignorant, at least of the ToE since the ToE says that gorillas did NOT beget chimps, only that they share a COMMON ANCESTOR. And that is why evo researchers would never look for one.

You are so wrong. These are common ancestors. Look it up. ToE is the dumb theory that you believe in. I'm not going to teach you ToE, stupie.

 

[james bond]

A lack of transitional fossils doesn't disprove the TOE. All it proves is that you have a lack of transitional fossils. Also, the TOE doesn't say there should be chimp-gorilla hybrids.

I'm not ingnorant. You are, and dumb to boot bripat9643. Otherwise, the fossil evidence is lacking and we should not assume that humans came from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. Due to ToE stating tree of life, common ancestor and long-time, there should be evidence for ALL the transitions. Instead, creation scientists and I are finding contradictions. It just goes to show that secular (atheist) scientists fit the facts to their ToE theory. It is circular logic and a logic error. Furthermore, I stated that we do not see it happen today with our monkeys and trying to reverse engineer chickens. Neither can it be demonstrated via experiment.

As for chimp and gorillas, ToE says that gorillas begat chimps. How did that happen? What change caused that? We have no fossil evidence. Moreover, how can it be when they do not mate? Thus, there are no chimp-gorilla hybrids as we expect to find and there are none. The evo researchers keep looking tho.

We don't assume anything. We know it.

The only thing a lack of fossils proves is that we have a lack of fossils. The idea that we should have a complete fossil record is idiotic. The lack of one sure as hell doesn't prove the Bible theory of creation.

The rest of your post is unintelligible gibberish.

If you know it, then why can't you answer my questions? It shows you do not know.

The fossils are also found in layers. The names of these layers do not have anything to do with time. They are not chronological. They name locations.

You do not even have a valid argument. So far, I presented the evidence of no transitional fossils, and you agreed. Thus, it is likely that Lucy and Ardi were not transitional. They were chimps or apes. It is hilarious that you are the one who brought up fossil evidence and I turned the tables on you and demonstrated no transitional fossils and you agreed. Thus, evolution did not happen. To the contrary, the fossil evidence that YOU brought up, just completed my argument and you agreed.

 

[james bond]

Nothing caused God. He's not like us nor things in the material world. God is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, and personal. An excellent explanation is below.

If God doesn't require a cause, then how do you justify claiming the universe has to have a cause?

Kalam's cosmological argument 1st statement -- Whatever begins to exist has to have a cause. We have demonstrated that the universe began to exist. Both sides agree on that.

I have seen no evidence that the universe had a beginning. Can you link to such evidence?

I'm taken aback coming from you since the answer is easy to find, i.e. creation scientists and secular scientists agree the universe had a beginning. How do you think the universe started or do you believe that it is eternal?

Belief is not the issue. It is about science. No one in the scientific community, that I have seen, claims the universe was created in the Big Bang. There was matter and energy before the Big Bang. All of the matter in the known universe is moving outward from the center of the bang. It was not created by the bang. It was sent flying outward by the bang.

So you deny science states the BB created the universe? Can you provide some links where you get this? I want to see where you get your BELIEFS.

Your first sentence is wrong. Science is about best theories and thus it is all about beliefs. It is about the search for the truth, but it's not final unless it is observable, testable and falsifiable or becomes a scientific fact. Even then scientists do not believe it so. We have crazy people who believe that laws of physics or laws of thermodynamics did not apply at some points in time without any evidence whatsoever. They believe in multiverses without one shred of evidence. These are supposedly the top secular/atheist scientists.

This is not science, but faith-based beliefs.