...

It isn’t, All the sciences aren’t set in stone.
(unlike religion)
It is fluid & always waiting for the Next Building block to show us the bigger picture.
It’s willing to stand up to scrutiny and also ready for amendment.
Science works by expressing the best knowledge we have at the moment using the data that is available (a theory).

Peace.

Christianity claims to have eyewitness accounts of the origin of the universe (unlike other religions), but we’re supposed to not believe it b/c of some random scientist from 6 millennia later who said it’s not true?
Scientists are not fluid, b/c they won’t even consider religion no matter the evidence. (Well, those who do disappear from the public, b/c no one wants 2 hear them). Dawkins himself said “we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” That’s not scrutiny, that’s bias. Which DreadTroi is always saying apologetics is full of, but there are apologists that have come from the evolutionary department.
Also, Christianity doesn’t claim to know everything. We don’t know exactly how old the earth is, (we have guesses).
If science is ready for amendment, why are they always trying 2 find outs? Darwinism is full of problems, so some scientists believe in new-Darwinism, which has it’s problems. There are a myriad variants for Darwinism & none of them work, yet they won’t even try 2 amend w/ religion.

Peace.

Most scientists are set in stone against Spider Man being real too.

Storybook fairy tale characters are not real, how is that hard to understand?

You don't need to test for fictional beings existence.

Who said Spider-Man was real? Last I checked, the only time I’ve seen “Spider-Man” is on Halloween.

Should I have gone with Thor instead? Would that have been a better Marvel character for you?

Your making my point for me here.

oh wait, b/c he was worshipped as an actual god? U do know he's a myth, right? Just like the Greek gods. (& ik the Greek gods ain't real b/c i wouldn't be alive right now 4 saying some of the stuff i've said about them & ik their characters lol)

but none of those two are anything like the Christian God. You accused me of deliberately spreading misinformation & also accused me of junk the scientific community does. For example, you came to this argument with a conclusion & r just insulting me for not agreeing with your conclusion, but then you want to say that what i c has a conclusion from the beginning when the three ppl i cited came from your side of view. You really confuse me.

The Christian God is a myth.

Just like the Greek Gods.

I just believe one less myth than you do.

Funny, since I've seen evidence for Him all over the place.

Firstly, cosmology:
1. Our finite universe had to have had an infinite source. Otherwise, there would be no source of energy great enough to create it.

2. Cosmological expansion is a phenomenon that is still going on today, and in fact is increasing in speed. This points to a relatively low level of used energy thus far in our cosmological history, and in turn a young universe, just as described in Genesis.

Secondly, biology:
1. It is mathematically impossible for viable life to arise on it's own, without any sort of parentage, by chance. It had to have been guided by an intelligent mind.

2. It has been proven that it is impossible to naturally add new genetic information into genomes. The puesdoscientists and media cover this up, of course, but it's been proven. Therefore, all the biological diversity we see today has to have had a divine origin.

Thirdly, anthropology:
1. All humans have, to one extent or another, a moral law embedded into us. Animals don't have that. All they have is survival instincts. This is hard evidence that we are made in the Image of the God of Morality, who established right and wrong from before time began.

2. All humans (except possibly leftists, and even then it's hard to tell) have a rational mind that can think and reason. Animals don't. All they have are instincts, and learning by experience. Again, this points towards humans being made in the Image of a Rational God.

Sorry to yank your head out of the clouds, but you were becoming very air-headed.

Cheers,
Ælfwine Elf-friend

This is true.
Also the DNA argument is convincing, too XD

I'm going to put this in idiot terms, ok? What's more likely, a big "boom" out of compressed matter, or some super, ultra-powerful being appearing out of nowhere and creating everything?

You've got your conception of God wrong.

He is an infinite God. And everything that has a beginning was caused by something greater than itself. Because God is infinite, and you can not have something greater than infinity, God had no beginning. In other words, He always existed.

On the other hand, matter is finite. It has a limit, and therefore has a beginning. So where did your, "boom of compressed matter," come from?

That is what I am saying. Learn science literacy

First of all for starters, the order the types of creatures were created aligns with the way the main groups of vertebrates evolved. The dome described in the book of genesis has similarities with the ozone layer. Descriptions of the big bang describe it as a massive burst of light.

Ok, I’ll give u the DNA argument.

DNA is a code that carries instructions for the organism containing it. It’s like a language. Whatever it says, that dictates what the organism is. DNA’s language making the same life form over and over would be like if sand spelled the words “I love you” without someone outlining it to make those shapes. Now, in order for life to have started from protozoans and evolved into more complicated organisms, we have two problems.

1) The DNA has to keep copying itself for each organism (keep in mind the sand comparison), & it gets more ridiculous when you get to the organisms that sexually reproduce, where the DNA varies.

2) In order for the organisms to evolve into more complicated species, it would have to add genetic information to the DNA. Mutations do not explain this because they only take away information and never add information.

Also, we’ve never seen anything where creation doesn’t create and accidents don’t destroy.

Plus, you can also examine amino acids. They’re some of the strongest weaknesses against macroevolution (but it’s a lot to write about).

good point. Dna takes a long time to change completely though.

Wait how’d u read all that so fast? XD
R u a speed reader?

no I just read a lot

Ohh me too XD

yeah

But I’d encourage u to look up the amino acid proof. It’s prolly the biggest problem I’ve seen so far 4 macroevolution.

ok

Hru btw

PROOF PROOF PROOF.

I will keep reiterating this point.

(Prove the validity of your entity & it’s supposed work)

Without any kind of repeatability testable evidence any claim can be made But without the aforementioned it surely becomes null and void because it can’t be proved.

How would you feel if you where falsely accused of a crime and sent to trial that would result in at least a life sentence or maybe execution.
Now let’s say there is no real proof against you just hearsay & circumstantial evidence.
Now the jury convict you just because they ‘believe’ you are guilty.

Would you feel your trial was fair ?

peace.

Ok, I’ll give u the DNA argument.

DNA is a code that carries instructions for the organism containing it. It’s like a language. Whatever it says, that dictates what the organism is. DNA’s language making the same life form over and over would be like if sand spelled the words “I love you” without someone outlining it to make those shapes. Now, in order for life to have started from protozoans and evolved into more complicated organisms, we have two problems.

1) The DNA has to keep copying itself for each organism (keep in mind the sand comparison), & it gets more ridiculous when you get to the organisms that sexually reproduce, where the DNA varies.

2) In order for the organisms to evolve into more complicated species, it would have to add genetic information to the DNA. Mutations do not explain this because they only take away information and never add information.

Also, we’ve never seen anything where creation doesn’t create and accidents don’t destroy.

Plus, you can also examine amino acids. They’re some of the strongest weaknesses against macroevolution (but it’s a lot).

O.k. Firstly let me say this again ‘I feel no shame in admitting I DON’T KNOW’.

I am not a scientist nor ever will be, however what I don’t do is come to a gap in knowledge insert god, fairies, Santa clause, Bigfoot.. or the great juju that lives at the bottom of the sea.
What we have here is ‘The god of the gaps’.

So what we do is find the find the small gaps in knowledge and insert (given entity) and say well (given entity) did it with NO PROOF to offer of it being so.
But all this does is makes (Given entity) look Like the hide and go seek champion of the universe.

The gaps are slowly closing though and refuge’s becoming more scarce as time moves along & hopefully eventually these entity’s will have nowhere to hide and reveal themselves (not likely) or be dismissed.

BTW you haven’t answered if you felt your hypothetical trial was fair.

Peace.

Ok first off did u even read what i wrote? B/c whether or not u agree w/ it, it’s a good argument.

Comparing God with silly nonsense is insulting... the Bible is not filled with cartoonish kid stories. And I could easily say the Big Bang & the dinosaurs is a 9 year old boy’s depiction of our world. Doesn’t help ppl see my point, tho.

The hypothetical trial isn’t relevant, & that’s why i didn't answer it. That’s just an inaccurate analogy built on an appeal to fear. U just assumed that there is no proof 4 a God existing & based an analogy off of that. These are two completely different situations & must be treated differently. But truth goes beyond our own spectrum.

Without a God in the world, there is no source of right and wrong. Ppl would determine what is right & wrong, which would mean everything is permissible & pointless. Whether u convinced me there was no God or I convinced u there was a God wouldn’t matter. Whether or not systemic racism was a problem wouldn’t matter, b/c it’s not wrong to the ppl who do it. There’d be nothing wrong with spouses & fiancées cheating on each other. Murder wouldn’t be wrong. If the idea of a God fades, then we have no sense of right and wrong. And Christians can just decide there is a God in their “truth.”

Fortunately, God’s word will nvr return to Him void, so there will always be evidence... U just have 2 look deeper than what ppl want u 2 know. Dyk evolution was bullied in2 schools & then creationism was bullied out of it?

I would say atheism will one day be dismissed, but idt it ever will, b/c ppl don’t even want 2 hear the other side anymore. However, there are some odd things about history that seem to correspond with the Bible. For example, God seems 2 give ppl 2 millennia 2 sort things out. Well, here we are, 2 millennia after Christ, & stuff the Bible said would happen in the end times is beginning 2 happen (and has been 4 a while by now).

Peace.

Let’s just go with bullet points here.

• if its a good argument or not is irrelevant If you are unable to prove that your entity exists or was able to effect the process.

• I don’t really care if you are insulted by me comparing your entity to ANY non provable entity , and in the same respect I’m not insulted by your 9 year old boy line because at least I know 9 year old boys exist & even this is a better foundation than an non provable entity.

• ‘ The hypothetical trial isn’t relevant, ’
..Oh how that made me chuckle coming from a religious person.
Your entity along with its heaven & hell are all hypothetical until they can be proven.
However I think you may have missed the point, that being that without evidence how is it fair to make a truthful decision.

‘ But truth goes beyond our own spectrum.’
.. I love this line too
Isn’t this just a way religious people put their entity beyond the realm of any possible test.
He / it is timeless & beyond the presence of physical space blah blah blah... it’s an old and tired argument point that really just moves your entity into the point of being nothing and nowhere.

• ‘ Without a God in the world, there is no source of right and wrong’.
Really?!?!
Quickly Have guess how many people I have Robbed, raped, murdered, abused etc etc ?
If you answer was zero then you are correct ( go get a cookie from the jar 😘)
I am a family man who in the past has given his time to (6 years+ At week nights & weekends) a youth organisation & also been a volunteer for charity organisations.
I believe I’m a good father to my three sons And love & respect my wife of 18+ years.
So how does that fit into your people who are without god are nihilistic a-holes outlook ?

• ‘ Dyk evolution was bullied in2 schools & then creationism was bullied out of it? ‘

TBH I don’t really care !! As whatever you believe is (for want of a better word) to be ‘true’ can be taught by children’s primary educators .. that being their parents.

‘I would say atheism will one day be dismissed’
By who ? Those willing to think for themselves & believe that their lives belong to themselves also... not likely.

But I’m sure you are rejoicing with the coming of the end times.. so at least you’ve got that to look forward to.

Let me just finish by saying this, I think either one of us doesn’t think the other is a bad person but we just aren’t going to agree on how we view things universally

Anyway brother .. peace ✌️

Laws are the maths version of a theory.

Even then though if we don’t understand/have wrong/or assumed the basis of the accumulated numbers in the equation then they are also subject to change, thus changing the equation and outcome as a whole.
Science unlike religion is not a monolith.
Science disagrees with its self a lot of the time and this is good because it helps it to move along into new territory.
If a person’s answers to every hard question is ‘god did it’ They firstly need to define their god and then prove he/it exists After that then they need a plausible explanation for how he/it did it that is contrary to what we have .. ‘because he/it did’ .. is not an answer.
Let me finish with this ( some people won’t like this and say it’s a cop out but it in truth isn’t )
Sometimes it is o.k. To say WE JUST DON’T KNOW there is no shame in it.
It’s better to admit lack of understanding about something rather than attribute it to a un-testable entity.

Peace.

Totally cool to say "I don't know"

And yes, when e=mc^2 is proven incorrect with evidence, we will, as a scientific community, switch to the evidenced new equation.

Pretty sure everyone is excited about the theory if everything maths to be right.

theory of everything

I’m not a theoretical physicist, but from what I know:

The Big Bang Theory currently commands the most respect as far as explaining where our universe comes from.

There are traces of the Big Bang that you can measure even today, the so-called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

High-powered telescopes capable of peering into the far reaches of our universe (and therefore, billions of years back in time, because that light has traveled billions of years) glimpse galaxies in the early stages of their existence which were more densely packed and full of young stars, implying they came from a similar process of forming out of a dense stellar soup, if you will.

Other evidence in support of the theory but that’s a start. Like other topics on the bleeding edge of science, not everything has been explained yet.

But that’s part of the fun!

Maybe a future Einstein will come along and revise everything we thought we knew, but for now, this is the best we can do.

actually, just because things are billions of light years away doesn't mean they were there billions of years ago. There's a theory that lightspeed is affected by gravity from stars. It's an intriguing theory.

i personally don't believe a big bang happened, but i think it's far more likely than macroevolution, which i believe is mathematically and scientifically impossible. The biggest problem with the big bang theory is this quote: We have never seen any instance where creation doesn't create and accidents don't destroy. Those two have never been interchanged as far as we've seen.

also, what would cause the explosion & how would smoke from it be a successful habitat for life?

also, why does venus rotate the other way if the big bang happened? the BB would blow all the planets in the same direction.

Lastly, we happen to be on the planet that is just far enough from the sun to not be habitable (sure, it gets too hot & cold sometimes, but at least we can live). If we were on Mercury, we'd burn & freeze. If we were on Mars, we'd probably freeze.

But i want to be peaceful tho.

Because the little evidence we have has been enough to convince most scientists that the big bang theory is correct.

LOL ikr

i don’t think it’s a scientific law, i see it as a possibility for humankind’s origin, but it’s just a theory

A SPACE THEORY

(ok I’ll stop)

Lol

lol

:D

X/

:)

=1 X1

Wait wot?

idk

I don't know who's saying otherwise, but if they are, they're wrong.

I have a hard time believing that humans are a random mutation of a chimpanzee or the entire universe originating from a single particle of inconceivable mass that suddenly exploded.

Afaik, they don’t “say” otherwise, but they begin arguments and experiments with the assumption that it’s true despite it not being exactly proven, which is the exact same thing. That’s why i said this. Lol

But yea, same. Also there’s the DNA argument, which I’m about to explain soon.

A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon; a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.

A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept, according to Kennesaw State University.

Coppinger pointed out that the Law of Gravity was discovered by Isaac Newton in the 17th century. This law mathematically describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other. However, Newton's law doesn't explain what gravity is, or how it works.

https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html