Christians and muslims believe the same thing

[terraricca]

stu

Quote

Please read my post again. You will see I have answered that already. Do you read what I write? Stuart

yes i did;

wen i say nothing i mean ;emptiness absolute void ,no time ,no matter, no space,no air ,no speed, this would be the before that there is some ??

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 27 2011,15:31)

stu Quote Please read my post again.  You will see I have answered that already. Do you read what I write? Stuart yes i did; wen i say nothing i mean ;emptiness absolute void ,no time ,no matter, no space,no air ,no speed, this would be the before that there is some ?? Pierre

So what did I write about “before” the Big Bang, then?

Stuart

[terraricca]

stu

Quote

cannot use words like “before”: the first thing you can possibly see is an effect not a cause, and secondly because, since no data can possibly have survived from whatever was “before” we can never know.

sorry man,I should have pay more attention ,so I was right about the 'IF' all is built on that big IF ,and so it is open for speculation and it comes down to either evolution or creation ,

you pick your and i pick mine .

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 27 2011,17:55)

stu Quote cannot use words like “before”: the first thing you can possibly see is an effect not a cause, and secondly because, since no data can possibly have survived from whatever was “before” we can never know. sorry man,I should have pay more attention ,so I was right about the 'IF'  all is built on that big IF ,and so it is open for speculation and it comes down to either evolution or creation , you pick your and i pick mine . Pierre

IF what?

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 28 2011,02:16)

Quote (terraricca @ July 27 2011,17:55) stu Quote cannot use words like “before”: the first thing you can possibly see is an effect not a cause, and secondly because, since no data can possibly have survived from whatever was “before” we can never know. sorry man,I should have pay more attention ,so I was right about the 'IF'  all is built on that big IF ,and so it is open for speculation and it comes down to either evolution or creation , you pick your and i pick mine . Pierre IF what? Stuart

stu

If, no one knows ,and If ,no one can see it ,and IF, we never will see it ,then all what comes out of that big bang story is IF, it is true,but IF we built the bing bang story and so come up with evolution from that point on then when IF, falls then all is FALLS

because IF is not a proven scientific therm to register true data ,or is it ??

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 28 2011,05:37)

Quote (Stu @ July 28 2011,02:16) Quote (terraricca @ July 27 2011,17:55) stu Quote cannot use words like “before”: the first thing you can possibly see is an effect not a cause, and secondly because, since no data can possibly have survived from whatever was “before” we can never know. sorry man,I should have pay more attention ,so I was right about the 'IF'  all is built on that big IF ,and so it is open for speculation and it comes down to either evolution or creation , you pick your and i pick mine . Pierre IF what? Stuart stu If, no one knows ,and If ,no one can see it ,and IF, we never will see it ,then all what comes out of that big bang story is IF, it is true,but IF we built the bing bang story and so come up with evolution from that point on then when IF, falls then all is FALLS because IF is not a proven scientific therm to register true data ,or is it ?? Pierre

No one can see what? Evolution by natural selection? I gave you examples of how we have seen that happen in several species.

The Big Bang? We can see (using telescopes) the microwave radiation left over from the formation of atoms, a prediction of the theory that was demonstrated to be right, years after it was made.

Which theory are we discussing, I've lost track because you are all over the place making generalisations that appear to be so shallow that if they were puddles it would be impossible to drown in them.

You still have not given me one fact that disproves either theory. So you have nothing to say about them on their own terms.

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 28 2011,16:13)

Quote (terraricca @ July 28 2011,05:37) Quote (Stu @ July 28 2011,02:16) Quote (terraricca @ July 27 2011,17:55) stu Quote cannot use words like “before”: the first thing you can possibly see is an effect not a cause, and secondly because, since no data can possibly have survived from whatever was “before” we can never know. sorry man,I should have pay more attention ,so I was right about the 'IF'  all is built on that big IF ,and so it is open for speculation and it comes down to either evolution or creation , you pick your and i pick mine . Pierre IF what? Stuart stu If, no one knows ,and If ,no one can see it ,and IF, we never will see it ,then all what comes out of that big bang story is IF, it is true,but IF we built the bing bang story and so come up with evolution from that point on then when IF, falls then all is FALLS because IF is not a proven scientific therm to register true data ,or is it ?? Pierre No one can see what?  Evolution by natural selection?  I gave you examples of how we have seen that happen in several species. The Big Bang?  We can see (using telescopes) the microwave radiation left over from the formation of atoms, a prediction of the theory that was demonstrated to be right, years after it was made. Which theory are we discussing, I've lost track because you are all over the place making generalisations that appear to be so shallow that if they were puddles it would be impossible to drown in them. You still have not given me one fact that disproves either theory.  So you have nothing to say about them on their own terms. Stuart

stu

what I am saying that the big bang did not happen,even now some scientist are having doubts about it ,

then what from there what i mean is in the evolution of systems there could not have been any evolution if the big bang did not happen right ?,,

there would not have been species,right ?

and for those conclusion we would not have been talking now,right

black hole seems to puzzle many scientist as well because what they believe a few years ago is now in question and so is evolution always in question,

so it become a big IF

Pierre

[terraricca]

stu

I do not deny the discoveries of men into the different spicies and the anatomy of them ,it show more of inteligence making than progress stupid untinked labor

Pierre

[Stu]

terraricca

Quote

what I am saying that the big bang did not happen,even now some scientist are having doubts about it ,

Name them.

I don’t think you will get much sympathy from christian apologists around the world for your Big Bang denial. They usually use the fact of the Big Bang as support for the “definite beginning” of the universe, which they say their bible describes, as opposed to the “eternal” universe model that was once believed a long time ago…although I’ve never read about background microwave radiation or the asymmetrical production of baryons and anti-baryons in Genesis. Do you know what verse they might mean?

Quote

then what from there what i mean is in the evolution of systems there could not have been any evolution if the big bang did not happen right ?,, there would not have been species,right ? and for those conclusion we would not have been talking now,right

And there would be no such thing as scripture, either. Seriously, is that your argument? Big Bang cosmology and evolution by natural selection are the same thing because if we did not have matter then we could not have life? That is such a shallow puddle of an argument that no ant would be endangered by it.

Quote

black hole seems to puzzle many scientist as well because what they believe a few years ago is now in question and so is evolution always in question, so it become a big IF

All science is always in question. That is the reason it works. On the other hand, your Book of Five Ways of Making Humans never corrects itself, and that is why it is so wrong. It says the earth existed before light, which is wrong (the earth is made of atoms that are absorbing energy and emitting light of difference frequencies the whole time); Genesis claims there was a time when there were only two humans, which is wrong; Genesis claims there was a global flood within the last few thousand years, which is wrong; Leviticus says that bats are a kind of bird, which is wrong because bats are mammals. Do you need more examples? These are the wrong ideas of the ancients, coded in mythological books, and now twisted by humans to fit modern science.

It is your idea of IF that is also wrong, actually. Science confronts its IFs and deals with them carefully. The IFs are that we have to assume we exist, and that what we see is what is really going on, that we are not living in an illusion. After that, all IFs are open to question, and the peer review process deals with them savagely.

Again, contrast that with your view. Like the philosophy of science, you also assume that you really do exist, and you assume that what you see is real. Buy you add two more. You assume there is a supernatural being with agency, and you assume you really can know what it wants. So science has two IFs and you have four.

Every claim you have made must be preceded by “IF there is a god, then…”.

That IF is not necessary if you are doing what scientists do, and just going where the evidence leads, regardless of where it leads. When there is evidence for a god of the kind you believe in, then it will get included in scientific theories. But there is no evidence, so it cannot be included. It is not the fault of science that your god is so shy. Of course the more direct provisional conclusion is that there is no such thing.

What you are doing is taking us on a road trip, and whenever we come across a sign pointing to our next destination, you say “Well, that’s IF the sign DOES really point to the destination.”

The scientific roadtrip just involves following the roadsigns, and questioning them only when you discover that the destination really isn’t there. I suspect if you got the destination wrong you would pretend it had changed its name.

Quote

I do not deny the discoveries of men into the different spicies and the anatomy of them ,it show more of inteligence making than progress stupid untinked labor

So are you claiming that a perfect designer would make perfect designs? Do you think that is what we see in nature?

Stuart

[terraricca]

stu

Quote

It says the earth existed before light, which is wrong

I agree with you this is wrong ,but this is not the way it is written,

Pierre

[terraricca]

stu

do you think I am looking for aproval of men ?

Quote

I don’t think you will get much sympathy from christian apologists around the world for your Big Bang denial. They usually use the fact of the Big Bang as support for the “definite beginning” of the universe, which they say their bible describes, as opposed to the “eternal” universe model that was once believed a long time ago…although I’ve never read about background microwave radiation or the asymmetrical production of baryons and anti-baryons in Genesis. Do you know what verse they might mean?

and no i do not see the scriptures that would back that up.

but if you do you can show me ,i am always ready to learn more in scriptures ,

Pierre

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 28 2011,16:13)

Quote (terraricca @ July 28 2011,05:37) Quote (Stu @ July 28 2011,02:16) Quote (terraricca @ July 27 2011,17:55) stu Quote cannot use words like “before”: the first thing you can possibly see is an effect not a cause, and secondly because, since no data can possibly have survived from whatever was “before” we can never know. sorry man,I should have pay more attention ,so I was right about the 'IF'  all is built on that big IF ,and so it is open for speculation and it comes down to either evolution or creation , you pick your and i pick mine . Pierre IF what? Stuart stu If, no one knows ,and If ,no one can see it ,and IF, we never will see it ,then all what comes out of that big bang story is IF, it is true,but IF we built the bing bang story and so come up with evolution from that point on then when IF, falls then all is FALLS because IF is not a proven scientific therm to register true data ,or is it ?? Pierre No one can see what?  Evolution by natural selection?  I gave you examples of how we have seen that happen in several species. The Big Bang?  We can see (using telescopes) the microwave radiation left over from the formation of atoms, a prediction of the theory that was demonstrated to be right, years after it was made. Which theory are we discussing, I've lost track because you are all over the place making generalisations that appear to be so shallow that if they were puddles it would be impossible to drown in them. You still have not given me one fact that disproves either theory.  So you have nothing to say about them on their own terms. Stuart

stu

what we discuss is the foundation of evolution ,and so all the theories who hangs from it

Pierre

[terraricca]

stu

Quote

And there would be no such thing as scripture, either. Seriously, is that your argument? Big Bang cosmology and evolution by natural selection are the same thing because if we did not have matter then we could not have life? That is such a shallow puddle of an argument that no ant would be endangered by it.

even ants would not be there ,not even the puddle

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 28 2011,10:55)

stu what we discuss is the foundation of evolution ,and so all the theories who hangs from it Pierre

I don't know what you mean by the “foundation of evolution”.

Evolution of what?

Stuart

[terraricca]

stu

Quote

It is your idea of IF that is also wrong, actually. Science confronts its IFs and deals with them carefully. The IFs are that we have to assume we exist, and that what we see is what is really going on, that we are not living in an illusion. After that, all IFs are open to question, and the peer review process deals with them savagely.

as soon that your story start with a “IF” then you can go anywhere you want ,who will stop you ? no one can,

IF” is a magic word that open doors ,windows,roads, no limits.

and you know that.

Pierre

[terraricca]

stu

Quote

Again, contrast that with your view. Like the philosophy of science, you also assume that you really do exist, and you assume that what you see is real. Buy you add two more. You assume there is a supernatural being with agency, and you assume you really can know what it wants. So science has two IFs and you have four. Every claim you have made must be preceded by “IF there is a god, then…”.

i agree with you ,now we are on equal ground,

so all what you know is IF and viewed from your side it is also a IF

Pierre

[terraricca]

stu

Quote

That IF is not necessary if you are doing what scientists do, and just going where the evidence leads, regardless of where it leads. When there is evidence for a god of the kind you believe in, then it will get included in scientific theories. But there is no evidence, so it cannot be included. It is not the fault of science that your god is so shy. Of course the more direct provisional conclusion is that there is no such thing.

That IF is not necessary if you are doing what scientists do

you see how difficult it is to support the IF without another IF ?

Pierre

[terraricca]

stu

Quote

So are you claiming that a perfect designer would make perfect designs? Do you think that is what we see in nature? Stuart

Yes I believe that a creator is better,and it is sad to say that now men as put is mark on all living things ,and so it does not represent the true creation,

Pierre

[Stu]

You have four IFs and I have two. Science is full of care to explain that they cannot get around those, but you just arrogantly use your extra two IFs as if only “fools” would even question them.

So you have lost the IFs argument, I'm afraid.

Time to move on to new material, champ.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 28 2011,11:16)

stu Quote So are you claiming that a perfect designer would make perfect designs?  Do you think that is what we see in nature? Stuart Yes I believe that a creator is better,and it is sad to say that now men as put is mark on all living things ,and so it does not represent the true creation, Pierre

How about you have a go at actually answering my question?

Stuart

[Author]

Posts