Evolution vs. Creation

[Subduction Zone]

Alien Outlaw wrote:

<quoted text>Science thinks the Big Bang created everything.....that's absurd! In human terms it makes sense. In the scope of understanding infinite space...its a theory, nothing more.

And you just proved your ignorance. Anyone who says the phrase "just a theory" or its equivalent, does not know what a scientific theory is.

By the way what evidence do you have that space is infinite? That is not a mistake that scientists will make. Without evidence they will not claim that space is infinite or bounded. In fact that is one question that they are still studying.

[xxxooxxx]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes lots of things brought up here got me all thinking! where should I start is the question

depends on how deep ya really want to go...

[xxxooxxx]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
No, there is no such thing as nothing. Reality isn't just the three dimensional space that we know.

exactly...I agree.

[xxxooxxx]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
No, there is no such thing as nothing. Reality isn't just the three dimensional space that we know.

Nothing only exist as a concept...it's a relative idea.

[Lililth_Satans_B ore]

simple evolution is based on reallity and creationism is based on mythical superstitions

[xxxooxxx]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
And you just proved your ignorance. Anyone who says the phrase "just a theory" or its equivalent, does not know what a scientific theory is.
By the way what evidence do you have that space is infinite? That is not a mistake that scientists will make. Without evidence they will not claim that space is infinite or bounded. In fact that is one question that they are still studying.

like the theory that the Universe was slowing down?...but now it's speeding up?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

[Lililth_Satans_B ore]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
like the theory that the Universe was slowing down?...but now it's speeding up?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

that never was a scientific theory... nice try tho

[Cybele]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
depends on how deep ya really want to go...

as deep as the ocean

[The Dude]

Alien Outlaw wrote:

<quoted text>Science thinks the Big Bang created everything.....that's absurd! In human terms it makes sense. In the scope of understanding infinite space...its a theory, nothing more.

So's gravity.

[The Dude]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
"It also leaves you with the problem of how it exists in the first place..."
your trying to imply a scientific idea of cause and effect to an infinity...why?

You're trying to imply cause and effect to quantum phenomena. Why?

The reason why I apply cause and effect to yours is because cause and effect is the ENTIRE justification for your "god hypothesis". In which case in order to remain true to your premise, your answer must also be privy to cause and effect. If it isn't, then there's not necessarily any reason that the universe should be either. We do at least have evidence of the universe.

Don't worry though, if you find the cause and effect thing suddenly inconvenient there are still one or two other scientific hypotheses regarding the causation of the universe which do still comply with cause and effect.

[The Dude]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
Science seems to have a problem with the concept of a infinity

Not really.

xxxooxxx wrote:

it's kinda like the idea of an infinite "God"...they tend to deny that which they cannot grasp....(ad infinitum)

No need to deny what is not in evidence. Especially something which its own proponents also admit to not being able to grasp.

Much like when Alien Outlaw claimed that aliens beyond human comprehension are controlling humans. Of course I don't know for certain but I'm guessing that Alien Outlaw is a human. Ironic, no?

[The Dude]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
No, there is no such thing as nothing. Reality isn't just the three dimensional space that we know.

Nope! It's at least four. Possibly more, but they're only abstract mathematical models at this time.

[xxxooxxx]

Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:

<quoted text>that never was a scientific theory... nice try tho

so the theory of the Universe expanding and then slowing down, collapsing into a singularity was never a theory?

really now...

prove it.

[The Dude]

Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:

<quoted text>that never was a scientific theory... nice try tho

It is unfortunate that scientists sometimes make the mistake of using the word "theory" for ease of use when in actuality they mean "hypothesis". Kinda like String Theory even though it's only a hypothesis. This sometimes has the effect of making scientific laypeople believing they have valid criticisms of scientific concepts they don't understand.

[Cybele]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope! It's at least four. Possibly more, but they're only abstract mathematical models at this time.

Time being the 4th dimension, etc. or even 11 accdg to the M-theory.

Do you believe that our consciousness has many dimensions as well? Or is it just me?

[Lililth_Satans_B ore]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
so the theory of the Universe expanding and then slowing down, collapsing into a singularity was never a theory?
really now...
prove it.

the slowing down was a hypothesis, and hypothesis are meant in science to be tested and refuted if the evidence refutes them... learn the scientific terms before you try and debate reallity... I suspect you should stick to your mythical superstions as you need no supporting evidence other than a 2000 year old comic book

[Lililth_Satans_B ore]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
It is unfortunate that scientists sometimes make the mistake of using the word "theory" for ease of use when in actuality they mean "hypothesis". Kinda like String Theory even though it's only a hypothesis. This sometimes has the effect of making scientific laypeople believing they have valid criticisms of scientific concepts they don't understand.

totally agree... but even when this is pointed out to a christard they will continue to misuse the terms on purpose

[xxxooxxx]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
It is unfortunate that scientists sometimes make the mistake of using the word "theory" for ease of use when in actuality they mean "hypothesis". Kinda like String Theory even though it's only a hypothesis. This sometimes has the effect of making scientific laypeople believing they have valid criticisms of scientific concepts they don't understand.

gee...all the science books seem to use the word theory...I guess now that it turns out to be a wrong "theory" it's now a mis-labeled hypothesis...LMAO

[Lililth_Satans_B ore]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
so the theory of the Universe expanding and then slowing down, collapsing into a singularity was never a theory?
really now...
prove it.

maybe you should consult your burning bush

[The Dude]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
so the theory of the Universe expanding and then slowing down, collapsing into a singularity was never a theory?
really now...
prove it.

Your own link did.

This is the difference between science and dogma. They propose a hypothesis, and if they come across new information later on they will, if necessary, change that hypothesis. It MAY be that in the future some more data will be discovered which does indeed indicate that our apparently expanding universe is slowing down. Or it may not. But the whole "theory" you're talking about (even if you don't realise it) is the Big Bang theory. And within theories you have smaller hypotheses, such as whether the universe is speeding up or slowing down. However both still fit within the Big Bang framework.

Much like the bird/dino connection in evolution. While common ancestry is not scientifically disputed, the particulars of how it all happened can be. Which is why there's still a few evolutionary biologists who dispute the idea that the bird lineage evolved from dinosaurs. And the concept may even be referred to as a "theory" in general, even though it is actually a hypothesis WITHIN the scientific theory of what is known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.