Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
GunnyL said:I have to completely support this statement, having made it myself on more than one occasion.
You aren't going to get an honest answer. If you did, they the proponents of scientific theories of origin would have to concede that you are correct. When was the last time you saw THAT?
manu1959 said:you can not measure the effect of the big bang because you don't know if it happened
you are guessing that it did because things are moving but you are not sure if they are speeding up or slowing down.
the rimodial ozzzz transition fossil to man...where is it?....
it does not exist .....stop changing the subject and admit that you don't know.....you are guessing you have no proof.....damn dude.....if all the proof exixts why do all still call it a working hypothesis and a therory? oh ya ...yall are still trying to prove it
manu1959 said:how many supernova observations have there been over the past 5 billion years? man has seen how many of these?
GunnyL said:I have to completely support this statement, having made it myself on more than one occasion.
You aren't going to get an honest answer. If you did, they the proponents of scientific theories of origin would have to concede that you are correct. When was the last time you saw THAT?
There is too much emotion involved. Usually, those who push scientific theories of origin as legit are also staunchly anti-religion. They cannot overcome their personal biases to have an objective conversation on the topic.
deaddude said:I beleive I have done it several times on this thread. I have admitted that both Creation and Primordial soup theory are possible explanations, that theoretical science is largely guess work, making a guess that seems to fit with previous observeations, and other known data.
Personally I go with science. Not becuase I am anti-religious, but because science does have a better record of amending its theories than religion.
SpidermanTuba said:What is a primodial ooze transition fossil to man?
GunnyL said:Try asking the person who made the statement. I don't think you need to, however. You know what he meant.
deaddude said:I beleive I have done it several times on this thread. I have admitted that both Creation and Primordial soup theory are possible explanations, that theoretical science is largely guess work, making a guess that seems to fit with previous observeations, and other known data.
Personally I go with science. Not becuase I am anti-religious, but because science does have a better record of amending its theories than religion.
SpidermanTuba said:Yeah, I did. I told you that there is no such thing as 100% proof, and I told you that the only fact is observation. If you have reading comprehension problems, see a tutor.
You can't prove I am alive 100%. I may simply be an illusion.
SpidermanTuba said:This depends on the total amount of mass in the Universe. Many cosomologists believe there is good reason to expect that we should be above critical mass, that is, that the UNiverse will end up contracting (why they believe this is above my level of understanding). Though we can't observe all the matter for this to happen. We do know, though, for instance, that much of the matter in galaxies is not directly observable, we know its there from its affects on the observable matter in the galaxies, we can't detect it otherwise. Hence "dark matter". The nature of the dark matter is not known for sure, there are a few viable theories. Compact objects, such as white dwarfs, brown dwarfs, and neutron stars, or black holes even, are candidates, as they could be huge amounts of these objects that we cannot see simply because they emit very little radiation. Current efforts to detect these objects in our own galaxy through gravitational lensing is underway.
Of course, it could be that there isn't enough matter to cause a slow down, which would mean the universe would expand forever, and eventually become nothing but a vast expanse of cold iron.
Eventually, provided the universe does not contract and collapse on itself before this happens, yes, all the matter in the universe will be converted to the most stable element, iron. However, this is a long long way off. Our own sun is about 70% hydrogen 25% helium. About 5 billion years from now, it will die, but still it will be mostly hydrogen, as only the matter in the core is hot enough to fuse.
How is that a guess?
The laws of the Universe only apply to the Universe, how could they apply elsewhere?
GotZoom said:This response clearly tells me that you are arguing just to argue. To state that I can't prove you are alive; that you might be an illusion just shows how desperate you are to "win" an discussion.
If the "only fact is observation," then Shakespeare, Einstein, Galileo, Plato and Socrates never existed.
You and I never "saw" them..they must have never existed.
SpidermanTuba said:Well go ahead, prove that I am alive.
There is very strong evidence to suggest their existance.
You are changing your standards of proof. If we were to employ your standard of "truth" that you apply to scientific theories, then yes, we could not say with 100% certainty that Shakespeare existed.
-Cp said:You know what I find hilarious is how you speak in absolutes - as if somehow you definitly know what's going to transpire. You sound as ignorant as the moronic teachers and/or books you've read this garbage from..
I can prove you are alive - at the time of your last post - because you posted it.
The strong evidence that suggests those fine gentlemen existed also applies to God.
SpidermanTuba said:How do you know I'm not just a computer program?
Well, except of course, that no one has ever seen God, or touched him, or read anything that he's written personally.
What value is your faith, if you have proof of his existance?
GotZoom said:I know you aren't a computer program. How? As with many other things..I just know.
SpidermanTuba said:"I just know" does not constitute proof of anything.
Funny how you relax your standards of proof to "I just know" when it involves you trying to prove something, but when I'm trying to prove something moutains of evidence as reflected in thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles is just not
enough.
That makes you a hypocrit.
GotZoom said:Ok..I'll play.
Are you a person or a computer program?
SpidermanTuba said:I'm not telling.
