Was stumped by a Creationist

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.

This statement is nonsensical.

Let's review your silly argument:

Because scientists have not yet created a cell from a chemical soup, therefore magical gods created life.

How absurd. I don't see any need to respond to this nonsense any further. It is so patently goofy that it defeats itself.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

he responded that Evolution is not either.

Well, he was 100% incorrect when he said that. If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.

I feel that this proves why scientifically while understanding GOD's biblical revelation:

The Neanderthals Didn't Die Out; They Were Killed Off

The story of Noah is also about extermination. To emphasize only one half of the narrative is typical of the narrowing, simplifying, and jumping to quick conclusions in the designed mental processes we are tricked into following by the rulers' educational regime. So it could be only about extermination, with the Flood being just a metaphor for a bloodbath.

 

[abu afak]

...

BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.

Evidence of common descent
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

• 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
  • 1.1 Genetics
  • 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
• 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
  • 2.1 Atavisms
  • 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
  • 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
  • 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
  • 2.5 Vestigial structures
  • 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
• 3 Evidence from paleontology
  • 3.1 Fossil record
  • 3.2 Limitations
  • 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
• 4 Evidence from biogeography
  • 4.1 Continental distribution
  • 4.2 Island biogeography
  • 4.3 Ring species
  • 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
• 5 Evidence from selection
  • 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
  • 5.2 Invertebrates
  • 5.3 Microbes
  • 5.4 Plants and fungi
  • 5.5 Vertebrates
• 6 Evidence from speciation
  • 6.1 Fossils
  • 6.2 Invertebrates
  • 6.3 Plants
  • 6.4 Vertebrates
• 7 Evidence from coloration
  • 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
  • 7.2 Camouflage
• 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling
• 9 See also
• 10 References
• 11 Sources
• 12 External links

`

 

[ThisIsMe]

Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.

Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.

Do you know of the proof of the big bang? Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?

 

[cnm]

I feel that this proves why scientifically while understanding GOD's biblical revelation:

I'm not going to watch that, sorry. [...]

Did anyone watch it?

 

[cnm]

Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.

Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.

Do you know of the proof of the big bang? Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?

Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Remember that word you used?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you know of the proof of the big bang? Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?

Charlatan alert!

The charlatan's trick, in this case, is "bait and switch". First you said "proof or evidence". Then, you changed lanes to "proof", hoping nobody would notice.

Always be on the lookout for dishonest charlatans, people.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.

Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.

Do you know of the proof of the big bang? Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?

Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Remember that word you used?

Right, so there is evidence, but no proof, which means it takes a bit of faith to believe in it, correct?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Right, so there is evidence, but no proof, which means it takes a bit of faith to believe in it, correct

See, you are confusing yourself. Unlike faith, scientists will make an evidence based determinations and deem something likely true, then study it further. This is not faith. And trusting the well supported scientific theories is also not faith...it is trust, based on evidence. I have mountains of evidence and reason to trust electromagnetic theory, to the point of being willing to bet my life on it (like, when swimming in a pool.with an electric light). These things are the utter opposite of faith.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Do you know of the proof of the big bang? Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?

Charlatan alert!

The charlatan's trick, in this case, is "bait and switch". First you said "proof or evidence". Then, you changed lanes to "proof", hoping nobody would notice.

Always be on the lookout for dishonest charlatans, people.

Nope, it requires proof. Evidence doesn't cut it because at the end of the day, every bit of "evidence" is simply speculation. Sure, you can say it looks good, and points to a big bang, but there is always that doubt, otherwise they would come out and say big bang is fact.

They cant say its fact because they simply dont know. Hence why it takes just as much faith to believe that something sprang from nothing as it does to believe in God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nope, it requires proof.

Which, in science, means "the preponderance of the evidence". "Proof" only happens in mathematics . You seem to have a lot to learn about science.

Sure, you can say it looks good, and points to a big bang, but there is always that doubt, otherwise they would come out and say big bang is fact.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, they do say it is a fact. When scientists speak of the 'big bang', they are speaking of the rapid inflationary period. And yes, this event is considered a fact, as well established as any scientific determination can be established.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Right, so there is evidence, but no proof, which means it takes a bit of faith to believe in it, correct

See, you are confusing yourself. Unlike faith, scientists will make an evidence based determinations and deem something likely true, then study it further. This is not faith. And trusting the well supported scientific theories is also not faith...it is trust, based on evidence. I have mountains of evidence and reason to trust electromagnetic theory, to the point of being willing to bet my life on it (like, when swimming in a pool.with an electric light). These things are the utter opposite of faith.

Actually, it's all the same. Yes, there are things in existence now that can be tested and proven, but the big bang is something they will never be able to prove. For every evidence you give for the big bang, there is likely a creationist view that supports the same thing. No, I'm not a biblical scholar so I don't know, but there are plenty of YouTube videos on the topic.

The big bang supporters want you to believe that before the universe, there was nothing. No existence of time, space, matter, nothing. Then, from that, the universe exploded into existence, from non existence.

You cant have absolute nothingness, and then have matter and energy.

I dont care if you believe in God or not, but, both viewpoints take a good amount of faith.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually, it's all the same.

Hilariously stupid nonsense. Believing something without evidence and believing something because the evidence forces you to believe it are not and will never be the same. You only say something so stupid because your heart's desire is to place your magical nonsense on the same shelf as empirical knowledge. You can give that up right now.

The big bang supporters want you to believe that before the universe, there was nothing.

This is false. Among scientists that consider the big bang a fact(which is pretty much all of them), there are myriad ideas and explanations for what may have come before. But it has indeed been shown to be completely possible that the big bang precursor sprung spontaneously from a region of empty space. You are free to challenge this notion. No, simply shitting on it on an internet message board is not an actual challenge to it.

 

[Olde Europe]

Nope, it requires proof. Evidence doesn't cut it because at the end of the day, every bit of "evidence" is simply speculation. Sure, you can say it looks good, and points to a big bang, but there is always that doubt, otherwise they would come out and say big bang is fact.

They cant say its fact because they simply dont know. Hence why it takes just as much faith to believe that something sprang from nothing as it does to believe in God.

You know, everything you say demonstrates you have no clue how science really works, and you haven't even tried to learn about it. Instead you blab embarrassing nonsense about "belief", and you are even failing the for-free education Fort Fun Indiana provides.

Belief has nothing to do with that. Whatever is not yet explained about the Big Bang (the origin of the universe) isn't settled by "belief". Rather, it's the physicists' next research program, as their understanding progresses toward the first trillionth of a second of the universe. "Belief" would mean they settle for some assumptions, and that's it, no evidence, no further research required. That is exactly the opposite of how science works.

Why, really, why don't you take a bit of time and read up on the matter? Start here, for instance. Read it twice, if necessary, and cease embarrassing yourself already.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Actually, it's all the same.

Hilariously stupid nonsense. Believing something without evidence and believing something because the evidence forces you to believe it are not and will never be the same. You only say something so stupid because your heart's desire is to place your magical nonsense on the same shelf as empirical knowledge. You can give that up right now.

The big bang supporters want you to believe that before the universe, there was nothing.

This is false. Among scientists that consider the big bang a fact(which is pretty much all of them), there are myriad ideas and explanations for what may have come before. But it has indeed been shown to be completely possible that the big bang precursor sprung spontaneously from a region of empty space. You are free to challenge this notion. No, simply shitting on it on an internet message board is not an actual challenge to it.

Hawking said that the universe started with a singularity the size of an atom. How do we get to the universe we have today, all the planets, stars, gasses, etc. from something that small. Physics would suggest that that isn't possible.

Not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that there are a lot of unanswered questions and it takes a great amount of faith to believe either viewpoint.

We have an ever expanding universe from something that was a small as an atom. Where is the matter coming from that keeps the universe expanding?

Also, science suggests there was some form of energy or something that triggered the big bang. I was always under the impression the big bang was the beginning of everything. Where did that energy come from? Did it just always exist?

You said that science believes that the big bang occurred in some region of space. If space existed for a big bang to occur, then that means space and the universe existed before the big bang? Again, I always thought theory was the universe and space was created by the big bang.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nope, it requires proof. Evidence doesn't cut it because at the end of the day, every bit of "evidence" is simply speculation. Sure, you can say it looks good, and points to a big bang, but there is always that doubt, otherwise they would come out and say big bang is fact.

They cant say its fact because they simply dont know. Hence why it takes just as much faith to believe that something sprang from nothing as it does to believe in God.

You know, everything you say demonstrates you have no clue how science really works, and you haven't even tried to learn about it. Instead you blab embarrassing nonsense about "belief", and you are even failing the for-free education Fort Fun Indiana provides.

Belief has nothing to do with that. Whatever is not yet explained about the Big Bang (the origin of the universe) isn't settled by "belief". Rather, it's the physicists' next research program, as their understanding progresses toward the first trillionth of a second of the universe. "Belief" would mean they settle for some assumptions, and that's it, no evidence, no further research required. That is exactly the opposite of how science works.

Why, really, why don't you take a bit of time and read up on the matter? Start here, for instance. Read it twice, if necessary, and cease embarrassing yourself already.

I'm not embarrassed in the least. If I'm proven wrong, then so be it. Science can come up with all sorts of evidence as to the origins of the universe, but as fortfun said, science doesn't do proof. They want you to take all the evidence they gather and tell you that "this is the way it happened...we dont know for sure, we have no proof, but our calculations say this is where it all started..."

That's fine, what I'm trying to get across is that, at the end of the day, when you try to explain that before the universe, there was nothing, and then suddenly BOOM! the universe sprang into existence, it requires a leap of faith.

For the big bang to have happened, there had to be something in existence. Some form of energy, matter, a black hole...something. Science cannot explain where that "something" came from. They just want us to take it on FAITH that it was always there. The same sort of faith required to believe that God always existed, correct?

 

[Olde Europe]

I'm not embarrassed in the least.

I take your word for it. Since you haven't read the link, and show no inclination other than to repeat the same nonsense you've already proposed earlier, here's where the conversation ends. Fiercely determined ignorance is not conducive to debate.

 

[Corodon]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Is this a fancy way of demanding critics prove a negative?

You can dress it up with multi-syllabic words and dependent clauses, but you can't prove a negative. Thus our justice system is based on the presumption of innocence: the commission of a crime must be proved. At least that was the case before the Kavanaugh hearings....

 

[Corodon]

Nope, it requires proof.

Which, in science, means "the preponderance of the evidence". "Proof" only happens in mathematics . You seem to have a lot to learn about science.

Sure, you can say it looks good, and points to a big bang, but there is always that doubt, otherwise they would come out and say big bang is fact.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, they do say it is a fact. When scientists speak of the 'big bang', they are speaking of the rapid inflationary period. And yes, this event is considered a fact, as well established as any scientific determination can be established.

It's still the "theory" of evolution, or whatever, and it's still modified as evidence supports or contradicts empirical evidence.

Not as many things become "laws," like the Law of Gravity. So far as I know, the Big Bang is still the Big Bang Theory.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hawking said that the universe started with a singularity the size of an atom

No he didn't. A aingliarity has no size, and Hawking knew this. And Hawking only said that the unqualified extrapolation backward based on our physical laws would lead to a singularity, but he always cast doubt on the idea of the existence of singularities. As our knowledge about quantum states imrpoves, scientists are finding solutions to this and to black holes that do not require singularities.

Where is the matter coming from that keeps the universe expanding?

It has always been there. But, it's not matter that is making the universe expand. It is dark energy.

Where did that energy come from? Did it just always exist?

Well that is a complicated question indeed with several relevant ideas. For one, the net energy of our universe may simply be zero. In this case, literally no existing energy field was required for our universe to spontaneously begin.

Another idea is that it "came out the other side" from a collapse of a region of space