There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

Wa reply to: TzarChasm

So you believe there was nothing?
Then a Big Bang?
Then everything?

And you want me to believe that is science?

Or are you inferring that evolution is a religion?
Cool, I agree...

Irrespective, what I know about it evolution is a bucket of nothing compared to your thimble of nothing
Care to share some scientific evidence
That's right, you have only faith to offer

There is a proverb, says something like
Don't talk, it makes you look smarter

a reply to: Raggedyman

So you believe there was nothing?
Then a Big Bang?
Then everything?

i have gone through the math that indicates an abrupt expansion at the beginning of the universe that we call home. currently there is no data concerning what came before, no way to say yes or no about any details of pre-big bang existence. and the theory of evolution stands quite firmly regardless of that investigation.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

See how we disagree
ID has as much supporting evidence as evolution
You just choose not to accept it

While I disagree with evolution, I am smart enough to see why some people believe it, I can stretch my intelectual capacity to understand how others think, I can see evidence for evolution
You don't have that ability, that's strange, kinda a mental deficiency

I can't understand how an intelligent person can't understand the evidence for ID, maybe not scientific evidence, but evidence non the less

Name a single test you can run to verify that anything was ever intelligently designed. Evidence isn't up for intepretation. This is why the thread completely fails just like all creationist threads here.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes we have done that before. You ignore every bit of evidence supplied.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes we have done that before. You ignore every bit of evidence supplied.

Rather than bitch and moan, paste up the scientific evidence
It's easy
Don't stop pasting it up

Oh that's right, even your peers readily admit there is no scientific evidence

a reply to: Barcs

You still seem to have that learning disability
I wonder Barcs, can you honestly admit, looking at all the world and universe offers, there is the potential that it could, may well have, possible been designed or at the very least, does have some peculiarities that are not just random, or no, you can't see anything at all?

Many times I have asked for scientific evidence for evolution and all I get is circumstantial evidence
Do you understand that?

a reply to: TzarChasm

And you think that's logical
It's a rhetorical question, don't bother

It's just interesting that Lucid Lunacy thinks that because the Genesis account seems to not make sense it should be discarded for the theory nothing exploding into everything because that makes sense obviously

a reply to: Raggedyman

No neighbour. IF you ever engaged in good faith. I would do that. Indeed I did that early on. But no. You are beholden to either:

(a) Read what is posted, at the time
or
(b) Admit you are not here in good faith. But rather are here to troll and proselytize.

Basically, you've got to earn myself and others putting effort in on a regular basis. You regularly have posts removed, and threads killed. That is indicative of your real purpose.

a reply to: Noinden

In good faith
Even many of your peers readily admit there is no scientific evidence and yet here you are...again, pretending, acting, bemoaning

I think it's time you start questioning my level of education, my maturity, my faith again, because you need to deflect from the fact you have no science to offer anyone

Why not counter the OP and the issue raised there rather than me, oh, that's right, you can't

How am I trolling a thread I agree with, whatever school you went to didn't help you did it Noindie, you missed out, maybe you should have been homeschooled, public education let you down
Why not answer the question posed in the op, you know, what you usually do, troll threads you don't understand

a reply to: Padawan not Padawan cause im a crybaby Raggedyman

Youngling, why would anyone have a decent proper conversation with you when you consistently present yourself to have the demeanor of a child who missed out at cookie time.

Maybe if you grow up and show some respect you will get some in return. Otherwise your a joke we all shake our heads at and laugh.

Respect = Respect.

Master Coomba

a reply to: Raggedyman

Neigbour that is a straw man argument. You are also deflecting from the point.

You have not engaged the discussions in good faith.

You thus are treated as to be expected. Which is as follows.

Read what I have cited in the past. If you can't That is your, not my issue.

a reply to: Noinden

I asked for scientific evidence

Seriously though why would I listen to you and your discussions of good faith when your peers have openly disagreed with you, have categorically stated that the evidence isn't there
We are meandering, it's pointless, all you have is faith based on non scientific evidence

And now sadly Star Wars boy is here and this conversation dies a sad poor death
Poor boy will want to make it all about me and ignore the opening post
I would like to direct you all back to that post and discussion
I think it's a valid question
I can't be bothered, till next time

Preachers and the churches get mad at evolution because it explains why humans act like animals. They get mad when they can't blame evil on demons. Without mythical evil and demons, preachers and the churches aren't needed.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Pew Pew Pew Pew.

Its a trap!!


Master Coomba

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

Yes there are also different interpretations of evolution neighbour. They all however are about evolution. ID and creationism are not about evolution in any way shape or form however. Thus your point is invalid.

Both ID and creationism can accommodate evolution, as a mechanism.

Thus your presumption is invalid.

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: MteWamp
a reply to: neoholographic

The thing that never made sense to me is that so many people on EITHER side of the argument seem to think that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

They are not mutually exclusive.

They address two completely different phenomenon.

Those looking to validate their belief in supernatural origins of the universe and all within it don't see that distinction.

Those looking for natural origins of the universe and all within it see all things supernatural as flawed hypotheses since there is no way to test supernatural event.

The two approaches are mutually exclusive, not the ideas.

Surely, though, naturalism itself, under deep analysis, suggests that there is something beyond it.

Mathematical Incompleteness says nature (a formalized, mathematical, axiomatically defined system) can't be totally self defining, that there is always something else.

Whatever that is, is by definition beyond natural - supernatural.

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
The word nothing means that there is no thing. The assumed first thing was 'you' - 'you' are divided from the whole.

What leads you to make that assumption? Why wasn't the assumed first thing 'them'?

Really there is the whole and 'them' are not really divided from it.

We have met the enemy and they is us.

Amn't they just?

a reply to: chr0naut

Hey digger whats up.

Both ID and creationism can accommodate evolution, as a mechanism.

Totally agree.

Generally speaking the evidence we would see would be the same.

aka, until we find evidence of ID or Creationism that points towards reality, then what we can see and test with the evidence we can consider it as a Scientific Theory. Set out to explain said natural phenomena.

Gotta admit, to plead to emotions and feelings or a hope is nothing short of buying a lotta ticket, that ends up being a perpetual maybe. [aka: The End Times is this generation for the past thousand/s of generations.]

So Brother NSW Bloody Aussie!, do you believe in evolution?

Coomba98

--
edit...

read that and and went Phwoar!!!, seems excessive, but its totally in peace brother.

a reply to: chr0naut

Mathematical Incompleteness says nature (a formalized, mathematical, axiomatically defined system) can't be totally self defining, that there is always something else.

Nature is NOT "(a formalized, mathematical, axiomatically defined system)". That is absurd.

Superficially, Heisenberg and Godel seem to agree with each other, but their context is miles apart. Godel is about the bounds of formal logic systems, Heisenberg is about the bounds of experimental measurements.

Gregory Chaitin Kurt Gödel Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem +2 Does the Godel incompleteness theorem explain the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

Godel showed that some things are fundamentally unknowable just like in quantum theory some things are fundamentally unmeasurable.

'Logically Unknowable' and 'Experimentally Unmeasurable' are just not the same thing. It is tempting to stretch the simile while under the influence of some aromatic herb, but one has to keep the context in mind at all times or you will run down the rabbit hole and end up in a discussion with Humpty Dumpty again.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

You still seem to have that learning disability
I wonder Barcs, can you honestly admit, looking at all the world and universe offers, there is the potential that it could, may well have, possible been designed or at the very least, does have some peculiarities that are not just random, or no, you can't see anything at all?

I agree that it is possible, but just not very probable in my view unless we're looking at deism where a god kick starts the big bang and allows it to unfold. Most design arguments are made out of emotional assumptions about the beauty or complexity of nature. I get it, I don't see see those as convincing arguments. I don't have any problem with people choosing to believe it. I'm against denial of science and logic or projecting the idea of god/creator as anything more than personal opinion, because it's not.

Many times I have asked for scientific evidence for evolution and all I get is circumstantial evidence
Do you understand that?

No.