Evolution is still Big Balony because of the Big Bang Theory...

[old man joe]

the Big Bang Theory was concocted in the last century. this Big Bang idea starts off
without a starting place... the ' stuff ' of the universe was ' always there. ' this
leaves ' scientific ' thinker's with a model to work with but leaves out an extremely
important foundation to build their model on... all the while bypassing this and other
extremely important factors that are required to make their model plausible.

while the focus is on the ' stuff '... that is to say, the matter which Big Banged it's
way into the entire universe, the ' science ' needed to prove where this matter came from
in the first place, is completely avoided. it can not be proven by any means in the realm
of science exactly where this matter came from... that it was ' always there ' does prove
it's existence but is an avoidance of premise number one.

it amounts to making a fact out of a guess.

so now we have on the table a something in the realm of ' science ' which came from
nothing. that alone should alert anyone to the silliness of the whole idea of a
' Big Bang ' universe.

more than that, these ' scientists ' also avoid the proof of where space came from. it
was ' always there ' doesn't prove where it came from in the realm of science, either.

now we have on the table two things conveniently avoided by the ' scientific ' mind...
no proof of where the matter came from and no proof of where space came from. it's pushed
along as fact needing no proof.

yet another unbelievable proof in the scientific realm of no facts equal truth is the
fantastic story that this matter, all in one place mind you, exploded into space that was
always there and magically, life began out of absolute sterility. biology 101 is not a
useful science in the world of Evolution... it has the tendency to contradict the
supporter's of the ' it came from nowhere ' bunch.

when it comes to real life and the leaving out of speculation based on dreams ( and
cartoons ) we have a far different beginning than any scientist can concoct... the Living
God spoke the universe and He created living beings and living things. this is a far more
rational approach to where it all came from. such an approach respects the person as well
as the Creator.

the Big Banger's have no self respect. this is unavoidable for them since Atheists are
born, not made. you can read that in a Bible in Ps. 58:3, but an Atheist / Evolutionist
no more owns or has ever read the Bible then he has owning or reading books about
science and biology.

there isn't an Atheist / Evolutionist on earth who would ever agree to having a heart
transplant if no reason was found to be wrong with his God given heart. yet, these use go
on and on with useless information that have no basis in fact.

they can't say the same for the Creationist since God made Himself evident to both the
Atheist and the Creationist, as He says... " that which is known about God is evident
within them; for God made it evident to them. "... making both parties " without excuse. "
Ro. 1:18-20

[duke]

Post by old man joe
the Big Bang Theory was concocted in the last century. this Big Bang idea starts off
without a starting place... the ' stuff ' of the universe was ' always there. '

Uhhh, no it was not always there.

Post by old man joe
now we have on the table two things conveniently avoided by the ' scientific ' mind...
no proof of where the matter came from and no proof of where space came from.

Nope, "outer space" was included in the point. All the more evidence of God's
work.


The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[h***@wondering.com]

My friend joe trots out this old chestnut from time to time thinking it
a slam dunk evolution killer. It ain't and reveals more about the
failure of the argument then he really wants.

One of the more persistant errors the creation science bunch repeat is
to use the strawman of origins when it comes to evolution.

A strawman is when one targets some idea but throws up some other idea
to contest. When that is done the original target is declared contested
also.

Evolution is about the change in biological species over time.
Evolutionists don't dabble in the origin of the cosmos at all when
discussing biology. They don't discuss origins of life except to say it
came to be and the reasons are currently beyond the scope of biology to
know with certainty . They really don't care how it began when they are
asking questions about how it changes over time.

So to throw up a strawman about the origin of the cosmos and then
declare some conclusion about evolution isan empty gesture.

How long before this chestnut is tried again with the same result?

God only knows.

[j***@jamesphotography.ca]

Post by h***@wondering.com
My friend joe trots out this old chestnut from time to time thinking it
a slam dunk evolution killer. It ain't and reveals more about the
failure of the argument then he really wants.
One of the more persistant errors the creation science bunch repeat is
to use the strawman of origins when it comes to evolution.
A strawman is when one targets some idea but throws up some other idea
to contest. When that is done the original target is declared contested
also.

Well articulated. I hadn't heard of it actually being called a "straw
man". The Jehova Witnesses and the Mormons do the exact thing... Back
in the days when I'd actually invite them into my house, I'd spar with
them, as my bible knowledge was pretty good, and I understood the JW
doctrines better than most of their followers. So, they'd jump around
from one unrelated point to another, and as you say, declare the
previous point properly contested.

Post by h***@wondering.com
Evolution is about the change in biological species over time.
Evolutionists don't dabble in the origin of the cosmos at all when
discussing biology. They don't discuss origins of life except to say it
came to be and the reasons are currently beyond the scope of biology to
know with certainty . They really don't care how it began when they are
asking questions about how it changes over time.
So to throw up a strawman about the origin of the cosmos and then
declare some conclusion about evolution isan empty gesture.
How long before this chestnut is tried again with the same result?
God only knows.