Amuses me how so many atheists seem to think that the big bang theory refutes God!

I was hoping that someone was going to ask me what my evidence for that statement was, and then I could have replied that I didn't need any evidence, it was good enough that I just believed it to be true

Gosh what japes you don't have.

It works for me.

In the next few days just take a moment to forget all you've been brainwashed with, find a nice tranquil spot and just have a empty headed look around, spend as long as you like just gazing in wonder, spot the animals and insects, watch the trees sway in the wind, check out the cloud formations and breath that air in deep

After an hour or 2 or 3, just softly say to yourself... the big bang theory!

of all the contributors to this thread to mention brainwashing !

There's nothing you said there to refute it or to prove a god.

Amuses me how so many atheists seem to think that the big bang theory refutes God!

got any stats for that - I bet it is not high.

Whereas there might have been someone/thing that started the big bang, so therefore a creator, that is a far cry from there being a god that controls our lives and responds to being worshipped.

Maybe the big bang was just the spark as someone turned the computer running the simulation on ?

That would be Carlos Frenk

molgrips - Member

Amuses me how so many atheists seem to think that the big bang theory refutes God!

no, the complete and total lack of evidence to suggest the existence of a deity is how I refute a god.

In the next few days just take a moment to forget all you've been brainwashed

you're referring to those religious types I take it.

Amuses me how so many atheists seem to think that the big bang theory refutes God!

Whu?

Whereas there might have been someone/thing that started the big bang, so therefore a creator, that is a far cry from there being a god that controls our lives and responds to being worshipped.

It is, yes. Different question though.

no, the complete and total lack of evidence to suggest the existence of a deity is how I refute a god.

But as they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 🙂

Amuses me how so many atheists seem to think that the big bang theory refutes God!

It doesn't [i]refute [/i]god. Rather, it offers a partial explanation previously occupied by the notion "god did it" because we had nothing better at the time.

Very little actually refutes god, because as discussed at length here and previously it's impossible to prove a negative. You'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who actually believes what you've just posited.

Now, about that "not keeping it going" you were asserting earlier...

In the next few days just take a moment to forget all you've been brainwashed with, find a nice tranquil spot and just have a empty headed look around, spend as long as you like just gazing in wonder, spot the animals and insects, watch the trees sway in the wind, check out the cloud formations and breath that air in deep

God is real because we have clouds?

After an hour or 2 or 3, just softly say to yourself... the big bang theory!
Hahahahahhahahahaahahahah, on your effing bike you dopey arsed human

The Big Bang Theory is silly?

In the next few days just take a moment to forget all you've been brainwashed with, find a nice tranquil spot and just have a empty headed look around, spend as long as you like just gazing in wonder, spot the animals and insects, watch the trees sway in the wind, check out the cloud formations and breath that air in deep

After an hour or 2 or 3, just softly say to yourself... the big bang theory!
Hahahahahhahahahaahahahah, on your effing bike you dopey arsed human

It's been termed Einsteinian wonder.

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

This came from a man who did not believe in a personal god - and who's work went on to underpin the Big Bang theory.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[18]

Honestly, the standard of debate/trolling in this place is becoming dire.

It's been termed Einsteinian wonder.

Feynman spoke about how scientific knowledge adds to this sense of awe/wonder/beauty:

But as they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

doesnt work for everything and certainly not for the existence of a deity.

The discoverer of the big bang theory, Father Lemaitre, initially referred to it as the "cosmic egg". In terms of the above, Lemaitre considered the theory to be neutral in terms of proving the existence of God; but he liked to keep science and religion separate.

Goddammit, Wilburt! Look what you've gone and done.

Saddest part of this thread is now Turner Guy setting up his own punchline.

I'll pray for you, fella...

I think some of you need to start thinking for yourselves tbh.
So the worlds greatest brains since the beginning of creation have spent their lives studying the universe and the best theory they came up with is impossible. It's like your mate turning up and saying [i]I've just been struck by lightning 4 gazillion times on the way here[/i]

The understanding of ancient scriptures has moved on considerably since Albert pegged it, the words are a gateway reaching far beyond man.. they have been poorly interpreted by humans in the past but slowly science and faith will converge

Not all religious folk believe the same things.

Just sayin'

Not yet!

Not all religious folk believe the same things.

But they all believe in the concept and as it is only a belief it should not dictate anything in anyone else life.

Imagine if the UK was 95% Christian. What would it be like for the other 5%, do you think religion and law would be one and the same and that 5% would be limited by the Christian beliefs

For example do you think homosexuality would still be legal?

So ..what came first ..the chicken or the egg?

Not just rough predictions, but in great detail.

Could you give me an example, out of interest?

An example is the scattering of the people of Israel across the globe. ( Prophesied in 6 different books of the bible eg Deuteronomy & Jeremiah). Also, their return, prophesied by Ezekiel, fulfilled in 1948.

And the existance of 29ers. That obviously refutes a personal god.

So ..what came first ..the chicken or the egg?

Eggs predate chickens by many many years.

Eggs predate chickens

So do foxes.....

and Hounds.

[img] [/img]

🙂

😆

but slowly science and faith will converge

you seriously can't be this stupid?

So ..what came first ..the chicken or the egg?
Eggs predate chickens by many many years.

The question isn't about any egg.. it's specifically referring to chicken eggs and chickens.

But it's a pretty easy question either way - evolutionists will say egg, creationists chicken.

Thanks for clearing that up ..I can ( eventually ) die a happy man now 😉

The question isn't about any egg.. it's specifically referring to chicken eggs and chickens.

But it's a pretty easy question either way - evolutionists will say egg, creationists chicken.

The first chicken egg would have been laid by the first chicken. The first chicken would have hatched from an egg which would have been laid by a slightly different animal, but not by a chicken. So, chicken first then egg.

(Except speciation doesn't happen across one generation.)

I can ( eventually ) die a happy man

You'll be slightly less happy immediately thereafter when you cease to exist and wink out of existence for all eternity.

Good luck with that. 😉

But how do you know? 😀

the words are a gateway reaching far beyond man.

Oo you tease.

they have been poorly interpreted by humans in the past

Do you have any evidence of this please?

but slowly science and faith will converge

In what way? Empirical science + faith mashup? Or is there a new type of science on the way? You mean like spiritual science? Goethe, Steiner kind of thing?

How can science and religion converge

One is examining something external
The other is examining something internal

Totally different things

One is examining something external
The other is examining something internal

This thread just got interesting for the first time.

I'm fairly certain that science does encompass study of the mind/consciousness, (if indeed that what is what you mean by 'internal'?. Religion is more along the lines of a 'collective' consciousness? Sociologically/psychologically speaking - religion also has much to do with a collective [i]conscience[/i]?

I think some of you need to start thinking for yourselves tbh.
So the worlds greatest brains since the beginning of creation have spent their lives studying the universe and the best theory they came up with is impossible. It's like your mate turning up and saying I've just been struck by lightning 4 gazillion times on the way here

The understanding of ancient scriptures has moved on considerably since Albert pegged it, the words are a gateway reaching far beyond man.. they have been poorly interpreted by humans in the past but slowly science and faith will converge

I've missed you over the last couple of days. Where have you been? Spirit Journey, astral plain, reading ancient texts with your eyes shut or just trollollololloling a different forum?

Science can definitely examine spirituality. Try taking some LSD.

There's a good book about this area called The Believing Brain, forget the author. Well worth a read. It's by a neurologist.

The first chicken egg would have been laid by the first chicken. The first chicken would have hatched from an egg which would have been laid by a slightly different animal, but not by a chicken. So, chicken first then egg.

The first egg containing a chicken will have come become before the first chicken. QED.

Try taking some LSD

last time I did that, the paisley pattern carpet looked like a floor of snakes.

How can science and religion converge

One is examining something external
The other is examining something internal

Totally different things

Sam Harris said neuroscience is progressing to the point where we can start to put numbers to things previously only considered philosophically, so it could happen?

The first chicken egg would have been laid by the first chicken. The first chicken would have hatched from an egg which would have been laid by a slightly different animal, but not by a chicken. So, chicken first then egg.

The first egg containing a chicken will have come become before the first chicken. QED.

That egg would have been laid by an animal of the same species as the chicken inside it, so that was there first. If there's a chicken inside the egg, the egg was laid by a chicken.

Unless you're a good Catholic, in which case life begins at conception. In chickens, conception happens before the creation of the shell. So the chicken inside the egg existed before the exterior of the egg.

That egg would have been laid by an animal of the same species as the chicken inside it, so that was there first. If there's a chicken inside the egg, the egg was laid by a chicken.

By that logic it's chickens all the way down.

The first chicken started out life as an egg with a chicken in it. By definition, if it's the first chicken, it's come from an animal which is like a chicken but isn't one.

The first cockapoo didn't come from a cockapoo, it came from a poodle.

In chickens, conception happens before the creation of the shell. So the chicken inside the egg existed before the exterior of the egg.

Now, that's cunning.

You know, it occurs to me I have absolutely zero knowledge of the biology of avian reproduction.

The first cockapoo didn't come from a cockapoo, it came from a poodle

....or a Spaniel?

Weren't expecting that, were you?

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANIEL INQUISITION!

OUR CHIEF WEAPON IS SURPRISE.....

[img] [/img]
Now I've tasted croc before and it was a bit like fishy chicken so I have faith that in fact the first chicken came from a crocodile egg. Believe that one now.

The first cockapoo didn't come from a cockapoo, it came from a poodle.

Caveat: IANAEB*

They're the same species...

Speciation occurs over time, it's not a one generation event.

Your father was the same species as you. His father was the same species as him. His father was the same species as him. His father was the same species as him. His father was the same species as him. His father was the same species as him. His father was the same species as him. His father was the same species as him....

However, there will be a point where your great [i]x n[/i] grandfather will not be the same species as you, but every parent was the same species as their parent.

(I've seen Dawkins explain this using the device of a pile of photographs of successive generations, but I can't find it on YouTube.)

*I Am Not An Evolutionary Biologist

Try taking some LSD.

Did this in my teenage years. Can't recall much of a spiritual persuasion happening though. I bought several tins of Ambrosia creamed rice from the local shop and emptied then all in to my friends kitchen sink. I was convinced that Ambrose the cat was trapped inside one of them.

More mind bending than expanding 😀

[img] https://forum.bass-arena.com/attachments/cc8-jpg.17489/ [/img]

There is no first chicken. There were proto-chickens, and now there are 'what we currently call chickens'.

We humans tend to think of singular entities and beginnings and ends. I think maybe that such thinking is fuelledby our hard-to-escape projection. As in 'we are born, we are us, and then we die'? There is no time in our lives where we 'evolved'. We were 'created' and then we faced entropy. This is a very different experience to the foregone millennia and epochs of speciation/evolution. It's lot for us to wrap our minds around in a short lifetime.

Discounting poetic/journo license there also is no 'first human'. Evolution happens to populations. Likewise, do we ask - 'What came first, the human or the womb? The sperm or the egg?'

We know that the wheel came before the bike, but that is a slightly different matter. Unless you were to stretch the analogy to include wheel-less proto-bikes such as pre-wheeled hobby-horses. In fact that may be a decent analogy for those who are stuck with 'creator' thought? But my intention here isn't a setup for a 'what came first, the hobby-horse or the hobby-horse-builder?'-type question. Again, anthropocentrism trips us up.

But there was no 'first chicken', AFAIK.

Cont'd -

A hobby-horse became a bike when it had a wheel put on it and someone called it a bike. Or was that pedals? Proto-bike is a difficult beastie. Was it ever settled - who made the first bike?

So the occupant of the egg become a 'chicken' as soon as we called it a chicken. It's a word. Before the word it was a name-less bird. Bird is still a word.

Bird bird bird. Bird is the word. I'm going for a ride tonight to think about this some more. But am pretty sure that bird is the word.

Bird bird bird. Bird is the word

Damn you. That's in my head now.

So has the Bird become a Bike ..Aeris would have us believe so..

Ma ma ma ooh maw maw, mamma oo maw maw.

It's the Satanists I feel sorry for.

Reviled by the religious and atheist alike.

If SaxonRider prays to God for this thread to end and it doesn't...

[img] /revision/latest?cb=20160605132724[/img]

Speciation occurs over time, it's not a one generation event.

Your father was the same species as you. His father was the same species as him. His father was the same species as him. His father was the same species as him. His father was the same species as him. His father was the same species as him. His father was the same species as him. His father was the same species as him....

However, there will be a point where your great x n grandfather will not be the same species as you, but every parent was the same species as their parent.

This is a little of what i was asking about gene lengthening. Because for all the breeding, interbreeding, cross-breeding of dogs all dogs still have the same gene length.

So has the Bird become a Bike ..Aeris would have us believe so

We live in Hope.

For the record, I can't ride a bike. I'm sorry.

miketually - Member 
If SaxonRider prays to God for this thread to end and it doesn't...

😀

Actually... are you making assumptions about me?

This is a little of what i was asking about gene lengthening. Because for all the breeding, interbreeding, cross-breeding of dogs all dogs still have the same gene length.

Can you expand on this - or indicate some further reading - was disappointed your point was never fully developed.

Can you expand on this - or indicate some further reading - was disappointed your argument was never fully developed.

it's more of a question really, in that species have different gene lengths, and longer genes are in more complex animals but genes don't lengthen in an evolutionary way, the require a different sort of step change.

Thank you for the reply, interesting question - was hoping it might be your area - which I haven't worked out yet.

Well, it's not, but poah started to address it.
Thing is, mutation is ok and i can see this modifying species as they develop, but that species jump in complexity, to become a new species seems less evolutiony

Were you the guy trying to disprove evolution in the other thread? I don't know what you've been reading now but it's common knowledge that genome size can increase by duplication, insertion, or polyploidization. Bioinformatics has also highlighted that it takes very few mutations to drive speciation - it can be done in as little as 15,000 years to several million (see African lake Cichlids).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4353498/

Cichlid fish adaptive radiationis characterized by rapid speciation without geographical isolation. In Lake Victoria, several hundred endemic species emerged within the past 15,000–100,000 year

This is a little of what i was asking about gene lengthening. Because for all the breeding, interbreeding, cross-breeding of dogs all dogs still have the same gene length.

Modern humans arose a few hundred thousand years ago. We only domesticated dogs a few tens of thousand years ago.

Time...

miketually - Member
If SaxonRider prays to God for this thread to end and it doesn't...

Actually... are you making assumptions about me?

I was commenting on the image only.

I knew two priests called David. One would pray for a parking space, the other thought that if God didn't intervene to stop a tsunami why would he help find a parking spot.

I'd not assume.

it's more of a question really, in that species have different gene lengths, and longer genes are in more complex animals but genes don't lengthen in an evolutionary way, the require a different sort of step change.

you mean genomes not genes.. Genes do mutate e.g. sickle cell anaemia is a single point mutation that changes an amino acid in B-haemoglobin. The only upside of this disease is that it protects against malaria so in the sub-Saharan Africa, where 80% of the disease occurs, provides an advantage.

Thing is, mutation is ok and i can see this modifying species as they develop, but that species jump in complexity, to become a new species seems less evolutiony

its totally evolutionary tbf lol it doesn't happen in one jump.

But it's a pretty easy question either way - evolutionists will say egg, creationists chicken.

Is that the 19thC 'evolutionist' or modern (mis)usage? Really only used by a certain subset of [s]science-deniers[/s] I mean [s]Creationists[/s] [s]Biblical literalists[/s] argumentative persons?

I'd not assume.

8)

its totally evolutionary tbf lol it doesn't happen in one jump

duplication, insertion, or polyploidization.

Exactly, and these aren't mutation processes

Duplication, insertions and deletions are all considered to be mutations.

duplication, insertions and deletions are all considered to be mutations

How is duplication a mutation?

Because it is usually the result of errors in DNA replication. These changes can alter the expression of proteins because the sequence is transcribed to the wrong part of the genome. A mutation is not limited to nonsense or missense types.

Tom_W1987 - Member

Duplication, insertions and deletions are all considered to be mutations.

Duplication means gaining another copy of a gene its not a mutation like the other two.

insertions can be considered a mutation if the DNA disrupts the gene

deletion can either be removing a gene or a mutation in the DNA that causes a codon change.

you can see this between humans and chimp.

*Humans have acquired 689 new gene duplicates and lost 86 since diverging from our common ancestor with chimps six million years ago. Similarly, they reckoned that chimps have lost 729 gene copies that humans still have.

*C&P

The definitions that I have seen state that they can be considered mutations , due to the reasons stated in my last post.

An insertion that did not alter gene expression would be considered a silent mutation.

From the US national library of medicine

A duplication consists of a piece of DNA that is abnormally copied one or more times. This type of mutation may alter the function of the resulting protein.

One is examining something external
The other is examining something internal

this question has already been posed

nice one bruvvvaaaaaaa