Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Trackaholic wrote:

Adonai wrote:How is the prospect that the universe has always existed any more improbable than god's infinite existence?

The Universe did not always exist.

Because the "smoke" from the "Big Bang" is still drifting throughout the universe. And this smoke shows that there was a beginning.

This "smoke" is in the form of microwave radiation, and scientists have measured its lingering presence from a Big Bang, it seems the universe mysteriously exploded into existence. This smoke is known as the background radiation of the universe, and it was measured in 1965 by two scientists who, ten years later, received the Nobel Prize for their work. Thus, the older idea of an eternally existing world is now known to have a problem. These measurements of what scientists call the background radiation that fills the universe tell us that the world is not eternal, but that it actually had a beginning.
The measured values of the radiation also agree with the predictions of certain theoretical models. These models can be thought of as mathematical pictures that describe how the world unfolded after it came into being. For example, the universe is 25 percent helium –4, the exact number predicted by the Big Bang Theory. The mathematical models can be cross-checked because they also make precise predictions about the behavior of atomic particles. Measurements from the field of science called particle physics have confirmed many of these predictions. For example, experiments have been designed in particle physics that measure the neutron-decay half life; and astrophysical models of the universe have used this number to predict abundances of helium –3, deuterium, and lithium –7. The measured numbers are found to agree with the predicted values.
Today, virtually every scientist working in the fields of cosmology or particle physics is convinced that the world had a beginning.

SourWorms wrote:Ok so what I get out of your points Tracko is this: You are right and 99% of the scientific community is completely wrong about evolution and the universe being older than 50,000 years.

Congratulations for belonging to the 1% of people who think evolution and radiometric datings are complete crocks.

BagoXC25 wrote:The big bang is such a crock. Scientists can't prove it and they never will be able to. Because it never happend. Funny how that works.

BagoXC25 wrote:At least God is more credible than the big bang. There wasn't a bible written for the big bang last I checked.

The Bee's Knees wrote:

BagoXC25 wrote:At least God is more credible than the big bang. There wasn't a bible written for the big bang last I checked.

There wasn't proof of God last time I checked.

May As Well Run wrote:Hey guys I'm starting a new religion were we worship the great Pink Unicorn (bless Her Holy Hooves). Anyone wanna join? 

Pinthin wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

BagoXC25 wrote:

SourWorms wrote:Yeah it was a terrible example. It just proves primitive people are stupid and attribute anything that confuses them to an imaginary friend in the sky.

I'm sorry you misunderstood it, but I only use primitive people because modern people know how clocks are made... Modern people in this scenario would represent angels who have witnessed Gods grace themselves.

hmm that’s kinda what I Mean how we are more civilized and smarter now, opposed to back in Jesus times. Then the fan base just grew and it became like a family tradition, and you were taught from birth that the man in the sky is all and mighty. My parents did that too, how did I become (OMG NOT ATHIEST) but agnostic?? I guess I'm not very spongy =[

i follow Jesus because that's my choice, not my parents.

or so you say

If your parents taught you to be a muslim from birth, you were raised in a muslim household, you dont think you would be muslim? You say no, but its most likely you would be muslim.

Pre-suppositions are no grounds for denying the legitimacy of a person's belief.

I wasn't denying the legitimacy of his beliefs.

How could you not agree with that though?? I'll admit it, if my parents were more strict Christians, made me go to church. Blah blah blah I would be just like you tracko. But they didn't really push it on me, like they told me about it and I even read the bible out of curiosity once, but I thought it was a little far-fetched so I stopped.

I'll wager about 99% of kids raised in a household that religiously practices religion (ha) would more then likely practice that religion.

Pinthin wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

BagoXC25 wrote:

SourWorms wrote:Yeah it was a terrible example. It just proves primitive people are stupid and attribute anything that confuses them to an imaginary friend in the sky.

I'm sorry you misunderstood it, but I only use primitive people because modern people know how clocks are made... Modern people in this scenario would represent angels who have witnessed Gods grace themselves.

hmm that’s kinda what I Mean how we are more civilized and smarter now, opposed to back in Jesus times. Then the fan base just grew and it became like a family tradition, and you were taught from birth that the man in the sky is all and mighty. My parents did that too, how did I become (OMG NOT ATHIEST) but agnostic?? I guess I'm not very spongy =[

i follow Jesus because that's my choice, not my parents.

or so you say

If your parents taught you to be a muslim from birth, you were raised in a muslim household, you dont think you would be muslim? You say no, but its most likely you would be muslim.

Pre-suppositions are no grounds for denying the legitimacy of a person's belief.

I wasn't denying the legitimacy of his beliefs.

How could you not agree with that though?? I'll admit it, if my parents were more strict Christians, made me go to church. Blah blah blah I would be just like you tracko. But they didn't really push it on me, like they told me about it and I even read the bible out of curiosity once, but I thought it was a little far-fetched so I stopped.

I'll wager about 99% of kids raised in a household that religiously practices religion (ha) would more then likely practice that religion.

SourWorms wrote:tracko, god created there, their, and they're for a reason

SourWorms wrote:Ok so what I get out of your points Tracko is this: You are right and 99% of the scientific community is completely wrong about evolution and the universe being older than 50,000 years.

Hyperbole, exageration, and baseless claims. Are you part of the universal statistics commitee? Where are you getting these numbers? How do you know its 99% and not 40? 80, 20, 0r 0.01?

1) You don't have factual statistics.
2) There is as much real proof of evolution as there is of god.
3) Radiometric dating is only good (for the rare times it actually works) for 50,000 years, assuming the earth is even that old, you know that, you keep ignoring it.
4) I have supplied you with numerous links proving radiometric dating to be wrong. You either ignored them or refused to listen to them on the ridiculous premise of "Bias". Bias is a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation. These links provided you with real science, and facts. Not bias. not lies.

I also provided you with numerous facts that exposed the flaws of and faults of radiometric dating. Your only rebuttal thus far has been to ignore them.
I also provided you with a full, detailed report on a case of radiometric dating that showed 50 year old rocks to be as old as 2.1 million years old. A test that was repeated numerous times and KEPT yielding the same false results.
you ignored this as well.


I have been objective to you and told you that there is indeed a possibility my god does not exist, and also that I may believe in the wrong god. I also told you that even though this was so, I still believe he exists because there is no proof he does not.

Congratulations for belonging to the 1% of people who think evolution and radiometric datings are complete crocks.

Congratulations on a brilliant display of your capacity to come up with false statistics. Congratulations again on ignoring all the legitimate arguments I posted to support my position.

Edit: And you did not answer my question. What gives you the authority to say the foundation of astronomy and geology is wrong. Tell me why I have trilobite fossils that are millions of years old? Or is everything that they teach in school and universities around the world wrong and you are just right? For some reason, I seem to believe the scientific community.

Trilobite fossils are not millions of years old. What gives me the right? Science, science gives me the right. Science and afacts that you continue to ignore.

How the hell do you get through science class? That can't be your strong subject

SourWorms wrote:tracko, god created there, their, and they're for a reason

funrunner wrote:OK, Tracko, you just posted 5 times in a row, 4 of them being massive rants. Try to condense your thoughts into one epic rant next time. We have to draw the line somewhere.

Adonai wrote:True. I just enjoy hearing the fairytales people make up in retort.

Adonai wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Adonai wrote:How is the prospect that the universe has always existed any more improbable than god's infinite existence?

The Universe did not always exist.

Because the "smoke" from the "Big Bang" is still drifting throughout the universe. And this smoke shows that there was a beginning.

This "smoke" is in the form of microwave radiation, and scientists have measured its lingering presence from a Big Bang, it seems the universe mysteriously exploded into existence. This smoke is known as the background radiation of the universe, and it was measured in 1965 by two scientists who, ten years later, received the Nobel Prize for their work. Thus, the older idea of an eternally existing world is now known to have a problem. These measurements of what scientists call the background radiation that fills the universe tell us that the world is not eternal, but that it actually had a beginning.
The measured values of the radiation also agree with the predictions of certain theoretical models. These models can be thought of as mathematical pictures that describe how the world unfolded after it came into being. For example, the universe is 25 percent helium –4, the exact number predicted by the Big Bang Theory. The mathematical models can be cross-checked because they also make precise predictions about the behavior of atomic particles. Measurements from the field of science called particle physics have confirmed many of these predictions. For example, experiments have been designed in particle physics that measure the neutron-decay half life; and astrophysical models of the universe have used this number to predict abundances of helium –3, deuterium, and lithium –7. The measured numbers are found to agree with the predicted values.
Today, virtually every scientist working in the fields of cosmology or particle physics is convinced that the world had a beginning.

Correct: the Big Bang did occur. Incorrect: The Universe did not always exist.

The universe has expanded and imploded on itself repeatedly for eternity. Each cycle begins with the Big Bang, as you have so intelligently pointed out, until ultimately the metric expansion of space reverses and the universe violently contracts, restarting the process.

So my question remains unanswered.