Imagine There'e No Heaven

[YALE]

The evidence you claim supports the big bang hypothesis is no better than the Biblical account of Creation, simply because you decide to give it more credence. Equally true is that since the big bang hypothesis is only that, a hypothesis, it is no more or no less likely to be correct than the nonsensical notion that the universe appeared by magic.

[The King]

Again, 'hatter, what you regard to be true or untrue, or delusional, applies only to yourself. Accept that and you will have learned an important lesson here.

[YALE]

Again, what you regard to be true or untrue, or delusional, applies only to yourself. Accept that and you will have learned an important lesson here.

Are you simultaneously attempting to lecturing me on validity, and retreating from the debate at hand?

[The King]

Are you simultaneously attempting to lecturing me on validity, and retreating from the debate at hand?

Who you talking to fool, go back to your little picture files.

[lowthreeohz]

It all comes back to faith.... Lol

[The King]

Faith in hypotheses?

[lowthreeohz]

Faith in hypotheses?

You crack me up dude!

[BradM]

I'm done, I'm Jesus de Christo.

[YALE]

Who you talking to fool, go back to your little picture files.

That's a yes!

[Maddhattter]

Again, 'hatter, what you regard to be true or untrue, or delusional, applies only to yourself. Accept that and you will have learned an important lesson here.

Sorry. True, untrue and delusional have definitions, like all words. These definitions are independent of myself. I just use them as they are defined.

When you can demonstrate the accuracy of your claims, I'll gladly accept it.

Protip: Redefining words when you cannot support your claims is not a demonstration of your claims accuracy and is, in fact, less reason for me to accept your claims due to fallacious support.

[The King]

Similarly, until science can post proof that the mysterious singularity at the heart of the big bang ever existed and demonstrate the means that facilitate such an entity appearing from nothing, your posts in this thread on that subject demonstrate nothing other than speculation. Do you know the definition of speculation? Sorry if you can't grasp the concept that acceptance of such speculation on your part does not make it (magically) true. Rather it is just as likely to be delusion.

[Maddhattter]

Similarly, until science can post proof that the mysterious singularity at the heart of the big bang ever existed and demonstrate the means that facilitate such an entity appearing from nothing, your posts in this thread on that subject demonstrate nothing other than speculation.

Again, regardless as to your ignorance of the situation, science has demonstrated that the big bang model is the model that best matches the evidence available. Unlike the creation myth you purpose, which is not supported by any actual evidence.

I will, again, state that this does not mean that the big bang model is a definitive answer. Just the one most supported by the evidence we have.

Also, the big bang model and the origin of the singularity it purposes are two different things. To conflate the two is another demonstration of your ignorance of how science works.

Do you know the definition of speculation? Sorry if you can't grasp the concept that acceptance of such speculation on your part does not make it (magically) true. Rather it is just as likely to be delusion.

You see, when a model is purposed, and it stands up to the evidence that is not speculation. Speculation is purely untested, and (from a scientific perspective) untestable, ideas thrown out without regard to any presented evidence, exactly how your creation myth works. When it is a solution that matches the evidence and produces a scientifically testable model, but has yet to be proven by demonstration that it does actually work, it is hypothesizing. Again, your projection of the ineffective methods creationists use onto the process the scientific community uses only further demonstrates your ignorance.

Again, all you've done is demonstrate fallacious reasoning and an attempt to redefine words. Sorry if you cannot grasp that words have meanings, and that, in order to facilitate communication between two or more parties, words need to be used as they are defined within the context of the words use.

[ceyko]

I don't know how you folks can have these same arguments over and over again for years.

[Maddhattter]

I don't know how you folks can have these same arguments over and over again for years.

I'm assuming that you've read the thread as you've stated that it's the same argument. With that assumption, I'd have to ask why you continue to read the debates if you don't see the point in them?

Personally, I continue to have these discussions because having beliefs that correspond with reality is important to me. Whether the beliefs being held are mine or another's. It's important to me because beliefs, and the process of how beliefs are supported, are not held in a vacuum. They affect people's actions and when you start believing things without evidence you set a precedent to believing anything.

Put simply, perpetuating faulty, unreliable reasoning only creates gullible people. In my opinion, people deserve better than that.

[The King]

I don't know how you folks can have these same arguments over and over again for years.

It's not an argument on my part. His beliefs are his to trumpet if he so chooses and if science comforts him no harm done. Definitely does not make him right by any means though, as I have demonstrated in this thread yet again.