Proof

Originally posted by RJHinds
What do you think the "Big Bang" is and what reference have you?
Why is it called "The Big Bang Theory" if it is not some type of loud
explosion? Is someone trying to mislead? The person being asked
the question is an evolutionist.

“....What do you think the "Big Bang" is and what reference have you? ...”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

-no mention of biological evolution there.

“...Why is it called "The Big Bang Theory" if it is not some type of loud
explosion? ...”

No noise can travel through a vacuum of space so, therefore, it was NOT a “loud explosion”.

Is someone trying to mislead? ...”

-that's how it got its name:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090102075331AA3i5FO

“...Big bang theory got it's name from astronomer Fred Hoyle, who was well-known for his work in nucleosynthesis. He was being sarcastic with the name and mocking the theory, since he thought steady-state theory was more likely. He was wrong about this, ....
….
….. It was an expansion, not an explosion.....”

The term “Big Bang” was made by those that wanted to ridicule the theory; but that name stuck despite being a misnomer.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why can't it CLEARLY point to a common designer, GOD?

In what way would that “CLEARLY” or even vaguely indicate that there is a “God” as a “common designer”?
And why would a “God” give us vestige gills at the embryo stage etc? -to fool us into believing we and other animals have a common ancestor? if so, why? if not, then why give us this?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“....What do you think the "Big Bang" is and what reference have you? ...”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

-no mention of biological evolution there.

“...Why is it called "The Big Bang Theory" if it is not some type of loud
explosion? ...”

No noise can travel through a vacuum of space so, therefore, it was NOT a “loud explosion”. ...[text shortened]... by those that wanted to ridicule the theory; but that name stuck despite being a misnomer.

The Holy Bible mentions that God stretched out the
heavens, so it is possible there could be some truth in it.
But they need to get rid of the name "Big Bang", if there
is no noise or a large explosion involved.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
In what way would that “CLEARLY” or even vaguely indicate that there is a “God” as a “common designer”?
And why would a “God” give us vestige gills at the embryo stage etc? -to fool us into believing we and other animals have a common ancestor? if so, why? if not, then why give us this?

God is not trying to fool you. You are fooling yourself.
The Holy Bible states what He did so everyone is without
excuse.

Originally posted by 667joe
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof! Christopher Hitchens

This is called verificationism, if I'm not mistaken. It sounds rational, but it is actually self-defeating. Can Christopher Hitchens prove that what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof?

According to its own commitments, then, his statement defeats itself.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I know what Genesis says thanks. How do these restrictions work, on a biological level?

Please, don't just say 'God created everything according to their kinds'. I'm after something a little more detailed. If you can that is.

That is like asking please tell me what 1+1 is, but do not say 2.
Seriously, do you see dogs mating with rabbits and having off spring, do you
see jelly fish and apple trees mating? There are without a doubt restrictions
and you do not need a degree in biology to see them either.
Kelly

Originally posted by 667joe
My facts are accurate, and I quoted chapter and verse. The bible in one place says Jesus carried the cross, and the other place says Simon carried the cross. In neither place does it say both carried the cross. Only apologists reconcile this error in the manner you did. Why didn't the bible say both carried the cross and avoid the controversy? How do yo ...[text shortened]... ns and virgin births are hogwash to be believed only by those easily capable of self delusion).

Luke (24:51) does not say when Jesus ascended into heaven.
The fact that he ascended into heaven is the important thing
anyway. If you don't want to believe, okay. But why must you
also make false statements about what the Holy Bible says?
It is common for witnesses of an event to report it in different
ways. That does not mean they disagree.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
This is called verificationism, if I'm not mistaken. It sounds rational, but it is actually self-defeating. Can Christopher Hitchens prove that what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof?

According to its own commitments, then, his statement defeats itself.

Well firstly one can consider it as an axiomatic statement.

Secondly this is just more sophistry; indeed can you prove that Christopher Hitchens cannot prove that what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof?
Thirdly, can you prove its negation, or the negation of its contrapositive (either of which essentially disprove the original statement), the latter case being (if I'm not mistaken)

There exists X such that X cannot be dismissed without proof AND X can be asserted without proof?

i.e. can you find such an X and rigorously demonstrate that the above holds with more than just an appeal to " because I said so" or derivatives of such?

Originally posted by Agerg
Well firstly one can consider it as an axiomatic statement.

Secondly this is just more sophistry; indeed can you prove that Christopher Hitchens [b]cannot prove that what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof?
Thirdly, can you prove the negation of its contrapositive (which essentially disproves the original statement), that bein ...[text shortened]... exists X such that X cannot be dismissed without proof AND X can be asserted without proof[/i]?[/b]

It is enough to show that his statement is self-defeating.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It is enough to show that his statement is self-defeating.

But you haven't shown *that* until you show Christopher Hitchens is not and cannot be in possession of such a proof. You also have to show the statement cannot be taken as axiomatic (since axioms, by definition, cannot be proven (if one can then it reduces to being the consequence of some other axiom and so fails to satisfy the criterion for being an axiom in the first place)).

Originally posted by Agerg
But you haven't shown *that* until you show Christopher Hitchens is not and cannot be in possession of such a proof.

I'm assuming by 'proof' Hitchens is referring to something which can be empirically verified. If so, anyone can say with certainty that Hitchens does not (and cannot) have empirical verification for his assertion. Therefore, it is self-refuting.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm assuming by 'proof' Hitchens is referring to something which can be empirically verified. If so, anyone can say with certainty that Hitchens does not (and cannot) have empirical verification for his assertion. Therefore, it is self-refuting.

and I assume you can prove (or empirically verify if you like) that they are soundly justified in their certainty, and that this indeed applies to "anyone"?

Moreover, it is not self refuting if we take it as an axiom (a pretty common sense axiom at that). Indeed if I tell you I can fly because I have invisible wings, then is it a self refuting position to reject my proposal without a rigorous logical, empirical, and scientific argument simply because you cannot soundly prove that you are justified in doing so?

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is like asking please tell me what 1+1 is, but do not say 2.
Seriously, do you see dogs mating with rabbits and having off spring, do you
see jelly fish and apple trees mating? There are without a doubt restrictions
and you do not need a degree in biology to see them either.
Kelly

That is like asking please tell me what 1+1 is, but do not say 2.

No it isn't, i know why a chicken can't reproduce with a jellyfish. It's like asking -

You accept that all Canids have a common ancestor, you also accept all Urisdae (bears) have a common ancestor, now why can't their common ancestors have a common ancestor?! What biological process, or what Mr Hinds calls 'restrictions', are stopping that from happening?

In your case i know the answer. Anyhow i'm trying the get the answer from Rob, who seems to have done his vanishing act again. Rob doesn't think the universe has only been in existence for a few thousand years so time isn't a problem for him.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]That is like asking please tell me what 1+1 is, but do not say 2.

No it isn't, i know why a chicken can't reproduce with a jellyfish. It's like asking -

You accept that all Canids have a common ancestor, you also accept all Urisdae (bears) have a common ancestor, now why can't their common ancestors have a common ancestor?! What biological ...[text shortened]... se has only been in existence for a few thousand years so time isn't a problem for him.[/b]

I see, you only want to argue with Rob on this, okay.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQsaiMcPLc&feature=related ...”

He says that the Creationist component is not a necessary component of Christian belief and most Christians agree on that -which I think is probably correct on both accounts.

But he then goes on to say that evolution is fantastically improbable and elaborates on what he means b ntastically improbable outcome a 'miracle'.

Do you understand the above logic?

=============================
both he and the general audience must have very low intelligence indeed for not spotting the obvious stupid flaw in his argument for his conclusion doesn't logically follow from his premise.

Let me elaborate; yes the odds of evolution having done exactly what it did and with that exact outcome (specifically, the creation of human kind in this case) of evolution being correctly described as “fantastically improbable”, but that's only because that is just ONE improbable pseudo-random outcome out of zillions of possible pseudo-random outcome each of which is improbable but collectively their probabilities add up to 100% probability i.e. it is INEVITABLE that ONE of those outcomes would have occurred thus there is no 'miracle' that whatever outcome happened is “fantastically improbable” because it is INEVITABLE that a fantastically improbable outcome would result from that process!!!
=========================================

After reading your explanation which I have heard before - an objection that it is inevitable that SOME improbable outcome HAD to result, I think the audience applause was appropriate.

I also don't think they were "stupid" to applause.

So, if I win the Powerball at 10 million bucks, and I win it, say, six times in a row, I really should not be that surprised.

I mean, though it was improbable, SOME improbable outcome had to occur, whether I won it once or even six times a row !!

With this kind of logic, I don't see why you regard Atheism as all that more plausible. I mean, as imporbable as it is, it certainly could be the alledged fantastically improbable outcome that there is an Intellgent Creator.

I mean it is inevitable that it had to be SOME fantastically improbable agent. Why not a Creator God then ?