Young Earthers (RJ) Look at this: Grand Canyon:

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you cannot refrain from being insulting we are done.
You do NOT know what the universe looked liked when it started.
You do NOT know what it took to have everything begin.
You assume a great deal about all of your beliefs, if you believe you do know how
it began and where everything came from please enlighten me I'll read your post.
Beyond you putti ...[text shortened]... mit your views about the start of this universe are all based upon
some man made story.
Kelly

With every post you provide more evidence for the damage irrational religious thinking
can and does do to people.

The sheer irrationality and stupidity of your posts never ceases to amaze me.


You're entire argument is based on the argument from ignorance fallacy.


Even if you were right (which you are most emphatically not) that we knew (and could know)
nothing about how the universe came to exist and be like it is, that would simply mean that
we don't know how the universe came to be.

IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN CLAIM THAT YOUR GOD DID IT.

That is THE classic textbook example of the argument from ignorance fallacy.


If we don't know the answer to a question, then we don't know the answer.
You can't justifiably just make one up.



Just because you can't think of a way for the universe to have come about without some
magic being creating it, isn't evidence or rational for claiming that that is actually how the
universe came into being.

Even if the true answer were somehow impossible for the human mind to conceive of and
nobody in our entire species could comprehend the real answer that still wouldn't mean you
could justify claiming that a god did it.

To justify claiming that a god did it you HAVE TO PROVIDE POSITIVE EVIDENCE THAT ACTUALLY
DEMONSTRATES THAT YOUR GOD EXISTS AND CREATED THE UNIVERSE.
Without such evidence you can't claim with any rational justification that a god created the universe.



This is logic and rationality 101, it's really really basic stuff.



There are a very very large number of things the human brain can believe in (not infinite as the brain is finite
although there may well be an infinite number of logically possible things that you might believe if your brain
could handle them).

The number of things you could believe is vastly greater than the number of things you could believe that are
actually true. (truth being the way our reality actually is)

Thus if you believe things randomly (or because they make you feel all warm and fuzzy) then you are statistically
vastly more likely to believe things that are wrong than are true.
As the number of wrong possible beliefs vastly outweighs true beliefs.

And even those few possible things that you believe that turn out through sheer blind luck to be true, you can't know
(be able to prove to others) are true because you picked them at random without reason just like all your other beliefs.


Thus the only rational position is to start off not believing anything, and to add beliefs ONLY when you have observational
evidence of our reality sufficient to justify holding those beliefs.


And handily enough we have developed a method of doing just that.

It's called science.


And if you question it's effectiveness then I will point you to the thousands of years of superstition and ignorance where people
thought that blind faith and really really believing stuff were roads to knowledge.
And then I will point you to the couple of hundred years over which something recognisable as modern science has existed and
contrast the two...

As you sit there in front of your computer safely in the middle of a nuclear superpower which has sent men to the moon while
you don't die of smallpox (and countless other diseases) while communicating down electrical and fibre-optic cables with people all
over the world....

I invite you to think upon which method of deciding what the world is like has been more successful...

And how stupid it would/will look to claim otherwise.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yep, missed that point, the universe looks like it looks someone saying it is old
is based upon limited knowledge they have since it is after all the only one we have
to look at. We don't know what a very young looks like, so how can say this is a
old one?
Kelly

You seem to be the only one making sense on here. 😏

Originally posted by googlefudge
With every post you provide more evidence for the damage irrational religious thinking
can and does do to people.

The sheer irrationality and stupidity of your posts never ceases to amaze me.


You're entire argument is based on the argument from ignorance fallacy.


Even if you were right (which you are most emphatically not) that we knew (an ...[text shortened]... s been more successful...

And how stupid it would/will look to claim otherwise.

Evolution is stupid. But for all you apemen out there, it may seem pretty smart.

http://www.evolutionisstupid.com/

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution is stupid. But for all you apemen out there, it may seem pretty smart.

http://www.evolutionisstupid.com/

Citing someone as stupid and ignorant as yourself making blatant strawman attacks on
science does not in any way back up your stupid and ignorant strawman attacks on science.

The writer of that website proposes idiotic strawman versions of scientific theories that they
evidently don't understand. (thus committing the strawman fallacy)
And because the writer can't understand them they think nobody else does either.

The writer is a lying idiot spewing forth nonsense about things they don't understand...


I see why you agree with them.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Citing someone as stupid and ignorant as yourself making blatant strawman attacks on
science does not in any way back up your stupid and ignorant strawman attacks on science.

The writer of that website proposes idiotic strawman versions of scientific theories that they
evidently don't understand. (thus committing the strawman fallacy)
And because ...[text shortened]... wing forth nonsense about things they don't understand...


I see why you agree with them.

With what specifically do you disagree, Mr. Google Fudge?

Originally posted by RJHinds
With what specifically do you disagree, Mr. Google Fudge?

Well there are so many erroneous factual claims in there it's hard to know where to begin...
In fact I think I might struggle to find anything he says that is actually factually correct...


But lets look at this for a moment (nothing whatsoever to do with evolution but then morons
like you like equating all of science with evolution)

...Inside the stars some elements were forming. Elementary, Watson, right? You bet,
Sherlock! And then – we don't know why – some stars started exploding, and spewing those
elements all over the universe. Stuff like iron and other metals, which we would eventually
need to make cars and other things that work by controlled explosions, was spread all over
the place. But then it started getting back together. Try to follow this, now.
It's all been proven on the blackboard. ...

"....And then – we don't know why – some stars started exploding..."

Um actually we know exactly why "some stars started exploding".

I can explain it in quite a lot of detail, with all the supporting evidence if you like.

But claiming that we don't know why stars explode is just factually wrong.

Like pretty much everything else there.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well there are so many erroneous factual claims in there it's hard to know where to begin...
In fact I think I might struggle to find anything he says that is actually factually correct...


But lets look at this for a moment (nothing whatsoever to do with evolution but then morons
like you like equating all of science with evolution)

[quote]... ...[text shortened]... w why stars explode is just factually wrong.

Like pretty much everything else there.

O wise one can you explain what exploded at the Big Bang that you guys claim happened billions of years ago?

Originally posted by RJHinds
O wise one can you explain what exploded at the Big Bang that you guys claim happened billions of years ago?

The BB is a theory, and there are a few other theories that claim to explain the beginning. BB + inflation theory just fits the facts that we see in telescopes the best.

And there is work being done to try to illuminate what came before the BB.

There is, for instance, a theory that requires many other universes, that says a black hole that we see here in our universe is a white hole that begats another daughter universe where the rules of physics are extremely close to ours but slightly different so in a daughter universe the speed of light might be 200,000 miles per second instead of 186,000 as it is here, stuff like that. It doesn't take much tweeking of the fundamentals of our universe to bollix it all up for sure.

Originally posted by RJHinds
O wise one can you explain what exploded at the Big Bang that you guys claim happened billions of years ago?

Yes, but that's not what I was talking about.

I pointed out a specific (out of the vast collection) error/lie that was made on the site you linked.

Will you accept that we do know how and why stars manufacture the elements and then explode
distributing them across space?

And that the website you linked was wrong when it said "....And then – we don't know why –
some stars started exploding..."?


Or do you need me to explain how that works to you?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes, but that's not what I was talking about.

I pointed out a specific (out of the vast collection) error/lie that was made on the site you linked.

Will you accept that we do know how and why stars manufacture the elements and then explode
distributing them across space?

And that the website you linked was wrong when it said "....And then – me stars started exploding..."?


Or do you need me to explain how that works to you?

Rot's o ruck with that....

It doesn't matter what we know, it will be BS in his constricted head.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The BB is a theory, and there are a few other theories that claim to explain the beginning. BB + inflation theory just fits the facts that we see in telescopes the best.

And there is work being done to try to illuminate what came before the BB.

There is, for instance, a theory that requires many other universes, that says a black hole that we see here ...[text shortened]... It doesn't take much tweeking of the fundamentals of our universe to bollix it all up for sure.

I understand, it is just another fairy tale that happened long, long ago and far, far away about a few billion years or so.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes, but that's not what I was talking about.

I pointed out a specific (out of the vast collection) error/lie that was made on the site you linked.

Will you accept that we do know how and why stars manufacture the elements and then explode
distributing them across space?

And that the website you linked was wrong when it said "....And then – ...[text shortened]... me stars started exploding..."?


Or do you need me to explain how that works to you?

I accept that scientists can do a lot of speculating about how and why stars explode, etc.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Rot's o ruck with that....

It doesn't matter what we know, it will be BS in his constricted head.

It is also BS in your constricted head. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is also BS in your constricted head. 😏

Oh wow, DEVASTATING retort.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well there are so many erroneous factual claims in there it's hard to know where to begin...
In fact I think I might struggle to find anything he says that is actually factually correct...


But lets look at this for a moment (nothing whatsoever to do with evolution but then morons
like you like equating all of science with evolution)

[quote]... ...[text shortened]... w why stars explode is just factually wrong.

Like pretty much everything else there.

Yea and verily, for the star's heart grew heavy with iron, and it was not good. By and by, so it came to pass...eventually...

...any second now...

Lo! For iron cannot be fused without deficit, the star must needs verily and forsooth collapse in upon itself in a mighty fulmination...

Boom. Boom. Boom.

And it was good.