logicboy:


Wait, you reject big bang and evolution, yet you laim to be a scientist. This means that you are not into biology or physics. Are you a psychologist, into chemisty or some pseudoscientist? Even theists accept big bang!

What if I tell you I am an agnostic and I don't believe in the big bang theory and I am an Engineer with strong science and geology background up to masters degree level? Big bang theory is still at developmental stage and doesn't have enough evidence for you to come out and beat your chest about your knowledge of the origin of life. Many scientist don't accept it because it doest not have close to absolute certainty just like the existence of god cannot be proven by any religion.
Origin of life is a mystery which for now, nobody be it scientist or theist can prove with absolute certainty. Believing the big bang story at this stage is not different from believing in religious teachings which to me are not rational.

Avicenna:
He may be a scientist....in the social science.

and i guess you and logicboy are natural science majors? i laugh in greek.
Wonder why i cant get a smidgen of credible empirical evidence for all your pablum here.

2good:

Origin of life is a mystery which for now, nobody be it scientist or theist can prove with absolute certainty. [size=15pt]Believing the big bang story at this stage is not different from believing in religious teachings[/size] which to me are not rational.

My point all along... atheists are no more religious than those they criticize except they worship at a different altar.

2good:

What if I tell you I am an agnostic and I don't believe in the big bang theory and I am an Engineer with strong science and geology background up to masters degree level? Big bang theory is still at developmental stage and doesn't have enough evidence for you to come out and beat your chest about your knowledge of the origin of life. Many scientist don't accept it because it doest not have close to absolute certainty just like the existence of god cannot be proven by any religion.
Origin of life is a mystery which for now, nobody be it scientist or theist can prove with absolute certainty. Believing the big bang story at this stage is not different from believing in religious teachings which to me are not rational.

Well, I am not a big bang guy myself. Evolution on the other hand, I accept. If you're not a christian, then I have no beef with you. Agnostic is an atheist with no balls

logicboy:


Well, I am not a big bang guy myself. Evolution on the other hand, I accept. If you're not a christian, then I have no beef with you. Agnostic is an atheist with no balls

hmm you sound very confused. Can you reconcile the above with this below?

logicboy:


Wait, you reject big bang and evolution, yet you laim to be a scientist. This means that you are not into biology or physics. Are you a psychologist, into chemisty or some pseudoscientist? Even theists accept big bang!

davidylan:

My point all along... atheists are no more religious than those they criticize except they worship at a different altar.

Atheist are different from religious people because they don't believe in a god. Some Atheist however, are guilty of proposing the big bang theory as a replacement for creationism even though they cannot defend it just like the theist cannot defend the theory of creationism.

davidylan:

My point all along... atheists are no more religious than those they criticize except they worship at a different altar.

Idiotic statement. It is rational to accept the big slam, the big slam is a scientific theory with lots of testing, observations, calculations and logic behind it. In my opinion, is like preparing a budget or forecasting. You dont know exactly what the future is like but you use known trends and indices to judge the future. This is totally different from believing in some fairytale or faith.

2good:

Atheist are different from religious people because they don't believe in a god. Some Atheist however, are guilty of proposing the big bang theory as a replacement for creationism even though they cannot defend it just like the theist cannot defend the theory of creationism.

Very little difference between atheists and theists... the idea of "god" doesnt have to be a pixie in the sky. Atheists are guilty of worshiping at the altar of pseudo-science.

logicboy:

Idiotic statement. It is rational to accept the big slam, the big slam is a scientific theory with lots of testing, observations, calculations and logic behind it. In my opinion, is like preparing a budget or forecasting. You dont know exactly what the future is like but you use known trends and indices to judge the future. This is totally different from believing in some fairytale or faith.

i am willing to bet $50 you do not have the geological knowledge that 2good has. Keep quiet and learn child.
I'm also willing to bet $500 you could not provide me with the results of the "lots of testing, observations, calculations and logic" that you claim is proof if the validity of the big bang theory. But of course just go ahead and post a youtube video like you always do

davidylan:

hmm you sound very confused. Can you reconcile the above with this below?

Did I say that I am a scientist or theist in the two comments? Did I every say that I am supporter of big slam in the two comments?


Where is the contradiction? You are confused

logicboy:

Did I say that I am a scientist or theist in the two comments? Did I every say that I am supporter of big slam in the two comments?


Where is the contradiction? You are confused

again you are nothing but a confused empty head just bleating about. You say it is rational to accept the big bang because it is a PROVEN scientific theory YET you do not support it? Are you rational at all?

davidylan:

Quite daft really. You can sit here anonymously challenging my work but you cant remove the pali and industry recognition i've gotten already so lets move away from the territory of idiocy.
So on what basis do you believe in the primordial soup theory if you're simply waiting for better evidence so you can abandon it?



Huh? Telescopes disprove that God lives in the sky? Idiocy. I didnt know telescopes were now equipped with the ability to see spirits.

God as the cause of the big bang? We dont even believe the big bang in the first place so obviously you're talking out of your pie hole.

As usual,he uses insults to cover up his sad,illogical argument.
How did he miss the 'if'? I m not expecting evidence against the primordial soup theory, I expect more evidence in SUPPORT of the theory. The conditions in pre historic earth cannot be easily replicated in lab. Once this can be done, PST will be conclusively proven. That I m even telling you this shows you are not in the hardcore/real sciences(biology,chemistry and physics).

Ofcourse, the unprovable spirit God is not really sitting on top of the world but he's sitting on top of the world not as materially but as spiritual....nonsense, spin as much as you want.

I m not the type to make the mistake of assigning wrong characteristics to a specific God. If you don't agree with big ba.ng, you will say you personally disagree with it. Islam agrees with it. Some one here was pasting scriptures 'proving' big ba.ng. Some christians here argues for the first cause i.e cause of big ba.ng. So saying 'we' is rather generalising on your part. YOU can also now say you disagree with gravity!

davidylan:

i am willing to bet $50 you do not have the geological knowledge that 2good has. Keep quiet and learn child.
I'm also willing to bet $500 you could not provide me with the results of the "lots of testing, observations, calculations and logic" that you claim is proof if the validity of the big bang theory. But of course just go ahead and post a youtube video like you always do

Euros and Pounds please? I dont use sh1tty dollars.

What? Geologists are the only experts on the big slam?

I do not have to prove that the big bang has lots of observation or calculations. You only look like a fake scientist when you deny such common knowledge about the big bang.

I repeat accepting the big bang and believing in fairytales are not the same. One has a chance of being correct, the other has none

davidylan:

again you are nothing but a confused empty head just bleating about. You say it is rational to accept the big bang because it is a PROVEN scientific theory YET you do not support it? Are you rational at all?

If it is rational to accept it does it mean that it is irrational to be indifferent? Ode, idiot! Fake scientist! Quack!

logicboy:


Well, I am not a big bang guy myself. Evolution on the other hand, I accept. If you're not a christian, then I have no beef with you. Agnostic is an atheist with no balls

lol. You are really no different from the narrow minded christian. Young man, I don't believe in any religious god because I can trace them to their origin. All religion were founded by early men and imposed on their subject by force. On the other hand, I cannot beat my chest and say there is no remote possibility of a god because the world is too complex to analyse with the current level of scientific advancement. Science may discover the origin of life in the future but as at now, there is nothing close to that.
Concerning evolution theory, I believe in the law of natural selection but not evolution as presented because there is no absolute evidence besides discovered ancient fossils with similar features to man. I have been to several Geology field trips in Germany, Belgium and Oman. Though most Geology theories predict occurrences with absolute certainty, I can tell you that Geologist sometimes try to see what doesn't exist just to justify their theories.
Also, I have been an agnostic for 16 years. You are just a baby in your new found believe and still have along way to go. You still have youthful exuberance and need more time to mature.

2good:

lol. You are really no different from the narrow minded christian. Young man, I don't believe in any religious god because I can trace them to their origin. All religion were founded by early men and imposed on their subject by force. On the other hand, I cannot beat my chest and say there is no remote possibility of a god because the world is too complex to analyse with the current level of scientific advancement. Science may discover the origin of life in the future but as at now, there is nothing close to that.
Concerning evolution theory, I believe in the law of natural selection but not evolution as presented because there is no absolute evidence besides discovered ancient fossils with similar features to man. I have been to several Geology field trips in Germany, Belgium and Oman. Though most Geology theories predict occurrences with absolute certainty, I can tell you that Geologist sometimes try to see what doesn't exist just to justify their theories.
Also, I have been an agnostic for 16 years. You are just a baby in your new found believe and still have along way to go. You still have youthful exuberance and need more time to mature.

What do atheism and agnosticism have to do with age? Sharaap, Methuselah!

Geology is not always an exact science. Fact

What about the fact that man is evolving? Or the DNA analysis that evolutionists claim as proof?

2good:

lol. You are really no different from the narrow minded christian. Young man, I don't believe in any religious god because I can trace them to their origin. All religion were founded by early men and imposed on their subject by force. On the other hand, I cannot beat my chest and say there is no remote possibility of a god because the world is too complex to analyse with the current level of scientific advancement. Science may discover the origin of life in the future but as at now, there is nothing close to that.
Concerning evolution theory, I believe in the law of natural selection but not evolution as presented because there is no absolute evidence besides discovered ancient fossils with similar features to man. I have been to several Geology field trips in Germany, Belgium and Oman. Though most Geology theories predict occurrences with absolute certainty, I can tell you that Geologist sometimes try to see what doesn't exist just to justify their theories.
Also, I have been an agnostic for 16 years. You are just a baby in your new found believe and still have along way to go. You still have youthful exuberance and need more time to mature.

As for God, every known description of God fails. By subtraction, God doesnt exist. Furthermore, there is not one physical evidence for God or even one logical argument for God. Subtraction again.

2good:

Atheist are different from religious people because they don't believe in a god. Some Atheist however, are guilty of proposing the big bang theory as a replacement for creationism even though they cannot defend it just like the theist cannot defend the theory of creationism.

This is true for some atheists. But please do not imply a similarity between a progressing research of cosmology and astrophysics with creationism.

davidylan:

and i guess you and logicboy are natural science majors? i laugh in greek.
Wonder why i cant get a smidgen of credible empirical evidence for all your pablum here.

How many times will I tell you? Medical sciences(basic and clinical). And do you think blowing latin makes you any smarter?

logicboy:

What do atheism and agnosticism have to do with age? Sharaap, Methuselah!

Geology is not always an exact science. Fact

What about the fact that man is evolving? Or the DNA analysis that evolutionists claim as proof?

lol. Grow up dude. You were still attending catechism in preparation for baptism when I stopped believing in all existing gods.

Avicenna:
This is true for some atheists. But please do not imply a similarity between a progressing research of cosmology and astrophysics with creationism.

I quite agree with you on the progressing research in astrophysics concerning the origin of life. Infact one of my role model is the astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson a well known Atheist. However, the current level of progress in their research is not enough to prove the origin of life or the world as we see it today. Disproving gods doesn't require going into science because the irrationalities in religious dogma is enough to disbelieve their teachings. Events are interpreted with selective picking of texts from holy books while disregarding other relevant texts that could prove their interpretation otherwise. Truth is nobody can prove the origin of life today.

Avicenna:
How many times will I tell you? Medical sciences(basic and clinical). And do you think blowing latin makes you any smarter?

my mother and brother are doctors so what have u done that is special? and they are serious conservative christians much smarter than you.

I'm not "blowing latin" dumbo... those are basic english words. Grab a dictionary next time.

Avicenna:
As usual,he uses insults to cover up his sad,illogical argument.
How did he miss the 'if'? I m not expecting evidence against the primordial soup theory, I expect more evidence in SUPPORT of the theory. The conditions in pre historic earth cannot be easily replicated in lab. Once this can be done, PST will be conclusively proven. That I m even telling you this shows you are not in the hardcore/real sciences(biology,chemistry and physics).

What a fool. I have over 14 published articles on pubmed (America's basic science journal repository) and a book chapter published by Elsevier in the UK.
That we both post on an anonymous forum does not make us equals.

What in the above requires a "hardcore" science to understand? The conditions in pre-historic earth cannot be easily replicated in the lab for one reason only - no one really knows (beyond empty speculation) what those conditions were. You cant replicate what you dont know ode.

How did you make the incredibly daft jump of assuming that once we replicate the exact conditions on primordial earth, PST will be proven beyond all reasonable doubt? Suppose it simply goes on to prove that you truly cannot create life from a random mix of biomolecules?

Avicenna:
Ofcourse, the unprovable spirit God is not really sitting on top of the world but he's sitting on top of the world not as materially but as spiritual....nonsense, spin as much as you want.

Again daft. You cant use a telescope to see a spirit. Perhaps you have invented such a machine, show us then... mr hardcore/real science. As if the rest of us read yoruba in class.

Avicenna:

I m not the type to make the mistake of assigning wrong characteristics to a specific God. If you don't agree with big ba.ng, you will say you personally disagree with it. Islam agrees with it. Some one here was pasting scriptures 'proving' big ba.ng. Some christians here argues for the first cause i.e cause of big ba.ng. So saying 'we' is rather generalising on your part. YOU can also now say you disagree with gravity!

There is a geologist here who doesnt agree with it either you fool.

logicboy:
What? Geologists are the only experts on the big slam?

At least they know something about the earth that little boys like you in accounting class will never know.

logicboy:

What do atheism and agnosticism have to do with age? Sharaap, Methuselah!

Geology is not always an exact science. Fact

If you agree that geology is not an exact science then on what basis do you agree with evolution? the only "proof" is geologically dated "transitional fossils" no?

logicboy:
What about the fact that man is evolving? Or the DNA analysis that evolutionists claim as proof?

And these proofs are?

davidlyar.. doing what he does best..

davidylan:

If you agree that geology is not an exact science then on what basis do you agree with evolution? the only "proof" is geologically dated "transitional fossils" no?



And these proofs are?

I always knew that you're a fake scientist.

1) I said that geology is not always an exact science. You should know that most geological solutions must adhere to the laws of physics. Geology is mostly a real science. The criticism comes when one looks at applied geology (especially economic geology) and how it is made to fit some business principles.

2) You say "geological dating" like a creationist to play on semantics. Be scientific and say "radiometric dating". Now, you realise that geology is an interdisciplinary science based on chemistry and physics. When I said that geology is not always an exact science, why did you stupidly assume that it was radiometric dating that I was talking about and not the problems with economic geology?

3) I am not going to argue with you on evolution again. Only a quack scientist would say that there is no proof of evolution. To start arguing with you is a waste of time.

2good:

lol. You are really no different from the narrow minded christian. Young man, I don't believe in any religious god because I can trace them to their origin. All religion were founded by early men and imposed on their subject by force. On the other hand, I cannot beat my chest and say there is no remote possibility of a god because the world is too complex to analyse with the current level of scientific advancement.
Also, I have been an agnostic for 16 years. You are just a baby in your new found believe and still have along way to go. You still have youthful exuberance and need more time to mature.

This is not a fair assessment from you, you are not aware of the effort and bravery that it took logicboy to reach his present position. Apparently you guys don't share the same views on divinity, but that not cause to put the other down.

I'm sure your positions weren't accidental, so there is a need to respect ourselves.

davidylan:

What a fool. I have over 14 published articles on pubmed (America's basic science journal repository) and a book chapter published by Elsevier in the UK.
That we both post on an anonymous forum does not make us equals.

How did you make the incredibly daft jump of assuming that once we replicate the exact conditions on primordial earth, PST will be proven beyond all reasonable doubt? "Suppose it simply goes on to prove that you truly cannot create life from a random mix of biomolecules?"

There is a geologist here who doesnt agree with it either you fool.

I also doubt it if you are a scientist at all, cos you made an extraordinary claim that Life has no natural cause!

davidylan:

my mother and brother are doctors so what have u done that is special? and they are serious conservative christians much smarter than you.

I'm not "blowing latin" dumbo... those are basic english words. Grab a dictionary next time.

Somehow, you managed to read ' superiority complex' in my answer to a question YOU asked?
Just so you know, I have doctors in my family too, they are believers as far as I can see. It does not matter what you do except ofcourse you are a pastor or an imam.

Latin.

davidylan:

What a fool. I have over 14 published articles on pubmed (America's basic science journal repository) and a book chapter published by Elsevier in the UK.
That we both post on an anonymous forum does not make us equals.

What in the above requires a "hardcore" science to understand? The conditions in pre-historic earth cannot be easily replicated in the lab for one reason only - no one really knows (beyond empty speculation) what those conditions were. You cant replicate what you dont know ode.

How did you make the incredibly daft jump of assuming that once we replicate the exact conditions on primordial earth, PST will be proven beyond all reasonable doubt? Suppose it simply goes on to prove that you truly cannot create life from a random mix of biomolecules?



Again daft. You cant use a telescope to see a spirit. Perhaps you have invented such a machine, show us then... mr hardcore/real science. As if the rest of us read yoruba in class.



There is a geologist here who doesnt agree with it either you fool.

I hope they give you plenty awards in your science 'industry'. I sure do not want that awards.

Interpret PST anyway you want, you can't influence anything. If(make sure to see this one) the experiment proves PST not to be the answer, the answer will be another natural cause. Or PST will be re-modified to accommodate new findings. This is how a scientist thinks. We do not look for unnatural causes. IF(again, don't miss this one) a supernatural cause can be scientifically proven(maybe in another billion years), I will be the first to believe in that cause.

Ask me for evidence to prove a spirit only you and your kind can feel/sense/whatever? Why don't you prove your spirit for once? Don't tell me nonsense about personal revelations(it is unscientific)

Basic science is what everybody can grasp. I m not a particle physicist for instance, so I cannot completely grasp the mathematical nitty-gritty of that field. The logical and sensible idea is enough as against the nonsense religions spew out.

I hope you are not referring to 2good. He's expecting more evidence which thankfully we will soon get.

And man, you seriously need to tone down the insults. This is a public forum where we are anonymous. Don't think you are taking advantage of it by throwing unnecessary insults.

I created a BIGBANGUniverse this morning courtesy of heavily petered garlic rice/groundnut soup I had for supper last night i would have been able to prove your theories on PST but.. sadly i had to flush, I am unable to replicate the experience

Lol.
You know what, gather students with bang measuring 'instruments',eat that your soup and replicate the experience. We will call it science.