Tarski wrote: Of course (lol), because everything that is real can be duplicated in the lab easily in a few minutes. Too bad for continental drift, canyon formation and stellar nucleogenesis. /end sarcasm
How is the creation of life measured?
It being a fact on par with continental drift, canyon formation and stellar nucleogenesis; all of which are proven by basic physics.
Equality wrote:That comment from you does not refer to multiple universes, which are discussed briefly in the hour-long video that I posted, but which are really tangential to the discussion of the Big Bang and the history of the universe in which we dwell.
How is it tangential?
It is tangential because the vast majority of what he is talking about concerns everything that has happened in this universe since approximately t + 10^-9 seconds (or everything after the first nanosecond of the universe's existence. Everything that happened before that time is currently not measurable because of the limitations on the Large Hadron Collider. He talks about this at about the 51-minute mark in the presentation. The idea of multiverses addresses the question of what happened before and/or right after the Big Bang (the notion being that many universes could have been created, but that they are beyond our ability to measure in this universe. It is really a separate subject, and there is no need to introduce the idea of multiverses into a discussion about (1) whether the Big Bang occurred and (2) whether evolution occurred.
You posited that the Big Bang never occurred because "scientists cannot point us to the location in space where the big bang actually occurred" and that "[t]he big bang theory might hold water if our part of the cosmos was all moving in the same direction, which it's not." These statements revealed your ignorance about the basics of the Big Bang Theory. I have tried to dispel you of your misconceptions. If you watched the presentation and understood it, I don't see how you could still hold to this position. Do you?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
First show me where I said that the "creation of life" had to be measured. That seems to be your criterion.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
Tarski wrote:First show me where I said that the "creation of life" had to be measured. That seems to be your criterion.
More or less accounted for rather than measured. Seems continental drift, canyon formation and stellar nucleogenesis can be proven scientifically. Is that what the below statement implies? If that's "your criterion" how does life spawning from dirt differ from the examples you've listed?
Tarski wrote:Of course (lol), because everything that is real can be duplicated in the lab easily in a few minutes. Too bad for continental drift, canyon formation and stellar nucleogenesis. /end sarcasm
I believe species can evolve. I don't believe life can rise out of the dirt without the aid of other various lifeforms or God's Hand.
Equality wrote: I don't see how you could still hold to this position. Do you?
Yes, I see to many unknowns being presented.
How do you account for the microwave background radiation? And why do you think that virtually the entire scientific community who have studied the matter have determined that the evidence is overwhelming in confirming the Big Bang Theory?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Equality wrote:How do you account for the microwave background radiation? And why do you think that virtually the entire scientific community who have studied the matter have determined that the evidence is overwhelming in confirming the Big Bang Theory?
1. I don't know.
2. Same reasons the LDS leaders profess their religion to be of God.
Tarski wrote:If there is not "something" to make true or false statements about then I suppose nothing you say can be any more true or false than a snore or burp. But yet you went on about it for a while.
Phenomenal appearances exist. But the dualistic (subject/object or existent/nonexistent, take your pick) mode of their appearance is deceptive. The lack of duality in phenomenal appearances is their true nature.
In general, saying "x exists" is wrong because nothing can be established to exist. But saying "x does not exist" is just as wrong because nothing can be established to not-exist, either. Reality escapes dualistic constructions.
Tarski wrote:If there is not "something" to make true or false statements about then I suppose nothing you say can be any more true or false than a snore or burp. But yet you went on about it for a while.
Phenomenal appearances exist. But the dualistic (subject/object or existent/nonexistent, take your pick) mode of their appearance is deceptive. The lack of duality in phenomenal appearances is their true nature.
In general, saying "x exists" is wrong because nothing can be established to exist. But saying "x does not exist" is just as wrong because nothing can be established to not-exist, either. Reality escapes dualistic constructions.
How could we tell if you were wrong about that?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.