ATHEISTS MUST DENY THE FACTS, BECAUSE THE FACTS DON'T SUPPORT THEIR POSITION

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - A lot of claims there , but still no evidence to back one of them.  Sigh.  Worse, the same old  flawed and arrogant, intolerant hubris of atheism on full display, i.e., no-one else except atheists have the authority to do science.  Right.  Got it.  So we all have to cling to outdated science that's 100 years old because atheists say so.

Then you claim that I said atheism is based on science.  Quote back to me where I said that.  I didn't and never have.  I say that the atheism cabal  C O N T R O L S  the narrative, controls the misinformation still printed in the texts of academia and teaching institutions.  It does, otherwise they would've moved on from an outdated science that's over100 years old, the very science which atheists cling to.  It makes atheists ignoramuses, as they are.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Shifting the burden of proof again...

It is on you to prove that atheists deny facts or use 100 year old science.

Until then, atheists are innocent. I don't have to disprove anything, that isn't how it works...

How about this, to prove you are right why don't you show me a graph of Nobel prize winners by religion?

That would be evidence that: "no-one else except atheism has the authority to do science." Would it not?

Grafix

None of US here in this forum have to prove anything.  Agreed.  Nevertheless, if we make claims without evidence to back them, whether we like it or not, we're still gonna look like right loons out on a limb with our bare bums swinging in the breeze, aren't we?  If you're happy to set yourself up for that role, fine by me.

Another lame dodge with another classic atheistic whine, the typical whine of "you're shifting the burden of proof".  LOL!  You're the only one in here who is trying that little caper.   How can you even make that ridiculous claim?  From where I sit, all I am asking is for atheists to prove that they don't  deny DNA is an intelligent code, to also prove that they don't  deny that science has proved that evolution from one species to another is impossible, that they don't  deny that there is no evidence to support the BBT, prove that they don't  deny these two hypothesis are based on extrapolations and conjectue with reverse reasoning and no solid chain of evidence to support either, that they don't  deny the facts on the historical record which point to Christ's divinity.  The denial by atheists of the factual record in all of these subjects just goes on and on and on ad infinitum. 

What's very obvious is the common denominator for this blanket denial.  All of these facts point to the possibility of a Creator.  That's the common thread and that is the very reason  and is the only  reason why atheism must  deny this factual record.  If it does not, then it will be compelled to deny atheism itself.    OH!  No!  It's all about the survival of atheism and nothing whatsoever to do with  S C I E N C E.   That's the kicker for atheists, but do you think they will ever admit to that.  Of course not.  Consequently, they took control of the narrative with their multi-billion dollar influence peddling and propagandist campaign against Christianity.  Just take a look at these comments of yours, quoted below.  

Happy_Killbot said:  Atheism still isn't based on science, it is a philosophical position that there is no god, now science tends to make people into atheists, because when you study the natural world all the superstition goes away, because we can understand things in a way that doesn't need a supernatural being to explain it.

You are still so full of and you still have no idea what you are talking about, for example Eugenics was a project the Nazis engaged in, and they were very Catholic. Hardly supported by 100 year old science now is it, when it was the Christians who used it?

The truth is, all the Catholic priests have been caught with their pants down raping and molesting children who they traffic to them. Do atheists do this? No, because there is no centralized atheist authority, none whatsoever. Are you going to deny that fact?

the DNC doesn't count because they accept Muslims and Christians alike

Academia doesn't count because there are many private Christian schools everywhere

The Wealthy don't count, because most of them (i.e. Mark Zuckerberg) are religious, about the same as the percentage in the US general population

The mainstream media doesn't count, because FOX news exists and they are very Christian

Do you deny that all of this is true, and you have no F***ing idea what you mean? You are a delusional brain washed loser who's mind is owned by the Christian church, which BTW, in case you were unaware,

Jesus was actually Satan in disguise, it was his ultimate con. The devil turned himself into Jesus so that people would follow him as a false idol instead of the true god, that way he could gain all of their souls in hell. You are going to hell unless you reject Jesus and follow only the one true god.

A truckload of hubris and wild claims not supported by any evidence, signed off by you.  These statements prove nothing.  They bristle with anti-Christian hatred by you, however, which only serves to prove my case even more so.  Your obvious arrogant, self-righteous and intolerant hubris that only  atheists can do authoritative science is brimming over here.  

What you deliberately ignore and side-step is the  P R E D O M I N A N C E  of atheists in the institutions which control the education syllabi, the teaching texts, the academic texts, the mainstream media's narrative, the establishment's narrative. Merely pointing to a minority of Christian entities among a plethora of non-Christian entities does not disprove the control by atheism of the misinformation narrative at all.  Dumb.

.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

So let me get this straight, you want us to prove that we don't deny that DNA is intelligent code, evolution from one species to another is impossible, that there is no evidence to support the BBT, and the historical record points to Christ's divinity?

So I have a question for you, what would it look like for you to be wrong, just as a hypothetical here?

As it stands, there is overwhelming evidence that DNA is not intelligent, evolution from one species to another is possible, there is lots of evidence to support the BBT, and the historical record seems to suggest that a real person named Jesus existed but there is no evidence he was divine.

If you need evidence for any of these claims, go back through this thread and read all of it, we have provided so much evidence that you would have to be crazy to ignore it. You seem to think that science proves your points, but you have no idea what science says.

TheraminTrees actually did a video on this, it is mostly about narcissism and narcissistic relationships, but the religious parallels and the double-bind are to strong to ignore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnSiJOOdo30

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot ; - You wrote ....

So let me get this straight, you want us to prove that we don't deny that DNA is intelligent code, evolution from one species to another is impossible, that there is no evidence to support the BBT, and the historical record points to Christ's divinity?
So I have a question for you, what would it look like for you to be wrong, just as a hypothetical here?
As it stands, there is overwhelming evidence that DNA is not intelligent, evolution from one species to another is possible, there is lots of evidence to support the BBT, and the historical record seems to suggest that a real person named Jesus existed but there is no evidence he was divine.
If you need evidence for any of these claims, go back through this thread and read all of it, we have provided so much evidence that you would have to be crazy to ignore it. You seem to think that science proves your points, but you have no idea what science says.
TheraminTrees actually did a video on this, it is mostly about narcissism and narcissistic relationships, but the religious parallels and the double-bind are to strong to ignore.

I rest my case.  You just confirmed it.  Another confirmation.  Thank you again.  

Doubling down in denial of the factual evidence and claiming there is counter-evidence, but providing none in support is not a rebuttal .  It is an admission of defeat.  Where's this evidence in support, which you claim is in this thread?  I don't see any evidence at all. All that I can see on this page is a reliance by atheists on extrapolations and conjecture, a reliance on reverse reasoning, a diversion about sea eagles and a reliance on a guy who thinks he's a bunch of Trees, but who is apparently an accredited psychologist, waxing lyrical about science and theology, two disciplines he has no scholarship in, using them to bash Christianity.  That's evidence?  

Dee

@Grafix

***** Your obvious arrogant, self-righteous and intolerant hubris that only  atheists can do authoritative science is brimming over here.  

Show us even one peer reviewed paper that proves a god exists?    Zero , Nada , Zilch 

Show us one peer reviewed paper that disproves Evolution? What’s that ? Oh right you still have none but “you’re working on it” 

You have still nothing to back any of your up except conspiracy theories and appeal to an assortment of religious nuts who are so “highly regarded “ they’re reduced to posting content on You Tube Christian loony sites ....Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

Dee

@Grafix

***** Your obvious arrogant, self-righteous and intolerant hubris that only  atheists can do authoritative science is brimming over here.  

Show us even one peer reviewed paper that proves a god exists?    Zero , Nada , Zilch 

Show us one peer reviewed paper that disproves Evolution? What’s that ? Oh right you still have none but “you’re working on it” 

You have still nothing to back any of your up except conspiracy theories and appeal to an assortment of religious nuts who are so “highly regarded “ they’re reduced to posting content on You Tube Christian loony  sites ....Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

So here is how it is:

If I say that I don't agree with your stance on the ground that it is a misconception and affront to reality, you claim that I am wrong and the science proves it, despite the fact that I can show you were you are wrong.

If I say I do agree with your stance, than you run off with your head held high because you will think you won.

If I point out that you will never accept that you could be wrong, then you claim it proves your point.

Classic double bind.

Where is the evidence in support of your claim?

The first two and a half pages are filled with evidence which runs contrary to your stance, yet you don't acknowledge it, because no matter what, you are going to say it proves nothing.

I'm not going to continue talking to you until you answer this question:

what would it look like for you to be wrong, just as a hypothetical here?

Grafix

How hopelessly wrong about what is going on here, can one truly be?  I have only EVER asked you to PROVE that you and other atheists generally, do not deny proven scientific fact and that you also do not deny the authenticated historical record.  Instead, you respond by twisting that simple request into a mighty pretzel, claiming there is some kind of foul play afoot which runs like this, "If I do this then you do that"  gibberish.  Just answer the freakin' question, reflected in the topic's title, namely ....

ATHEISTS MUST DENY THE FACTS, BECAUSE THE FACTS DON'T SUPPORT THEIR POSITION

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Except the facts do support our position, there is no evidence of god whatsoever. Atheists don't believe in God because there is no evidence to. None whatsoever. That is suffice to answer the OP, for the 100th time.

Why don't you answer my question?

what would it look like for you to be wrong, just as a hypothetical here?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You claim ...

@Grafix Except the facts do support our position, there is no evidence of god whatsoever. Atheists don't believe in God because there is no evidence to. None whatsoever. That is suffice to answer the OP, for the 100th time.

There you go again, vindicating and validating the topic title.  How lame is that?  It wouldn't be lame, if you had the cojuns to admit that the evidence does not support the atheistic position at all, given the advancement of modern science and the facts already on the table, with particular reference to DNA and new understandings of bio-chemistry and molecular behaviour, which prove that evolution of species to species is an impossibility.  You are basically trolling the top scientists in the world, like James Tour and others, and telling them and us that you are the be all and end all of science and that they are all fools.  Yeah right, Einstein.

You can keep on denying it, but for how long?  Only for as long as the atheism cabal controls the official narrative and spends billions on "buying off" those in charge of diseminating the narrative.  Nevertheless, honest science and scientists abound, who show us the stupidity of the atheist narrative. The truth can never be erased, only hidden by evil people.  That's all that is occurring here and you buy into it.  For how long can you and why do you even want to deny scientific facts and the historical record?  It makes no sense at all.    Einstein even said it makes no sense in these statements ...

Your actions are easily explained  as simply a victim of inculcation, a victim of brainwashing but how do we explain the actions of those who run the anti-God, anti-science inculcated narrative?  It is to protect their inordinate income streams obtained from the most filthy and diabolical practices on earth, such as the support of abortions and buying the aborted babies alive for their sacrifices and the selling of baby body parts for an income stream, of trafficking in children, in paedophilia and sex slavery, of using these children whom they keep in cages for abominations, impregnating the young girls to obtain infants for their sacrifices to their God, Satan.  

They can only protect these activities by coralling a significant "army" of followers to defend their belief system - the worship of Satan.  That requires destroying all faith in Satan's Nemesis, the Christian God.  That's your job.  The claim by atheism that a belief in no God defines it, is really a double blind, a croc.  You can't believe in Satan and not in God.  We only have to look at the Satanic rituals CERN gets involved in, (which by its own admission communicates with the Fourth Dimension through quantum mechanics and obtains information from it), to know that they DO believe in the supernatural.  You're being duped big time, Sunshine.  

.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Answer the question before we can talk:

what would it look like for you to be wrong, just as a hypothetical here?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot ; -  Can't you read?  It would not only be ME who would be wrong in that case.  It would be  M O D E R N   S C I E N C E  which would be wrong, the very science which you choose to deny.  The more salient question is  this ...

What would it look like if the Agenda of atheism were properly exposed so that it became widely accepted general knowledge and atheism had to 'fess up that modern science is right?

Answer:  Atheism would be compelled to deny itself.  That would mean, not only the end of atheism, but also end this odious battle for hearts, minds and souls which atheism perpetuates and promulgates. 
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Answer the question before we can talk:

what would it look like for you to be wrong, just as a hypothetical here?

I want you to describe what things would be different if you were wrong.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Nothing would change.  The status quo would remain.  We are living in the false narrative now.  If it were somehow proven to be true, then things would go on as they already are.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Oh? Nothing would change then?

So that means that if you are wrong, everything would be exactly as it is. Is this what you are saying?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - I think I said it clearly enough.  My statement relates specifically and only to the science being proved wrong.  Nothing else being proved wrong.  It is not possible to prove there is no God, so that will never be proved.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You seriously don't see any problem with that way of thinking do you?

If everything would look exactly the same, regardless of if you are right or wrong, then there is no way to tell if you are right or wrong!

Consider this:

Jimmy tells Bobby that all Unicorns have pink fur.
Bobby asks Jimmy if he has ever seen a unicorn with pink fur.
Jimmy says to Bobby, he hasn't seen any unicorns, but it doesn't matter because the lack of seeing Unicorns with anything else except pink fur means that it must be true.
Bobby seems puzzled by this.
Jimmy then goes on to say that since Bobby can't prove that not all unicorns have pink fur then it must be true.

You are Jimmy, just replace "unicorn" with "atheist cabal/satanic cult/billionaires/CERN/Whatever other nonsense you think" and "pink fur" with "well funded/Christian hating/pedophiles/science denying"

The point is that if what we believe isn't based in evidence, just being "not disproved" is insufficient to say that it is true. You can not disprove that unicorns, pixies, faeries, god, gods, or other mythical beings are not real, but that doesn't mean they do exist.

That is your argument in a nutshell.

There is no further need to continue this discussion because I think I have thoroughly eviscerated your worldview to the point that anyone who reads this should get a good laugh at your expense.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote this ....

@Grafix You seriously don't see any problem with that way of thinking do you?
If everything would look exactly the same, regardless of if you are right or wrong, then there is no way to tell if you are right or wrong!

No.  That is not what I said at all.  I said the  O P P O S I T E.   Where do I say that the status quo would remain were atheism properly exposed, if it lost control of the narrative?  I say the opposite, i.e. that the atheists would be compelled to 'fess up and have to deny atheism itself as a possible reality.  That's precisely the reason it invests billions in keeping the lie alive.  Go back to school for comprehension lessons.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - Nothing would change.  The status quo would remain.  We are living in the false narrative now.  If it were somehow proven to be true, then things would go on as they already are.
.

Right here, just 2 posts ago loser!

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You missed the very salient point in that post.  I'll give it to you again ...

Grafix said:  We are living in the false narrative now. 

So, the logic is this.  As we are already living the narrative which you claim is the true narrative and which I claim is the false narrative, then how could anything change if the narrative we are now already living were proved to be true and I and the science which I back were proved to be wrong?  Nothing would change apart from the fact that we would have to swallow our pride, because the establishment and everyone in all halls of learning are ALREADY complying with your narrative.  Get it?

Let me ask you this.  You have stated many times that you are an atheist.  Right?  You and every other atheist on this channel has stated that means either you don't have a belief in God OR that no God exists.   Right?  So given that is your position ... then how do you explain this comment of yours made today, just 7 hours ago ....

Happy_Killbot said:   Jesus was actually Satan in disguise, it was his ultimate con. The devil turned himself into Jesus so that people would follow him as a false idol instead of the true god, that way he could gain all of their souls in hell. You are going to hell unless you reject Jesus and follow only the one true god.

So, I reckon I am right on the money when I say atheists worship Satan and know that there IS  a supernatural fourth dimension.  They use the double blind that "There is no God"  OR   "I have no belief in a God" as a cover for what they are really up to.  You see, you cannot believe in Satan and Satanic supernatural powers, if you do not believe in the existence of a God, now can you?  Atheism is a deception, a very deliberate one with an Agenda, otherwise it would make no sense for it to invest billions of dollars in fighting that which it claims does not exist, now would it?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Going back on your own word, for like the 7th time this discussion now?

How much integrity does your argument really hold then?

This discussion has been over for a while now, I bring up the "Jesus is the devil" thing as an extra little "F U" to the Christian establishment.

It is very much a trap which you have fallen for, in this case the trap is just to show how little you can really know.

Suppose the Devil really was Jesus, everything would look exactly the same, the same as when you say that the world would look exactly the same if there was no "false narrative"

They really are the same thing, you can not tell if Jesus was the son of god or the devil in disguise, now can you?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Here, lets do a little experiment. Ask me what would be different if DNA was intelligent.

Grafix

No, Killbot the Happy Ha Ha, you do not genuinely propose it as a hypothetical that Jesus was Satan.  You actually believe it, because we had that discussion about that under another topic and you made it quite clear that you DO believe Jesus was Satan.  You also posted something else which was very revealing, in relation to our discussion on the lab tests of Christ's dried blood, which had been found in the cave directly beneath where He was crucified and which dried blood samples came to life under the microscope.  The laboratory was then able to obtain a chromosome count therefore - living blood being necessary for a chromosome count to be obtained.  The lab technician began to cry when she saw what was happening before her very eyes.  It changed the lives of those lab technicians.  They became Christians.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Oh yeah... Forgot about that... Can we just pretend that never happened?

You were not really supposed to know, I wrote that story, I could get in a lot of trouble...

How about this, you forget about it and I will tell you a real secret? How does that sound?

Grafix

No deal.  I would be out of my tiny mind to trust a single word you wrote, let alone enter a bargain with you.  You would screw me at the first opportunity.  Sorry mate.  Bye. Bye.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Then I'm afraid what has to be done must be done...

sorry buddy.

Grafix

LOL!  Delusion on steroids.
.

RS_master

RS_master said:

@Grafix when a chemical reaction happens you get a more complicated bond. When you mix complicated bonds. You get an even more complex bond. After millions and billions of years they got the DNA molecule bond. Where are the flaws?
Also where are the flaws in the whole theory big bang and evolution? There is plenty of proof. I can send you more links if that is what you want-
https://justrichest.com/proof-evolution/
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution
https://www.proof-of-evolution.com/evolution-evidence.html
Now for the big bang:
https://gizmodo.com/astronomers-discover-first-direct-proof-of-the-big-bang-1545525927
https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/cosmos/bigbang/bb_evid
https://www.reference.com/science/evidence-support-big-bang-theory-3f7479a7a4046ab6

@Grafix please respond.

xlJ_dolphin_473

Grafix said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 - You wrote ...

DNA: it evolved. We’re not sure exactly how, but one theory is that there were chains of self-replicating cells, and by accident one of them was a bit different and became RNA, which later evolved into DNA.

Mate, that even beats the God gap.  LOL!    DNA evolved?  Yeah right.  It can't, .  It has no physical or material attributes to  evolve  .    LOL!  Atheism gets more ridiculous by the minute.  But ...  um  .... we really don't know how it did, but .... um  truth be known we really have no evidence that it did at all, but .... um ... truth is we just made it up.  LOL!  Honestly !!  And you people call this   S C I E N C E .   Pissing myself laughing.  Sorry, mate, me no buy your li'l tale..  Then you wrote ....

You see, science cannot provide all the answers straight away. Scientists are working to find the answers, and by following science and scientific news, you may see the answers emerge. Just because something is not clear is no excuse for theists to invoke the argument “Well God must have done it”. It’s plainly illogical. @Grafix

Oh!  I do  see, very clearly...  It's OK for science not to have all of the answers, but it definitely is not OK for Christianity to not have them. LOL!  ... at least as far as atheists are  concerned.   Christianity stays true to its Bible, while atheism does everything to twist it's bible of science into a pretzel, just to fit it's narrative.  Damned good show science can't retaliate with a wrath equivalent to that of God, otherwise you would have all been  dispatched unceremoniously to the abyss for your egregious and shameless disrespect of the rigors of science.
.

Survival of the fittest is really just a special case of 'survival of the stable'. Unstable things will destabilise and cease to exist, while stable things will continue to exist.

Grafix

@xlJ_dolphin_473 - You wrote ....

Survival of the fittest is really just a special case of 'survival of the stable'. Unstable things will destabilise and cease to exist, while stable things will continue to exist.

Absolutely.  However, that can be apparent in all things, without the need to invent fairy tales.  The logic of it justifies itself, with no other scientific apparatus needed to be hitched to it.

RS_master

RS_master said:

RS_master said:

@Grafix when a chemical reaction happens you get a more complicated bond. When you mix complicated bonds. You get an even more complex bond. After millions and billions of years they got the DNA molecule bond. Where are the flaws?
Also where are the flaws in the whole theory big bang and evolution? There is plenty of proof. I can send you more links if that is what you want-
https://justrichest.com/proof-evolution/
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution
https://www.proof-of-evolution.com/evolution-evidence.html
Now for the big bang:
https://gizmodo.com/astronomers-discover-first-direct-proof-of-the-big-bang-1545525927
https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/cosmos/bigbang/bb_evid
https://www.reference.com/science/evidence-support-big-bang-theory-3f7479a7a4046ab6

@Grafix please respond.

@Grafix Why arent you responding? <span></span>  It is taking too long. If you avoid my argument then you have no reason against it thus you admit god does not exist.

xlJ_dolphin_473

RS_master said:

RS_master said:

RS_master said:

@Grafix when a chemical reaction happens you get a more complicated bond. When you mix complicated bonds. You get an even more complex bond. After millions and billions of years they got the DNA molecule bond. Where are the flaws?
Also where are the flaws in the whole theory big bang and evolution? There is plenty of proof. I can send you more links if that is what you want-
https://justrichest.com/proof-evolution/
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution
https://www.proof-of-evolution.com/evolution-evidence.html
Now for the big bang:
https://gizmodo.com/astronomers-discover-first-direct-proof-of-the-big-bang-1545525927
https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/cosmos/bigbang/bb_evid
https://www.reference.com/science/evidence-support-big-bang-theory-3f7479a7a4046ab6

@Grafix please respond.

@Grafix Why arent you responding? <span></span>  It is taking too long. If you avoid my argument then you have no reason against it thus you admit god does not exist.

Send him a private message.

Grafix

I did respond to that.  Go back and look.

RS_master

Grafix said:

@RS_master - The flaw is in the claim that both Evolution and the Big Bang are science.  Neither has come about as the result of the required rigorous methodology of scientific testing, the testing of each element in each of the hypotheses and building the evidence step by step, evidence upon evidence, meticulously put down on the record in a logical chain, progressing to a final conclusion based on a record of evidence, evidence which has been properly tested and can stand upon itself.  This hasn't been done for either hypothesis. It can't be done.  How can it with no evidence to observe for the BBT? Subsequently, it's reasoned backwards, based on conjecture. 

It is not science to use knowledge that we possess today to construct conjecture about the past and invent certain and specific events, with no evidence of them, but which would fit  in with what we know today.  That's all the Big Bang is, conjecture based on what we know today.  That's not how science works.   EVERYTHING MUST BE BASED ON A CHAIN OF  EVIDENCE.   The BBT is reverse reasoning, propped up with conjecture and extrapolations.  That's not science.  It's a scientific abomination. Neither theory has the capacity to meet the rigors of scientific testing, for the reasons of age, time elapsed and gaps in the record. 

Regarding TOE, the huge gaps in the evolutionary chain clearly disprove it, among other serious problems with it concerning capacities of molecular and cell life, which cannot survive one species spawning another species, all proved impossible due to molecular, atomical and nucleic resistance.  Atheists also ignore the huge gaps in the descent record, which are well-established, where we see species after species just exploding into the fossil record, but with absolutely no evidence of any ancestry prior to the explosion.  The Cambrian explosion is a good example.  New species just appearing out of nothing.  HYpotheses are great and science needs them to drive itself forward, but when they fall over, science routinely discards them and has always done so honestly, not hung onto them dishonestly.  If disproven, chop chop and consigned to the dust bin.

Yet this has not happened with either the BBT or TOE although both fall over in so many ways.  Atheism won't discard them.   Evidence through the rigors of scientific testing - which are very specific and demand exacting disciplines to be met - give rise to new theories with a 99% rate of probabily.  This rigor is particularly necessary when we are talking about early periods where there is no written record of reference, no artefacts which man left behind, no material or hard evidence, no eye-witness accounts, nothing but a blank page to begin with.

Thus the geo sciences, bio-sciences, chemical sciences must work together to try to work it out, taking readings, testing probablilities on what we know today and if possible backing it up with samples of cores from earth or other planets, by looking at today's cosmos and today's fossils and ground layers, but the massive time gaps can only ever be filled in with conjecture and extrapolations, which rightly drive the hypothesis and the research forward.  That's all great, but nevertheless, it doesn't meet the status of  A   SCIENTIFIC  T H E O R Y.     It meets the status of  A   S C I E N T I F I C     H Y P O T H E S I S   and should only ever be being taught as an hypothesis, not as fact, not as accepted science, not as a factual occurrence, and specifically not as an accepted theory, specifically not in the case of the BBT - zero available evidence.

in the case of TOE, it maybe just scraped in as a possible "Theory", but now has been dsiproven in so many ways.  As Dr. James Tour says,  "They lied.  They lied to you."   Darwin thought the fossil record would explode with a raft of fossil discoveries to map it all out.  That just didn't happen.  Had it have happened, then his theory could have been easily accepted or rejected.  Nevertheless, we have enough massive gaps in the record of descent  in the chain of evidence, which already and unequivocally disproves TOE, aside from the separate bio-chemical and DNA evidence, evidencing it is not scientifically possible for one species to evolve into another. .  

@Grafix first of all, sorry. I must have forgot that and I apologize.

On to my points:
How is it not science to use information and current understandings to make a theory where its proof outnumbers the proof against it about 40:1?
How is it not science to make an assumption which is one of the only logical assumptions to fit several statements and experiments?
How is it not science to conclude theories?
You claim I have no evidence whereas I have posted about 20 links in previous arguments. So that statement of me having no evidence is an utter lie.There is much more evidence which I have not posted. You want me to start posting documentaries now?

Grafix

@RS_master - You wrote ...

How is it not science to use information and current understandings to make a theory where its proof outnumbers the proof against it about 40:1?

You don't seem to be able to separate hard and material evidence from conjecture, extrapolations and opinion.  The conjecture, extrapolations and opinion are FINE, all based on what science knows today, but nvevertheless they aren't evidence.  The are assumptions, presumptions, conjecture and extrapolations based on what science knows today  WITHOUT  evidence in support.  In other words although chemicals, gases and the universe are behaving in a certain way now and observable now, none of this observable activity PROVES an occurrence which is not happening now, has never happened in the ages of humankind and was never observed, can never be observed and evidence of which can never be found, which all means it is conjecture, extrapolations, assumptions and presumptions, none of which constitutes evidence of that particular occurrence, the Big Bang.  

How is it not science to make an assumption which is one of the only logical assumptions to fit several statements and experiments?

Same answer as above.  Science has a rigorous methodology of testing E V I D E N C E and which evidence must stand up and support the theory.  If there is no evidence that can be tested, then there is no theory, only an hypothesis.

How is it not science to conclude theories?

It is science to conclude theories.  It is not science to pretend an hypothesis has met all of the rigors of scientific testing of evidence when it has not and then turn around and call it a theory.  Until evidence is tested to prove the theory it must remain and is only ever regarded by science as an unproved hypothesis.  That's the difference between the two.  I am saying both BBT and TOE are hypothesis and that TOE has already been disproved, so should not even be on any school syllabus.

You claim I have no evidence whereas I have posted about 20 links in previous arguments. So that statement of me having no evidence is an utter lie.There is much more evidence which I have not posted. You want me to start posting documentaries now?

Again, what you are calling evidence is not evidence.  It is all of the above.  So, at the end of the day you should be asking, how come science and the Dept. of Education are still teaching both hypothesis as factual theories?  Good question.  Ask Dr. James Tour.  "It's a lie"  "They lied to you".  He is not the only scientist who says this.  About 40,000 others agree with him.  So what is going on?  What all of those who disagree with the establishment fake science tell us is going on.  The atheist cabal has control of the narrative, control of the information disseminated and so the public is fed junk science, with scores of thousands of scientists calling it that.

RS_master

Grafix said:

@RS_master - You wrote ...

How is it not science to use information and current understandings to make a theory where its proof outnumbers the proof against it about 40:1?

You don't seem to be able to separate hard and material evidence from conjecture, extrapolations and opinion.  The conjecture, extrapolations and opinion are FINE, all based on what science knows today, but nvevertheless they aren't evidence.  The are assumptions, presumptions, conjecture and extrapolations based on what science knows today  WITHOUT  evidence in support.  In other words although chemicals, gases and the universe are behaving in a certain way now and observable now, none of this observable activity PROVES an occurrence which is not happening now, has never happened in the ages of humankind and was never observed, can never be observed and evidence of which can never be found, which all means it is conjecture, extrapolations, assumptions and presumptions, none of which constitutes evidence of that particular occurrence, the Big Bang.  

How is it not science to make an assumption which is one of the only logical assumptions to fit several statements and experiments?

Same answer as above.  Science has a rigorous methodology of testing E V I D E N C E and which evidence must stand up and support the theory.  If there is no evidence that can be tested, then there is no theory, only an hypothesis.

How is it not science to conclude theories?

It is science to conclude theories.  It is not science to pretend an hypothesis has met all of the rigors of scientific testing of evidence when it has not and then turn around and call it a theory.  Until evidence is tested to prove the theory it must remain and is only ever regarded by science as an unproved hypothesis.  That's the difference between the two.  I am saying both BBT and TOE are hypothesis and that TOE has already been disproved, so should not even be on any school syllabus.

You claim I have no evidence whereas I have posted about 20 links in previous arguments. So that statement of me having no evidence is an utter lie.There is much more evidence which I have not posted. You want me to start posting documentaries now?

Again, what you are calling evidence is not evidence.  It is all of the above.  So, at the end of the day you should be asking, how come science and the Dept. of Education are still teaching both hypothesis as factual theories?  Good question.  Ask Dr. James Tour.  "It's a lie"  "They lied to you".  He is not the only scientist who says this.  About 40,000 others agree with him.  So what is going on?  What all of those who disagree with the establishment fake science tell us is going on.  The atheist cabal has control of the narrative, control of the information disseminated and so the public is fed junk science, with scores of thousands of scientists calling it that.

@Grafix Evidence. The definition of evidence is proof or scientific statements that support a theory. Which bit is not evidence out of the links? The links are evidence.

Grafix

@RS_master - You wrote ....

@Grafix  - Evidence. The definition of evidence is proof or scientific statements that support a theory. Which bit is not evidence out of the links? The links are evidence.

Mate, when scientific papers write "We think", "We can therefore expect", "It is logical to deduce", "Due to science knowledge of this reaction, it is probable that", "As we have evidence of this gas and that chemical interacting in this way, science can make the assumption that such and such would have reacted with such and such and therefore it is likely that ....", etc. etc. etc.   are  N O T  evidence-based conclusions.   They are extrapolation-based conclusions.  There is a hug difference.   

Evidence-based conclusions would reads like this, "The results of three independent rigorous tests of the material obtained from the samples show that they're the result of an explosion.  Further testing of the composites of wxyz and of abcd via rigorous testing for evidence of  pqrstu showed evidence that the samples were defg positive which corrororates the evidence that....", OR  "In testing the samples obtained from the core, science was able to show it was dated at  wxyz period and in that period the presence of abcd composites were evident in the core samples, which supports the theory that ... etc."  OR "By placing the samples taken from the site of the explosion and testing them using three different scientific methods, (with an explanation of these three),  for the active presence of the substance of wxyz, the results show that the activity of abcd on the matter of wxyz caused the combustion of  ....."  OR  "The samples of materials were tested and provided evidence that they could be dated at such and such a period.  The other evidence of wxyz, was then also tested and together each supports this theory to lead science to conclude that these samples are the result of abcd.  With that result in evidence, science was then able to test for wxyz to establish whether or not abcd, was also dated in the same time period.   Testing all three composites and dating all three to the same period, is evidence that all three are a result of the activity of wxyz and therefore it can be concluded that these samples are evidence of an occurrence of qrstuv"

There's no mention of any testing of evidence and more testing to build on that evidence with that evidence building on that evidence until a solid collection of tested evidence is on the record.  There is nothing of this science on the table at all.  As I said, there is no material or hard evidence possible to be tested  from the actual Big Bang itself to prove that it actually occurred.  There is no observable evidence to test at all.  There are no eye-witness accounts, no historical records either which attest to its occurrence.  There is nothing only opinions based upon what science knows today and reasoning it backwards to suggest a   P O S S I B I L I T Y.   That is an hypothesis. 

RS_master

@Grafix ;https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=E211US1274G0&p=evidence+meaning&guccounter=1

This is the meaning of evidence: If you do not want to see the link then I will copy onto here:

ev·i·dence

/ˈevədəns/

noun

• 1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"synonymsproof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, ... more

verb

• 1.be or show evidence of:"that it has been populated from prehistoric times is evidenced by the remains of Neolithic buildings"

(The bits in italic are irrelevant to this topic.)

That is used in scientific papers.

RS_master

@Grafix The big bang and evolution theories all have facts supporting them and are based on experiments. These facts are not in any theory with god(religion) so this way god would be less likely to exist.

Grafix

Your definition I can't disagree with for "evidence".  Still waiting for you to corroborate the claim that evidence has been found to support and validate both the TOE and BBT.  When you can provide that evidence as opposed to merely pointing to hypotheses, let me know.  I don't think Neolithic buildings were around at the time of BBT or TOE, given both are before the era of mankind populating planet earth, therefore how can they be "evidence'?

RS_master

Using evidence to point out a hypothesis is fine. What is wrong with that? This hypothesis, however has more evidence than others. Atheism does not only use the big bang and evolution, there are other theories. All the theories with god(religion) do not have solid scientific proof. It only comes from a book. Even I can make my own book and god. So it only seems logical that there never was a god. and that is what we atheists are pointing out. Believers will not understand because they would say the book is correct as if entranced by the book.

Grafix

@RS_master - If there were all this material and hard evidence available to support these two hypotheses, they could move into the status of decent scientific theories, but because there is no real evidence and only extrapolations and conjecture they remain unproven hoary hypotheses.

You can claim that Christianity has no solid, hard and material evidence of Christ, of His divinity, of Hs miracles and of who He said He was, but that does not make you correct.  I've put a plethora of real hard and material evidence on this channel in several long and exhaustive posts, under this topic and others, proving the existence of that evidence, citing all of the historical sources for the recorded historical accounts in documents authoried by real and notable historians, government officials, government records, the official record of scholarship, the empirical evidence, archaeological evidence.  Denying evidence because it is inconvenient to your argument is not debating.  It's putting you head in the sand and pretending the world is not real, that there is some other different world out there which you want it to be.  That's just not living in reality, son.

The facts are the facts and they cannot be denied.  What we have are two out-dated hypothesis over 100 years old, which atheists refuse to progress from.  They cling to them to validate their own world view, because modern science does not validate their world view.  It disproves one of their hypotheses and bags the other one as unable to ever be proved and very unlikely.   Why cling to out-dated science? 
.

RS_master

@Grafix What do you mean by real evidence? The meaning is in my pre - previous comment. That is used in scientific papers and theories. Not in religions or god theories. First of all, Christianity is irrelevant. Secondly, how do you believe in a fantasy like character with super powers. Christianity and other religions or theories with god have more evidence against than for. That does not occur with most atheism theories like big bang and evolution.

RS_master

The bible has contradictions and there is a new testament. There is a fantasy character. He had powers and re spawned. @Grafix how likely does that sound? Moses. How likely is it that he met god? You cannot meet god.

Grafix

@RS_master ; -  You wrote

@Grafix - What do you mean by real evidence? The meaning is in my pre - previous comment. That is used in scientific papers and theories. Not in religions or god theories. First of all, Christianity is irrelevant. Secondly, how do you believe in a fantasy like character with super powers. Christianity and other religions or theories with god have more evidence against than for. That does not occur with most atheism theories like big bang and evolution.

Your penultimate comment does outline a process, but that is not the argument alone.  The material that we read on these two hypotheses shows quite substantially and unequivocally that the rigors of scientific methodology haven't been followed regarding evidence and any appropriate compiling of a record of evidence.  That is perfectly understandable for the BBT, due to its supposed and proposed timing - occurring long before the existence of mankind, so it is only to be expected there is no material or hard evidence, no records historical, empirical or testimonial.  The best science can do then is use reverse reasoning to try to support the possibility of a hypothesis.  That's what they have done.  I don't decry that.  I don't knock that.  I don't even disagree with the adventuresome exploratory spirit of it.  I simply understand that there will never be any hard or material evidence to ever prove it, for the simple reason it is never going to be available.  That's fine too.  What is not fine is the pretence that it is a factual occurrence and that it is an approved and accepted scientific theory by the science community.  It isn't.  It is not accepted by scores of thousands of scientists as an acceptable theory with evidence in support, let alone agreed there is sufficient evidence to claim it as a fact. 

The bible has contradictions and there is a new testament. There is a fantasy character. He had powers and re spawned. @Grafix ;how likely does that sound? Moses. How likely is it that he met god? You cannot meet god.  

I understand that for you, as an atheist, there is no compulstion to try to establish the factual record upon which Christianity most certainly can claim that there is evidence of a God and that Christ Himself also provided much evidence of the existence of a God.  There is no requirement for you to do so.

What I don't understand is how people who have no scholarly-based knowledge, no research-based knowledge or intellectual understanding of a subject then think they can make statements like yours above on such a subject and expect someone like me, who is a researcher and who has researched quite a number of subjects, including the viability of the Christian record, would think that you can persuade me to your opinion, particularly when I can see it is quite uninformed, unacquainted with and has no familiarity with the entire Christian history, no knowledge of what we call the "God" proofs, science proofs, archaeological proofs, historical proofs and a plethora of evidence generally that Christianity can very well and does lay claim to have and with approved and recognized scholarship backing those claims.

RS_master

@Grafix Where is the proof for any religion?

RS_master

@Grafix Where is the "Factual record"?

Grafix

@RS_master - I posted the evidence with sources in another topic you commented in.  I assumed you had seen it.  Here it is again, below.  Keep in mind that all of this evidence is outside of Biblicl Texts and the sources were hostile to Christianity  ...

THE GLARINGLY OBVIOUS QUESTION HERE IS - HOW WOULD A 515 FOOT MASSIVE SHIP COME TO BE 6,000 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL IN A RANGE OF MOUNTAINS.  IT CLEARLY VALIDATES THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE GREAT FLOOD AND NOAH'S ARK.  THE ARTEFACT'S MEASUREMENTS AND STRUCTURE ARE EXACTLY AS THE BIBLICAL TEXT DOCUMENTS THEM TO BE.






ELEVEN SUMERIAN CLAY TABLETS, DISCOVERED IN EBLA, SYRIA, WITH CUNIEFORM WRITING ON THEM AND EACH SIGNED BY THE AUTHOR HAVE BEEN DATED.  THEY RECORD THE FIRST 37 CHAPTERS IN GENESIS, THE FIRST BOOK OF THE BIBLE, WORD FOR WORD AND ARE DATED IN THE CORRECT CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, WITH EACH AUTHOR THE ANCESTOR OF THE NEXT AUTHOR.  THESE CLAY TABLETS ARE KNOWN AS THE SUMERIAN EBLA TABLETS AND THE TRANSLATIONS CO-INCIDE EXACTLY WITH THE TEXT OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLICAL BOOK OF GENESIS.  IT IS KNOWN THAT MOSES COMPILED THE FIRST FIVE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE AND IS CLEAR THESE TABLETS WERE HIS SOURCE, THE FIRST ONE SIGNED BY ADAM AND THE LAST ONE SIGNED BY JACOB'S SONS.  SEE BELOW.

THERE ARE LIBRARIES FULL OF EVIDENCE SIMILAR TO THIS.  IT JUST GOES ON AND ON AND ON, INCLUDING THE DISCOVERY OF GOLD PLATED CHARIOT WHEELS FROM THE PHARAOH'S CHARIOTS WITH AXLES AND HUBS, LYING ON THE BOTTOM OF THE RED SEA IN HUNDREDS OF FEET OF WATER AND THOUSANDS OF SKELETONS OF AN EGYPTIAN ARMY AND HORSE BONES TOO.  WHY WOULD AN EGYPTIAN ARMY ATTEMPT TO CROSS THE RED SEA ON FOOT AND IN CHARIOTS IN WATER OF THAT DEPTH?  THE BOOK OF EXODUS EXPLAINS THIS EVIDENCE.  ON EACH OPPOSITE SHORE OF THE CROSSING SITE IS A STONE PILLAR ERECTED BY KING SOLOMON, EACH WITH INSCRIPTIONS COMMEMORATING THIS HISTORIC CROSSING BY THE ISRAELITES, AS THEY FLED THE EGYPTIAN PHARAOH'S ARMY.

RS_master

@Grafix The "Noahs ark" has not been dated. If it was found in Turkey then it is miles away from where the bible was said to have taken place. Are you saying you believe someone collected 2 of every species? We have discovered about  30% of all species we should discover.  God cannot write so you do not know who wrote the genesis 1:1 to genesis 2:4a. Miracle makers are found in fantasy only. You say Moses edited the book just because the book says it. Would you believe I am god if I say it?