Joe Rogan isnt sold on the Bing Bang theory finds Jesus resurrection more plausible

There is no smugness. There is a process for science. Tools, math, observation are all involved. The whole idea of explaining the world simply off of a static, thousands of year old book and doing nothing beyond that comes off as ridiculous. Maybe if religious people went through a thorough process of studying the natural world to actually prove their beliefs they may get more respect. I'm agnostic and I am not an astronomer so I cannot say for sure what has happened in the universe, but I will give more credence to the information that comes from proper study than someone saying look at this old ass book that has been mostly wrong. And most importantly, scientific theories change as more information is made available whereas religious beliefs do not.
A "study" on the origins of the 900 gajillion trilliion year old friggin' universe, is worth no more or less, than a religious person's beliefs.

Liberals and their appeals to authority never cease to amaze. Some smart "science" people have a theory about the creation of the entire universe, that is completely unprovable and is just a bunch of guess work. Must lend credibility to it, because they're so smart and they have a fancy title.

Lots of "old ass" science books out there were wrong about a whole host of subjects, too. Not even big universe creation theory shit, either. Just basic shit. How were they wrong? They were scientists after all.
 
Your point is you don't know what you're talking about. Got it.
I guess you've finally recovered from the last beatdown, and being a glutton for punishment you're back for more.

Unfortunately you're a simpleton with absolutely nothing to add on this topic, and I take no pleasure in engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

I'll catch on some culture war thread about trannies or some shit like that, that's more up your alley.
 
I guess you've finally recovered from the last beatdown, and being a glutton for punishment you're back for more.

Unfortunately you're a simpleton with absolutely nothing to add on this topic, and I take no pleasure in engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

I'll catch on some culture war thread about trannies or some shit like that, that's more up your alley.
lol get back to me when you can demonstrate that you understand the scientific method, you cretin.

You proving you didn't understand what I wrote is not a beatdown, clown.
 
lol get back to me when you can demonstrate that you understand the scientific method, you cretin.

You proving you didn't understand what I wrote is not a beatdown, clown.
This is what you wrote, verbatim:

"Your point is you don't know what you're talking about. Got it."


That's your entire contribution to this conversation, and now you're trying to say that it was somehow too complex for me to understand?

Dude, seriously, either come with something of substance or don't even bother, I've been on this forum for 20 years, and I'm completely immune to childish insults.

You can disagree with me, and take digs at me in the process if it's witty and amusing, but if you're just gonna be an annoying gnat with nothing of substance to offer I'm just gonna get bored of you and put you on ignore like all the other creepy gnats that stalk me on here with nothing amusing to say.

Now if you have an interesting counter argument to anything I've said let's have it, and if not you're barking up the wrong tree.
 
This is what you wrote, verbatim:

"Your point is you don't know what you're talking about. Got it."


That's your entire contribution to this conversation, and now you're trying to say that it was somehow too complex for me to understand?

Dude, seriously, either come with something of substance or don't even bother, I've been on this forum for 20 years, and I'm completely immune to childish insults.

You can disagree with me, and take digs at me in the process if it's witty and amusing, but if you're just gonna be an annoying gnat with nothing of substance to offer I'm just gonna get bored of you and put you on ignore like all the other creepy gnats that stalk me on here with nothing amusing to say.

Now if you have an interesting counter argument to anything I've said let's have it, and if not you're barking up the wrong tree.
Listen, shitwit. If you want to see a counter-argument for everything you've said, just read my posts ITT.

You said,
I guess you've finally recovered from the last beatdown, and being a glutton for punishment you're back for more.

Unfortunately you're a simpleton with absolutely nothing to add on this topic, and I take no pleasure in engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

I'll catch on some culture war thread about trannies or some shit like that, that's more up your alley.
because I called you out on this garbage,
Just reinforces my point that the secular types are just following another form of religion, if you try to show them evidence of the contrary they will still reject it, double down and try to hold on to their beliefs.
This has been proved wrong ITT repeatedly by me and others and you choose to persist in this idiotic claim anyway. So yeah, you have no clue. If you find one and you can demonstrate an understanding of the scientific method, as opposed to this bullshit, then we can talk about who the simpletons are.
 
Listen, shitwit.

You said,

because I called you out on this garbage,

This has been proved wrong ITT repeatedly by me and others and you choose to persist in this idiotic claim anyway. So yeah, you have no clue. If you find one and you can demonstrate an understanding of the scientific method, as opposed to this bullshit, then we can talk about who the simpletons are.
The "scientific method" in this instance is just making shit up as you go along. Do you honestly believe that there is a valid "scientific method" for figuring out the origins of the fucking universe? Like, are you waiting for a concrete answer on this? If so, you're gonna be waiting until you're dead. This isn't like trying to figure out an origin of a bacteria, LOL.
 
Listen, shitwit. If you want to see a counter-argument for everything you've said, just read my posts ITT.

You said,

because I called you out on this garbage,

This has been proved wrong ITT repeatedly by me and others and you choose to persist in this idiotic claim anyway. So yeah, you have no clue. If you find one and you can demonstrate an understanding of the scientific method, as opposed to this bullshit, then we can talk about who the simpletons are.
LOL @ "called me out" by just typing "you don't know what you're talking about"... damn, what a profound argument.

You or some other war room meathead disagreeing with a claim is a long way from anything being "proven" lol.

Also, I didn't read every single post on this 25 page topic, just the ones that replied to me, so if you got some kind of "proof" then lets have it.

My claim is solid, the secular atheist has zero evidence that there isn't a creator, ZERO EVIDENCE, so when they ridicule the idea from some perceived high ground they're just being hypocrites and clinging on to their own beliefs which are grounded in nothing more than their own opinion.

Scientific method works for many things, but science is completely clueless when it comes to the origins of life and the universe, they're just guessing and no one has any idea, and anyone claiming otherwise is full of shit.

d044b222-115e-4f62-bc61-795b9e9855bb_text.gif
 
You might find this interesting:

Is evolution a conscious choice and not a random effect?

Evolution (life-sustaining mutations) derives as a direct response to a traumatic environmental crisis.

From Bruce Lipton's Spontaneous Evolution, pages 241-244

Because evolution appeared to be driven solely by mutations, science concluded that randomly driven evolution has no purpose. The idea fit well with scientific materialism's belief in a purely materialistic Universe and helped shift the focus from intentional creation to merely a "throw of genetic dice." A human being is just another [of] the "accidental tourists" who materialized in the biosphere through random acts of heredity.

However, in 1988, internationally prominent geneticist John Cairns challenged science's established belief in random evolution. Cairns' novel research on bacteria, facetiously titled, "The origin of mutants," was published in the prestigious British Journal of Nature.

He chose bacteria with a crippled gene that made a defective version of the enzyme lactase needed to digest lactose, a sugar present in milk. He then inoculated these lactase-deficient bacteria into cultures in which the only nutrient was lactose. Unable to metabolize this nutrient, the bacteria could neither grow nor reproduce, so no colonies were expected to appear in any of the experiments. Yet, surprisingly, a large number of cultures expressed growth of bacterial colonies.

Sampling the bacteria he started with Cairns found that mutated forms did not exist in the original inoculum. Consequently, he concluded that lactase gene mutations followed, not preceded, their exposure to the new environment. Unlike the experiments of Luria and Delbruck, which relied on viruses killing the bacteria almost instantly, Cairns's experiment starved bacteria slowly. In other words, Cairns gave the stressed bacteria sufficient time to engage and activate innate mutation-producing mechanisms in order to survive.

In Carns's study, life-sustaining mutations appeared to derive as a direct response to a traumatic environmental crisis. Interestingly, further assays revealed that only the genes associated with lactose metabolism were affected. In addition, out of the five possible different mutation mechanisms, all of the surviving bacteria expressed the exact same type of mutation. Clearly, the results do not support the assumption of totally random mutations.

Cairns referred to this newly discovered mechanism as directed mutation. But the very idea that environmental stimuli could feed back into an organism and direct a rewriting of genetic information was an abomination to the central dogma, and the response from conventional science was swift and hostile....

Other the next decade, other researchers replicated Carns's results, which should have increased the credibility of his work. However, the scientific community still considered his notion to be shocking and unacceptable.

I've never heard the argument that evolution is just random before.

I don't think that's a serious argument anyone's actually making.

Adapt to survive is literally the entire basis of Darwinism.

Such a bizarre piece.
 
Again, you keep invoking religion, and I'm not talking about any specific religion right now, I'm simply talking about the possibility of a creator.

If you're truly agnostic then you will acknowledge that it's no more plausible that everything just came from nothing for no reason, than that there is a creator and a purpose.

Science may give you the answers to a lot of question, but no one has any clue how life began, or how the universe came into existence.
I keep invoking religion because that was what the original post you quoted was about. Keep up here. The whole point was fundamentalists Christians are the ones who try to discredit science and in turn because science is "wrong," Christianity is right? You're really not understanding the point here or being intentionally obtuse.
 
If you go with an explanation that tries to argue in favor of the Big Bang, then the question remains, where did that energy come from? In physics, there has never been a documented case of something appearing from nothing. No matter how far back you go, there has to be a point of creation somewhere.

The point is, that we don't have the answers. Many cultures and peoples have tried to figure this out and came up with their own theories, but it's all still very much unexplained. A belief in a creator isn't the craziest thing.

The big bang does not imply something came from nothing in any way. It’s only the event horizon of our human observational limits but our inability to observe what happened before it doesn’t in any way imply there was nothing before it.

Random quantum level changes within the singularity could have changed the properties of it and caused it to rapidly expand. That’s not energy out of nowhere.
 
Last edited:
I keep invoking religion because that was what the original post you quoted was about. Keep up here. The whole point was fundamentalists Christians are the ones who try to discredit science and in turn because science is "wrong," Christianity is right? You're really not understanding the point here or being intentionally obtuse.
I'm not arguing for whatever some random fundamental Christian believes. You are arguing against my point so it's you who needs to keep up and address what I'm actually saying rather than using strawman tactics and "what about fundamentalist Christians"... this thread is about big bang theory vs creator of universe, and my point is that there is no proof one way of the other, so if you missed that I think you're the one being intentionally obtuse.
 
Right, but you highlight your own double standard- in one instance you demand proof, in the other you rationalize that you don't need to because it's theological. When you cross the line into supernatural beliefs that require zero evidence, you don't get to put that on an even logical plane with a situation that actually requires evidence.

I didn't demand anything; I answered a question of where God got power to create - from a theological perspective.

I don't care if you accept the Big Bang, Big Crunch, Cyclical, String, Simulation Theory, or Creationism. I'm not asking for your evidence - none can be proven.
 
The big bang does not imply something came from nothing in any way. It’s only the event horizon of our human observational limits but our inability to observe what happened before it doesn’t in any way imply there was nothing before it.

Random quantum level changes within the singularity could have changed the properties of it and caused it to rapidly expand. That’s not energy out of nowhere.

The singularity isn't technically nothing, but it isn't our vast universe.
 
I'm not arguing for whatever some random fundamental Christian believes. You are arguing against my point so it's you who needs to keep up and address what I'm actually saying rather than using strawman tactics and "what about fundamentalist Christians"... this thread is about big bang theory vs creator of universe, and my point is that there is no proof one way of the other, so if you missed that I think you're the one being intentionally obtuse.
And I did not originally question the Christian mythology.

Again. My original point was Christians try to suppress science and in turn come to the conclusion that Christian mythology is correct. Full stop. In no way did I initially question which story of the beginning of the universe is correct. Where you got I was advocating one or the other is in your own head.
 
A "study" on the origins of the 900 gajillion trilliion year old friggin' universe, is worth no more or less, than a religious person's beliefs.

Liberals and their appeals to authority never cease to amaze. Some smart "science" people have a theory about the creation of the entire universe, that is completely unprovable and is just a bunch of guess work. Must lend credibility to it, because they're so smart and they have a fancy title.

Lots of "old ass" science books out there were wrong about a whole host of subjects, too. Not even big universe creation theory shit, either. Just basic shit. How were they wrong? They were scientists after all.
The difference is with science, they perpetually try to do whatever is possible to gain and confirm information. That is why scientists consider old ass science books outdated.

Please show me a Christian who will say the Bible is outdated. Talk about any appeal to authority.
 
The difference is with science, they perpetually try to do whatever is possible to gain and confirm information. That is why scientists consider old ass science books outdated.
It's also why you shouldn't be devout to their learnings.
Please show me a Christian who will say the Bible is outdated. Talk about any appeal to authority.
Didn't Christians re-write their Bible because of that? You do know that there is more than one version, right?

Anyways, you don't know any more than anyone else on this matter, no matter who you give more credence to.
 
It's also why you shouldn't be devout to their learnings.

Didn't Christians re-write their Bible because of that? You do know that there is more than one version, right?

Anyways, you don't know any more than anyone else on this matter, no matter who you give more credence to.
I'm not devout to any theory. When more information is available my view will change. And I never said I knew more than others, but I will put more credence on information provided by those who go through the proper observation processes.

And the Bible has been translated and any changes were either due to mistranslations or whatever the oppressive theocracy at the moment felt was right. It hasn't been changed since astronomers were being executed by the church. And if you are a Jew, the ones who created the mythology of the start of the universe, the Torah can't be changed as it is infallible.
 
I'm not devout to any theory. When more information is available my view will change. And I never said I knew more than others, but I will put more credence on information provided by those who go through the proper observation processes.
I understand that way of thinking under most circumstances. We're talking about the creation of the Universe, though. Safe to say, they don't know shit. They can barely comprehend how the universe even works, but they have a theory on the creation of it...

Yeah, okay. Their observations are no more valid than anybody else's. We are completely and utterly ignorant on this subject, despite scientists pissing in the wind and taking a crack at it.
 
I understand that way of thinking under most circumstances. We're talking about the creation of the Universe, though. Safe to say, they don't know shit. They can barely comprehend how the universe even works, but they have a theory on the creation of it...

Yeah, okay. Their observations are no more valid than anybody else's. We are completely and utterly ignorant on this subject, despite scientists pissing in the wind and taking a crack at it.
And scientists do not claim to know everything.

Here's something you may not know. No scientist has claimed they know what happened before the big bang. The theories haven't gone beyond dinner table conversation and they will be the first to admit it. The irony is most scientists will be the first to admit what they don't know.

This whole argument to demonize even the attempts to learn more about the universe is mind boggling. It makes zero sense.
 
I didn't demand anything; I answered a question of where God got power to create - from a theological perspective.

I don't care if you accept the Big Bang, Big Crunch, Cyclical, String, Simulation Theory, or Creationism. I'm not asking for your evidence - none can be proven.
It wasn't a theological question if you read what I was writing in context; you responded to my post, remember? Obviously any mythology or supernaturally based belief system responds that the power is supernatural, that wasn't even under discussion; that would be a given.

I never said anything about what theory I accepted, so you basically created your own conversation here that had nothing to do with the discussion. Anyway, have a positive and engaging evening.
 
Back
Top