Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
But it is your claim that there is a different model that is also predicts cosmic microwave background radiation and red-shifted distant galaxies, yet does not predict something similar to a Big Bang. What is that model?

Cosmic microwave background radiation and red-shifted galaxies are observations, not "points" to be "proven."

The extrapolations I have issues with, not the observations, we can observe many things
and get the wrong impressions on what is going on. You want to suggest that this shows
billions of years dating back to a single event, the Big Bang. We cannot test this to be
proven wrong so what is this, something that has to be taken on faith? Doubtless there
are countless assumptions, just no way to prove them false, it isn't like we can check out
an event billions of years ago.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
The extrapolations I have issues with, not the observations, we can observe many things
and get the wrong impressions on what is going on. You want to suggest that this shows
billions of years dating back to a single event, the Big Bang. We cannot test this to be
proven wrong so what is this, something that has to be taken on faith? Doubtless there
are ...[text shortened]... just no way to prove them false, it isn't like we can check out
an event billions of years ago.

What is the correct interpretation of cosmic microwave background radiation and the red-shift of distant galaxies?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you think the theory of evolution proves that God is not a necessary agent in explaining the origin of our species?

We know that humans evolved from simple lifeforms on Earth. That doesn't say anything about supernatural deities, although it is inconsistent with a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation myth.

Kazetnagorra: That's fine - just stop pretending your objection to the Big Bang is anything other than a religious one.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
My objection doesn't have anything to with religion when it is being pushed as the answer to where everything came from, it doesn't answer that even if you accept everything about it.

If your religion required you to accept and believe the same things as Kazetnagorra, do you think you would be able to choose to believe them despite not finding them credible?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
What is the correct interpretation of cosmic microwave background radiation and the red-shift of distant galaxies?

As I told you before, it isn't up to me to present to you the correct interpretation for them,
if you want to show me how these are being correctly described do so. If you believe there
is only one explanation for them, explain it if you desire, or don't if you don't want to.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
We know that humans evolved from simple lifeforms on Earth. That doesn't say anything about supernatural deities, although it is inconsistent with a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation myth.

You don’t know that humans evolved from simple life forms on earth. That is something you imagine not something you can directly observe.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You don’t know that humans evolved from simple life forms on earth. That is something you imagine not something you can directly observe.

You don’t know that God created everything. That is something you imagine not something you can directly observe.

(In contrast, evolution can, and has been, clearly evidenced).

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
You don’t know that God created everything. That is something you imagine not something you can directly observe.

(In contrast, evolution can, and has been, clearly evidenced).

Evidenced doesn’t mean validated as true, I can say the evidence supports my views on evolution as well, and in my opinion it supports my views. So should everyone now just accept my views on eveything, I think not.

In a trial or debate the evidence is debatable as far as what it means if it is viewed as relavant.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
As I told you before, it isn't up to me to present to you the correct interpretation for them,
if you want to show me how these are being correctly described do so. If you believe there
is only one explanation for them, explain it if you desire, or don't if you don't want to.

You are saying the interpretation of cosmologists is incorrect. It is up to you to substantiate that claim.

Or just admit that you don't know enough about the topic to meaningfully comment and you just don't like the conclusions of cosmologists because of religious objections.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You don’t know that humans evolved from simple life forms on earth. That is something you imagine not something you can directly observe.

On the contrary, there is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence supporting it.

To enlighten yourself, I suggest you start reading and learning about the theory of evolution, the evidence supporting it, and the study of human evolution in particular.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
On the contrary, there is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence supporting it.

To enlighten yourself, I suggest you start reading and learning about the theory of evolution, the evidence supporting it, and the study of human evolution in particular.

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe sometime it will dawn on you.

None of the evidence negates the possibility of a creator.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
You are saying the interpretation of cosmologists is incorrect. It is up to you to substantiate that claim.

Or just admit that you don't know enough about the topic to meaningfully comment and you just don't like the conclusions of cosmologists because of religious objections.

Is there a single interpretation that everyone of buys off on? They are all lock stepping on everything said under one point of view? Not one is in that field has another point of view?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
On the contrary, there is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence supporting it.

To enlighten yourself, I suggest you start reading and learning about the theory of evolution, the evidence supporting it, and the study of human evolution in particular.

Better said those that hold to that theory have enough they have stopped looking at it critically.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Is there a single interpretation that everyone of buys off on? They are all lock stepping on everything said under one point of view? Not one is in that field has another point of view?

Do these questions apply ~ in your mind ~ to the adherence to various religions around the world?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Is there a single interpretation that everyone of buys off on? They are all lock stepping on everything said under one point of view? Not one is in that field has another point of view?

The evidence in favour of the Big Bang is overwhelmingly strong; I am not aware of any cosmologist rejecting it. It would be like a surgeon denying the existence of the liver.