johnydon22:


Sarcasm bro, theory of gravity requires faith jump off a building and confirm - Don't worry its just a theory..

Lol. My mistake

raphieMontella:

aahhh ahhhn!
Of all people...na johnnydon22 you wan teach?

Lol. I get it now

jonbellion:
it's tiring honestly.
They argue about something they don't understand

Lol. ^^^

Do you say understand?

No, not understand, but rather, they argue against what they have not seen because you have seen Evolution.

Why understand? When, if it is about understanding, then, those with believe in creation understand what they also believe.

If it is not about seeing evolution, then the Creation issue was not seen just like evolution, we all are to be guided by our thinking ability. both are things unseen.

Faith is defined as believing in things not seen, but believing in it based on the reality.

Does the reality around us suggest every thing or anything came by chance?

truthislight:


What do you think you have succeeded in saying with all those grammar?

Did you or anyone of your sort witness "bigbag"?


Come here and tell me the one you have witnessed in evolution?

As a detective do I have to witness a crime before unraveling the perpetrators?
If I was in the bedroom room upstairs and I hear my door open and close, later came down to the parlor and saw my wife's handbag and shoes lying beside the door. I can definitively conclude that my wife was the person that came. Even though I didn't witness her coming in. That's the beauty of evidence.

truthislight:

Can you come here and tell me why your sort keep digging the ground hoping to uncover fossil evidence to support your conclusions?

You have a problem with that.? Why do we keep researching hoping to find cure for cancer, HIV etc. If you think our research and enquiry should be momentary then perhaps you wouldn't have been using Internet now. We will still be spending months in the sea traveling to other continent.

truthislight:

Is Evolution no longer called a theory?

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess.

Lennycool:

Billions of years ke?
Na there una fvck up
Because saying the earth is billions of years and not believe in evolution is crazy.
That would mean humans never changed since they were created. It would mean we've always been this intelligent. Yet that would be strange as we did nothing with this very high intellect, not until about a few thousand years ago.
Why?
How can that be?
This is why creationist need the early earth theory, the alternative is crazier.

Did you read his post be for jumping on your high horse?

He talked about the duration of the earth in Billions of years and not that of human existence.

Is that how you arrived at your beliefs?
learn to pay more attention to details.

Lennycool:

Information is only as good as its source. The truth is anyone interested enough can go to see this evidence.
But it requires money time and a lot of know how.
How else can you study the DNA structure of other animals.
Or the anthropological evidence
Or the geographical evidence
What we do is study the result of the findings, without seeing it.
Not to forget that evolution just makes sense.

You study without seeing you say? Yes, that is the argument nothing more. that boh has not been seen. Evolution and creation.

People also study creation and arrived at the conclusion that the complexities did not come by chance.

Both evolution and creation and BigBang have not been seen.

Why let your own unseen believe affects another person's unseen believe?

truthislight:


You study without seeing you say? Yes, that is the argument nothing more. that boh has not been seen. Evolution and creation.

People also study creation and arrived at the conclusion that the complexities did not come by chance.

Both evolution and creation and BigBang have not been seen.

Why let your own unseen believe affects another person's unseen believe?

Kindergarten postulations.

truthislight:


What do you think you have succeeded in saying with all those grammar?

Did you or anyone of your sort witness "bigbag"?

Come here and tell me the one you have witnessed in evolution.

Can you come here and tell me why your sort keep digging the ground hoping to uncover fossil evidence to support your conclusions?

Is Evolution no longer called a theory?

Come back and explain what all those grammar means and why you think you need to use them here and the purpose you think it would serve.

Come back.

Thank you.

Peace.

I have a class now, will reply you when I'm done.

Bandeco:

As a detective do I have to witness a crime before unraveling the perpetrators?
If I was in the bedroom room upstairs and I hear my door open and close, later came down to the parlor and saw my wife's handbag and shoes lying beside the door. I can definitively conclude that my wife was the person that came. Even though I didn't witness her coming in. That's the beauty of evidence.


You have a problem with that.? Why do we keep researching hoping to find cure for cancer, HIV etc. If you think our research and enquiry should be momentary then perhaps you wouldn't have been using Internet now. We will still be spending months in the sea traveling to other continent.



The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess.

Your example of evolution and gravity are unrelated.

Gravity is here with us but Evolution/BigBang is not here with us. Hence, your beliefs in evolution does not give you the liberty of constant experimentation like in gravity simply because you didn't and have not seen it or witness it.

The not seeing is the criticality of this discussion and the thread.

For my mentioning of fossils, that is me reminding you that evolution was postulated without seeing nor evidence hence the effort ongoing to gather evidence via fossils.

So, both stance are believe in what we have not seen. John1:18.

But the reality around us, using our thinking faculty does not suggest that things Come about by chance.

Bandeco:

Kindergarten postulations.

Is the above the argument that brought You here? Is that all the argument you brought to the table?

Ok, well then, we now know how your mind works.


Peace.

truthislight:


You study without seeing you say? Yes, that is the argument nothing more. that boh has not been seen. Evolution and creation.

People also study creation and arrived at the conclusion that the complexities did not come by chance.

Both evolution and creation and BigBang have not been seen.

Why let your own unseen believe affects another person's unseen believe?

Just because something hasn't been seen doesn't mean it requires faith. Evidence isn't just in seeing alone as even the eye can be deceived.
We can't see gravity but it exist, because all evidence points to it.
You can say I have faith in the scientific process that establishes things as facts.
But as long as there is evidence for evolution it's belief cannot be by faith. If something has evidence then it doesn't require faith.
Biblical Creation has zero evidence supporting it, so it requires faith.

If you diligently study evolution, you will really observe that it takes greater faith to believe in it than creation. why?
there are no concrete evidences supporting it, even scientists do not agree on the 'facts' they have. Given the level of advancement in science, there should have been at least micro replication of the process of evolution. But no, no scientist has been able to 'cause' any kind of life to evolve into another.

One outstanding quality of science is the ability to replicate a process. If evolutionists cannot 'create' the necessary conditions required for evolution after all their efforts, then whoever still believes in it is only exercising faith.

Lennycool:

Just because something hasn't been seen doesn't mean it requires faith. Evidence isn't just in seeing alone as even the eye can be deceived.
We can't see gravity but it exist, because all evidence points to it.
You can say I have faith in the scientific process that establishes things as facts.
But as long as there is evidence for evolution it's belief cannot be by faith. If something has evidence then it doesn't require faith.
Biblical Creation has zero evidence supporting it, so it requires faith.

in the contrary, evolution has vague evidence while creation has factual evidence.
Now think, for evolution to have occurred, there are certain conditions that must have been present. How did those conditions come about? For creation, we believe that intellectually handicapped persons like your grand parents in the village cannot write 'intelligent' computer program. The more complex a gadget appear is as a result of the ingenuity of the maker. If making iphone7 requires more intelligence than making Techno m3, then it is highly illogical to assume that very complex living things came about by mere chance. Can you show me any complex structure in your neighborhood that is not a product of intelligent design?

uncleck:
in the contrary, evolution has vague evidence while creation has factual evidence.
Now think, for evolution to have occurred, there are certain conditions that must have been present. How did those conditions come about? For creation, we believe that intellectually handicapped persons like your grand parents in the village cannot write 'intelligent' computer program. The more complex a gadget appear is as a result of the ingenuity of the maker. If making iphone7 requires more intelligence than making Techno m3, then it is highly illogical to assume that very complex living things came about by mere chance. Can you show me any complex structure in your neighborhood that is not a product of intelligent design?

First of all, providing a Not fully understood process as proof of a creator is a bad point to make.
In the past rains and earthquakes were attributed to God but now we understand them as we will one day fully understand the DNA. But for a starter RNA which is similar to DNA can self assemble from RNA molecules.
And complex structures can come about by chance, it happens a lot, billions of times a minute actually.
Snow flakes form in pure chaotic conditions. Produced by falling snow and wind and temperature difference.
Yet they look intricately designed in fact its so hard to make a snow flake that scientist have to use expensive and cutting edge technology to make even a few of them. Below are pictures of natural snowflakes

uncleck:
If you diligently study evolution, you will really observe that it takes greater faith to believe in it than creation. why?
there are no concrete evidences supporting it, even scientists do not agree on the 'facts' they have. Given the level of advancement in science, there should have been at least micro replication of the process of evolution. But no, no scientist has been able to 'cause' any kind of life to evolve into another.

One outstanding quality of science is the ability to replicate a process. If evolutionists cannot 'create' the necessary conditions required for evolution after all their efforts, then whoever still believes in it is only exercising faith.

What are you even saying, do you know that evolution is evident in humans today.
More humans are born with the ability to digest milk a feature much rarer a few thousand years ago.
Less humans are born with the wisdom tooth, its hardly needed.
We've even observed evolution of a new species in american fruit flies.
Not to mention the archeological evidence of early humans and even animals.

The most prominent is our DNA similarity with other living things, further proof of a common ancestor.
Humans share 99℅ of our DNA with chimps.

Evolution is supported by every branch of science, creationism will only be found in religious gatherings

truthislight:


Your example of evolution and gravity are unrelated.

You missed it. I am not sure if the argument is whether gravity is related to evolution or not.

Seems you misread that section.. You posited that evolution is just a theory. I was just explaining what a theory is within the definition of science bringing the theory of gravity as an example. Theory of gravity doesn't makes it a guess. It is real.. Theory is a scientific explanation base on real life phenomenon, facts, observations which can never be proven false. Just like the Heliocentric theory(the theory that the sun is the center of the solar system and the earth revolves around it.). This is a fact and it has become a theory because it has been fully explain and No one will be able to disprove that

Perhaps you should research what a theory means in the context of science

truthislight:

Gravity is here with us but Evolution/BigBang is not here with us.

Wrong wrong. Evolution is here. Your DNA on relations to the DNA of other species points to evolution.
Vestigial characteristics and organs within your body points to evolution. Bacteria evolves to possess resistance to some of our antibiotics that hitherto annihilate them. . This is natural selection for you.

you don't see how the earth revolves around the sun but you agree with the theory....Why Then do you have aversion for evolution?

truthislight:

your beliefs in evolution does not give you the liberty of constant experimentation like in gravity simply because you didn't and have not seen it or witness it.

Wonderful. .. So unless something is directly observed it cannot be revealed to be true. Do you see that the earth is spherical and rotates? Science is there to explain natural phenomenon by observable evidence. This was the attempt of religion which led our ancestors to conjure up gods in their primitive view of our world and our place in it.

truthislight:

The not seeing is the criticality of this discussion and the thread.

This is a lame argument.

truthislight:

For my mentioning of fossils, that is me reminding you that evolution was postulated without seeing nor evidence hence the effort ongoing to gather evidence via fossils.

And you still don't see the pile of evidence today for evolution? You don't see evidence when some section of christendom have come to embrace the facts of evolution but still maintained that God was behind it. An example is the bishop of Canterbury and the church of England. There are more than enough fossil records gather over the years already supports evolution.

And who told you fossils are the only evidence for evolution. There are also DNA similarity among species , vestigial characteristics, similarity of embryos etc

truthislight:

So, both stance are believe in what we have not seen. John1:18.

But the reality around us, using our thinking faculty does not suggest that things Come about by chance.

Wrong. Evidence for evolution overwhelmingly compelling its almost unanimously regarded as a fact. It will do u good and your god good if u take out time to research on evolution. Science just tells you what is true. It doesn't seek to disprove religion. Perhaps if you have any evidence to disprove evolution bring forth and win yourself a noble prize. Because this will change the course of biological - science

Evidence on the other end(gods did it) is next to zero.

truthislight:


What do you think you have succeeded in saying with all those grammar?

Did you or anyone of your sort witness "bigbag"?

Come here and tell me the one you have witnessed in evolution.

Can you come here and tell me why your sort keep digging the ground hoping to uncover fossil evidence to support your conclusions?

Is Evolution no longer called a theory?

Come back and explain what all those grammar means and why you think you need to use them here and the purpose you think it would serve.

Come back.

Thank you.

Peace.

I'm back. Ignorance is a disease, if you're old enough to use the Internet then you should be old enough to read. The Big Bang was first propounded by a catholic priest, "my kind" has nothing to do with the big bang. And it's a shame you don't know that even theists accept the big bang and the theory of evolution. Accepting science has nothing to do with atheism/theism...there's nothing wrong with accepting the TOE and/or The Big Bang and still believe in a deity.
And on a personal note, please work on your low self-esteem. Those are not big grammar, they are basic fallacies in Philosophy.

Lennycool:

Just because something hasn't been seen doesn't mean it requires faith. Evidence isn't just in seeing alone as even the eye can be deceived.
We can't see gravity but it exist, because all evidence points to it.
You can say I have faith in the scientific process that establishes things as facts.
But as long as there is evidence for evolution it's belief cannot be by faith. If something has evidence then it doesn't require faith.
Biblical Creation has zero evidence supporting it, so it requires faith.

"Evidence" for evolution? SMH.
No need to comment on the above, I will let you be in that wallowing.

As for not seeing gravity but believing, it is not same since gravity is still here and now.

BigBang? is it still ongoing like gravity? Nope!

You actually need a supper bigger faith to believe in BigBang of Billions and billions of years.

I sure don't have a faith as large as yours to believe in BigBang of Billions of Billions of years.

^^^^
Care to show us evidence for BigBang?

truthislight:


"Evidence" for evolution? SMH.
No need to comment on the above, I will let you be in that wallowing.

As for not seeing gravity but believing, it is not same since gravity is still here and now.

BigBang? is it still ongoing like gravity? Nope!

You actually need a supper bigger faith to believe in BigBang of Billions and billions of years.

I sure don't have a faith as large as yours to believe in BigBang of Billions of Billions of years.

So you think evolution has stopped?
Well it hasn't, read more on evolution, as I won't comment further.

truthislight:
^^^^

Care to show us evidence for BigBang?

I'm quite sure you would be incapable of grasping the physics involved.
So I'll ask you to read on it.

Bandeco:

You missed it. I am not sure if the argument is whether gravity is related to evolution or not.

Seems you misread that section.. You posited that evolution is just a theory. I was just explaining what a theory is within the definition of science bringing the theory of gravity as an example. Theory of gravity doesn't makes it a guess. It is real.. Theory is a scientific explanation base on real life phenomenon, facts, observations which can never be proven false. Just like the Heliocentric theory(the theory that the sun is the center of the solar system and the earth revolves around it.). This is a fact and it has become a theory because it has been fully explain and No one will be able to disprove that

Perhaps you should research what a theory means in the context of science


Wrong wrong. Evolution is here. Your DNA on relations to the DNA of other species points to evolution.
Vestigial characteristics and organs within your body points to evolution. Bacteria evolves to possess resistance to some of our antibiotics that hitherto annihilate them. . This is natural selection for you.

you don't see how the earth revolves around the sun but you agree with the theory....Why Then do you have aversion for evolution?


Wonderful. .. So unless something is directly observed it cannot be revealed to be true. Do you see that the earth is spherical and rotates? Science is there to explain natural phenomenon by observable evidence. This was the attempt of religion which led our ancestors to conjure up gods in their primitive view of our world and our place in it.


This is a lame argument.


And you still don't see the pile of evidence today for evolution? You don't see evidence when some section of christendom have come to embrace the facts of evolution but still maintained that God was behind it. An example is the bishop of Canterbury and the church of England. There are more than enough fossil records gather over the years already supports evolution.

And who told you fossils are the only evidence for evolution. There are also DNA similarity among species , vestigial characteristics, similarity of embryos etc


Wrong. Evidence for evolution overwhelmingly compelling its almost unanimously regarded as a fact. It will do u good and your god good if u take out time to research on evolution. Science just tells you what is true. It doesn't seek to disprove religion. Perhaps if you have any evidence to disprove evolution bring forth and win yourself a noble prize. Because this will change the course of biological - science

Evidence on the other end(gods did it) is next to zero.

Those things you picked out as evidence for evolution, things like DNA etc, aren't those lame? I mean, those are fixtures that makes us different one from the other.

if you pick DNA as evidence for evolution, are you then insinuating that drivers races of mankind, better still different persons evolved individually since they have differences in their DNA?

Such sort of evidence is similar to taking the varieties in human faces and looks to justify evolution of man. That will be awkward would it not?

I am not towing a line just because Christian Dom does so. I have a mind of my own.

BigBang happened according to your, Billions of years ago, BigBang is not here and now. Gravity is ongoing here and now with humans present, hence, gravity can be studied, a factor that is impossible in BigBang, hence, a believe in BigBang is but a conjecture. A believe in BigBang is a gigantic act of faith.

You seem at ease discussing other notion of evolution except BigBang, well, think of the OP analogy in relation to BigBang and creation of things, they both happened in the absence of human according to it adherents.

MrMarvelous:

I'm back. Ignorance is a disease, if you're old enough to use the Internet then you should be old enough to read. The Big Bang was first propounded by a catholic priest, "my kind" has nothing to do with the big bang. And it's a shame you don't know that even theists accept the big bang and the theory of evolution. Accepting science has nothing to do with atheism/theism...there's nothing wrong with accepting the TOE and/or The Big Bang and still believe in a deity.
And on a personal note, please work on your low self-esteem. Those are not big grammar, they are basic fallacies in Philosophy.

Lol.

I guess as much.

The inability to patiently Marshall out ones points lead most to bamboozled with High sounding words to conceal and or cover an apparent inadequacies. Some with the intention to intimidate.

Keep indulging.

What has the question if you saw BigBang to do with all you posted?

What has it to do with whether it is an atheistic or theist world view?

SMH.

Lennycool:

Information is only as good as its source. The truth is anyone interested enough can go to see this evidence.
But it requires money time and a lot of know how.
How else can you study the DNA structure of other animals.
Or the anthropological evidence
Or the geographical evidence
What we do is study the result of the findings, without seeing it.
Not to forget that evolution just makes sense.

Well it makes no sense to me

truthislight:


Those things you picked out as evidence for evolution, things like DNA etc, aren't those lame? I mean, those are fixtures that makes us different one from the other.

For evolution to occur there must be individual variation. DNA shows all human beings evolved differently. Even Darwin postulate(way before discovery of DNA) individual must varie for evolution to occur by natural selection. So DNA is in favour of evolution not against it.

You know what? DNA is way more than individual variations. If you examine the DNA of all species, you will see that we all related. It is just like a family tree with branches. Our closest living relative are the chimpanzee base on the similarity (98.4pc) of our DNA to theirs . In fact the chimps are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas and monkeys. This shows living things evolved and diversify from a common ancestor

truthislight:

if you pick DNA as evidence for evolution, are you then insinuating that drivers races of mankind, better still different persons evolved individually since they have differences in their DNA?

Exactly. We evolved differently. Way before the discovery of DNA, Darwin postulated that there must be individual variation for evolution to occur by means of natural selection.

truthislight:

Such sort of evidence is similar to taking the varieties in human faces and looks to justify evolution of man. That will be awkward would it not?

It wouldnt. Our physical differences can be explained by way of adaptation base on the environment. Humans as we all know originated from Africa. It was when early homo sapiens left to Europe that their gene mutilated for white skin to adapt to their environment.

truthislight:

I am not towing a line just because Christian Dom does so. I have a mind of my own.

You have a mind of your own. Use it to see the evidence. Believing a god did ity doesn't show a good sense of rational mind.

truthislight:

BigBang happened according to your, Billions of years ago, BigBang is not here and now. Gravity is ongoing here and now with humans present, hence, gravity can be studied, a factor that is impossible in BigBang, hence, a believe in BigBang is but a conjecture. A believe in BigBang is a gigantic act of faith.

You seem at ease discussing other notion of evolution except BigBang, well, think of the OP analogy in relation to BigBang and creation of things, they both happened in the absence of human according to it adherents.

Big bang is just an hypothesis in trying to explain the origin of the universe. We don't have a definitive conclusion on the veracity of BigBang. This does not mean we won't in future. The unknowns of yesterday have become the knowns of today. The unknown of today will surely be the knowns of tomorrow. folding our arms and say oh we shouldnt investigate because a book said a god did it will be a ludicrous position. Science does not operate that way. Because if it does, all advancement humanity has made so far would have been a mirage.

Big bang is (origin of the universe ), evolution is (origin of species). Two different phenomena . One has become almost conclusively factual, the other(bigbang) is still under serious investigation. So I don't understand what you meant by saying " I seem to discuss other notion of evolution except big bang" . I wonder when big bang has a become a" notion" of evolution

truthislight:
^^^^

Care to show us evidence for BigBang?

Nawa for you oo mr man
Lemme just simplify it
-the universe is expanding which means it started at a point
-the Cosmic Microwave background- the thermal radiation left from the really expansion of the universe
The CMB is scattered all over the universe
-Red shift of light
-the abundance of elements in the universe as predicted by the theory
PS: The big bang is NOT an explosion
You can read more if you want to know
If you still don't understand after that then go and purchase the big bang theory series and listen to the theme song

Bandeco:

For evolution to occur there must be individual variation. DNA shows all human beings evolved differently. Even Darwin postulate(way before discovery of DNA) individual must varie for evolution to occur by natural selection. So DNA is in favour of evolution not against it.

You know what? DNA is way more than individual variations. If you examine the DNA of all species, you will see that we all related. It is just like a family tree with branches. Our closest living relative are the chimpanzee base on the similarity (98.4pc) of our DNA to theirs . In fact the chimps are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas and monkeys. This shows living things evolved and diversify from a common ancestor


Exactly. We evolved differently. Way before the discovery of DNA, Darwin postulated that there must be individual variation for evolution to occur by means of natural selection.


It wouldnt. Our physical differences can be explained by way of adaptation base on the environment. Humans as we all know originated from Africa. It was when early homo sapiens left to Europe that their gene mutilated for white skin to adapt to their environment.


You have a mind of your own. Use it to see the evidence. Believing a god did ity doesn't show a good sense of rational mind.



Big bang is just an hypothesis in trying to explain the origin of the universe. We don't have a definitive conclusion on the veracity of BigBang. This does not mean we won't in future. The unknowns of yesterday have become the knowns of today. The unknown of today will surely be the knowns of tomorrow. folding our arms and say oh we shouldnt investigate because a book said a god did it will be a ludicrous position. Science does not operate that way. Because if it does, all advancement humanity has made so far would have been a mirage.

Big bang is (origin of the universe ), evolution is (origin of species). Two different phenomena . One has become almost conclusively factual, the other(bigbang) is still under serious investigation. So I don't understand what you meant by saying " I seem to discuss other notion of evolution except big bang" . I wonder when big bang has a become a" notion" of evolution

Looks like grasping at anything to me.

If DNA support evolution, what do we say of hereditary and family lineage?

Next, it will be finger print supporting evolution.

Peace

jonbellion:
Nawa for you oo mr man
Lemme just simplify it
-the universe is expanding which means it started at a point
-the Cosmic Microwave background- the thermal radiation left from the really expansion of the universe
The CMB is scattered all over the universe
-Red shift of light
-the abundance of elements in the universe as predicted by the theory
PS: The big bang is NOT an explosion
You can read more if you want to know
If you still don't understand after that then go and purchase the big bang theory series and listen to the theme song

I did not ask for an explanation for BigBang, I simply asked if he saw BigBang.

See how you saw an opportunity to show how intelligent you are and you pounds on it thereby missing the whole essence of the question.

That actually demanded for a modest answer, but see you go.

Well, try again:

Did you witness BigBang? Lol.

Watch him go.

"Faith is the assured expectation of things hopec for, the evident demonstration of realities , though not beheld."(Heb11:1). Faith is the believe in something you have not seen.

No one has witnessed evolution, no one witnessed God creating the earth.Even those who believe in hell fire are yet to see one. No matter what you believe, there must be a measure of faith.

On the other hand, the Bible and creation provides convincing evidence that there is a Creator, contrary to evolution which is yet to prove how life evolved.

truthislight:


I did not ask for an explanation for BigBang, I simply asked if he saw BigBang.

See how you saw an opportunity to show how intelligent you are and you pounds on it thereby missing the whole essence of the question.

That actually demanded for a modest answer, but see you go.

Well, try again:

Did you witness BigBang? Lol.

Watch him go.

lol whaaa
You asked for evidence
No I did not witness it

truthislight:


Lol.

I guess as much.

The inability to patiently Marshall out ones points lead most to bamboozled with High sounding words to conceal and or cover an apparent inadequacies. Some with the intention to intimidate.

Keep indulging.

What has the question if you saw BigBang to do with all you posted?

What has it to do with whether it is an atheistic or theist world view?

SMH.

Because you somehow believe atheism has anything to do with the big bang and TOE...it doesn't. I have corrected that erroneous position. If you have a problem with science, take it up with science...don't embarrass your deity by dragging it into science. That's a war you'll lose. My work here is done.

jonbellion:
lol whaaa You asked for evidence No I did not witness it

OK, thank you.