Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith

[James R]

Kermos:

You are very confused about debate, James R...

You're very confused about which of the two of us is confused.

... in that you failed to falsify the The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319 paper by Burbidge et al which I provided to you way back on 1/27/26 in post #699.

Wrong. See post #1063, above.

Red-shift is a non-thing according to the Burbidge et al paper's team...

Please quote the part of the paper in which Burbidge and his co-authors say that "Red-shift is a non-thing".

I don't believe the paper contains any such claim. I think you're just making shit up.

The biggest question is why would you, a scientist, weirdly claim the Trinchieri et al 2003 paper falsifies the Burbidge et al 2005 paper when the latter incorporates data from the former!

At the time, back in the early 2000s, there was some ongoing contest of ideas over the possibility of "tired light" and such - an idea that was apparently being pushed by Arp and Burbidge and some others.

Given that Arp, in particular, wanted to push his barrow hard on that idea, perhaps he just decided to mostly ignore the Trinchieri paper from 2003. But this is speculation. If you have better information, I'm all ears.

You conveyed that the Trinchieri paper falsifies the Burbidge paper.

I don't think so. I did say that the Trinchieri paper was a significant contribution to the particular debate that was happening at that time.

Of course, now - in 2026 - the issue has been soundly resolved in Trinchieri's favour. The "tired light" hypothesis is mostly dead, and the astrophysics community accepts that the Arp/Burbidge hypothesis has been definitively refuted in the particular case of the galaxies and AGN in Stephan's Quintet.

You unscientifically discard the scientifically documented Burbidge et al paper of the American Astronomical Society's The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 620, Number 1.

Don't tell lies. I did not "discard" that paper. I discussed it and informed you about the modern scientific consensus that the hypothesis put forward by Burbidge and Arp in that paper is wrong. I also told you about more modern measurements that prove this beyond reasonable doubt.

You have a very high opinion of yourself, James R.

I'm very confident that my level of expertise on this particular topic is leaps and bounds ahead of yours. Rather than whining, you'd do better to show some humility and accept that you were wrong. Doubling and tripling down on your previous errors isn't working.

The Burbidge et al paper remains applicable to this debate, and the paper dislodges your red-shift into merely red-spectral.

That particular claim has been refuted by extensive modern data, which you choose to ignore for dogmatic religious reasons. I can't help you with that. You'll need to open your mind if you ever want to escape from your religious mental prison.

I told you before, my belief about such matters not, and I use your "science" against you.

I agree that your beliefs matter not. They are completely irrelevant to the science.

Why haven't you produced a paper that falsifies the Burbidge et al paper?

I already told you. See post #1063, above.

Catch up, Kermos, you old slow coach you!

For you, red light is not red light.

Don't tell lies, Kermos.

That is essentially what you wrote with your 'my claim that red-shift is not "red-spectral" remains unfalsified unless and until you can produce a paper that says otherwise'.

Red shifted light is not the same thing as red light, Kermos.

By this stage in the conversation, you probably should have done at least a google search to learn about what red-shift is, don't you think?

Instead, you just keep saying idiotically stupid things, apparently from a personal knowledge vacuum.

I will happily explain the basics of red shift to you if you ask me nicely. Also maybe give you a primer on what a light spectrum is, since it seems you don't know that either.

BTW, red light is red light, so the essence of your writing is a lie.

Bizarre.

I'm leaving such a base lie as 'my claim that red-shift is not "red-spectral"' for posterity. That's a lulu, James R.

What is a "lulu"?

Is your 'my claim that red-shift is not "red-spectral"' published in an astronomy journal, James R?

Do your homework, Kermos. Get back to me once you've learned what a spectrum is and what red shift means, in reference to a spectrum.

It is laughable that you are trying to discuss this stuff without being the least bit familiar with introductory physics, such as you could find in any introductory textbook on the subject.

 

[James R]

I know you misinterpreted the data as the Doppler effect in your experiment...

You don't know. And I didn't. Stop telling lies, Kermos.

The Big Bang is not scientific, so you are a practitioner of your evolution religion.

That doesn't follow at all. Please learn the basics of logic, Kermos.

Clearly, you're woefully unequipped to be attempting to have this discussion.

You fail to defend your faith in the Big Bang with scientific facts...

All I needed to do in this thread was to show that the big bang theory is not a leap of faith. My job here was done months ago.

Meanwhile, you're just floundering about, telling lies and blathering about stuff you don't understand. It's the best you can do, apparently.

• GARBAGE IN: sound wave Doppler effect exists which means light wave Doppler effect exists.

Do you agree that light and sound are both wave phenomena, Kermos? Yes or no?
Do you accept that the Doppler effect occurs for sound waves? Yes or no?
Now, in light of your answers to those questions, think about light waves.

Brain on. Think! I'm cheering you on. I think you can do it, if you try.

• GARBAGE OUT: light wave Doppler effect indicates the universe is expanding with an age of about 10 bn or 13.8 bn or 20 bn years old (post #695).

No. You're confusing the Doppler effect with cosmological red-shift, there.

(GIGO = garbage in, garbage out)

Indeed.

Try to educate yourself, rather than making pronouncements about topics you don't understand.

Light wave Doppler effect is evil sorcery.

Look! Kermos is afraid of science!

What a surprising thing to learn.

 

[James R]

You must try to stop telling lies, James R. It's something of a compulsive behaviour you have, it seems.

Polly wanna cracker?

Your opening paragraph of your post #957 was "It represents nothing of the sort" in response to me writing "3.5 K in 1964 down to 2.3 K in 1941, and that represents a 1.2 K reduction in temperature over a 23 year period" (post #953) ...

For your God's sake, man, read my post #1066, above. Oh, and also be sure to read my helpful tutorial about error bounds, in post #1101.

You're making a fool of yourself, repeatedly. You need to get yourself up to speed, in a hurry. Or just admit that all this science and math stuff just flies over your pretty head. If it's all too hard for you, there's no shame in being honest and simply admitting it. Not everyone can be an Einstein.

When you wrote the deception of "The most up-to-date (2026) value is 2.7255 +/- 0.0006 K"...

Am I wrong? What's the most up-to-date value for the Hubble constant, then, Kermos?

Before you answer, think carefully. I don't want to have to officially warn you against telling knowing lies again.

So, what's it to be, Kermos? I'm always happy to learn more, and will accept correction if I've got it wrong. How about you?

1. The opening statement of the López-Caniego et al paper introduced the paper's self-contradictory condition in that the Planck satellite collected a large number of differing readings in a large number of differing directions, but the large number of authors of the paper used mathematical chicanery to consolidate the large number of disparate readings down to your faith-based singular reading for your CMBR.

To what mathematical chicanery are you referring? Be specific, please.

RESULT: the paper's opening sentence should read as "we develop with statistical shenanigans a singular measurement and Gaussianity of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) out of a plurality of broad measurements using observations made by the Planck satellite."

You are misquoting other people as well now, I see. You really need to stop being so dishonest, Kermos. It's a terrible habit you've got yourself into, there.

This statement exposed your cronies' extraction of arbitrarily specific measurements with the exclusion of other arbitrarily specific measurements in order to develop your CMB agreeing conclusions.

How so? Please explain.

"In addition, Doppler boosting, due to our motion with respect to the CMB rest frame, induces both a dipolar modulation of the temperature anisotropies and an aberration that corresponds to a change in the apparent arrival directions of the CMB photons"

You didn't understand that bit, did you, Kermos? But that didn't stop you trying to talk about it, did it?

Astronomer astrologers tightly-coupled their CMBR concept to their red-shift concept, even with "It is well-known that the spectrum of the microwave background is very precisely that of blackbody radiation , whose temperature evolves with redshift as T(z)=T[sub]0[/sub](1+z) in an expanding Universe" (The Review of Particle Physics (Particle Data Group); R.L. Workman et al.; 2023 update; pdg.lbl.gov/2023/reviews/rpp2023-rev-cosmic-microwave-background.pdf)

Is there a problem?

RESULT 1: astronomer astrologers ignore temperature readings outside of their acceptable red-shift adjusted range of 2.7255 +/- 0.0006 K (set J = {x ∈ R | 2.7249 ≤ x ≤ 2.7261} (James R (2026))), for example 2.7248 is a measurement that astronomer astrologers arbitrarily disqualify.

That error bound isn't arbitrary. What are you talking about? See my helpful primer on error bounds in post #1101, Kermos. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

RESULT 2: the red-shift intertwined CMBR has the universe expanding at bafflingly different speeds depending on where astronomer astrologers point their instrument wands...

That doesn't follow from anything you quoted earlier in your post. Frankly, your post is a bit of a muddled mess. That's what often happens when you try to talk about stuff you don't understand.

Maybe, instead, you could try: learn first, challenge later. This "challenge first, never learn" approach of yours is really doing you no favours.

Your lies are a crime against God resulting in everlasting torment...

Oh, woe is me! I'm quaking in my boots because of Kermos's threat that his puny God will punish me at some later date! Ooh err! Help me! Eeek!

Meanwhile, what will your God do to you Kermos, on account of your constantly being cavalier about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Your God has a commandment about that, doesn't he?

I think you're much more afraid of your God than I am. If you're legit about the whole God belief thing, that is. One never knows. After all, if a man lies about one thing, who's to say he won't also lie about lots of other things as well. Maybe you're a troll who is trying to make creationists look bad on the interwebs.

 

[Pinball1970]

What is a "lulu"?

 

[James R]

Now we come to the parts of your posts that I find most amusing, Kermos - the parts where you pretend to understand maths and statistics and end up making a complete omelette of it all.

Neither mean, median, nor matrix prove exclusively a decrease in temperature over time, here, so your inquiry is redundant because, for the mean formula (2.3+3.1+2.7)÷3=2.7, you must omit the Penzias and Wilson 1965 value of 3.5 K altogether and illogically use the McKellar 1941 median value instead of McKellar mean value to arrive at your unattributed CMBR!

The question I asked you was "What use is the mean of the four measurements mentioned? Or three of them."

It's no surprise to me that you couldn't come up with a coherent answer to that question.

I am using your so-called science against you.

Put the science down before you hurt yourself, Kermos. These toys are for more grown-up kids than you.

You reduced to just four out of your repeated ALL FIVE data points, so I'll remind you of the full list of your ALL FIVE data points:

• McKellar (1941): (2.5 +0.9/-0.7) K
• D.C. Hogg (1959): (3.1 +/- 1.0) K
• E.A. Ohm (1961): (2.7 +/- 0.6) K
• Penzias and Wilson (1965): (3.5 +/- 1.0) K
• The most up-to-date (2026) value is 2.7255 +/- 0.0006 K.

Oh, goody!

Did you read post #1066 yet? Can you understand the content? If not, start by reading post #1101, then try again.

Your 2026 value of 2.7255 +/- 0.0006 K is unattributed to any investigatory group as part of your ALL FIVE, so the 2026 value goes in the dung heap. Maybe that's why you left it out.

I was addressing what you wrote. Did you not understand?

Since you are secure with 2.5 K = 3.5 K...

I didn't say anything like that.

Back in post #845, I proved your failure to understand error bounds ...

Umm.... pardon me for a moment. I'll just go over here for a minute...

AAAAHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HAHA!

HA!

HAH!

HAAAAAHHHH!

Okay. I'm back. Where were we, again? Oh, yes.

You really need spend some time to study error bounds/uncertainty ranges and logic.

Says Mr Statistics. You're a riot, Kermos!

Your set of CMBR elements are represented by the set J = {x ∈ R | 2.7249 ≤ x ≤ 2.7261} (James R (2026)), and here is McKellar's CMBR elements represented by the set M = {x ∈ R | 1.8 ≤ x ≤ 3.4} (McKellar (1941)).

Is there a problem?

Look carefully at set J's minimum element value of 2.7249 which is nearly one whole Kelvin greater than M's minimum element value of 1.8 at 0.9249 K

Well, M's error bounds were quite large. M had inferior equipment to what we have available to us in the 21st century.

Do you understand this?

... meanwhile, M's 3.4 max to J's 2.7261 max computes to a decrease of 0.6739 K which means that there is more than 25% greater spectrum of M showing an increase of heat from 1941 to 2026...

Er... what?

... therefore, the temperature increased from 1941 until 2026.

There's no evidence of that. Look at the nice graph I drew for you in post #1066. Completely consistent with constant temperature. Also completely consistent with a temperature increase or a temperature decrease.

In other words, there's no way to tell whether the temperature increased, decreased or stayed constant between 1941 and 1965, based on those four data points.

Do you understand this yet? Will you ever understand it?

Now, I compare set J to set P = {x ∈ R | 2.5 ≤ x ≤ 4.5} (Penzias and Wilson (1965)). You may squirm in your chair, at will, James R.

I'm squirming with laughter at your incompetence. Please stop before I lose bladder control, Kermos. Your attempts at doing math are just too funny!

Set J's minimum of 2.7249 is greater than set P's minimum of 2.5 which translates to a increase of just over 0.2 K from 1965 to 2026; meanwhile, P's 4.5 max to J's 2.7261 max computes to an increase of 1.7739 K which means that there is more than 88% greater spectrum of P showing a decrease of heat from 1965 to 2026; however, your faith based unreasonably narrow error bounds of +/- 0.0006 K for your 2.7255 +/- 0.0006 K CMBR requires the science fiction of omitting CMBR measurements that escape the boundaries of your error bounds (see McKellar and Penzias for such readings that make your error bounds error). Evidence of increasing heat exists in your CMBR while at the same time evidence of increasing faith without fact is needed for your evolution religion!

On a scale of 0 to 10, how convincing do you think that paragraph is to somebody who understands what an error bound is, Kermos? Do you think it's a 10? Are you proud of yourself?

Be honest, now.

 

[James R]

McKellar's 1.8 K is not an error bound for an uncertainty range because 1.8 K is an actual measurement.

McKellar's error bounds were +0.9/-0.7 K. A temperature of 1.8 K would be at the bottom of McKellar's uncertainty range.

McKellar's 1.8 K CMBR measurement in 1941 falls below Penzias' lower error bound of 2.5 K CMBR measurement in 1965.

What 1.8 K measurement? McKellar measured the temperature to be 2.5 K, which is actually equal to Penzias's lower error bound.

McKellar's 1.8 K overlaps not with Penzias' 2.5 K.

Their respective estimates of the error bounds were different, certainly. They were doing different experiments with different equipment, 24 years apart. Why would you expect them to be the same?

The CMBR is warming according to the math.

Not according to these values that you cited. See post #1066, above.

You seem very confused. I think this math might be beyond your capacity, James R.

Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight!

3.1 is not in agreement with 3.2, and vice versa

Okay. Good. You understand that 3.1 is not the same as 3.2. Now learn about error bounds.

Both 3.1 K and 3.2 K are ignored by your erroneous 2.7255 +/- 0.0006 K

Correct. They are not within the error bounds.

Your insistence that 3.1 and 3.2 are included in 2.7255 is nonsense nonscience.

I didn't insist on that. You are obviously very confused. You'd better go study up on what an error range is.

You agreed with all these per your above responses:

2.5=3.5 is false.

2.5<3.5 is true.

1941<1965 is true

3.5-2.5=1.0 is true.

1965-1941=24 is true.

I did indeed. I take it you learned basic arithmetic adequately in school. But they didn't teach you about error bounds in grade 7, did they?

In response to the factual statement of "The five factual statements directly above show a 1.0 K increase of heat on average over a period of 2 dozen years starting in 1941 AD until 1965 AD."

Those temperature values you mentioned show no temperature increase. See post #1066, above. And read post #1125 again, too.

The increase of 1.0 K from McKellar in 1941 to Penzias in 1965...

Those measurements are not evidence of an increase in the temperature between 1941 and 1965.

Look, this is getting very repetitive, so I'm going to stop saying it.

You need to get up to speed on what an error bound is. Please do that before you post any more mathematical howlers.

So, you squirm that Penzias received the Nobel Prize...

I squirm that Dicke wasn't also given the prize at the same time.

... for numbers (measurements) that he bet were inaccurate in his published Nobel prize winning paper.

He was doing good science by reporting his uncertainty in the value he measured. That's nothing to squirm about, unless good science makes your creationist mind uncomfortable.

He developed a number scheme which he interpreted as CMBR ...

You actually don't know what he did, do you? At this point, you're just making shit up again.

... followed by him receiving accolades from people like you.

I'm not actually on the Nobel Prize committee. Not yet.

He practiced numerology not science...

Based on your posts, I don't think you're equipped to tell the difference.

I use Penzias' official published numbers for which he received the Nobel Prize.

What do you use them for?

Regardless of any disclaimers by Penzias, the numbers which he published are your official record.

No. They are Penzias's official record.

With your uncertainties, you all might as well have been sitting around your telescopes singing "we don't know, we don't science, there is no God".

You don't know why uncertainties are important in science, do you?

Are you saying that sloppy science got the Nobel prize?

As far as I am aware, no. That's not what I'm saying. Is it what you're saying?

Just out of interest: can you tell me when was the last time a creationist was award a Nobel Prize?

You disregard my honest addressing of the uncertainties.

Oh, no! I've been following your "analysis" of the uncertainties eagerly, I assure you. It's been one clanger after another, from you. I'm loving every minute of it. Your supercilious arrogance combined with your almost complete mathematical incompetence is chef's kiss comedy gold. Mwah!

The increase in temperature is measurable as you admitted with "We can agree that the mean temperature measured by McKellar in 1941 was less than the mean temperature measured by Penzias and Wilson in 1965."

You didn't understand the meaning of that sentence I wrote. Need me to explain it to you? Or do you understand it now?

You made the "The data do not support the conclusion that there has been an increase (or a decrease!) in the temperature over the years" statement as a leap of faith...

No. I just looked at the data and told you what it shows or, more importantly, what it doesn't show. No faith involved. Just an understanding of error bounds, which you unfortunately lack.

Do not blame me for your inferior analytical ability in combining set theory, mathematics, and logic.

Oh, please stop! My sides are hurting.

 

[James R]

Are you trying to be funny? You're not funny.

Actually, I wasn't trying to be funny, there.

Will your God punish people who do bad comedy?

You deliberately wrote "In the case of the big bang theory, it doesn’t just predict the expansion of the universe. It doesn’t just predict the existence of the observed cosmic microwave background radiation (which, by the way, it predicted before the CMBR was first measured)" as recorded back in post #236, yet among your ALL FIVE list, above, are cosmic measurements for radiation measurements that predate the Penzias et al work to see cosmic radiation (which is the CMBR as previously cited), intentionality is irrelevant, was measured and published before Penzias's work, thus you wrote nonscience.

None of the measurements up to and including Penzias and Wilson's measurement were a result of deliberately setting out to detect or measure the temperature of cosmic microwave background radiation, as far as I am aware.

Am I wrong?

The bottom line is McKellar's work, Hogg's work, and Ohm's work were all out there available for Penzias (with Wilson) to build a nonprediction of cosmic radiation.

As far as I am aware, Penzias and Wilson were trying to characterise microwave noise in their antenna.

Am I wrong?

McKellar's CMBR measurements existed prior to Penzias (with Wilson) making a single measurement

Obviously. McKellar was in 1941, apparently, while Penzias was 1965. The year 1941 happened before the year 1965. Although it might have got hotter going back in time, I hear.

Are you trying to be funny? You're not funny.

Aw. Now you're hurting my feelings, Kermos.

It is bizarre that you talk about the temperature of the CMBR decreasing as it travels backwards in time, though. What tortured language! Is English your first language, Kermos?

You and your astronomer astrologers believe in the conceptual representation of the CMBR increasing in temperature travelling backward in time to the super-hot Big Bang, so your "The CMBR doesn't travel backwards in time. Neither do I" is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

See what I mean?

Why not just say that I believe that the CMBR had a very high temperature just after the big bang and that the temperature has decreased with time, so that these days it's only 2.7 K?

Your 2.7255 K is inconsistent with McKellar's 1.8 K.

Why are you ignoring the error bounds again? It's almost as if you don't think they are important. Or as if you don't understand what they are telling you.

You neglected the disagreement in 1.8 <= T < 2.5

Huh? Who said the temperature had to be less than 2.5 K? That's not in any of the data you posted.

All four measurements, even your ALL FIVE measurements, are not consistent with T=2.7255 K

Yes they are. See post #1066.

... the claim that your "all four measurements distinctly the same" is robustly demonstrated to be a lie.

I didn't say that all four measurements are distinctly the same. You are lying about what I said, again.

Quote me accurately if you're going to refer to what I said.

I'm using your science against you. You statistically consolidated your ALL FIVE list. Do you recall?

Like in post #1066, you mean?

What do you mean by "statistically consolidated"?

You agreed that 3.5-2 5=1.0 is true and 1965-1941=24 is true

Yes, I agree that basic arithmetic works.

I showed you where it did, yet, pointedly, reasonable doubt has been cast by the decrease of temperature going back in time...

No it hasn't. See post #1066.

The differences in ALL FIVE points are statistically significant...

Clearly, you don't know what "statistically significant" means, either.

The whole point of post #1066 is to show you that there is no statistically significant difference between the four values you presented.

Give it up, Kermos. You're just really lousy at maths and you're not doing a good job at pretending you understand what you're trying to talk about. Quit while you're behind, before it gets worse (if that's possible).

I'm here under the control of the omnipotent God Jesus Christ...

I suppose it's possible that he wants you to look like a fool on a public internet forum.

But he probably doesn't exist. It's probably just you doing it, all by yourself.

... Savior from the impending destruction of the universe...

He's supposed to be destructing the universe himself, at some unspecified future time, isn't he? So much for saving us all from that, then.

Are you worried that it's going to happen soon and that he will judge you for telling so many lies, Kermos?

I am impotent without my Lord Jesus...

I can tell.

My Lord Jesus gives me the words for the people who read this.

Your Lord Jesus should have brushed up on his statistics before giving you his words, then.

Are you sure you're communicating his words correctly? Because it's looking like a real blunder, from where I'm sitting. You're making your Lord Jesus look like a bit of a dolt, frankly.

Debate on the merit of the topic, not on the merit of the debater.

Poor Kermos. Constructive criticism can be hard to take, can't it? I'd advise you to consider this a learning experience. Next time, you might be more careful than to go blundering in to try to debate a topic that you really aren't equipped to debate, against somebody who is.

I'm still using your science against you...

All the science seems to be for me, so far.

Are we ever going to get to the part where you offer up a viable alternative to science and explain why we should all ditch science in favour of your faith? Or is this just going to be endless repetition from you of your previous errors?

 

[billvon]

I'm here under the control of the omnipotent God Jesus Christ, Savior from the impending destruction of the universe with all the Big Bang arrogant and prideful idolaters, who do not believe in Jesus the Lord but one day in the future will know He is real and your Big Bang is unreal. I am impotent without my Lord Jesus who is omnipotent. My Lord Jesus gives me the words for the people who read this.

Well there's your problem right there. Jesus isn't a great source of information on the CMBR.

 

[Pinball1970]

I suppose it's possible that he wants you to look like a fool on a public internet forum.

In that case it's mission accomplished.

Kermos said:
" am impotent without my Lord Jesus..."

To be fair that could explain at least some stuff yeah? Admittedly I cannot recall ever being actually hard for Jesus when I was a believer, but each man can take the positives from scripture where one sees fit.

Will your God punish people who do bad comedy?

If that's the case and god does exist then TheVat would have been annihilated already.

Just out of interest: can you tell me when was the last time a creationist was award a Nobel Prize

Ooh I know this one. Just give me a minute, its not Einstein, Curie, Feynman, Dirac, Bohr, Weinberg, Penrose, Pauli Higgs De Broglie, Fermi, Bethe, Chadwick or Landau because they were atheist.

Just give me a minute.

 

[Pinball1970]

Got it! Mohammad Abdus Salam, joint winner of the 1979 prize, Muslim and all Muslims are creationists right?

Ok no. From wiki.

"No, Ahmadi Muslims are not creationists. Instead, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community embraces the scientific theory of evolution while believing that the evolutionary process is divinely guided by God."

So M.A.S. was the one fucking Muslim sect that wasn't creationist? What are the chances?
Pakistan was quite upset with him too even though he was the very first Muslim winner, first rate scientist and Nobel laureate, they even removed his names from text books, I wonder what the problem was?

"Salam was buried in Bahishti Maqbara, a cemetery established by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community at Rabwah, Punjab, Pakistan, next to his parents' graves. The epitaph on his tomb initially read "First Muslim Nobel Laureate". The Pakistani government removed "Muslim" and left only his name on the headstone. It is the only nation to officially declare that Ahmadis are non-Muslim."

Ah yes. This of course.


"No, Ahmadi Muslims are not creationists. Instead, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community embraces the scientific theory of evolution while believing that the evolutionary process is divinely guided by God...."

 

[Pinball1970]

It is awesome when religion tries to stick it's scientifically illiterate nose into subjects like physics and biology.
It really lifts humanity.
You end up disrespecting your greatest intellectuals like Salam, try to erase their achievements, are embarrassed that they openly reject retarded nonsense that religious idiots push, it tries again and again to pollute children's education with creationist garbage and if course cultivates people like Kermos.

 

[exchemist]

Got it! Mohammad Abdus Salam, joint winner of the 1979 prize, Muslim and all Muslims are creationists right?

Ok no. From wiki.

"No, Ahmadi Muslims are not creationists. Instead, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community embraces the scientific theory of evolution while believing that the evolutionary process is divinely guided by God."

So M.A.S. was the one fucking Muslim sect that wasn't creationist? What are the chances?
Pakistan was quite upset with him too even though he was the very first Muslim winner, first rate scientist and Nobel laureate, they even removed his names from text books, I wonder what the problem was?

"Salam was buried in Bahishti Maqbara, a cemetery established by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community at Rabwah, Punjab, Pakistan, next to his parents' graves. The epitaph on his tomb initially read "First Muslim Nobel Laureate". The Pakistani government removed "Muslim" and left only his name on the headstone. It is the only nation to officially declare that Ahmadis are non-Muslim."

Ah yes. This of course.


"No, Ahmadi Muslims are not creationists. Instead, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community embraces the scientific theory of evolution while believing that the evolutionary process is divinely guided by God...."

It seems there is a wide spectrum of views within Islam about evolution, just as in Christianity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution

I would expect that educated Muslims, like educated Christians, will tend towards accepting the science.

 

[Pinball1970]

It seems there is a wide spectrum of views within Islam about evolution, just as in Christianity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution

I would expect that educated Muslims, like educated Christians, will tend towards accepting the science.

I ended up cheating and used Ai since Salam is no true muslim.

"There are no known Nobel laureates who publicly advocate for Young Earth Creationism. However, a few notable scientists with Nobel connections have held different religious or creationist-leaning views, often associated with Old Earth creationism or Intelligent Design."

 

[Pinball1970]

It seems there is a wide spectrum of views within Islam about evolution, just as in Christianity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution

I would expect that educated Muslims, like educated Christians, will tend towards accepting the science.

Yeah a range but...

"19% of participants believed that Islam's tenets were not at odds with Darwin's theory of evolution while 81% believed there to be some form of conflict between Islam and Darwinism."

 

[Pinball1970]

It seems there is a wide spectrum of views within Islam about evolution, just as in Christianity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution

I would expect that educated Muslims, like educated Christians, will tend towards accepting the science.

That appears to be much worse that Christianity in the states.

Reddit so not rock solid the numbers were around before social media.

"Denominational Breakdown
White Evangelical Protestants: About 64% reject human evolution entirely, stating that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
Black Protestants: Roughly 50% reject evolution, holding similar creationist beliefs.
Mainline Protestants: Rejection is much lower here, with only about 15% of white mainline Protestants rejecting the idea of evolution.
Catholics: Roughly 26% to 31% of white Catholics reject human evolution, meaning the majority accept that humans evolved over time."

Catholics (my ex tribe) did ok!

 

[billvon]

Kermos said:
" am impotent without my Lord Jesus..."

To be fair that could explain at least some stuff yeah? Admittedly I cannot recall ever being actually hard for Jesus when I was a believer, but each man can take the positives from scripture where one sees fit.

A jesusexual?

Or would that be more like a Jesus fetish? Hey, whatever floats your boat . . .

 

[Roosters for ever]

Catholics: Roughly 26% to 31% of white Catholics reject human evolution, meaning the majority accept that humans evolved over time."

Catholics (my ex tribe) did ok!

Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right

Pope Francis cautions against portraying God as magician, and says it is possible to believe in evolution and creation

www.theguardian.com

Pope Francis: evolution and creation both right​

This article is more than 11 years old
Pope Francis cautions against portraying God as magician, and says it is possible to believe in evolution and creation.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
God as Creator: Pope Francis has emphasized that God is not a "magician with a magic wand". Instead, the Big Bang and biological evolution are seen as the active mechanisms through which God created and developed the universe and life.
Theistic Evolution: Rather than viewing science and religion as mutually exclusive, the Church embraces "theistic evolution." The Big Bang is considered the origin of the world, and rather than contradicting God’s creative intervention, the Pope argues that it actually requires it.
Historical Context: This acceptance is not unique to Pope Francis. In 1950, Pope Pius XII stated that evolution was not inconsistent with Catholic teaching, and Pope John Paul II later called evolution "more than a hypothesis" in 1996.

• Catholic Origins: The Big Bang theory itself was first proposed in 1927 by a Belgian Catholic priest and astronomer, Monsignor Georges Lemaître. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The Church explicitly rejects Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design, which are often viewed as misinterpretations of the Book of Genesis. For more detailed information on Catholic theology regarding science, you can read the Catholic Answers Tract on Adam, Eve, and Evolution.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
When I was a hairy arse altar boy, I was caught drinking the altar wine behind the altar with another hairy arse altar boy.
The parish priest certainly wasn't so understanding!! I had welts on my arse for weeks!!

 

[Pinball1970]

The parish priest certainly wasn't so understanding!! I had welts on my arse for weeks!!

I think it was the first time I tasted wine, I was more impressed with that than beer.
Welts on your arse could have been worse mate. 1970s Manchester I think we did ok, priests did ok, certainly my area anyway.
They were great in secondary school, away from the church, we could debate them.

 

[Roosters for ever]

I think it was the first time I tasted wine, I was more impressed with that than beer.
Welts on your arse could have been worse mate. 1970s Manchester I think we did ok, priests did ok, certainly my area anyway.
They were great in secondary school, away from the church, we could debate them.

I was taught by the Christian Brothers order, and we were fortunate enough to get one of our former Brother/teacher's at our 30th reunion. He was married with 5 kids! One of the good one's both at school when he was a Brother, and later in life when he gave it all up.

 

[exchemist]

Yeah a range but...

"19% of participants believed that Islam's tenets were not at odds with Darwin's theory of evolution while 81% believed there to be some form of conflict between Islam and Darwinism."

Who were the participants and with what level of eduction?

I ask because I have come to realise most people simply don’t think about these things the way you and I do. They don’t have a science background or interest particularly and don’t trouble themselves with such questions. They go along with the imam, and watch the odd TV programme about dinosaurs, but simply never join the dots.

Perhaps it’s only people like us, with a religious background and studying science at uni who are thereby forced to work this stuff out.