# Did Dinosaurs Live Thousands of Years Ago, Not Millions?



## my3boys

Thought this was interesting:

http://godfatherpolitics.com/16394/scientist-fired-discovering-something-publishing-discovered/

I guess this discovery didn't fit the accepted narrative.


----------



## rambotex

I'll ask my Mother-In-Law.


----------



## rambotex

LOL, just kidding, I love her Dearly


----------



## MJsLady

LOL.

It is possible. However they need to check their grammar or else the main stream will call the findings ignorant because they used week instead of weak. (The only error I found but since the findings are legitimate this would give a loop hole for criticism)

Personally I think a time line is irrelevant. God, who I do believe created dinosaurs and had them walk with man upon the earth, says in His time line 1 day is as a 1,000 years and a 1,000 years is as one day.


----------



## mnn2501

> Did Dinosaurs Live Thousands of Years Ago, Not Millions?


No, else they would find thousands of examples of this. Not just one.


----------



## Wolf mom

Actually, certain people today are forgetting about the millions and billions and only thinking in trillions.




I know, me bad.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

To be truly unbiased you would conclude that many dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and a few existed as recently as thousands of years ago.


----------



## mnn2501

Johnny Dolittle said:


> To be truly unbiased you would conclude that many dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and a few existed as recently as thousands of years ago.


Not from just one unexplained item, its just not reasonable as there is likely another explanation. Now show me a dozen or a hundred and we'll talk.


----------



## JJ Grandits

In spite of the fact that scientists like to portray themselves as open minded investigators of the truth, the fact is, they're not. They are actually pretty close minded and defensive of what they believe. Probably more so then the average person. A truly questioning mind would be all over these findings.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

mnn2501 said:


> Not from just one unexplained item, its just not reasonable as there is likely another explanation. Now show me a dozen or a hundred and we'll talk.


Well I might be able to find a dozen....

but why is not one unexplained item enough ?


----------



## JJ Grandits

It threatens their belief system.


----------



## Awnry Abe

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Well I might be able to find a dozen....
> 
> but why is not one unexplained item enough ?


...because it doesn't do enough to counter-balance the hundreds of things that have been poorly explained and/or misinterpreted because of the philosophical lens that we do not realize is always in front of us when we observe evidence. I
If we could all cast aside our religious leanings on this particular topic, and do a bit of a study on technocracy, we would do better at making any single unexplained item stick like a painful thorn in the sides of the "experts". 

@my3boys, I didn't follow the link, but your thread title intrigued me. I believe the biblical account to be true--death commenced at the fall.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Science is an assumption ... an unwavering belief that the material world can be explained in terms of natural laws and chance happenings. The universe is the result of many chain reactions which began when a small ball of dense matter suddenly exploded.

No need for the supernatural .... when an explosion explains everything !!!


----------



## dizzy

There are expeditions into Africa looking for live dinosaurs-and they're not all done by creationists. Here's some info on it. http://creation.com/mokele-mbembe-a-living-dinosaur

Then, there's creatures like the bunyip, Jersey Devil, Nessie, etc that many claim are actually dinosaurs.


----------



## Appalachia

CBS article on story
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

Abstract from researcher's paper
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020


I can't read the whole scientific article (don't want to spend $35.95 on it!) but what I think is going on is the researcher is looking to connect dots he believes should be connected. 

Another example of dinosaur soft tissue 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/soft-tissue-found-on-t-rex-explained/

Seems like they could carbon date the samples and clear this all up.


----------



## MJsLady

So far there are 2 episodes of soft tissue.
Now to my mind science saying positively this can not happen after millions (billions or trillions) of years is wrong.

It is either wrong in that it can't happen or it is wrong on the amount of years.

One way or another the "facts" spouted need to reflect the evidence gathered. 
Just like in Bible research. Your facts (commands or whatever) must fit the text. You can't twist the text to confirm what you want it to say and be correct. 

Science needs to truly follow the evidence in this, not just deny it because it doesn't support their ideas.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Science is an assumption ... an unwavering belief that the material world can be explained in terms of natural laws and chance happenings. The universe is the result of many chain reactions which began when a small ball of dense matter suddenly exploded.
> 
> No need for the supernatural .... when an explosion explains everything !!!


How does an explosion explain that life violates the second law of thermodynamics? Things move towards entropy, not away from it.


----------



## iti_oj

JJ Grandits said:


> How does an explosion explain that life violates the second law of thermodynamics? Things move towards entropy, not away from it.


Perhaps the difference between an open and closed system.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

It's interesting scientists say soft tissue can exist for thousands of years, but not millions. Logic would lead one to think a few years would be the limit. If not, then why is there a limit?

Scientists don't have all the answers, that's why they're still in business.


----------



## my3boys

Every time there is a new discovery that disproves current scientific beliefs we hear, "scientists previously thought". How many times have we heard that? 

Scientists are not infallible. Their theories are not written in stone. How many other discoveries are out there that will disprove current scientific conclusions? This is especially true in the world of medicine. Remember when drs were 100% certain ulcers were caused by stress?

I think those in the scientific community tend to go into denial and ignore any evidence that does not fit their agenda, threatens their pride, or does not go along with what they want to be true. It all comes down to pride. 

God is the author of science. Sometimes he decides to remind us of that. Man does not know it all.


----------



## iti_oj

my3boys said:


> Every time there is a new discovery that disproves current scientific beliefs we hear, "scientists previously thought". How many times have we heard that?
> 
> Scientists are not infallible. Their theories are not written in stone. How many other discoveries are out there that will disprove current scientific conclusions? This is especially true in the world of medicine. Remember when drs were 100% certain ulcers were caused by stress?
> 
> I think those in the scientific community tend to go into denial and ignore any evidence that does not fit their agenda, threatens their pride, or does not go along with what they want to be true. It all comes down to pride.
> 
> God is the author of science. Sometimes he decides to remind us of that. Man does not know it all.


And the beauty of science is it grows adapts and changes v with new info


----------



## JJ Grandits

iti_oj said:


> Perhaps the difference between an open and closed system.


Ok I'll bite. Please give me your definition of open vs closed systems and how they would effect the second law.

Spontaneous generation was a scientific theory for a number of years. Was that an open or closed system?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

iti_oj said:


> And the beauty of science is it grows adapts and changes v with new info


(Which means you should not take it too seriously)


----------



## arabian knight

oH that is for sure, and that article is one of those take it with a grain of salt. As there are still some that believe the earth is flat, the earth is just a few thousand years old, and nobody landed on the moon either. What a load. No man did not play around with dinosaurs like depicted in The Flintstones. LOL The earth being 4.5 billion years old and has many changers over that time, from a frozen ball of ice, to a hot molten lava lakes. To what www have now sure can't take place in a short period of time. Get real.


----------



## JJ Grandits

The Flintstones, cartoon entertainment or animated historical record. The jury is still out.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

New discoveries which can be interpreted to support evolution are often reported on the news....

But when evidence once thought to support evolution is found to be faulty you can bet the news will not be reporting on it.

.... which is proof that the masses are being successfully indoctrinated !!!


----------



## Forcast

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0hhX2rP03Qrm473ubXQ5sUvYPnivwhrA


----------



## plowjockey

There's millions of dinosaur bones found, everywhere, for hundreds of years.

No one has ever dipped one in acid and found tissue before?

Maybe it logical that somehow - tissue could survive that long.

Still hard to imagine Jesus, on the back of a T-rex. It would look pretty cool, though.


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> iti_oj said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the beauty of science is it grows adapts and changes v with new info
> 
> 
> 
> (Which means you should not take it too seriously)
Click to expand...

You're willing to depend on the Bible to make sure bridges, elevators, and large buildings are safe? You'd better take science seriously, since your life depends on it every day of your life.

I think some people take the TV show Big Bang Theory as a realistic example of what scientists are like.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Since back in the '60's science has known that 98% of the human genome is nonfunctional and explained to be the vestigial remains of evolution. This non-functional DNA was commonly referred to as Junk DNA. In the '90's science launched a worldwide effort to map the human genome in a project named ENCODE. When the ENCODE project was finished it was still believed that 98% of human DNA was Junk. Since then the mission of the ENCODE project has changed and a couple years back ENCODE announced that 80% of the previously thought to be Junk DNA has been discovered to have function and some of it has multi functions.

(I cite this as an example of just how wrong science can be)

.... The evolutionists considered the Junk DNA as being evidence to prove evolution and would criticize the creationists saying "why would your God create Junk (useless) DNA"

.... turns out there is little if any Junk DNA .... it has function !!!


----------



## unregistered41671

Nevada said:


> You're willing to depend on the Bible to make sure bridges, elevators, and large buildings are safe? You'd better take science seriously, since your life depends on it every day of your life.


My soul depends on The Message of The Bible. My body will die, maybe on a bridge, elevator or large building but my soul and so will yours, live forever. I depend on God's Word everyday of my life. I take The Message seriously.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> You're willing to depend on the Bible to make sure bridges, elevators, and large buildings are safe? You'd better take science seriously, since your life depends on it every day of your life.
> 
> I think some people take the TV show Big Bang Theory as a realistic example of what scientists are like.


There are two kinds of science sometimes referred to as "hard" and "soft" science.

"Hard" science produces knowledge which results from unbiased controlled laboratory experiments which are repeatable and very verifiable.

"Soft" science is the result of speculation.... usually very biased speculation... it is more theoretical and much more prone to error.

Evolution is a soft science !


----------



## Nevada

Possum Belly said:


> My soul depends on The Message of The Bible. My body will die, maybe on a bridge, elevator or large building but my soul and so will yours, live forever. I depend on God's Word everyday of my life. I take The Message seriously.


So what do you need a gun for? I don't see why you would have interest in personal protection.


----------



## Awnry Abe

plowjockey said:


> There's millions of dinosaur bones found, everywhere, for hundreds of years.
> 
> No one has ever dipped one in acid and found tissue before?
> 
> Maybe it logical that somehow - tissue could survive that long.
> 
> Still hard to imagine Jesus, on the back of a T-rex. It would look pretty cool, though.


Fossils, not bones. Permineralized. The existence of the soft tissue, if it turns out to be genuine, should make folks take another look at the fossil evidence. But they won't. Free will is funny like that.


----------



## unregistered41671

Nevada said:


> So what do you need a gun for? I don't see why you would have interest in personal protection.


Because there are evil people. Why did Jesus tell his followers to sell their cloaks and buy a sword?


----------



## Nevada

Possum Belly said:


> Because there are evil people. Why did Jesus tell his followers to sell their cloaks and buy a sword?


Maybe he would have also warned about bridges, elevators, and large buildings if they had them back then.

But why is it that you don't mind dying in an engineering disaster, but dying by an evil person is unacceptable?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Maybe he would have also warned about bridges, elevators, and large buildings if they had them back then.
> 
> But why is it that you don't mind dying in an engineering disaster, but dying by an evil person is unacceptable?


Really? What an absurd question!


----------



## mmoetc

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4349214

Science does look for answers to questions.


----------



## gweny

It's very hard to take science seriously when it's being fit to a religious agenda


----------



## JJ Grandits

gweny said:


> It's very hard to take science seriously when it's being fit to a religious agenda


That is a double edged sword.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Appalachia said:


> CBS article on story
> http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/
> 
> Abstract from researcher's paper
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020
> 
> 
> I can't read the whole scientific article (don't want to spend $35.95 on it!) but what I think is going on is the researcher is looking to connect dots he believes should be connected.
> 
> Another example of dinosaur soft tissue
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/soft-tissue-found-on-t-rex-explained/
> 
> Seems like they could carbon date the samples and clear this all up.


C14 dating is accurate to date specimens which lived up to 50,000 years ago....beyond 50,000 years the method is not accurate.... so carbon dating will not clear this all up.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

gweny said:


> It's very hard to take science seriously when it's being fit to a religious agenda


It's also very hard to take science seriously when it's not being fit to a religious agenda.


----------



## mmoetc

Johnny Dolittle said:


> C14 dating is accurate to date specimens which lived up to 50,000 years ago....beyond 50,000 years the method is not accurate.... so carbon dating will not clear this all up.


But it would if the assumption is that dinosaurs walked the earth much more recently as the religionists assert. The bigger problem is that the samples of soft tissue have been treated in such a way as to contaminate them and make any such dating invalid.


----------



## gweny

Johnny Dolittle said:


> It's also very hard to take science seriously when it's not being fit to a religious agenda.


Please enlighten me? I don't understand your logic... Preferably without preaching or scripture.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

mmoetc said:


> But it would if the assumption is that dinosaurs walked the earth much more recently as the religionists assert. The bigger problem is that the samples of soft tissue have been treated in such a way as to contaminate them and make any such dating invalid.


The OP is not assuming the soft tissue samples are less than 50.000 years old.

If you miss handle and contaminate samples you are not much of a scientist.


----------



## mmoetc

Johnny Dolittle said:


> The OP is not assuming the soft tissue samples are less than 50.000 years old.
> 
> If you miss handle and contaminate samples you are not much of a scientist.


The title of the thread references thousands and calls into question the millions of years attributed by conventional science. The very processes that isolated these samples are what cause the contamination, not mishandling. Scientists who continue to work on this issue and analyze more data and conduct more experiments in an effort to figure out why things happen, even when they don't fit the conventional wisdom are the ones I'll listen to.


----------



## JJ Grandits

I think one of our biggest problems is the limitation of our language. People have a hard time discerning what is said and what is ment. Anytime science makes a reference that might concern RELIGION, people of FAITH respond. If science does not agree with RELIGION it is taken as an attack against someone's FAITH. If a person of FAITH questions a scientific statement it is assumed that they are blinded by RELIGION. We are debating a dipolar issue. The more open ones mind is to a possibility the opposition will see it as being more closed. Its the kitchen door effect. When we add a little ego to the pot things get hot. Two sides of a coin arguing over the space between them.
There are tent show preachers in both camps.


----------



## dizzy

Both creation and evolution are a matter of faith. Neither side can be proven by the scientific method. And the "facts" are a matter of interpretation based on your point of view. This includes dating methods. Here's some info on carbon 14 dating and the problems that it has.

http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php


----------



## watcher

I didn't read the entire thread but I did want to drop this in.

Ya'll do realize that all this "scientific data" is based on a series of assumptions don't you? For one thing its assumed that it takes X amount of time for Y amount of dirt to build up and it takes Z amount of time for that dirt to turn into rock. 

For all we know their assumed numbers could be off by factors of 100.

Throughout history many of the things scientist have "known" based on their assumptions have been proven to be incorrect as more info if found.


----------



## Awnry Abe

Johnny Dolittle said:


> It's also very hard to take science seriously when it's not being fit to a religious agenda.


Here is an absolute: in all cases, it is ALWAYS a religious agenda. All evidence is interpreted through one's philosophical view. The scientific method presents evidence. Mankind interprets meaning of the evidence. Scientists offer explanations. Those that think they are neutral are not honest with their craft.


----------



## willow_girl

> Every time there is a new discovery that disproves current scientific beliefs we hear, "scientists previously thought". How many times have we heard that?


And may we continue to hear it, because every time we do, it means an error is in the process of being corrected.

See, we have a couple of options here. One is to do the painstaking work of searching for truth. 

Another is to make up a fairy tale that neatly explains everything, and to believe in that. 

We all pays our money and takes our chances!


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

willow_girl said:


> And may we continue to hear it, because every time we do, it means an error is in the process of being corrected.


...... some errors may be corrected
......and some errors are only replaced by yet another error. So when do you know you positively have truth ?


Sometimes science reminds me of this scripture:


2 Timothy 3:7 (NIV) always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Awnry Abe said:


> Here is an absolute: in all cases, it is ALWAYS a religious agenda. All evidence is interpreted through one's philosophical view. The scientific method presents evidence. Mankind interprets meaning of the evidence. Scientists offer explanations. Those that think they are neutral are not honest with their craft.


Yep ... concerning origins it probably is impossible to be totally unbiased


----------



## Nevada

It seems that Mr. Armitage has some professional problems.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/03/453-mark-armitage.html

This being the case, he's hardly an authority.


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Yep ... concerning origins it probably is impossible to be totally unbiased


But there is a difference. We have evidence to support evolution, but there is no evidence of creationism. We can also demonstrate evolution, but creationism can't be demonstrated.

You are still free to offer creationism as a hypothesis. But since we can't test the hypothesis we can't apply the scientific method to prove it, so creationism can never become a theory.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> But there is a difference. We have evidence to support evolution, but there is no evidence of creationism. We can also demonstrate evolution, but creationism can't be demonstrated.


We can? Care to explain how we can demonstrate macroevolution (as opposed to microevolution, aka selective breeding)? Please note I have a strong scientific background and expect any demonstration to follow strict scientific protocol. Which means offering things which you say show it based on your assumptions do not qualify. 

Show me an experiment which has used environmental pressures to change one species into a brand new one incapable of interbreeding with the original species yet with the ability to reproduce its own kind. Then show me that others have been about to reproduce your results using your processes.




Nevada said:


> You are still free to offer creationism as a hypothesis. But since we can't test the hypothesis we can't apply the scientific method to prove it, so creationism can never become a theory.


Uh. . .sorry but you are incorrect. Everything is based on the _scientific theory_ of creationism, its currently called the big bang _theory_ of the beginning of the universe. See according to this scientific theory at on point there was nothing than there was a bang and the universe was *CREATED*. There are a lot of scientist out there working very hard to prove this theory of creationism .


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Uh. . .sorry but you are incorrect. Everything is based on the _scientific theory_ of creationism


There is no scientific theory of creationism, and unless God gives us a demonstration there will never be a scientific theory of creationism. The fact that we can't explain something doesn't mean that scientists will revert to scripture.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> See according to this scientific theory at on point there was nothing than there was a bang and the universe was *CREATED*.


The big bang theory does not suggest that matter was created in the big bang event. It only suggests that matter expanded rapidly. I'm surprised that someone with a strong scientific background would state otherwise.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> There is no scientific theory of creationism, and unless God gives us a demonstration there will never be a scientific theory of creationism. The fact that we can't explain something doesn't mean that scientists will revert to scripture.


Again you are wrong. Care to tell me just what the big bang theory is all about if its not about the CREATION of the universe? Is it not a fairly accepted scientifically theory which says that something (the universe) was CREATED out of nothing? Do we not have scientist pouring their lives and billions of dollars into researching and finding 'proof' that this is what happened?

If you are willing to believe that can happen with something as large and complex as the universe why can't you accept that it could have happened with something as small as a rat?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The big bang theory does not suggest that matter was created in the big bang event. It only suggests that matter expanded rapidly. I'm surprised that someone with a strong scientific background would state otherwise.


Ah but it does. The theory is there was no universe then there was. 

And it has its beliefs which must be taken on faith for it to work. Haven't they had to assume that there is all that 'dark matter' out there in order to 'adjust' the facts to fit their theory.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> There is no scientific theory of creationism, and unless God gives us a demonstration there will never be a scientific theory of creationism. The fact that we can't explain something doesn't mean that scientists will revert to scripture.


BTW, you seemed to have missed this part of my post so I thought I'd give you a second chance to answer.


_Care to explain how we can demonstrate macroevolution (as opposed to microevolution, aka selective breeding)? Please note I have a strong scientific background and expect any demonstration to follow strict scientific protocol. Which means offering things which you say show it based on your assumptions do not qualify. _


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Again you are wrong. Care to tell me just what the big bang theory is all about if its not about the CREATION of the universe?


This, from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

_According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today.

_


----------



## Paumon

*Did Dinosaurs Live Thousands of Years Ago, Not Millions?*

No. It wasn't possible for dinosaurs to exist thousands of years ago. It was too cold then for dinosaurs to exist at the earth temperatures that warm blooded animals survive in. Just as it wasn't possible for warm blooded mammals to exist in the green house temperatures that the dinosaurs survived in.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> BTW, you seemed to have missed this part of my post so I thought I'd give you a second chance to answer.
> 
> 
> _Care to explain how we can demonstrate macroevolution (as opposed to microevolution, aka selective breeding)? Please note I have a strong scientific background and expect any demonstration to follow strict scientific protocol. Which means offering things which you say show it based on your assumptions do not qualify. _


Ever heard of speciation?

_Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise._
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> It seems that Mr. Armitage has some professional problems.
> 
> http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/03/453-mark-armitage.html
> 
> This being the case, he's hardly an authority.


Did you read the whole......BLOG! :smack if you did, you must of missed these trivial facts:

A..This is a blog.
B.. The blog writer definitely has an agenda.
C...The blog writer got a lot of things totally wrong.
D...Did you read any of the comments? No, you didn't, because you would have seen examples of where this blogger is completely wrong about this man.

This was nothing more than an intentionally hateful blog. Seems like you were trying really hard to discredit this man and this was the best you could find......EPIC FAILURE! !!!!!

NEXT!!!!!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Did you read the whole......BLOG! :smack if you did, you must of missed these trivial facts:
> 
> A..This is a blog.
> B.. The blog writer definitely has an agenda.
> C...The blog writer got a lot of things totally wrong.
> D...Did you read any of the comments? No, you didn't, because you would have seen examples of where this blogger is completely wrong about this man.
> 
> This was nothing more than an intentionally hateful blog. Seems like you were trying really hard to discredit this man and this was the best you could find......EPIC FAILURE! !!!!!
> 
> NEXT!!!!!


I notice that you don't deny that he has a credential problem, you only say that the problem was pointed out in a hateful blog. I suggest that you follow some of the links. I think you'll agree that he's an embarrassment.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada:

Did you:

A... evolve
B... were you created


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> I notice that you don't deny that he has a credential problem, you only say that the problem was pointed out in a hateful blog. I suggest that you follow some of the links. I think you'll agree that he's an embarrassment.


I did follow some of those links that the blogger posted and yes, they are an embarrassment to the blogger.

Nevada........it's a blogger with an agenda! Not a useful resource. ..at all! Post a credible link by some of his peers. I don't see a credential issue, only you and the blogger seem to have an issue.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Nevada:
> 
> Did you:
> 
> A... evolve
> B... were you created


A... I evolved. There is no question in my mind about that.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> A... I evolved. There is no question in my mind about that.


From what?


----------



## MJsLady

Science got it wrong on one of two counts.

Either dinos did live closer to now than previously thought 
or
soft tissue can remain longer than preciously thought.

No religion required to see that.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> From what?


Ultimately from single cell life. Eventually those single cell creatures evolved into fish, then reptiles, then mammals.


----------



## Evons hubby

iti_oj said:


> Perhaps the difference between an open and closed system.


Or perhaps the difference between and open and closed mind?


----------



## Evons hubby

To answer the question posed by the OP....

Without doing any major terribly expensive scientific studies, the answer to this question should be obvious. Mankind and Dinosaurs had to have coexisted at the same time.... Else how could Fred and Barney have harnessed up those dinos down at the quarry? :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Ultimately from single cell life. Eventually those single cell creatures evolved into fish, then reptiles, then mammals.


Yeppers, and ALL of those basic types of critters are still roaming around the earth today.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Or perhaps the difference between and open and closed mind?


That's a good point -- the willingness to accept ideas.

Scientists refer to their facts as 'theories.' That's not to suggest that theories are tentative, or are preliminary thoughts that are provisional and unconfirmed. The term 'theory' is an idea that has been demonstrated and peer reviewed. They only use the term 'theory' to remind themselves that they're always open to other ideas.

Creationists don't have that openness of thought. They start out with a predisposition that they are correct and that they're going to reject and disprove any ideas that conflict with scripture. The idea that they are wrong is laughable, even in the face of a mountain of conflicting evidence.

So I have to ask. If science discovered an undeniable fact that conflicted with your faith, what would you do? Hint, a recent Gallop Poll showed that 64% of Americans said they would reject the scientific fact. If that doesn't tell you what chance evolution has in America, I don't know what will.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, and ALL of those basic types of critters are still roaming around the earth today.


Evolved descendents of those creatures, yes, but not those same creatures.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Evolved descendents of those creatures, yes, but not those same creatures.


Well of course those same creatures would all be dead by now, as would be most of their decendants.... at least several generations would have died of old age by now. Point being..... many of the creatures we have with us today, are basically the same critters from millions of years ago.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> That's a good point -- the willingness to accept ideas.
> 
> Scientists refer to their facts as 'theories.' That's not to suggest that theories are tentative, or are preliminary thoughts that are provisional and unconfirmed. The term 'theory' is an idea that has been demonstrated and peer reviewed. They only use the term 'theory' to remind themselves that they're always open to other ideas.
> 
> Creationists don't have that openness of thought. They start out with a predisposition that they are correct and that they're going to reject and disprove any ideas that conflict with scripture. The idea that they are wrong is laughable, even in the face of a mountain of conflicting evidence.
> 
> *So I have to ask. If science discovered an undeniable fact that conflicted with your faith, what would you do?* Hint, a recent Gallop Poll showed that 64% of Americans said they would reject the scientific fact. If that doesn't tell you what chance evolution has in America, I don't know what will.


I would obviously have to question the math used by our good scientist to establish this "undeniable fact". Right up front, all "facts" are deniable at one level or another. Example, I dont recollect the fellers name just now, but I am sure you know who I am talking about. Any ways he gave some careful thought to lots of "facts" and came up with the following.... "I think, therefor I am", and a lot of folks seem to think this feller was right on target. Me? I question his logic there.... I have to.... heres the problem with it.... If thinking is required in order to exist.... how come we have so many "progressives in our midst?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Ultimately from single cell life. Eventually those single cell creatures evolved into fish, then reptiles, then mammals.


Here I thought your parents created you! How do you exist without you parents?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Evolved descendents of those creatures, yes, but not those same creatures.


They adapted! If evolution is so easy to prove, why can't the scientific community prove it?


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well of course those same creatures would all be dead by now, as would be most of their decendants.... at least several generations would have died of old age by now. Point being..... many of the creatures we have with us today, are basically the same critters from millions of years ago.


That's unlikely. There are always accidents of nature (mutations) that offer new features and environmental changes that will give a species an opportunity to evolve, and they will.

Take giraffes for example. Of course they evolved with long necks to reach food that's up in trees, but if something happened to their habitat so there was no food up high they would no longer have that advantage. The species would evolve, probably in a direction away from long necks.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> They adapted! If evolution is so easy to prove, why can't the scientific community prove it?


Scientists have proven evolution. You just reject the evidence.


----------



## JJ Grandits

a long time ago, when I was in college ( a fine private university) I had a professor who I thought very well of. He had a PhD in Botany and a PhD in Geology. A pretty smart guy. He said that the best science could come up with regarding anything was a guess. I still believe him.


He also taught my brother and I to appreciate good Scotch. So I know that in everything else he was right.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Nevada said:


> Scientists have proven evolution. You just reject the evidence.


You're nuts.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Scientists have proven evolution. You just reject the evidence.


That is one of thee most profound lies I've ever seen! Unbelievable! And you call yourself a scientist, absurd!


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> That's unlikely. There are always accidents of nature (mutations) that offer new features and environmental changes that will give a species an opportunity to evolve, and they will.
> 
> Take giraffes for example. Of course they evolved with long necks to reach food that's up in trees, but if something happened to their habitat so there was no food up high they would no longer have that advantage. The species would evolve, probably in a direction away from long necks.


Hey Mr scientist, I hate to be the one to tell you........that's NOT evolution....it's adaptation. There's a huge difference.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> That is one of thee most profound lies I've ever seen! Unbelievable! And you call yourself a scientist, absurd!


Look at The Beak of the Finch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beak_of_the_Finch


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Hey Mr scientist, I hate to be the one to tell you........that's NOT evolution....it's adaptation. There's a huge difference.


Survival of the fittest is an important part of evolution. Here are the main points of the theory of evolution.

1. Evolution happens
2. Evolution occurs gradually
3. Speciation occurs
4. All species share a common ancestry
5. Most evolutionary change is caused by natural selection


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Scientists have proven evolution. You just reject the evidence.


Scientists have proven that some critters that once existed have gone extinct. That is about it, and even that theory doesnt always hold up when a couple a greek fishermen haul fish that have been extinct for millinea up in their nets. 

AS to being open and closed minded..... try to introduce the idea of creation to one of your science guys! talk about doors being slammed in ones face!


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Survival of the fittest is an important part of evolution. Here are the main points of the theory of evolution.
> 
> 1. Evolution happens
> 2. Evolution occurs gradually
> 3. Speciation occurs
> 4. All species share a common ancestry
> 5. Most evolutionary change is caused by natural selection


You just used the word theory in the above sentence. So, on one hand you say it's proven, here you call it a theory. I give up! World renowned scientists universally agree that the theory of evolution is still just a theory. Finch beak on Wikipedia. .....:hysterical:

How about a link to a scientific peer reviewed journal instead of wikipedia?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> That's unlikely. There are always accidents of nature (mutations) that offer new features and environmental changes that will give a species an opportunity to evolve, and they will.
> 
> Take giraffes for example. Of course they evolved with long necks to reach food that's up in trees, but if something happened to their habitat so there was no food up high they would no longer have that advantage. The species would evolve, probably in a direction away from long necks.


Your giraffe example isnt all that great.... why arent there extremely long necked rabbits? They like tree leaves too.... they dont make a habit of eating them out of the tops of trees though.... coz their necks are too short. Why are their necks so short? coz they are rabbits instead of giraffes!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> You just used the word theory in the above sentence. So, on one hand you say it's proven, here you call it a theory. I give up! World renowned scientists universally agree that the theory of evolution is still just a theory.


A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been proven. What did you think scientists called things that had been proven?



JeffreyD said:


> Finch beak on Wikipedia. .....:hysterical:


The Beak of the Finch is a respected scientific book. The Wiki page is only a review.


----------



## Evons hubby

This thread puts me in mind of a tour guide I had the pleasure of meeting a couple months ago while touring in Idaho. We had gone out to thousand springs for a birthday dinner on a really nice cruise boat. All along the way our guide.... I called him Wally, due to his resemblance to the guy on the Crocodile Dundee movies. At any rate our guide took us by a natural museum near the Hagerman fossil beds. All sorta neet fossils taken out of there and he was going on about the prehistoric zebras they had found there. Now, my mind got to whirling round..... how do we "know" these are zebras instead of horses?? did they pull any of those bones out that had stripes?  Me being the polite soul that I am didnt mention that to Wally, but one of the guys we were traveling with did! Wally got a bit red faced and started back peddling... "I meant to say zebra like animals", but my traveling companion wasnt havin any and asked "do you mean like a horse?", to which Wally finally after some stuttering and stammering answered... "Yes". Apparently our prehistoric animal "expert" (who was hawking his latest book throughout the trip) had been caught in his own mischief! He was correct about one thing though.... that little pointy topped hill we passed did pretty much resemble an extinct volcano.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> The Beak of the Finch is a respected scientific book. The Wiki page is only a review.


I am quite sure other scientists respect The Beak of the Finch.... probably almost as much as many Christians respect the Bible.


----------



## JeffreyD

Duplicate


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am quite sure other scientists respect The Beak of the Finch.... probably almost as much as many Christians respect the Bible.


The significant point of The Beak of the Finch was that two biologists actually watched the finches evolve over a very short time, only about a year. Their beaks doubled in size.


----------



## HDRider

JeffreyD said:


> Nevada:
> 
> Did you:
> 
> A... *D*evolve
> B... were you created



Fixed it...


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> The significant point of The Beak of the Finch was that two biologists actually watched the finches evolve over a very short time, only about a year. Their beaks doubled in size.


Yippee skippy.... my first wife doubled in size in only about 3 years.... and she did it all over! not just her beak! Didnt really prove much..... other than she liked ice cream and cookies.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yippee skippy.... my first wife doubled in size in only about 3 years.... and she did it all over! not just her beak! Didnt really prove much..... other than she liked ice cream and cookies.


If you don't want to have a serious discussion about this then that's fine, but I've got better things to do.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> If you don't want to have a serious discussion about this then that's fine, but I've got better things to do.


I am all for a serious discussion.... but just coz a couple of science guys make a claim about a finch..... that doesnt necessarily prove that my great grampa lived in trees munching on banana's either. Wanna have a serious discussion about the remote possibility of evolution actually being a fact? show me this evidence you speak of that actually links man to ANY previous creature that has ever lived on the planet.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> If you don't want to have a serious discussion about this then that's fine, but I've got better things to do.


If YOU can prove that evolution is in fact provable beyond all doubt. ...you would be a hero in the scientific community. Good luck with that! I'll be looking for your picture at the museum of science and industry! NOT!!!!


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am all for a serious discussion.... but just coz a couple of science guys make a claim about a finch..... that doesnt necessarily prove that my great grampa lived in trees munching on banana's either. Wanna have a serious discussion about the remote possibility of evolution actually being a fact? show me this evidence you speak of that actually links man to ANY previous creature that has ever lived on the planet.


There's plenty of information here, but you'll reject it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> There's plenty of information here, but you'll reject it.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution


Nope, I dont reject facts. What I do have a problem with is that the experts in their fields cannot seem to agree on very much.... and I still dont see that link I asked for earlier.... the one that links man to whatever previous critters we supposedly evolved from. There honestly doesnt seem to be any evidence of this slow gradual change from one kinda critter to the next.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

A little excerpt from "Fred on Everything" that might give pause for thought:


_A Thing is Not Possible Merely Because It Happens: The Tarantula Hawk_​_
It is easy to imagine how a complex system, once in existence, can, within limits, evolve under the influence of selective pressures. Any dog breeder can demonstrate this. Or think of the path from Eohippus to Clydesdale. The difficulty lies in knowing how the system came about in  the first place._​_Consider the Tarantula Hawk, a gigantic wasp that begins life as an egg inside a paralyzed and buried tarantula, where its mother put it. This may seem unmotherly, but there is no accounting for taste. The egg hatches. The larva feeds on the spider, somehow knowing how to avoid the vital organs so as to keep the monster alive and fresh. It pupates and then, a new adult, digs its way out of the burrow. _
_Off it flies. Never having seen another wasp, or anything else, it finds one, and knows how to mate. (Mating, if you think about it, is a rather more complex process than it may seem to high-schoolers. Some insects mate while flying, which compounds the trickiness. Think airline pilots and stewardesses.) Never having seen a tarantula, it knows how to find one, knows that it needs to attack it, knows exactly how to sting it, knows that it must drag it to its burrow, which it knows it has to dig, knows how to lay its egg on the tarantula and how to bury it._
_Now, some of this may be imagined as evolving by gradual steps (emphasis on &#8220;imagined,&#8221; which in matters evolutionary is good enough) as required by Darwin. All it takes is enough time. In enough time, anything desired will happen. (A diffuse cloud of hydrogen, given time, will turn into San Francisco.) Of millions and billions of eggs deposited in unfortunate tarantulas, over millions of years, some larvae ate the spiderÂ´s vital organs and so died in a rotting spider, not passing on their genes. Others pupated but tried to dig out by going downwards or sideways, thus dying and not passing on their genes. Only those with donÂ´t-eat-the-important-parts mutations and this-way-is-up mutations survived, and so their geneses became universal. This we are told._
_But&#8230;but knowing what a tarantula looks like when you have never seen one, or seen anything, knowing that you need to sting it and just how, that you need to dig a burrow and drag the spider to it, and cover it up, when all of this has to occur simultaneously or the whole process fails&#8230;._
_You have to be smoking Drano._

http://www.fredoneverything.net/BotFly.shtml

It's quite a long essay, but very thought provoking. He doesn't take it easy on Darwin or evolution, while still not pushing any conclusions.


----------



## JeffreyD

Ozarks Tom said:


> A little excerpt from "Fred on Everything" that might give pause for thought:
> 
> 
> _A Thing is Not Possible Merely Because It Happens: The Tarantula Hawk_​_
> It is easy to imagine how a complex system, once in existence, can, within limits, evolve under the influence of selective pressures. Any dog breeder can demonstrate this. Or think of the path from Eohippus to Clydesdale. The difficulty lies in knowing how the system came about in the first place._​_Consider the Tarantula Hawk, a gigantic wasp that begins life as an egg inside a paralyzed and buried tarantula, where its mother put it. This may seem unmotherly, but there is no accounting for taste. The egg hatches. The larva feeds on the spider, somehow knowing how to avoid the vital organs so as to keep the monster alive and fresh. It pupates and then, a new adult, digs its way out of the burrow. _
> _Off it flies. Never having seen another wasp, or anything else, it finds one, and knows how to mate. (Mating, if you think about it, is a rather more complex process than it may seem to high-schoolers. Some insects mate while flying, which compounds the trickiness. Think airline pilots and stewardesses.) Never having seen a tarantula, it knows how to find one, knows that it needs to attack it, knows exactly how to sting it, knows that it must drag it to its burrow, which it knows it has to dig, knows how to lay its egg on the tarantula and how to bury it._
> _Now, some of this may be imagined as evolving by gradual steps (emphasis on âimagined,â which in matters evolutionary is good enough) as required by Darwin. All it takes is enough time. In enough time, anything desired will happen. (A diffuse cloud of hydrogen, given time, will turn into San Francisco.) Of millions and billions of eggs deposited in unfortunate tarantulas, over millions of years, some larvae ate the spiderÂ´s vital organs and so died in a rotting spider, not passing on their genes. Others pupated but tried to dig out by going downwards or sideways, thus dying and not passing on their genes. Only those with donÂ´t-eat-the-important-parts mutations and this-way-is-up mutations survived, and so their geneses became universal. This we are told._
> _Butâ¦but knowing what a tarantula looks like when you have never seen one, or seen anything, knowing that you need to sting it and just how, that you need to dig a burrow and drag the spider to it, and cover it up, when all of this has to occur simultaneously or the whole process failsâ¦._
> _You have to be smoking Drano._
> 
> http://www.fredoneverything.net/BotFly.shtml
> 
> It's quite a long essay, but very thought provoking. He doesn't take it easy on Darwin or evolution, while still not pushing any conclusions.


Tarantula hawk.....yikes!!! Found one in my backyard about 10 years ago....read up on them. Their scary! As far as the article goes...very interesting!


----------



## arabian knight

Yes there wis plenty of scientific Fact about evolution. And none what so ever can prove creation did anything at all, but make a good story.


----------



## notwyse

Well I didn't even read about whether dinosaurs walked the earth millions or tens of thousands. Didn't need to get my panties in a twist.. I can take you to dinosaur prints. And petrified forests above my house. But when I go outside and look at the millions of stars PR look at a birds wing I know there was an eye for a beauty I could never imagine. And i thank God.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been proven. What did you think scientists called things that had been proven?


If I remember correctly when we have proven something its called a law. We don't have the theory of gravity. Nor do we have Boyle's theory.

Put simply a hypothesis is a guess. It can be an educated guess or it can be a WAG but its simply a guess as to why something is happening. 

You then put your guess to the test. If it holds up it moves up to being a theory.

If your theory can gather enough evidence, usually via repeatable experiments, without any holes in it AND there is nothing to counter it, aka a black swan, the theory may move up to a law.

The hypothesis/theory that animals descended from other animals goes back to ancient Greece, so figure about 2,500 years. In all that time there hasn't been enough evidence to elevate it to a law. Now you must ask yourself why we do not have the *law* of evolution. What do you think the reason for this is?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The significant point of The Beak of the Finch was that two biologists actually watched the finches evolve over a very short time, only about a year. Their beaks doubled in size.


What a waste of time. They could have just studied the schnauzer. They would have seen that man's breeding has made the mini, standard and giant. But changes within a species is microevolution not macroevolution, which changes one species to another. One which can not interbreed with the other and produce viable offspring.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, I dont reject facts. What I do have a problem with is that the experts in their fields cannot seem to agree on very much....


There is no realistic debate about evolution within the scientific community.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> and I still dont see that link I asked for earlier.... the one that links man to whatever previous critters we supposedly evolved from. There honestly doesnt seem to be any evidence of this slow gradual change from one kinda critter to the next.


Take your pick.

https://www.google.com/search?q=evo...7aoATT0IGwBg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=666


----------



## iti_oj

watcher said:


> Ah but it does. The theory is there was no universe then there was.
> 
> And it has its beliefs which must be taken on faith for it to work. Haven't they had to assume that there is all that 'dark matter' out there in order to 'adjust' the facts to fit their theory.


No.its not. There was a singularity.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> What a waste of time. They could have just studied the schnauzer. They would have seen that man's breeding has made the mini, standard and giant. But changes within a species is microevolution not macroevolution, which changes one species to another. One which can not interbreed with the other and produce viable offspring.


Read about speciation here. The article includes several examples. It should be a real eye opener for you. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> If I remember correctly when we have proven something its called a law. We don't have the theory of gravity. Nor do we have Boyle's theory.


No. While there can be no exceptions for something to be a law, there is no standard for definitive proof and the behavior doesn't require that it be totally understood. A theory is typically understood. There is no absolute proof or truth in science. All laws and theories are subject to being challenged at a future date.

One test of whether something is a theory or law is to ask 'why.' If the behavior can't be explained yet there are no known exceptions to the behavior then, it's most likely a law. For example, Newton could use the law of gravity to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.


----------



## bamasteader

Nevada said:


> Read about speciation here. The article includes several examples. It should be a real eye opener for you.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation


FYI wikipedia isn't the only place to do research. And to answer the OP original question...yes. I've been caught up in these debates before and they tend to drag out for weeks with no ones mind being changed. To me evolution is a fantasy, and I could care less if someone else feels the same way or not. Just take a look outside. Buildings, cars, roads, etc are all created, so how is it that things that are way more complex just happened by chance? I won't post a wiki link because I'm sure the ones involved in this thread have seen enough of those.


----------



## Nevada

bamasteader said:


> FYI wikipedia isn't the only place to do research. And to answer the OP original question...yes. I've been caught up in these debates before and they tend to drag out for weeks with no ones mind being changed. To me evolution is a fantasy, and I could care less if someone else feels the same way or not. Just take a look outside. Buildings, cars, roads, etc are all created, so how is it that things that are way more complex just happened by chance? I won't post a wiki link because I'm sure the ones involved in this thread have seen enough of those.


I'm not surprised. As I said, a Gallop poll showed that about 2/3rds of Americans would reject a scientific fact if it conflicted with their religious beliefs.


----------



## willow_girl

> ...... some errors may be corrected
> ......and some errors are only replaced by yet another error. So when do you know you positively have truth ?


There are some things we may never know, although we learn more about the Earth and the universe every day. 

But I can live with uncertainty. I much prefer it to a comforting fairy tale.

LOL ... I got into a debate with a Christian once about faith vs. agnosticism. With an "Aha!" expression on her face, she asked, "So where did life on Earth come from?" And then looked extremely crestfallen when I replied, "Well, we don't know for sure just yet, although we may understand it eventually."

I fail to see why there's this rush to embrace SOME explanation, ANY explanation, even if it's merely mythology. We're not little children who need a bedtime story with a pat ending in order to fall asleep ...:huh:


----------



## Nevada

willow_girl said:


> I fail to see why there's this rush to embrace SOME explanation, ANY explanation, even if it's merely mythology. We're not little children who need a bedtime story with a pat ending in order to fall asleep ...:huh:


And I don't understand why it should have a place in science class.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> And I don't understand why it should have a place in science class.


I agree, evolution should not be taught in school as a fact!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> I agree, evolution should not be taught in school as a fact!


Whatever you think about evolution, nobody is going to replace evolution with creationism in science class. Simply put, neither creationism nor intelligent design are accepted scientific theory.

_The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes._
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> That's unlikely. There are always accidents of nature (mutations) that offer new features and environmental changes that will give a species an opportunity to evolve, and they will.
> 
> Take giraffes for example. Of course they evolved with long necks to reach food that's up in trees, but if something happened to their habitat so there was no food up high they would no longer have that advantage. The species would evolve, probably in a direction away from long necks.


Actually Giraffes present some problems for evolution.

Increasing the length of a Giraffes neck by selective breeding would seem plausible because the neck could be stretched by increasing the length of each vertebrate or by increasing the number of vertebrate in the neck.

However increasing the length of the neck produces other problems. When you increase the length of the neck you need to increase the capacity of the heart because greater blood pressures will be required to get blood to the brain. Increasing the blood pressure solves one problem but creates another because when the long necked Giraffe drops his head to drink the blood pressure in his head rises abruptly. The increased blood pressure would literally cause the brain to explode if it were not for the presence of special check valve like devices in the neck which control blood flow when the Giraffe lowers his neck.

So stretching the neck of a Giraffe would require lengthening of vertebrate and/or increasing the number of vertebrate *and* the addition of new check valve like devices. Evolving of these check valve like devices would require numerous specific mutations to allow them to become functional. These specific mutations would need to all appear at once to produce a functioning check valve (which is highly unlikely) or else they must accumulate slowly over time to produce a functional check valve.... But until functional check valves are produced by evolution, mutations which lengthen the neck of the Giraffe will be *Lethal* to the Giraffe. And if evolution does not produce check valves the neck can not increase in length.

*But even if you can produce longer necked Giraffes will natural selection prefer them over shorter necked Giraffes ?

*Consider a long drought occuring on an African Savannah where there are Giraffes and other herbivores competing for forage and foliage. There would likely be smaller shorter hoofed herbivores along with tree climbing herbivores and also flying herbivores.... They would all be competing for food. The food on the ground would soon be eliminated by grazing. Giraffes could reach higher than other hoofed species but birds and climbing herbivores could reach higher than the longest necked Giraffes.... so eventually all of the Giraffes die to starvation including the longer necked ones !!!!!

*And their is yet another problem for evolution of longer necks

*Consider the above scenario but eliminate the flying and climbing herbivores.... so now the longer necked Giraffes can reach higher than the shorter necked Giraffes and higher than any other type of herbivore.... *But*....

In nature males are usually larger than females and in Giraffes males will be a couple feet taller. So now only the males can reach the highest branches and so the shorter necked female Giraffes (which are carrying the genes for longer necked Giraffes) perish !!!!!!!!!!!


*Now I think I have proven something..... Evolutionists produce perfect little stories where perfect conditions exist to allow evolution to occur ..... but reality is these perfect conditions (if they do occur) would need to prevail over very very very long periods of time ... which IMO is not likely to occur.*


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> No. While there can be no exceptions for something to be a law, there is no standard for definitive proof and the behavior doesn't require that it be totally understood. A theory is typically understood. There is no absolute proof or truth in science. All laws and theories are subject to being challenged at a future date.


Again I must ask if there is "no realistic debate about evolution within the scientific community" why do we not have the LAW of evolution. There MUST be something out there which goes against the theory or it would not still be a theory after all of this time.




Nevada said:


> One test of whether something is a theory or law is to ask 'why.' If the behavior can't be explained yet there are no known exceptions to the behavior then, it's most likely a law. For example, Newton could use the law of gravity to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.


With gravity it could be shown to act the same way repeatedly in different experiments done by different people and no one could come up with any examples to question it. The same can not be said of macroevolution. There are no experiments which have even came close to showing it happens. You'd think you could take some organism, expose it to radiation to force mutations, place it in a harsh environment and in several generations force it to evolve into something else. There clearly would be a Nobel prize waiting for the person who did this.

People see how microevolution causes changes within a species, the similarities between some species and make the huge leap one species must have evolved from another. They use that example of how species X is so similar to species Y to 'prove' their case. That's like looking at a 2014 Ford F350 and a 1964 Chevy Chevette and saying because they are so similar they must have been made in the same factory. 

I believe in microevolution. I have two mini-horses in my pasture right now (LONG story there) which are clear proof of it.

But there are too many holes in the theory of macroevolution for it to become a law and therefore for me to believe it.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> And I don't understand why it should have a place in science class.


The problem is we are teaching something as a proven fact/law which is in fact questionable. If you are going to teach the theory of evolution then teach it as a theory, i.e. something which has not been proven and is still considered JUST A THEORY. Don't teach it as fact and look at anyone who questions it is just stupid or a crazy religious zealot.

I was taught that ALL theories must be questioned and questioned harshly until they are proven or disproven. Anyone who accepted a theory as law when there was still major unanswered questions was. . . well let's say, frowned upon.

Want me to believe in macroevolution? Show me how a newly evolved member of a species could reproduce when its the only evolved one. Show me how DNA can change to the point it is no longer compatible with what it once was. Show me how something as 'simple' as the eye evolved. Show me why all higher organisms have eyes even when they have nothing else in common.


----------



## iti_oj

Watcher could you explain what mechanism separates micro from macro?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> The problem is we are teaching something as a proven fact/law which is in fact questionable. If you are going to teach the theory of evolution then teach it as a theory, i.e. something which has not been proven and is still considered JUST A THEORY. Don't teach it as fact and look at anyone who questions it is just stupid or a crazy religious zealot.


No science teacher teaches evolution as anything but a scientific theory. You'll have to show me a science text that says that. I absolutely don't believe it.



watcher said:


> I was taught that ALL theories must be questioned and questioned harshly until they are proven or disproven.


No. A hypothesis is questioned harshly until proven. If it is proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community then it becomes a scientific theory.

Again, you suggest that there is something tentative about a scientific theory, but there is not. A scientific theory is accepted as truth. A theory the closest thing science has to a fact, but scientists don't happen to use the word "fact."

Creationism & intelligent design have not passed scientific muster to become a theory, so they both remain a hypothesis.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Again I must ask if there is "no realistic debate about evolution within the scientific community" why do we not have the LAW of evolution. There MUST be something out there which goes against the theory or it would not still be a theory after all of this time.


The difference between a theory and a law is not the level of proof or acceptance. I've already explained the difference.

You evidently don't understand what a scientific theory is. There is nothing tentative about a scientific theory. It's universally accepted throughout the scientific community.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Whatever you think about evolution, nobody is going to replace evolution with creationism in science class. Simply put, neither creationism nor intelligent design are accepted scientific theory.
> 
> _The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes._
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science


I see, so what you are saying is that the scientific community has yet to learn how to test these "supernatural" (to them) causes. Perhaps they should focus more of their energy into unravelling those mysteries and less into promoting their own fantasies about how man came into existence. As I recall the scientific community in the 1600s would have been still somewhat puzzled by what the average teen today takes for granted today... the supernatural workings of a cellphone..... which by the way involved a certain amount of "intelligent design" to create.


----------



## greg273

Nevada said:


> The difference between a theory and a law is not the level of proof or acceptance. I've already explained the difference.
> 
> You evidently don't understand what a scientific theory is. There is nothing tentative about a scientific theory. It's universally accepted throughout the scientific community.


 Nevada, you do realize you are arguing with a bunch of folks who think the Bible is a textbook to be taken literally? 

We're witnessing evolution right here on this very thread! Too bad most people are going BACKWARDS.


----------



## Nevada

greg273 said:


> Nevada, you do realize you are arguing with a bunch of folks who think the Bible is a textbook to be taken literally?


I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that 64% of Americans would reject a scientific principle that conflicts with their faith. That's what you might expect during the dark ages in Europe, but not today in America.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Nevada, you do realize you are arguing with a bunch of folks who think the Bible is a textbook to be taken literally?


The Bible is every bit as legitimate as a text book as any other book.


----------



## MJsLady

It takes just as much if not more Faith to believe in something from nothing than in something created by an intelligent creator. 

The more I see of archaeological discoveries, the more evident it is that ancient man had more knowledge of basics than we do today.

The Roman Aqueducts, the pyramids at Giza, Stonehenge, all for the most part unachievable today yet some how they were done. With out the assistance of modern science and tools. Yet we today seem so puffed up in our "knowledge" and yet we can not figure out and duplicate methods of folks we think we are better than. 

I am not against science. Science though is still an infant compared to Faith. It has a lot of ground to cover before it deserves the same respect.

Aside from which the basic point of the OP is being insistently and consistently ignored. 

2 so far have found soft tissue from a dinosaur. Something science in all its wisdom denies as possible. Science is WRONG. No religion or Faith based twaddle inserted. The EVIDENCE shows science is wrong. Either wrong in its assumption of when dinosaurs lived or wrong in its assumption of how long soft tissue can last. Either way wrong.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that 64% of Americans would reject a scientific principle that conflicts with their faith. That's what you might expect during the dark ages in Europe, but not today in America.


Maybe thats because even you admit that "scientific principles" are subject to change as new evidence comes in.... God on the other hand doesnt change.... He is always there, true and unmovable.


----------



## bamasteader

Evolution is nothing more than a Godless religion. Some people like thinking that they are in charge, and that can't happen when God is ultimately the one who is charge. It has never been proven that any creature turned into a completely different creature. Nevada, show us proof and I promise you minds will change but otherwise you are just waisting your time. You keep your religion and the rest of us will keep ours.


----------



## Nevada

bamasteader said:


> Nevada, show us proof and I promise you minds will change but otherwise you are just waisting your time. You keep your religion and the rest of us will keep ours.


As an example, there is no denying that bacteria evolves over time. It can be observed over relatively short periods of time. To deny that organisms evolve borders on the absurd.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Maybe thats because even you admit that "scientific principles" are subject to change as new evidence comes in.... God on the other hand doesnt change.... He is always there, true and unmovable.


Instead, Bible interpretations change. If you want the Bible to say something different they say that the Bible didn't really mean what they thought is said. That allows the Bible to be consistent with cultural changes.


----------



## bamasteader

Nevada said:


> As an example, there is no denying that bacteria evolves over time. It can be observed over relatively short periods of time. To deny that organisms evolve borders on the absurd.


But said bacteria is still bacteria not a fish, a monkey, or anything other than what it started out as. Again there is no proof.


----------



## Nevada

bamasteader said:


> But said bacteria is still bacteria not a fish, a monkey, or anything other than what it started out as. Again there is no proof.


So you believe in a little bit of evolutionary change, but not a lot of evolutionary change?


----------



## greg273

bamasteader said:


> But said bacteria is still bacteria not a fish, a monkey, or anything other than what it started out as. Again there is no proof.


 Give it a few billion years and see what happens. Or just believe that God made everything JUST AS IT IS, and nothing changes, ever. I don't find that explanation plausible, no matter what some dusty old scrolls said. 
Someone needs to explain why evolution and God cant' BOTH be legit.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The Bible is every bit as legitimate as a text book as any other book.


 What does that even mean? Legit as in it exists?? I'l grant you that, it sure does exist. 
Now tell me why God and evolution can't BOTH be legit.


----------



## MJsLady

Adaptation is not evolution.

Humans who live in the deep jungle live differently than humans who live in a big city.
They have adapted. Their muscles developed differently, their eating habits are different, yet they are not a new creature. They may be smaller or larger than city dwellers. They may look different, even odd to others but their species is still human. 

Evolution says that one creature changes completely into something new. It also must happen en-mass or the new creature would be 1 of a kind and die. So an entire group of one species must become an entirely new species according to evolution. 

This has no proof to back it up yet it is insisted on being taught as fact in schools.

Creationism has as much proof as this does. Actually since the dawn of man creationism has been the accepted science until a few hundred years ago. Suddenly the norm is supposed to be forgotten in place of something not proven and actually unprovable? Yeah right. 

Yes so I am stupid for accepting a theory that is 1,000s of years old and has historical literature to concur with it. 
When scientists take 2 invisible atoms, bang them together and create a rock, or a pig or even a grain of sand from nothing, then perhaps I can be persuaded.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> What does that even mean? Legit as in it exists?? I'l grant you that, it sure does exist.
> Now tell me why God and evolution can't BOTH be legit.


what does that mean? It means that the Bible is just as credible as any other book ever written. I know of no reason God and evolution cannot both be legit, and share space in our classrooms.... tis the anti God folks that are all in a fizz over that issue, not me.


----------



## greg273

MJsLady said:


> Evolution says that one creature changes completely into something new. It also must happen en-mass or the new creature would be 1 of a kind and die. So an entire group of one species must become an entirely new species according to evolution.


 Nobody said it happens 'en masse', it happens one slight genetic change at a time. Its called mutation. And yes, most mutants end up dying. Some do not. Sometime the mutation is beneficial.
You've already made up your mind, so arguing with you is pointless. Although maybe you can be the one to explain why God and evolution cant' both be true? Maybe thats how God works??


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Instead, Bible interpretations change. If you want the Bible to say something different they say that the Bible didn't really mean what they thought is said. That allows the Bible to be consistent with cultural changes.


Yep, interpretations are always subject to change.... but God does not. Notice I left mans interpretations out of the equation... I simply stated the simple truth.... God never changes.... He is always there.


----------



## Nevada

MJsLady said:


> Adaptation is not evolution.


Adaptation does not involve changes in genetic coding the way evolution does. We're not talking about adaptation.

I am beginning to see that a lot of the problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, interpretations are always subject to change.... but God does not. Notice I left mans interpretations out of the equation... I simply stated the simple truth.... God never changes.... He is always there.


How do you know what God's truth is without interpreting the Bible?


----------



## copperkid3

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would obviously have to question the math used by our good scientist to establish this "undeniable fact". Right up front, all "facts" are deniable at one level or another. Example, I dont recollect the fellers name just now, but I am sure you know who I am talking about. Any ways he gave some careful thought to lots of "facts" and came up with the following.... "I think, therefor I am", and a lot of folks seem to think this feller was right on target. Me? I question his logic there.... I have to.... heres the problem with it....* If thinking is required in order to exist.... how come we have so many "progressives in our midst?*


+ + + + + + + + +
If we take the inverse of the stated equation; I.e.

"I exist, therefore I think.", it becomes even more apparent!

Obviously we have a lot of progressives who merely exist . . .

and very few do ANY thinking.


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, I dont reject facts. What I do have a problem with is that the experts in their fields cannot seem to agree on very much....


Experts in the religious fields can't agree on much either.

:catfight:


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The Bible is every bit as legitimate as a text book as any other book.


What kind of a text book? certainly not a history text or a science text when it gets so many of those thing wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Bible, but I love it for what it is -- not for what it isn't


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> How do you know what God's truth is without interpreting the Bible?


Ask Him... That worked for me.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> Experts in the religious fields can't agree on much either.
> 
> :catfight:


True, and pretty much for the same reasons.... greed mostly, with a little ego thrown in for good measure.


----------



## bamasteader

greg273 said:


> Nobody said it happens 'en masse', it happens one slight genetic change at a time. Its called mutation. And yes, most mutants end up dying. Some do not. Sometime the mutation is beneficial.
> You've already made up your mind, so arguing with you is pointless. Although maybe you can be the one to explain why God and evolution cant' both be true? Maybe thats how God works??


Because nowhere in the bible did God say, "Let there be primordial soup that over the next several billion years will turn into all the creatures of the air, sea, and land". Living things have adapted, and continue to adapt, to fit there environments. Once again there is absolutely no proof that any living thing turned into another totally different living thing. That's why evolution is a religion. There is also no proof that God created all that we see, but I choose to make that my religion. Who knows we may all have it wrong and the aliens are responsible.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> What kind of a text book? certainly not a history text or a science text when it gets so many of those thing wrong.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love the Bible, but I love it for what it is -- not for what it isn't


Would you look in a math text book for answers to grammar or history questions? Probably not. When science ever figures out that time is a nonexistent manmade concept with no real basis, then we might be able to begin to understand that history is part of the present just as the future is. Once we do that, we will understand that everything simply "is". At that point we can begin to understand Gods realm a bit better.


----------



## MJsLady

Agreed.
Adaptation is NOT evolution.

Bacteria remains bacteria. It doesn't become a lizard. 
That would be evolution.


----------



## Evons hubby

bamasteader said:


> Because nowhere in the bible did God say, "Let there be primordial soup that over the next several billion years will turn into all the creatures of the air, sea, and land".


Oh I dunno about that.... I seem to recall something about a time when the earth was void and without form... etc It goes on to tell how He then created plants, then sea creatures, with land animals coming late in the game... even after birds. It was only well after He had created all other things that man was created. Sounds a little like an evolutionary tale to me.... but on a lighter note.... Then after all that work He rested. Not too long after that He created woman.... and I have found no mention anywhere in the scriptures that after He created her that God nor man has rested!


----------



## bamasteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Then after all that work He rested. Not too long after that He created woman.... and I have found no mention anywhere in the scriptures that after He created her that God nor man has rested!


Amen..


----------



## Nevada

MJsLady said:


> Bacteria remains bacteria.


You don't believe that cells can colonize? That should have been covered in science class in high school, if not before.


----------



## greg273

bamasteader said:


> Because nowhere in the bible did God say, "Let there be primordial soup that over the next several billion years will turn into all the creatures of the air, sea, and land".


 'LET THERE BE LIGHT' is to me as good a description of the Big Bang as any other I've seen. 
What you see as 'it all just appeared here because god said so', I see evolution at work, because god put it in motion and holds it all in his hand, near as I can tell.

Now why do you think God doesn't work through evolution?


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> what does that mean? It means that the Bible is just as credible as any other book ever written. I know of no reason God and evolution cannot both be legit, and share space in our classrooms.... tis the anti God folks that are all in a fizz over that issue, not me.


 Seems like you are saying that evolution and God can't both be true, if you're talking about them sharing 'equal space'. How about they are BOTH true, and the Bible is not meant to be taken as a literal description of creation but a metaphor for billions of years of the process? Maybe God works through evolution.


----------



## Nevada

greg273 said:


> Now why do you think God doesn't work through evolution?


As science evolves, that will be the eventual conclusion of religious people. I have no objection to anyone believing that. If Adam & Eve are considered a parable by mainstream Christianity I don't see that as impacting religion to any great extent.


----------



## copperkid3

Nevada said:


> You don't believe that cells can colonize?


+ + + + + + + + +
"colonize" or not. What is troublesome, is that YOU
believe that because they do colonize, that this proves 
there is 'evolution' in process. Yet they still remain single cells . . . FAIL!

These 'side' issues that you continue to throw up are beginning to prove tiresome . . .


However, it certainly begins to explain 
why you shy away from the 'fact'
(or it is now a theory?)
that man devolved from monkeys . . .


----------



## Nevada

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + + +
> "colonize" or not. What is troublesome, is that YOU
> believe that because they do colonize, that this proves
> there is 'evolution' in process. Yet they still remain single cells . . . FAIL!


Evolution is established with single cell organism genetic changes. But I also believe that cells colonize, specialize, and develop into complex organisms. The fact that the process takes too long for us to observe doesn't mean it can't be happening.

Lots of things are not readily apparent without understanding the science behind it. I'll point out that the earth being flat is the obvious conclusion from our own observations, but the earth of course is not flat.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> No science teacher teaches evolution as anything but a scientific theory. You'll have to show me a science text that says that. I absolutely don't believe it.


When you forbid any discussion of different possibilities then you are, in effect, saying that it is a fact because there is nothing else out there. Example. Say you teach that all swans are white and ignore anyone who tries to interject that this hasn't not been proven and there is a chance that a genetic mutation could result in a different color. Everyone in the class is going to see what you are teaching as fact because there is clearly nothing out there questioning it.




Nevada said:


> No. A hypothesis is questioned harshly until proven. If it is proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community then it becomes a scientific theory.
> 
> Again, you suggest that there is something tentative about a scientific theory, but there is not.


Its not a suggestion its a fact. A theory is, in effect, a half proven hypothesis. There's enough evidence to show that its no just a WAG but not enough to show it as being true.




Nevada said:


> A scientific theory is accepted as truth. A theory the closest thing science has to a fact, but scientists don't happen to use the word "fact."


Where do you get this? To my knowledge in the science community you have: 1) hypothesis; 2) theory and 3) law. Once a hypothesis is shown to have merit it is moved into the theory category. Once a theory is proven it is moved into the law category. You do not have "proven" theories which are still considered theories. They are called laws. You don't have the theory of gravity or the theories of thermodynamics. That's because the theory of gravity and the theories of thermo have been proven and moved out to the theory category. 




Nevada said:


> Creationism & intelligent design have not passed scientific muster to become a theory, so they both remain a hypothesis.


But should you not bring them up when discussing the fact that there are questions which have prevented the theory of evolution from being elevated to a law? Should not the holes in the theory be brought up and a discussion ensue about what else could be in effect?

This is what happened in the old days when kids were taught HOW to think instead of WHAT to think. In schools today any kid which questions what the government demands to be taught is labeled a trouble maker and treated as such or called ADHA and drugged.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The difference between a theory and a law is not the level of proof or acceptance. I've already explained the difference.
> 
> You evidently don't understand what a scientific theory is. There is nothing tentative about a scientific theory. It's universally accepted throughout the scientific community.


This is news to me. When did they get rid of scientific law category?


----------



## Awnry Abe

Nevada said:


> But there is a difference. We have evidence to support evolution, but there is no evidence of creationism. We can also demonstrate evolution, but creationism can't be demonstrated.
> 
> You are still free to offer creationism as a hypothesis. But since we can't test the hypothesis we can't apply the scientific method to prove it, so creationism can never become a theory.


Correct. It is a hypothesis that involves supernatural elements, which is off-limits to science, ergo "theory" & "science" does not apply. However, evolution suffers from a very similar set of constraints. It lacks some necessary attributes of the definition of "theory" to really be called "theory". I have yet to hear that evolution can be demonstrated, contrary to your claim. If it were so, this discussion would be over. Game, set, match. And to that end, at least creation "theory" lays itself out there to be disproven. The same cannot be said of evolution. That alone, should raise eyebrows that philosophy has entered the fray, and not science. But it doesn't, because man has an insatiable drive to eliminate God at all costs.

Do you remember when Obama, a politician, declared the climate change science to be "settled"? This is no different. Every last bit of testimony that you can bring forth from the scientific community is from the "it is settled" camp. One can not even be in that scientific community and claim otherwise. Yet, without any scientific proof, they have leapt from "theory" (really hypothesis--can't be reproduced) to fact.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Nevada, you do realize you are arguing with a bunch of folks who think the Bible is a textbook to be taken literally?
> 
> We're witnessing evolution right here on this very thread! Too bad most people are going BACKWARDS.


You can be a Christian and a scientist. I know a many of Christian engineers, chemist and physicist.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> As an example, there is no denying that bacteria evolves over time. It can be observed over relatively short periods of time. To deny that organisms evolve borders on the absurd.


Major deflection there buddy. You are trying to compare microevolution to macroevolution. 

Anyone can look at the wide selection of dogs you can buy to see that you can use the basic genetic code within a species to make a line of that species to look the way you want it. 

I challenge you to show any bacteria has changed its DNA and evolved into a different species.

Thinking a species can change its DNA and become a completely different species when there is zero (0) evidence of this seems a little absurd to me.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> So you believe in a little bit of evolutionary change, but not a lot of evolutionary change?


Again its a HUGE leap from selective breeding a dog small enough to fit in a tea cup and breeding one which has wings and a different DNA.

Talk about taking something on blind faith. . .


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Nobody said it happens 'en masse', it happens one slight genetic change at a time. Its called mutation. And yes, most mutants end up dying. Some do not. Sometime the mutation is beneficial.
> You've already made up your mind, so arguing with you is pointless. Although maybe you can be the one to explain why God and evolution cant' both be true? Maybe thats how God works??


Ok I'll bite. If a creature mutates to be a different creature what does it breed with to continue the mutation?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> You don't believe that cells can colonize? That should have been covered in science class in high school, if not before.


Big claims demand big proof. Where is the proof that bacteria can evolve into another species?


----------



## copperkid3

Nevada said:


> Evolution is established with single cell organism genetic changes. But I also believe that cells colonize, specialize, and develop into complex organisms. The fact that the process takes too long for us to observe doesn't mean it can't be happening.
> 
> Lots of things are not readily apparent without understanding the science behind it. I'll point out that the earth being flat is the obvious conclusion from our own observations, but the earth of course is not flat.


+ + + + + +0+ + + + +
G*d is behind it. I'll point out that the earth was known to be ROUND
2500 years (or more) BEFORE it was "assumed" by 'modern' man, to
be flat. Check out the following from the bible for verification:

The earth is round!

You may be surprised to learn that the Bible revealed that the earth is round.
Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22, Amos 9:6. Today, we chuckle at the people
of the fifteenth century who feared sailing because they thought they would fall 
over the edge of the flat earth. Yet the Bible revealed the truth in 1000 B.C. 
2500 years before man discovered it for himself! 

Interestingly enough, there have been "scientific" discoveries made, 
because it was read FIRST in the bible and then checked out further to verify!


Perhaps there is a lesson in there for those who have eyes to see & ears to hear . . .


http://www.bible.ca/b-science-evidences.htm


----------



## MJsLady

Colonize? Perhaps. Change species, no.
When I think of colonizing though I think of intelligent, on purpose planning to come together.
Bacteria can group but to my mind not colonize with a will to do something intelligently.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Actually Giraffes present some problems for evolution.
> 
> Increasing the length of a Giraffes neck by selective breeding would seem plausible because the neck could be stretched by increasing the length of each vertebrate or by increasing the number of vertebrate in the neck.
> 
> However increasing the length of the neck produces other problems. When you increase the length of the neck you need to increase the capacity of the heart because greater blood pressures will be required to get blood to the brain. Increasing the blood pressure solves one problem but creates another because when the long necked Giraffe drops his head to drink the blood pressure in his head rises abruptly. The increased blood pressure would literally cause the brain to explode if it were not for the presence of special check valve like devices in the neck which control blood flow when the Giraffe lowers his neck.
> 
> So stretching the neck of a Giraffe would require lengthening of vertebrate and/or increasing the number of vertebrate *and* the addition of new check valve like devices. Evolving of these check valve like devices would require numerous specific mutations to allow them to become functional. These specific mutations would need to all appear at once to produce a functioning check valve (which is highly unlikely) or else they must accumulate slowly over time to produce a functional check valve.... But until functional check valves are produced by evolution, mutations which lengthen the neck of the Giraffe will be *Lethal* to the Giraffe. And if evolution does not produce check valves the neck can not increase in length.
> 
> *But even if you can produce longer necked Giraffes will natural selection prefer them over shorter necked Giraffes ?
> 
> *Consider a long drought occuring on an African Savannah where there are Giraffes and other herbivores competing for forage and foliage. There would likely be smaller shorter hoofed herbivores along with tree climbing herbivores and also flying herbivores.... They would all be competing for food. The food on the ground would soon be eliminated by grazing. Giraffes could reach higher than other hoofed species but birds and climbing herbivores could reach higher than the longest necked Giraffes.... so eventually all of the Giraffes die to starvation including the longer necked ones !!!!!
> 
> *And their is yet another problem for evolution of longer necks
> 
> *Consider the above scenario but eliminate the flying and climbing herbivores.... so now the longer necked Giraffes can reach higher than the shorter necked Giraffes and higher than any other type of herbivore.... *But*....
> 
> In nature males are usually larger than females and in Giraffes males will be a couple feet taller. So now only the males can reach the highest branches and so the shorter necked female Giraffes (which are carrying the genes for longer necked Giraffes) perish !!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> *Now I think I have proven something..... Evolutionists produce perfect little stories where perfect conditions exist to allow evolution to occur ..... but reality is these perfect conditions (if they do occur) would need to prevail over very very very long periods of time ... which IMO is not likely to occur.*


*But I am not finished .... 

*Again consider a drought on an African savannah.... there would be Giraffes along with other herbivores.... and now lets add carnivores to the scenario. Giraffes can eat low growing forages so for Giraffes to be eliminated by natural selection the low growing forages would need to be depleted. If the low growing forages are depleted the herbivores which can not reach higher growing foliages will be eliminated (by starvation) also. The only surviving herbivores would be Giraffes and eventually the shorter necked ones would starve also.

As the drought would progress the shorter smaller herbivores would first be weakened.... they would either starve or become easy prey to the carnivores

As long as there are living herbivores the carnivores will survive.... and in fact will flourish on the abundant supply of weakened and starving herbivores.

And in the end the only living herbivores would be longer necked Giraffes.... because the smaller shorter herbivore's food supply becomes depleted. And then the only living animals on the drought stricken savannah are the long necked Giraffes and some very hungry carnivores.

....and then the long necked Giraffes will likely be eliminated from the gene pool also !!!!!!!


----------



## Nevada

MJsLady said:


> Colonize? Perhaps. Change species, no.
> When I think of colonizing though I think of intelligent, on purpose planning to come together.
> Bacteria can group but to my mind not colonize with a will to do something intelligently.


We know that species change. That was observed in The Beak of the Finch. That ship has already sailed.

But when cells colonize they begin to specialize. Some let food in, and some let waste out. The thing to remember is that evolution is not intelligent or purposeful, it just ends up that way.

For example, early man had to be a good hunter to keep a mate. Those who were good hunters and providers reproduced, while those who were not so good at hunting didn't reproduce. That allowed man to evolve with the traits of the better hunters. That wasn't anybody's plan, but that's the way it ended up.


----------



## copperkid3

Nevada said:


> We know that species change. That was observed in The Beak of the Finch. That ship has already sailed.
> 
> But when cells colonize they begin to specialize. Some let food in, and some let waste out. The thing to remember is that evolution is not intelligent or purposeful, it just ends up that way.
> 
> For example, early man had to be a good hunter to keep a mate. Those who were good hunters and providers reproduced, while those who were not so good at hunting didn't reproduce. That allowed man to evolve with the traits of the better hunters. That wasn't anybody's plan, but that's the way it ended up.


+ + + + + + +
the species, hold up . . . with progressives entering the picture.

They neither gather nor hunt and expect a free hand-out from those who do.

Somehow they've survived and continue on to the detriment of the rest of society . . . 

Besides, most of the 'progressive' femi-nazis that I've had the (pleasure?) 
of meeting,
were either asexual or confirmed lesbians who hated any and all men . . .


You need a better theory.


----------



## MJsLady

The bird remained a finch did it not?


----------



## unregistered353870

> I'll point out that the earth being flat is the obvious conclusion from our own observations


Only to a moron. If the earth was flat you could see the Rockies from both coasts. It's pretty obvious that the earth is not flat. I didn't need science to tell me that.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> We know that species change. That was observed in The Beak of the Finch. That ship has already sailed.
> 
> But when cells colonize they begin to specialize. Some let food in, and some let waste out. The thing to remember is that evolution is not intelligent or purposeful, it just ends up that way.
> 
> For example, early man had to be a good hunter to keep a mate. Those who were good hunters and providers reproduced, while those who were not so good at hunting didn't reproduce. That allowed man to evolve with the traits of the better hunters. That wasn't anybody's plan, but that's the way it ended up.


Adaptation. ....you really need to look up the definition. Man did not evolve to be better hunters....sheesh! They adapted to their situation and LEARNED to be better hunters.

Dude.....your really grasping at straws here!


----------



## copperkid3

MJsLady said:


> The bird remained a finch did it not?


+ + + + + + + + +
chain, is a finch that grows a large beak with an opposable thumb! :run:


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Seems like you are saying that evolution and God can't both be true, if you're talking about them sharing 'equal space'. How about they are BOTH true, and the Bible is not meant to be taken as a literal description of creation but a metaphor for billions of years of the process? Maybe God works through evolution.


Nope, I have no problem at all with God and evolution being part of the same forces. Again, once we take "time" out of the equation and put things in Gods perspective those billions of years become as a single day.... I think thats mentioned somewhere in Genesis.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Adaptation. ....you really need to look up the definition. Man did not evolve to be better hunters....sheesh! They adapted to their situation and LEARNED to be better hunters.


Survival of the fittest is a big part of evolution, since it results in changing the genetic material of the species. That doesn't happen with adaptation.

From what you're saying it's entirely possible that you believe in evolution.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Survival of the fittest is a big part of evolution, since it results in changing the genetic material of the species. That doesn't happen with adaptation.
> 
> From what you're saying it's entirely possible that you believe in evolution.


Man's genetics did not change, only his ability to learn how to hunt better because of necessity. Survival of the fittest is not evolution. ..it's adaptation!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Man's genetics did not change, only his ability to learn how to hunt better because of necessity. Survival of the fittest is not evolution. ..it's adaptation!


No, the men who were poorly suited for hunting were dropped from the gene pool, boosting genetic material for better hunters. That would cause man to evolve into better hunters. That's evolution.

_"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated in evolutionary theory as an alternative (but less accurate) way of describing the mechanism of natural selection._
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Note that the term "survival of the fittest" originated as part of evolutionary theory.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> We know that species change. That was observed in The Beak of the Finch. That ship has already sailed..


There is natural variation in Finch beaks and natural selection will eventually select for a certain type of beak when Finches live in specific environments.

If you had some mongrel dogs and you abandoned them in a remote arctic region of the world and came back 25 years later you would find a type of dog that is adapted to the environment. This would not demonstrate evolution...

Likewise variation occurs in Finch beaks and a beak type will be selected by the environment .... this is not evolution.

The dogs are still dogs and the Finches are still Finches !!!! This is adaptation and not evolution.

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/53.html


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> There is natural variation in Finch beaks and natural selection will eventually select for a certain type of beak when Finches live in specific environments.
> 
> If you had some mongrel dogs and you abandoned them in a remote arctic region of the world and came back 25 years later you would find a type of dog that is adapted to the environment. This would not demonstrate evolution...
> 
> Likewise variation occurs in Finch beaks and a beak type will be selected by the environment .... this is not evolution.
> 
> The dogs are still dogs and the Finches are still Finches !!!! This is adaptation and not evolution.
> 
> http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/53.html


I really don't know what to say at this point. You obviously believe in evolution, yet deny that it fits your definition of evolution. You are describing natural selection, which accounts for most of the evolution that occurs on this planet.


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> When science ever figures out that time is a nonexistent manmade concept with no real basis,


:umno: Where did you ever come up with that?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> No, the men who were poorly suited for hunting were dropped from the gene pool, boosting genetic material for better hunters. That would cause man to evolve into better hunters. That's evolution.
> 
> _"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated in evolutionary theory as an alternative (but less accurate) way of describing the mechanism of natural selection._
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
> 
> Note that the term "survival of the fittest" originated as part of evolutionary theory.


You really need to look up the definition of adaptation. It fits much better than evolution! You also keep saying...."theory" when you discuss evolution. So is it proven, or a theory! Like I said before. ...you would be a hero in the scientific community if you could prove the "theory" to be true.....but you can't and neither can real scientists. If anyone could...it wouldn't be a theory any longer!

That said, schools should teach both...simply because their both theories. Nothing wrong with presenting the information to all students. ...unless there's an agenda!


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> I really don't know what to say at this point. You obviously believe in evolution, yet deny that it fits your definition of evolution. You are describing natural selection, which accounts for most of the evolution that occurs on this planet.


I believe life forms were created with a gene pool which allows for some variation. This variation allows for a species to survive in varying environments by being naturally selected. This variation also allows man to intentionally select for certain desirable traits for agricultural purposes.

I believe in natural selection.....

But I do not believe mutation coupled with natural selection is capable of producing new complex features in living forms.

I do not believe the described mechanisms of evolution could produce an elephant from an amoeba.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Mutation is a destructive event .... it a loss (deletion) of genetic information (DNA)

DNA is information .... it is the directions for making life.

Does information invent itself?

Can information mutate and form new information?


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Mutation is a destructive event .... it a loss (deletion) of genetic information (DNA)


Not always. There can be mutations that have positive a positive effect on the species.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Renowned chemist unable to understand macroevolution

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/


(BTW this is an excellent blog for free thought on subject of origins...
a great place to visit if you want to de-indoctrinate yourself.
I almost daily visit this site and have been doing so for the past 9 years)


----------



## TheMartianChick

If we were to decide to teach Creationism in school science classes, which creation stories would we include? The Iroquois have a really cool one about the Earth being on the back of a turtle and I've always liked turtles!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> That said, schools should teach both...simply because their both theories. Nothing wrong with presenting the information to all students. ...unless there's an agenda!


It depends on why you want it. If you want it to promote your religion then it's illegal, per Edwards v Aguillard. The Supreme Court found that there was an obvious religions agenda associated with a law that required creationism to be presented along with evolution. That violated the establishment clause of the constitution.


----------



## mmoetc

All I can think of is how crowded the earth must have been at some time in the past with all those now extinct animals coexisting with all the animals existant today. If today's life forms didn't somehow evolve from other life forms they must have always existed, right?


----------



## Nevada

mmoetc said:


> If today's life forms didn't somehow evolve from other life forms they must have always existed, right?


True. In one form or another our ancestors always existed. Then we got lucky.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2ZE2NGvJ0I[/ame]


----------



## copperkid3

Nevada said:


> It depends in why you want it. If you want it to promote your religion then it's illegal, per Edwards v Aguillard. The Supreme Court found that there was an obvious religions agenda associated with a law that required creationism to be presented along with evolution. That violated the establishment clause of the constitution.


+ + + + + + + + + + 
schools and let the students decide on the scientific honesty involved.

I'm assuming that you wouldn't have ANY problems with that decision,

as long as the entire sorrid details were discussed in class regarding

the Piltdown man? Just what exactly do you think Dawson's "agenda" was?


http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/...ory/the-scientific-process/piltdown-man-hoax/ 

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/13anc08.htm


Intellectual &/or scientific honesty has been less than
forthcoming from the evolutionary side of the fence. :tmi:


----------



## mmoetc

Nevada said:


> True. In one form or another our ancestors always existed.


But if you fail to believe in evolution you are stuck with believing that animals such as Mastadons, Mammoths and modern Elephants all coexisted at some point in the past or that they are simply different versions of the same animal much like poodles and Great Danes.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> Not always. There can be mutations that have positive a positive effect on the species.


I can agree with you to a degree...

An insect is green because it has proteins which produce a mixture of yellow and blue pigments. A mutation occurs and the gene which produces the yellow protein is no longer produced (deleted) making the insect appear blue in color. If naturally occurring conditions favor blue then you have evolution ... but perhaps you should call it devolution because the change results from a loss of information (a gene producing a yellow pigment)


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

TheMartianChick said:


> If we were to decide to teach Creationism in school science classes, which creation stories would we include? The Iroquois have a really cool one about the Earth being on the back of a turtle and I've always liked turtles!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths


Yes there are many fairytale creation stories
(and I happen to believe babies are delivered by storks and the earth was originally an egg laid by a giant goose named Mother Goose)

The Biblical creation story is only a few paragraphs stating that God created.

What I find totally unbelievable is the belief that life could have arisen from innate materials long ago in a warm little puddle

*...Add that to your list of creation myths *


----------



## Nevada

mmoetc said:


> But if you fail to believe in evolution you are stuck with believing that animals such as Mastadons, Mammoths and modern Elephants all coexisted at some point in the past or that they are simply different versions of the same animal much like poodles and Great Danes.


Yes, they would have been very different.


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> *...Add that to your list of creation myths *


Speaking of other creation myths, I wonder how teaching creationsim in school would be accepted if they taught that a Muslim god created man?


----------



## JeffreyD

TheMartianChick said:


> If we were to decide to teach Creationism in school science classes, which creation stories would we include? The Iroquois have a really cool one about the Earth being on the back of a turtle and I've always liked turtles!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths


Teach them all! Why be afraid to do so, unless there's an agenda?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> It depends on why you want it. If you want it to promote your religion then it's illegal, per Edwards v Aguillard. The Supreme Court found that there was an obvious religions agenda associated with a law that required creationism to be presented along with evolution. That violated the establishment clause of the constitution.


I never mentioned religion. ....you did! It could be heard again! The only reason to NOT teach all theories would be a specific agenda from those that get their panties in a wad about teaching anything but what they believe.....that would make evolution a belief. ..which is a religion. Maybe we should let the parents teach their kids and keep the theories out of schools, I mean there only theories anyway!


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

TheMartianChick said:


> If we were to decide to teach Creationism in school science classes, which creation stories would we include? The Iroquois have a really cool one about the Earth being on the back of a turtle and I've always liked turtles!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths


I agree that teaching specific religious creation stories in public schools would be inappropriate.

However I think it is also inappropriate for public schools to teach materialistic philosophy as if it is proven fact (which is what they are doing because they do not teach evidences opposing evolution).

..... one fair solution would be to avoid teaching evolution in public schools...

.... To teach evolution in schools is to antagonize religion and our constitution forbids that !!!!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> I never mentioned religion. ....you did! It could be heard again! The only reason to NOT teach all theories would be a specific agenda from those that get their panties in a wad about teaching anything but what they believe.....that would make evolution a belief. ..which is a religion. Maybe we should let the parents teach their kids and keep the theories out of schools, I mean there only theories anyway!


How can you have creationism without religion? Don't you have to tell students who did the creating?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Speaking of other creation myths, I wonder how teaching creationsim in school would be accepted if they taught that a Muslim god created man?


Don't teach these theories then, let the parents teach their own kids! Evolution is a religion and should not be taught with out opposing views being taught too!


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> How can you have creationism without religion? Don't you have to tell students who did the creating?


Yup! Don't we teach kids that evolution is just a theory too? Teach them all.and let the kids and their families sort it out at home! Simple!


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> How can you have creationism without religion? Don't you have to tell students who did the creating?


Well not exactly.... The modern intelligent design movement only demonstrates that materialistic philosophy is inadequate to explain our origin ... and then lets the problem of explaining up to the individual.

Intelligent design is religiously neutral and its participants include interested atheists, agnostics, deists and theists of all religions.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Don't teach these theories then, let the parents teach their own kids! Evolution is a religion and should not be taught with out opposing views being taught too!


How is evolution a religion?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> How is evolution a religion?


It has this in common with religion .... it is belief based on assumptions which are unproven.


----------



## Tabitha

How would any of us here know about that? And I really don't care. Besides, the wild turkeys I see running around look like miniature dinosaurs.


----------



## mnn2501

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Intelligent design is religiously neutral.


"Some being with God-like powers created us, but I won't tell you its God."

Yeah right......NOT!!


----------



## Bellyman

To answer the original question, yes, I happen to believe that dinosaurs lived thousands of years ago, not millions. I am in the camp that believes in a "young earth", something a little over 6,000 years old. The way I look at dinosaurs, I would think they probably died out somewhere between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago. 

Anyone is entitled to whatever opinions they chose. What gives the appearance of "facts" to one may be "fairy tales" to another. Even mathematics is not nearly as cut and dried as we'd like to think, at least beyond the basics.


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> It has this in common with religion .... it is belief based on assumptions which are unproven.


But they are proven.

Just curious, why don't creationists submit papers for scientific peer review and try to get their own theory?


----------



## willow_girl

JeffreyD said:


> Don't teach these theories then, let the parents teach their own kids! Evolution is a religion and should not be taught with out opposing views being taught too!


I do not think Christian parents would stand for seeing their religion put on par with Iroquois creation stories and Greek and Roman mythology (although that is precisely where it belongs, of course!). 

I wouldn't want to be in the hot seat at THAT school board meeting! :teehee:


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> Speaking of other creation myths, I wonder how teaching creationsim in school would be accepted if they taught that a Muslim god created man?


Even the Muslims don't believe in anything like that...they hijacked the Christian/Jew god for their stories.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> But they are proven.
> 
> Just curious, why don't creationists submit papers for scientific peer review and try to get their own theory?


Creation is not a scientific theory because a scientific theory can not invoke supernatural causes.

.................

I believe God made the material world comprehensible in terms of cause and effect. Our material world can mostly be rationally understood.... however it all started with a supernatural act of creation.... done with a purpose in mind. Life did not invent itself.

................

All scientifically derived knowledge is based on assumptions


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Tabitha said:


> How would any of us here know about that? And I really don't care. Besides, the wild turkeys I see running around look like miniature dinosaurs.


Maybe they are !


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Creation is not a scientific theory because a scientific theory can not invoke supernatural causes.


Then why would it have a place in science class?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> How is evolution a religion?


Since evolution cannot be proven, contrary to what YOU say, it is therfore a belief. All fanatical beliefs are truly religious, environmentalism, atheism, all religious beliefs.

Why is it that evolutionary biologists can't prove the "theory" of evolution?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

mnn2501 said:


> "Some being with God-like powers created us, but I won't tell you its God."
> 
> Yeah right......NOT!!


No I have not implied what you imply I have implied....

I said Intelligent design is religiously neutral refusing to acknowledge which god is the God

Intelligent Design infers that intelligent manipulation is required to produce design and lets it up to you to decide who the intelligent manipulator is.

But you are welcome to assume "Some being with God-like powers created us" if you like.


----------



## JeffreyD

willow_girl said:


> I do not think Christian parents would stand for seeing their religion put on par with Iroquois creation stories and Greek and Roman mythology (although that is precisely where it belongs, of course!).
> 
> I wouldn't want to be in the hot seat at THAT school board meeting! :teehee:


I would be fine with it since I will still discuss this with them. Maybe don't teach anything about how we may have been created. Just say...."were not sure yet". Done!


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

willow_girl said:


> I do not think Christian parents would stand for seeing their religion put on par with Iroquois creation stories and Greek and Roman mythology (although that is precisely where it belongs, of course!).
> 
> I wouldn't want to be in the hot seat at THAT school board meeting! :teehee:



Well of course the only rational explanation is the scientific one .... which states that life spontaneously arose from a mud ball !!! :shrug:


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> Then why would it have a place in science class?


Science makes assumptions. Science assumes life spontaneously arose from innate matter. Science has not proven this can happen. But science rejects supernatural causation without proving that supernatural causation is not required.

So why is supernatural causation not permitted to be taught....

Because it is *assumed *to not be necessary to explain the origin of life.

*Science is similar to religion in that it is based on assumptions !!!!!*


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Science assumes life spontaneously arose from innate matter. Science has not proven this can happen. But science rejects supernatural causation without proving that supernatural is not required.
> 
> So why is supernatural causation not permitted to be taught....
> 
> Because it is *assumed *to not be necessary to explain the origin of life.


But science can't establish that a supernatural being exists.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> But science can't establish that a supernatural being exists.


So! You keep saying science isn't exact, so what your point? They also can't establish evolution as a fact either! See, the deal is that evolutionists are anti religion (except for their own beliefs, which is a religion of its own) if they could prove for a fact that evolution was how man was created, they would be screaming from the highest mountains......but their not! Ask yourself why?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> But science can't establish that a supernatural being exists.


Maybe that is because the supernatural being planned it that way .... we are to be believing without seeing !!!

But did the supernatural being leave the evidence of his handiwork ?

I believe there is design in the organization of living matter and that design is the proof that a supernatural being does exist. I do not believe natural causes or chance could produce this design therefore I infer supernatural causation.


----------



## rambotex

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> But science can't establish that a supernatural being exists.


Science can not establish that a supernatural being exists therefore science assumes one does not exist and then assumes life could arise spontaneously without proving that it can........

*Do you follow the logic ???? and do you see the bias in making these assumptions* ?

Science is a refusal to acknowledge the supernatural even when the material evidence infers the supernatural.

Science is simply a refusal to believe !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

you can not prove that natural causes plus chance can produce life but you refuse to believe that natural causes plus chance can not produce life... 

*....This is the logic of science !!!!*


----------



## willow_girl

> I said Intelligent design is religiously neutral refusing to acknowledge which god is the God


I have to wonder, though: would Christians stand for having their children taught that while an Intelligent Designer may have created the Earth, we have no idea who that Designer might be? And no way of finding out, at least as far as I can see? (Supernatural beings, after all, do not operate in any measurable way.)

I'd think that would make them just as angry as having their religion put on par with Iroquois creation myths. I can't see them settling for anything less than having their children taught that THEIR god was the creator-god.


----------



## willow_girl

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Well of course the only rational explanation is the scientific one .... which states that life spontaneously arose from a mud ball !!! :shrug:


For the record, my position is that we don't know how life arose.

And I see no need to jump to conclusions.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> :umno: Where did you ever come up with that?


Some of us sit and think.... others just sit.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> No, the men who were poorly suited for hunting were dropped from the gene pool, boosting genetic material for better hunters. That would cause man to evolve into better hunters. That's evolution.


Thats not exactly the way I heard it..... the men who were poorly suited for hunting were not dropped from the gene pool.... they became farmers and are very much alive and well today. I have also heard some of them became vegetarians..... who are also still among us.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Speaking of other creation myths, I wonder how teaching creationsim in school would be accepted if they taught that a Muslim god created man?


Well, as I understand it that is exactly what would have to be taught.... since the God of the Muslim world is the exact same God of the Christian world. It seems the only real dispute comes from which of Abraham's sons was the supposed "chosen" one.


----------



## Evons hubby

JeffreyD said:


> Yup! Don't we teach kids that evolution is just a theory too? Teach them all.and let the kids and their families sort it out at home! Simple!


We should teach evolution as a theory... if its going to be taught at all. Sadly on opening day there is usually a brief mention about "the theory of evolution" which is then followed up by several months worth of presentation of the "evidence" that proves the theory. seldom throughout this indoctrination period is the word theory ever mentioned again. The result is that most students come away with the belief that evolution is indeed how we all came to be. Some will even go into public discussion forums and argue vehemently that their own lineage began at the bottom of a swamp. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> How can you have creationism without religion? Don't you have to tell students who did the creating?


There is no religion required. Any intelligent being could have designed the universe, and created the life forms upon the earth. It doesnt have to be anyones "god" and it certainly doesnt have to be anything supernatural. Just because you dont understand how something works does not mean its supernatural or magic or anything else.... it simply means you are ignorant of that particular science.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

willow_girl said:


> For the record, my position is that we don't know how life arose.
> 
> And I see no need to jump to conclusions.


willow girl I remember from other threads that you are an agnostic.... which is more of a neutral position. Science however makes an assumption .... science is not content to take your "sit back and wait for the answer" kind of position.

Science proceeds by proposing hypotheses. A hypothesis is a speculative statement which can be tested to determine if it is true. Science is testing a hypothesis concerning the origin of life and that hypothetical statement would be something like....

"Life arose spontaneously from innate matter"

Science has been trying for many decades to prove this statement by producing life from innate materials in the laboratory by a method known as reverse engineering.... which does not mimic the proposed natural setting which science speculates could produce life.... instead science "dissects" a cell to comprehend the molecular structures of the components and attempts to recreate these structures in a controlled laboratory setting.
These experiments have been on going since the Miller-Urey experiment which was back in the '50's.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> But they are proven.


It has been proven that all life began as a single cell at the bottom of a swamp and evolved over time into all the myriad life forms we see today? Thats news to me!


----------



## davel745

There is some evidence that some really old species maybe 60 million years old, are still in existence. The celiphant Old time fish, and the old time shark 
Megaladon that was thought to be again around 60 million years ago. are still in existence. And the woolly Mammoth was thought to be in existence till a few thousand years ago.


----------



## Evons hubby

Johnny Dolittle said:


> willow girl I remember from other threads that you are an agnostic.... which is more of a neutral position. Science however makes an assumption .... science is not content to take your "sit back and wait for the answer" kind of position.
> 
> Science proceeds by proposing hypotheses. A hypothesis is a speculative statement which can be tested to determine if it is true. Science is testing a hypothesis concerning the origin of life and that hypothetical statement would be something like....
> 
> "Life arose spontaneously from innate matter"
> 
> Science has been trying for many decades to prove this statement by producing life from innate materials in the laboratory by a method known as reverse engineering.... which does not mimic the proposed natural setting which science speculates could produce life.... instead science "dissects" a cell to comprehend the molecular structures of the components and attempts to recreate these structures in a controlled laboratory setting.
> These experiments have been on going since the Miller-Urey experiment which was back in the '50's.


Yeppers, and I find it somewhat amusing.... even if they were to actually succeed and produce some life form in their labs from purely innate materials.... the only thing they will have "proven" is that life can indeed be created.... by intelligent design.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

willow_girl said:


> I have to wonder, though: would Christians stand for having their children taught that while an Intelligent Designer may have created the Earth, we have no idea who that Designer might be? And no way of finding out, at least as far as I can see? (Supernatural beings, after all, do not operate in any measurable way.)
> 
> I'd think that would make them just as angry as having their religion put on par with Iroquois creation myths. I can't see them settling for anything less than having their children taught that THEIR god was the creator-god.


Well I think most Christians would be contented with a possibility of a generic designer allowing each individual to wonder who it might be.

.... but there are some "thumpers" who would insist the designer must be identified as the biblical one.

For the record I am not one of those ones who believes it is appropriate to have morning devotional bible reading and Christian prayers led by public school teachers.

Government should not be antagonizing religion ... which is what is happening in public school science classes.


----------



## mnn2501

Johnny Dolittle said:


> No I have not implied what you imply I have implied....
> 
> I said Intelligent design is religiously neutral refusing to acknowledge which god is the God
> 
> Intelligent Design infers that intelligent manipulation is required to produce design and lets it up to you to decide who the intelligent manipulator is.
> 
> But you are welcome to assume "Some being with God-like powers created us" if you like.


No offense, but what a cop out!  Something very intelligent is responsible for our creation but I won't tell you 'who' so I can claim its not religious in nature.


----------



## willow_girl

> willow girl I remember from other threads that you are an agnostic.... which is more of a neutral position. Science however makes an assumption .... science is not content to take your "sit back and wait for the answer" kind of position.


Well, no ... science is out there searching for answers! ound:


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It has been proven that all life began as a single cell at the bottom of a swamp and evolved over time into all the myriad life forms we see today? Thats news to me!


While most scientists accept that all life began as a single cell, and even that all species evolved from one single cell creature, I don't believe it has been proven. Part of being a scientist is the ability to accept that not enough is known about some areas of knowledge. But that doesn't make the rest of science wrong.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

mnn2501 said:


> No offense, but what a cop out!  Something very intelligent is responsible for our creation but I won't tell you 'who' so I can claim its not religious in nature.


By religiously neutral I mean that ID does not name a particular religion's god as the designer.

I did not say "so I can claim its not religious in nature" ... I said "religiously neutral".... there is a difference.

A deist is a step beyond an agnostic... a deist firmly acknowledges the supernatural must exist but other than that is unable to describe who the god is. So is a deist a religious person ?????


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

willow_girl said:


> Well, no ... science is out there searching for answers! ound:


... and while science is looking for answers.... it continues to believe it's assumptions


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> ... and while science is looking for answers.... it continues to believe it's assumptions


That's part of the process, we build on existing knowledge. The ability to record, study, and add to previous knowledge is what separates us from other animals. Otherwise all we could teach our kids would be our own hunting and gathering skills.


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> A deist is a step beyond an agnostic... a deist firmly acknowledges the supernatural must exist but other than that is unable to describe who the god is. So is a deist a religious person ?????


Wouldn't having an open mind dictate that deists consider the possibility that a supernatural being does not exist?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> *But they are proven.*
> 
> Just curious, why don't creationists submit papers for scientific peer review and try to get their own theory?





Yvonne's hubby said:


> It has been proven that all life began as a single cell at the bottom of a swamp and evolved over time into all the myriad life forms we see today? Thats news to me!





Nevada said:


> While most scientists accept that all life began as a single cell, and even that all species evolved from one single cell creature, *I don't believe it has been proven. *Part of being a scientist is the ability to accept that not enough is known about some areas of knowledge. But that doesn't make the rest of science wrong.


Once again... some of us sit and think.... while others apparently just sit.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> Wouldn't having an open mind dictate that deists consider the possibility that a supernatural being does not exist?


An atheist firmly believes there is no god

A deist acknowledges a god but is unable to describe this god believing this god has not revealed himself.

A theist believes in revelation ... that this god has revealed himself to man... they believe they know and can experience the God.

An agnostic is the open minded person who makes no firm commitment either way.... often agnostics will state that there is no way to really know.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Once again... some of us sit and think.... while others apparently just sit.


Your post was grossly unfair. I said that evolution was proven, then later said that life originating from a single cell has not been proven. Two entirely different things, and you know it.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Wouldn't having an open mind dictate that deists consider the possibility that a supernatural being does not exist?


Yep, anyone with any common sense at all will tell you that there is no such thing as "supernatural beings". Thats because ALL things are natural. Some things arent very well understood, but they are still perfectly natural whether we, in our nearly total ignorance, understand them or not.  Was there anything supernatural about radio waves in the mid 1500s? nope, but we didnt understand much about them so a radio broadcast at that point would have been considered supernatural... or magic.... or the work of demons.... or.....


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

mnn2501 said:


> No offense, but what a cop out!  Something very intelligent is responsible for our creation but I won't tell you 'who' so I can claim its not religious in nature.


There have been some in the intelligent design movement who indicate the designer could possibly be someone other than a god ..... I see this approach as being devious also


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Your post was grossly unfair. I said that evolution was proven, then later said that life originating from a single cell has not been proven. Two entirely different things, and you know it.


No... someone else had stated that science is based upon many assumptions... then you stated those assumptions had been proven... which prompted my question about all life beginning as a single cell at the bottom of a swamp had actually been proven or not. Then you came back asserting that most scientist accept that all life indeed began at the bottom of a swamp... but apparently you did not agree with them. 

My last comment to you had nothing to do with evolution, mans origins nor anything else of a scientific nature..... It was merely an observation about how some people sit and think.... and some apparently do not. Now, that we have cleared the air about how this came about... would you care to enlighten us as to which group you think you and I fall into?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Actually there are a small group of Christians who believe God designed the material world so that natural laws and chance events could produce life spontaneously...and that evolution could produce diverse life without God's intervening.

Over in the intelligent design blog ... we call them Christian Darwinists... and we do not believe their interesting theory.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/?s=christian+darwinists

... the intelligent design blog

http://www.uncommondescent.com/


----------



## Evons hubby

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Actually there are a small group of Christians who believe God designed the material world so that natural laws and chance events could produce life spontaneously...
> 
> Over in the intelligent design blog ... we call them Christian Darwinists... and we do not believe their interesting theory.
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/?s=christian+darwinists
> 
> ... the intelligent design blog
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/


Interesting. Since I have not spent the time and effort to research this blog, could you tell me if there is a group there that believes that God created everything recently.... as in the last few thousand years in such a manner that it would appear very ancient? As in could He not have created the fossils, and they are not really as old as we think? The God I have read about in the Bible does seem to have a wicked sense of humor!


----------



## mnn2501

Johnny Dolittle said:


> A deist is a step beyond an agnostic... a deist firmly acknowledges the supernatural must exist but other than that is unable to describe who the god is. So is a deist a religious person ?????


By definition, yes.

Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a Creator

Deism is derived from deus, the Latin word for god.

Just because you don't name the god does not mean you're not religious as you do believe in a god.


----------



## mnn2501

rambotex said:


> In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth


That's your belief and you are welcome to have it, but merely quoting it offers no proof that its true.

Its like saying "It must be true, I read it on the internet"


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Some of us sit and think.... others just sit.


and some people get thrown in the loony bin for what they think. 


I can think I'm 25 years old and look like a greek god, but a mirror would prove that to be incorrect.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting. Since I have not spent the time and effort to research this blog, could you tell me if there is a group there that believes that God created everything recently.... as in the last few thousand years in such a manner that it would appear very ancient? As in could He not have created the fossils, and they are not really as old as we think? The God I have read about in the Bible does seem to have a wicked sense of humor!


Are you suggesting that God created fossils and spoofed them to test as older than they are? For what purpose? As a practical joke?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting. Since I have not spent the time and effort to research this blog, could you tell me if there is a group there that believes that God created everything recently.... as in the last few thousand years in such a manner that it would appear very ancient? As in could He not have created the fossils, and they are not really as old as we think? The God I have read about in the Bible does seem to have a wicked sense of humor!


This blog is is a very intellectual one.... I sometimes struggle to comprehend the discussion and rarely am I able to post. The users are very much a mixed bag of educated agnostics deists and theists mostly of a Christian variety and those generally believe in an old earth but friendly to considering a young earth. There are some firm young earth believers. We have young earth/old earth discussions.

The blog is very much moderated and atheist challengers are welcome if they play by the rules (no trolling)


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting. Since I have not spent the time and effort to research this blog, could you tell me if there is a group there that believes that God created everything recently.... as in the last few thousand years in such a manner that it would appear very ancient?


So you mean a lying god?


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> So you mean a lying god?


Not really lying... just pulling on the tail of the dog so to speak. We know the Bible says He wants us to worship Him... but only if we choose to. These "evidences" of evolution could all have been put there as a test of our faith. Recall if you will the torment He put Job through.... just a sporting event twixt Him and Satan to see if Job would fail.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that God created fossils and spoofed them to test as older than they are? For what purpose? As a practical joke?


Its as good a theory as anything else I have heard.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> and some people get thrown in the loony bin for what they think.
> 
> 
> I can think I'm 25 years old and look like a greek god, but a mirror would prove that to be incorrect.


Well now, I know I am well over 25 years old, but I could certainly pass the mirror test on that part about looking like a god. tis a pity Buddha didnt work out a bit more. 

So far, no one has offered to toss me in the looney bin just because I happen to understand that time, kinda like religion, is a manmade concept though.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that God created fossils and spoofed them to test as older than they are? For what purpose? As a practical joke?


You can engage in endless philosophical questioning but for many questions there are no sound answers.

Such as ...

"Why would a god create so many different kinds of life only to allow them to become extinct so that we could come along and dig up the bones and discover them".... and from this questioning you might conclude that a god would not do this and therefore you conclude there is no god (but you have reached this conclusion based on an assumption that god would not do that... as if *YOU* know the mind of God)

For me ....... I have a degee in an applied science (agriculture) which is helpful to investigate origins "scientifically" I have done so for many years and I conclude that the described mechanisms of evolution are inadequate to produce the diversity we see in life and that natural laws would prohibit the spontaneous formation of life.


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> natural laws would prohibit the spontaneous formation of life.


It's one thing to not understand the mechanism for the creation of life, but I don't see how natural laws prohibit formation of life.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> It's one thing to not understand the mechanism for the creation of life, but I don't see how natural laws prohibit formation of life.


Other than the hypothetical creation of life at the bottom of a swamp.... for which there is NO evidence of.... only life begets life... it does so countless times every second of every minute of every day.... literally trillions of times every hour and its the ONLY way its ever been observed to happen. I think when there is that much evidence with NO exceptions scientists consider it to be a LAW.


----------



## MJsLady

This has been fun but I find my time is needed elsewhere.
I will leave one thought though.

Some one in a post commented that science can not prove the existence of a creator.
This may be true.
However science has yet to prove the nonexistence of a creator either. 

So those who hold to the creationist view are on level footing with the evolutionists. 
Why?
Because since the dawn of man an intelligent creator has been known to exist. The Thessalonians even had among their many altars one to "an unknown God".
Folks discredit the Bible now. However there are many Bible people in historical writings. Such as Josephus. Even Mohamed acknowledged Christ as having been a real man. 

The point is science does not have all the answers. Yet it demands its theory not be challenged. Why? The root of the demand is, as in most demands, fear. Anytime some one ends an argument with shut up I don't want to hear it, they do it from fear of losing.

So one needs to wonder, why does science fear Faith?

I don't know. I don't care.


----------



## TRellis

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that God created fossils and spoofed them to test as older than they are? For what purpose? As a practical joke?


That would be getting into the territory of Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series of books.

And would this then be a case of life imitating art or art imitating life?

TRellis


----------



## Nevada

MJsLady said:


> The point is science does not have all the answers. Yet it demands its theory not be challenged.


On the contrary, science welcomes a challenge to existing theory. Please, come forward and present your evidence. If you can demonstrate that God did it then you will be revered as a hero the world over.


----------



## Shoden

MJsLady said:


> Some one in a post commented that science can not prove the existence of a creator.
> This may be true.
> However science has yet to prove the nonexistence of a creator either.


You can't incontrovertibly prove a negative. Do you believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, bigfoot, unicorns, etc? Science hasn't proved that they don't exist either.



MJsLady said:


> Because since the dawn of man an intelligent creator has been known to exist.


A creator has been *believed* to exist. If it was known, then it wouldn't require faith, it would be science.



MJsLady said:


> The point is science does not have all the answers. Yet it demands its theory not be challenged. Why? The root of the demand is, as in most demands, fear. Anytime some one ends an argument with shut up I don't want to hear it, they do it from fear of losing.
> 
> So one needs to wonder, why does science fear Faith?


Science doesn't demand its theories not be challenged, it requires that they be challenged. That's how scientists discover new things and either prove or disprove theories. However, science is to be challenged with newer science, not with superstition. It's not scientists that live in fear of their theories/beliefs being challenged.


One of the problems with the idea of intelligent design is that it doesn't really answer anything, all it does is move the question back one step. If life requires an intelligent designer, then where did the intelligent designer come from? Did the designer also require another intelligent designer? Or did the designer just spontaniously come into being at the beginning of the universe/time? Is the designer outside of time or this universe?


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not really lying... just pulling on the tail of the dog so to speak. We know the Bible says He wants us to worship Him... but only if we choose to. These "evidences" of evolution could all have been put there as a test of our faith.


In other words a God who lies. What kind of test is that when the odds are stacked against you by a lying God?



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Recall if you will the torment He put Job through.... just a sporting event twixt Him and Satan to see if Job would fail.


I believe Job is a faith promoting fable and not a true story. (Similar to how I view much of the O.T.)


----------



## JJ Grandits

Nevada said:


> It's one thing to not understand the mechanism for the creation of life, but I don't see how natural laws prohibit formation of life.


I mentioned before about the second law of thermodynamic and that the evolution of life violates this. The formation of life in anti-entropy. So far nobody has answered my question. I would really appreciate it if some of our more educated evolutionists would respond.

By the way, as stated in previous threads I am a Christian but do not believe in the concept that the world (and universe) is only thousands of years old. Then again I do not believe that time actually exists, so it's a moot point. As a Christian there in no actual Biblical reference to the age of the universe in relation to our concept of time.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> In other words a God who lies. What kind of test is that when the odds are stacked against you by a lying God?


Nope, nowhere have I read in the Bible anything about evolution in order to get us to believe in that particular fallacy. Therefor God doesnt lie. He clearly states how He went about bringing things together and wants us to have faith in His Word in spite of what some would have us to believe. 





mnn2501 said:


> I believe Job is a faith promoting fable and not a true story. (Similar to how I view much of the O.T.)


Well, without the OT the NT is pretty much meaningless.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shoden said:


> A creator has been *believed* to exist. If it was known, then it wouldn't require faith, it would be science.


So since I know that God exists, having had a face to face sitty down chat with Him.... it is now science?



Shoden said:


> One of the problems with the idea of intelligent design is that it doesn't really answer anything, all it does is move the question back one step. If life requires an intelligent designer, then where did the intelligent designer come from? Did the designer also require another intelligent designer? Or did the designer just spontaniously come into being at the beginning of the universe/time? Is the designer outside of time or this universe?


Ok, but the big bang theory also presents us with the same question.... where did all of that mass come from that up and exploded one fine spring morning? 

and then there is that other thing... being outside time and our universe. The God that I have met clearly exists outside both our manmade concept of time, and the universe that we think we know and are trying desperately (without much success) to understand. Our entire universe makes up about as much of Gods realm as a grain of sand contributes to the existence of the Sahara desert.


----------



## Shoden

JJ Grandits said:


> I mentioned before about the second law of thermodynamic and that the evolution of life violates this. The formation of life in anti-entropy. So far nobody has answered my question. I would really appreciate it if some of our more educated evolutionists would respond.


I don't consider myself a "more educated evolutionist", but thanks to Google, I can play one on the Internet 

For a fairly simple and easy to understand explanation of why evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics, read this article: http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-second-law

For a much more complex explanation, complete with lots of math using funny (that's funny strange, not funny haha) symbols, read this article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Personally, that second article started losing me part way through the entropy discussion before he even got to all the math.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Other than the hypothetical creation of life at the bottom of a swamp.... for which there is NO evidence of....


 Didn't the Bible say man was formed from the dust?? Its an apt description, if you mind is open enough to see it as a metaphor. A sign pointing towards the truth. It not like magic sky daddy in a white robe LITERALLY picked up some dust and blew into it and man appeared... thats the fairy tale version, the kindergarten version. 

And there is NOTHING in Darwins theory, or in the modern science of evolution, that rules out the presence of God, so lets end that little fiction also.

It is readily apparent that fossils were indeed living creatures,many of them millions of years old. You can believe some trickster god just put them there, but don't you think its FAR more likely that they were living creatures? That is what the vast preponderance of evidence points to, why ignore it?


----------



## Nevada

JJ Grandits said:


> I mentioned before about the second law of thermodynamic and that the evolution of life violates this. The formation of life in anti-entropy. So far nobody has answered my question. I would really appreciate it if some of our more educated evolutionists would respond.


I don't have a lot of background in evolution, or even biology. My background is in physical science (engineering). I see no reason why evolution of life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Could you explain?


----------



## Oggie

My grandma used to say that folks who claim that they know how God created living beings probably don't know all that much about either.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> We know that species change. That was observed in The Beak of the Finch. That ship has already sailed.


When a species within itself, i.e. changes physically but has the same DNA and can breed within the species, its called microevolution or survival of the fittest or natural selection. Its because of this man has been able to breed have Shire horses which are 16-17 hands (64-68") tall and 2,000+ pounds AND miniature horses which are 8-9 hands (32-36") tall and about 200 pounds. As well as the vast array of dogs in so many shapes and sizes. 

When a species changes into another species, with a different DNA, its called macroevolution. Do you have links to any scientific experiments which have managed to do this? Do you have links to any hard scientific evidence which shows this has happened? Or is all you have is speculation based on observation? I'm willing to bet what you have is the latter because if you had either of the others we'd be talking about the LAW of evolution, not the theory.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> When a species within itself, i.e. changes physically but has the same DNA and can breed within the species, its called microevolution or survival of the fittest or natural selection.


No, different species can't interbreed. That's what species means.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> No, different species can't interbreed. That's what species means.


Interesting... I thought donkeys were a different species than horses. :shrug: Guess I should study more, and hang out in internet forums less. 

although I have been learning things here too.... who knew having my dollars, that I worked hard to get and save, devalued was a good thing!


----------



## Shoden

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So since I know that God exists, having had a face to face sitty down chat with Him.... it is now science?


Any proof or evidence of that? Without either of those, all you have is an unsupported claim.




Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, but the big bang theory also presents us with the same question.... where did all of that mass come from that up and exploded one fine spring morning?
> 
> and then there is that other thing... being outside time and our universe. The God that I have met clearly exists outside both our manmade concept of time, and the universe that we think we know and are trying desperately (without much success) to understand. Our entire universe makes up about as much of Gods realm as a grain of sand contributes to the existence of the Sahara desert.


No, the big bang theory does not present us with the same question. We're talking about the origin of life, not the origin of everything. While they may be the same or very similar questions to creationists, they're very separate questions for scientists. Regarding the question of life emerging from inanimate matter and then evolving into its myriad current forms, it doesn't matter where the matter came from. The origin of matter is even more of an uknown than the origin of life, and while they're both interesting theoretical issues to me, they're pretty much irrelevant to my daily life, since I don't base my moral code or life decisions on them. I'm okay with current science not having all the answers.

However, for intelligent design it's more of an issue, since a core belief of intelligent design is that order, life, and intelligence can't exist without a designer. Just saying that the designer is outside this universe still doesn't answer the question of how that designer came to be without another designer to design Him/it.


----------



## watcher

I've used this example before.

Say you are an alien from another planet exploring earth millions of years from now and have only the most basic knowledge if it. 

I tell you that I have a hypothesis that a byproduct from the production of ice cream results in increased temperatures and give you my data. One part of the data I give you is the daily amount of ice cream produced from a couple of factories. The other is the daily temperatures for the areas around these factories.

You example the data and it CLEARLY shows that as the amount of ice cream increases there is a clear upward trend in the daily temperatures not long afterward. And as the amount of ice cream produces drops the temps then start to drop.

Based on what you 'know' you would have to agree that my hypothesis has enough merit to be classified as a theory. Now if every other person who found little bits of data on the production of ice cream and bits of data on the daily temps it would do nothing but add more support for my theory. 

As time goes by my theory becomes accepted and there are many people making their livings studying and promoting this. Everyone admits there's not enough proof to call it a real scientific law but what the heck they'll just keep it as a theory but treat it as a law or as a scientific fact. And anyone who happens to bring up the facts there are holes in the theory, things that the theory can't explain and things which NO evidence of this 'byproduct' are ignored or labeled as kooks.

Would the fact that all the 'real' scientist support my theory make it correct? Would it make the fact that there are holes in my theory go away?


----------



## watcher

jtbrandt said:


> Only to a moron. If the earth was flat you could see the Rockies from both coasts. It's pretty obvious that the earth is not flat. I didn't need science to tell me that.


Can you see this period > . < from 100 feet? Does that prove the earth is curved?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I really don't know what to say at this point. You obviously believe in evolution, yet deny that it fits your definition of evolution. You are describing natural selection, which accounts for most of the evolution that occurs on this planet.


So your thinking is because you can selective breed cattle to not have horns you could, given enough time, breed them to have scales and breath water?


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> If we were to decide to teach Creationism in school science classes, which creation stories would we include? The Iroquois have a really cool one about the Earth being on the back of a turtle and I've always liked turtles!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths


I have never pushed for teaching of creationism only for the holes in the theory of evolution and the reason its still a theory after all this time to be taught and for the discussion of what else might have caused the variety of flora and fauna on the earth.

IOW, I want people to be taught TO think not taught WHAT to think.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shoden said:


> Any proof or evidence of that?


Yep, I was there, saw it with my own eyes.... experienced it with my entire being....and that is all the proof I need. Can you "prove" or provide any evidence concerning what you had for breakfast this morning? if anything? 


Shoden said:


> No, the big bang theory does not present us with the same question. We're talking about the origin of life, not the origin of everything. While they may be the same or very similar questions to creationists, they're very separate questions for scientists. Regarding the question of life emerging from inanimate matter and then evolving into its myriad current forms, it doesn't matter where the matter came from. The origin of matter is even more of an uknown than the origin of life, and while they're both interesting theoretical issues to me, they're pretty much irrelevant to my daily life, since I don't base my moral code or life decisions on them. I'm okay with current science not having all the answers.
> 
> However, for intelligent design it's more of an issue, since a core belief of intelligent design is that order, life, and intelligence can't exist without a designer. Just saying that the designer is outside this universe still doesn't answer the question of how that designer came to be without another designer to design Him/it.


It is EXACTLY the same issue. You cannot ask me where my creator came from and expect me not to ask you where your inanimate material came from.... both questions are the first logical step back in the equation. I will admit that we (my creator and I) did not go into His personal history.... but at least I know He exists which appears to be far more than you know about where your "life spawning" matter came from.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> It depends on why you want it. If you want it to promote your religion then it's illegal, per Edwards v Aguillard. The Supreme Court found that there was an obvious religions agenda associated with a law that required creationism to be presented along with evolution. That violated the establishment clause of the constitution.


An entire new thread. The 1st only limits the US Congress, which is CLEARLY defined in the USC, to pass laws. It does not limit states from passing such laws nor does it forbid the use of government funds to support religious teaching. Anyone without a political agenda and a passing grade in their eighth grade English class can see this.

But since when has political agendas not played a major factor in US law?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Would the fact that all the 'real' scientist support my theory make it correct? Would it make the fact that there are holes in my theory go away?


That's happened in the past. The most well known example was the theory that everything wanted to come to rest. It could be demonstrated by sliding an object across a table and watching it slide to a stop. The problem was that the math didn't work, so it couldn't be quantified. Of course that theory was eventually replaced with inertia.

There was a time when the scientific community believed that sustained flight by a heavier-than-air machine was impossible. That's why the Wright brothers had to demonstrate their aircraft on the east coast instead of Dayton, because the US patent office wasn't going to issue a patent for a heavier-than-air machine unless they saw it for themselves.

Today, the US patent office rejects patent application for anything they consider to be a perpetual motion machine, since they categorically refuse to believe that they can exist.


----------



## Shoden

Nevada said:


> No, different species can't interbreed. That's what species means.



That's only a partial definition of one of the most simple definitions of species. To make it more complete, it should include that they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and even that's not 100% accurate, just more accurate.

While horses and donkeys can interbreed to produce mules, mules are almost always sterile (there are a few rare cases of mules reproducing, but their offspring were either sterile or not mules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertility)

The same goes for ligers, which despite a few rare cases, can not breed true.

There's actually a pretty good sized list of hybrid species with varying rates of fertility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_hybrids

While that definition of species usually works for non-bioligists, there's actually a lot of difficulty in clearly defining speciation between organisms, and according to my Googling, there are "Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Then why would it have a place in science class?


We taught biology long before we understood how a sperm fertilized an egg didn't we?


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> IOW, I want people to be taught TO think not taught WHAT to think.


ahhh, this reminds me so much of my dear departed second wifes mother always said. In her soft sweet southern drawl "You should never worry too much about what people think.... they very seldom do." Sadly the old gal was right on target.... most people dont think.... they just swallow whatever they are spoonfed.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> But science can't establish that a supernatural being exists.


Nor can it show that ones does not exist.

In historical terms it wasn't that long ago when it couldn't establish that 'germs' existed. Did that make the germ theory of disease wrong?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> An entire new thread. The 1st only limits the US Congress, which is CLEARLY defined in the USC, to pass laws. It does not limit states from passing such laws nor does it forbid the use of government funds to support religious teaching. Anyone without a political agenda and a passing grade in their eighth grade English class can see this.
> 
> But since when has political agendas not played a major factor in US law?


That case wasn't a total loss to creationists. The ruling opened the door to teaching creationism if establishment of a religion wasn't a factor. Creationists developed "creation science" in reaction to that ruling, claiming that there was actual science that existed in support of creationism.

The precise wording of that ruling is the only reason the debate still exists today. The interesting thing about creation science is that it doesn't require that the scientific community accept it, it's only required that there is some science alleged and that it doesn't mention religion.


----------



## unregistered353870

watcher said:


> Can you see this period > . < from 100 feet? Does that prove the earth is curved?


Nope, but mountains are a lot bigger than that period...they can be seen from space. The east coast is extremely close in comparison. You could figure it out on a much smaller scale. Walk away from a tree...yes, it seems to get smaller, but it also "sinks" into the horizon. That sinking makes the curvature obvious.


----------



## Nevada

Nevada said:


> different species can't interbreed


Maybe they can, but they don't want to. ound:


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> That's happened in the past. The most well known example was the theory that everything wanted to come to rest. It could be demonstrated by sliding an object across a table and watching it slide to a stop. The problem was that the math didn't work, so it couldn't be quantified. Of course that theory was eventually replaced with inertia.
> 
> *There was a time when the scientific community believed that sustained flight by a heavier-than-air machine was impossible.* That's why the Wright brothers had to demonstrate their aircraft on the east coast instead of Dayton, because the US patent office wasn't going to issue a patent for a heavier-than-air machine unless they saw it for themselves.
> 
> Today, the US patent office rejects patent application for anything they consider to be a perpetual motion machine, since they categorically refuse to believe that they can exist.


They may have been right about the impossibility of sustained flights.... when the Wright brothers heavier than air machine ran out of fuel.... I have a feeling it wasnt going to sustain its flight very long.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that God created fossils and spoofed them to test as older than they are? For what purpose? As a practical joke?


Seeing as how C14 test have been proven flawed what makes you so sure about other test based on unproven assumptions?


----------



## rambotex

It's gonna be a sad day for many of our friends here when the Rapture comes.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> Nope, but mountains are a lot bigger than that period...they can be seen from space. The east coast is extremely close in comparison.


Engineers have an old saying that common sense is what tells us that the world is flat.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> No, different species can't interbreed. That's what species means.


That's my point. You can breed your large beaked finches to small beaked finches and get baby finches therefore there is no macroevolution only microevoluiton.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> That's happened in the past. The most well known example was the theory that everything wanted to come to rest. It could be demonstrated by sliding an object across a table and watching it slide to a stop. The problem was that the math didn't work, so it couldn't be quantified. Of course that theory was eventually replaced with inertia.
> 
> There was a time when the scientific community believed that sustained flight by a heavier-than-air machine was impossible. That's why the Wright brothers had to demonstrate their aircraft on the east coast instead of Dayton, because the US patent office wasn't going to issue a patent for a heavier-than-air machine unless they saw it for themselves.
> 
> Today, the US patent office rejects patent application for anything they consider to be a perpetual motion machine, since they categorically refuse to believe that they can exist.


That brings us right back to why we do not have the LAW of evolution doesn't it? Its because there are too many questions that the theory can not answer which means it has FLAWS and a law can't have flaws. Until the flaws are removed it should be taught as a theory along with the flaws in it.

Doing other wise and/or claiming its 'proven' violates dang near every scientific principle I was taught.


----------



## rambotex

Not true on the Species:

They have caught Aggies with Sheep.


----------



## Shoden

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, I was there, saw it with my own eyes.... experienced it with my entire being....and that is all the proof I need. Can you "prove" or provide any evidence concerning what you had for breakfast this morning? if anything?


Well, I can't prove it over the Internet, but if we were in a room together with the proper equipement, we could pump my stomach and analyze the contents, or we could wait for a stool sample and take a look a that. We could even repeat the experiment by saving the results, having me eat the same thing tomorrow morning, and then pump or poop again. Can we do that with your experience?



Yvonne's hubby said:


> It is EXACTLY the same issue. You cannot ask me where my creator came from and expect me not to ask you where your inanimate material came from.... both questions are the first logical step back in the equation. I will admit that we (my creator and I) did not go into His personal history.... but at least I know He exists which appears to be far more than you know about where your "life spawning" matter came from.


No, it's not the same issue. You're claiming as a creationist that life and intelligence requires an intelligent designer to come into existence. If we assume that your intelligent designer exists without an having been created by an intelligent designer, and we also assume that your intelligent designer is both intelligent and alive, then that disproves your requirement for us to have an intelligent designer.

For science, where the matter came from has no direct relevance to how life arose from that matter. If the theory of the big bang or other theories of the origin of the universe change, that has very little impact on the various theories of abiogenesis.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Seeing as how C14 test have been proven flawed what makes you so sure about other test based on unproven assumptions?


Carbon-14 dating has not been discredited. The freshwater muscle thing occurred because the sample was contaminated by nearby limestone. Carbon dating works, you just have to understand the composition of your sample.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> Engineers have an old saying that common sense is what tells us that the world is flat.


And engineers are wrong about that, because common sense tells us it isn't. Flat earth was NEVER a widely believed idea. It's a myth that people thought Columbus could sail off the edge of the earth. I'm sure a few people thought that, but not many.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> That case wasn't a total loss to creationists. The ruling opened the door to teaching creationism if establishment of a religion wasn't a factor. Creationists developed "creation science" in reaction to that ruling, claiming that there was actual science that existed in support of creationism.
> 
> The precise wording of that ruling is the only reason the debate still exists today. The interesting thing about creation science is that it doesn't require that the scientific community accept it, it's only required that there is some science alleged and that it doesn't mention religion.


I'd still like to see how the courts said that teaching ANYTHING in a school is equal to a law passed by congress.


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, nowhere have I read in the Bible anything about evolution in order to get us to believe in that particular fallacy. Therefor God doesnt lie. He clearly states how He went about bringing things together and wants us to have faith in His Word in spite of what some would have us to believe.


Your premise was that God somehow aged dino bones, etc to test us. That is still a God who lies no matter how you try to spin it.




Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, without the OT the NT is pretty much meaningless.


Actually it makes more sense when you dump the Jewish scriptures (the O.T.). Its nearly impossible to reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God that Christ preached.
Christians have to jump through hoops and suspend logic and disbelief trying to believe the O.T. and the N.T. and reconcile the two.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shoden said:


> Well, I can't prove it


Didnt think so. 





Shoden said:


> No, it's not the same issue. You're claiming as a creationist that life and intelligence requires an intelligent designer to come into existence. *If we assume* that your intelligent designer exists without an having been created by an intelligent designer, *and we also assume* that your intelligent designer is both intelligent and alive, then that disproves your requirement for us to have an intelligent designer.


The are the very same questions.... your assumptions are just that.... YOUR assumptions, not mine, and they relate no more to how creatures were created than you claim your mudpies have no relevance to how they performed the miracle of creating life. Your doublespeak proves only that YOU are up a stump for a reasonable answer. 



Shoden said:


> For science, where the matter came from has no direct relevance to how life arose from that matter. If the theory of the big bang or other theories of the origin of the universe change, that has very little impact on the various theories of abiogenesis.


And if Yaweh turns out to really be Rumplestiltzkin.... That too will have zero affect on the fact that He still created all life on this planet.


----------



## watcher

jtbrandt said:


> Nope, but mountains are a lot bigger than that period...they can be seen from space. The east coast is extremely close in comparison. You could figure it out on a much smaller scale. Walk away from a tree...yes, it seems to get smaller, but it also "sinks" into the horizon. That sinking makes the curvature obvious.


Which is how the curvature was first calculated, well using buildings not trees, quite accurately. But my point was your saying you can't see the rockies proves the earth is curved could be explained in another way. This is why science demands more than "I saw it therefore it must be thus"


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Engineers have an old saying that common sense is what tells us that the world is flat.


Also you can't push a rope.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> Your premise was that God somehow aged dino bones, etc to test us. That is still a God who lies no matter how you try to spin it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it makes more sense when you dump the Jewish scriptures (the O.T.). Its nearly impossible to reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God that Christ preached.
> Christians have to jump through hoops and suspend logic and disbelief trying to believe the O.T. and the N.T. and reconcile the two.


Oddly enough I have no trouble at all reconciling the two.... they go hand in hand... with perfect alignment. But then I dont go round calling God a liar either. Gotta admit the old boy has a sense of humor though.


----------



## mnn2501

rambotex said:


> It's gonna be a sad day for many of our friends here when the Rapture comes.


An invention of the 18th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oddly enough I have no trouble at all reconciling the two.... they go hand in hand... with perfect alignment.



Again you must suspend logic to believe much of the OT - but then many people do, so you're in good company.




Yvonne's hubby said:


> But then I dont go round calling God a liar either. Gotta admit the old boy has a sense of humor though.


 You are the one who did. You refuse to use the word 'liar' but what you said meant exactly that.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Carbon-14 dating has not been discredited. The freshwater muscle thing occurred because the sample was contaminated by nearby limestone. Carbon dating works, you just have to understand the composition of your sample.


C14 has had a black swan event that makes it unreliable because you don't know if there are other black swans out there or not.


----------



## watcher

jtbrandt said:


> And engineers are wrong about that, because common sense tells us it isn't. Flat earth was NEVER a widely believed idea. It's a myth that people thought Columbus could sail off the edge of the earth. I'm sure a few people thought that, but not many.


Its a way of saying you can't trust your eyes.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> An invention of the 18th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture


Applying that particular term may well have come later... but I am pretty sure the event was spoken about much earlier.... not sure just when Thesselonians was written, but I am fairly certain it was well before the 18th century.


----------



## unregistered353870

watcher said:


> Which is how the curvature was first calculated, well using buildings not trees, quite accurately. But my point was your saying you can't see the rockies proves the earth is curved could be explained in another way. This is why science demands more than "I saw it therefore it must be thus"


Obviously, just one instance doesn't prove it...but you notice the Rockies rising up out of the land as you get closer and sinking back into it as you get further away and you start to notice it happening to everything. Sure, there could be another explanation. Magic comes to mind...but common sense rules that one out. Observing things around you quickly gets you to the spherical earth idea even if you're an uneducated shepherd in the second century BC. For sailors it was even more obvious, as there was no terrain to confuse them.


----------



## unregistered353870

watcher said:


> Its a way of saying you can't trust your eyes.


Then they should say your eyes are what tell you the earth is flat, because common sense doesn't. Common sense involves thinking about what your eyes see.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> Again you must suspend logic to believe much of the OT - but then many people do, so you're in good company.
> 
> 
> You are the one who did. You refuse to use the word 'liar' but what you said meant exactly that.


Nope, I have no problem whatsoever using the term "liar".... as a matter of fact my mother was an expert on the subject.... she couldnt seem to utter a sentence without lying. 

There is a huge difference twixt the good Lord creating things and having misguided "scientists" create nonsensical theorys about how the came to be and lying to folks. God said that He himself created it all.... didnt say how exactly but said He did it. I believe that too as I have seen no evidence to the contrary. I have heard a lot of nonsense.... but not seen anything by way of evidence.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> C14 has had a black swan event that makes it unreliable because you don't know if there are other black swans out there or not.


Actually, the test on the freshwater mussels gave accurate results. Having older material in the sample make the sample appear older than it was, but that's to be expected. You can't blame the test for a contaminated sample.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> Then they should say your eyes are what tell you the earth is flat, because common sense doesn't. Common sense involves thinking about what your eyes see.


It's just one of those nonsense half-true sayings that make you chuckle. Like a watched pot never boils, even though it will.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Actually, the test on the freshwater mussels gave accurate results. Having older material in the sample make the sample appear older than it was, but that's to be expected. You can't blame the test for a contaminated sample.


In order to have any faith in carbon 14 testing one must first make some unprovable (to my knowledge) assumptions. Right up front one must assume that the molecular structure of the item being tested has not been contaminated... but the real issue to me is how do we know that the rates of breakdown happen at the same rate today that they did a thousand years ago? Uncle Albert put the entire scientific community on notice years ago that all things are relative to other things.... where is the set goal post that you think you can measure ages with?


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> the real issue to me is how do we know that the rates of breakdown happen at the same rate today that they did a thousand years ago?


I believe that's a constant that you can rely on.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I believe that's a constant that you can rely on.


Ahhh yes.... a nice blend of religion and science.... you have faith in a theory with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, and you would like me to place my faith with yours!


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ahhh yes.... a nice blend of religion and science.... you have faith in a theory with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, and you would like me to place my faith with yours!


I really couldn't be a ChemE and not believe in carbon dating. That would be like having an agnostic Pope.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I really couldn't be a ChemE and not believe in carbon dating. That would be like having an agnostic Pope.


I didnt say it was a bad thing..... just that its based on blind faith. Kinda like most other religions.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Shoden said:


> I don't consider myself a "more educated evolutionist", but thanks to Google, I can play one on the Internet
> 
> For a fairly simple and easy to understand explanation of why evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics, read this article: http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-second-law
> 
> For a much more complex explanation, complete with lots of math using funny (that's funny strange, not funny haha) symbols, read this article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
> 
> Personally, that second article started losing me part way through the entropy discussion before he even got to all the math.


BTW:

biologos.org is the "Christian Darwinist" site .... (refer to my post #255)

Talkorigins.org is a pro evolution site



And for a more fair and balanced study try this:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...-thermodynamic-entropy-compensation-argument/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/?s=entropy

.............................

I do not know if the original forming of life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.... and I do not really need to use the potential breaking of a natural law as a proof ....

because I have too much other convincing proof.

I would like to find time to investigate this entropy issue .... but a quick google search is unlikely to get you to the truth.


----------



## watcher

jtbrandt said:


> Obviously, just one instance doesn't prove it...but you notice the Rockies rising up out of the land as you get closer and sinking back into it as you get further away and you start to notice it happening to everything. Sure, there could be another explanation. Magic comes to mind...but common sense rules that one out. Observing things around you quickly gets you to the spherical earth idea even if you're an uneducated shepherd in the second century BC. For sailors it was even more obvious, as there was no terrain to confuse them.


If you read history you will find out the curvature of the earth was know long before the late 1400s. If you goggle Eratosthenes you will find that in about 200 BC he had very accurately calculated the circumference of the earth. So it was known about 1,600 years before old Chris set sail that the earth was not flat. The "fact" that people thought the earth was flat is much more of a myth than fact. A uneducated serf might think so but anyone with education knew better.


----------



## watcher

jtbrandt said:


> Then they should say your eyes are what tell you the earth is flat, because common sense doesn't. Common sense involves thinking about what your eyes see.


Common sense isn't as common as most people think. But there are many things which you eyes see and your brain tells you that are wrong. 

Watch this video and make yourself see what is actually happening not what your brain says is happening. FYI, I have NEVER been able to do it.

[YOUTUBE]QbKw0_v2clo[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Actually, the test on the freshwater mussels gave accurate results. Having older material in the sample make the sample appear older than it was, but that's to be expected. You can't blame the test for a contaminated sample.


And if you find a sample how are you to know if its contaminated or not? How do you know that in the last 5,000 years is it has been exposed to something which could cause it to give false readings? How can you be sure that sample you have in your hand is really 5K years old or if its just 100 and there's some contaminate in it? 

The point is once you find a black swan your theory that all swans are white is out the window. The theory that C14 decay can give you accurate dating has had a black swan event therefore your theory is out the window.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I believe that's a constant that you can rely on.


Based on what? AFAIK, its based on assumptions. Its assumed that all radioactive material acts the same. That a very stable, slow decaying isotope acts the same way as an unstable, fast decaying isotope. Is it a good assumption or a bad one? We assume its a good one until we find a half-life black swan. At that point the half-life theory is out the window.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I really couldn't be a ChemE and not believe in carbon dating. That would be like having an agnostic Pope.


So when something comes along and shows that one of the tenets of your religion is false you say that it doesn't matter? If tomorrow there was a well documented and highly reviewed study was released saying someone had found a radioactive element which does not follow the half-life 'rule' would you say "Well that's just one element, it doesn't show that the entire half-life theory is wrong." Or would you have to reevaluate your entire stance on C14 dating as well as the rest of the science based on the theory of radioactive half-life?


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is a huge difference twixt the good Lord creating things and having misguided "scientists" create nonsensical theorys about how the came to be and lying to folks.


If you purposely misguide someone you are doing what?? LYING to them on purpose!

Sorry but you can not have it both ways.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> If you purposely misguide someone you are doing what?? LYING to them on purpose!
> 
> Sorry but you can not have it both ways.


I suppose I can have it any way I want.... I am not a scientist attempting to create an invalid theory based on erroneous calculations on my part.... in spite of what God says. Let me put forth a bit different set of circumstances. Lets say God put a tree in the garden and warned Adam not to eat the fruit of that tree lest he should surely die. At what point did God lie? By placing the temptation or should we say "test of faith" in front of Adam?


----------



## JJ Grandits

Shoden said:


> I don't consider myself a "more educated evolutionist", but thanks to Google, I can play one on the Internet
> 
> For a fairly simple and easy to understand explanation of why evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics, read this article: http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-second-law
> 
> For a much more complex explanation, complete with lots of math using funny (that's funny strange, not funny haha) symbols, read this article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
> 
> Personally, that second article started losing me part way through the entropy discussion before he even got to all the math.


 Didn't bother with the second article as the first one was full of poop to begin with. Come on, get real. The second law of thermodymanics applies to the Universe but not to earth because the Earth gets energy from the sun? But it does apply to things on Earth unless of course it's inconvenient to an unproven theory. Sorry, you can't nit pick the laws of physics. If the second law does not apply to the developement of life on Earth then it applies to nothing at all on Earth because the sun shines on all. You can not create life. Life only comes from life. This is how I know I have a living God.


----------



## unregistered353870

watcher said:


> If you read history you will find out the curvature of the earth was know long before the late 1400s. If you goggle Eratosthenes you will find that in about 200 BC he had very accurately calculated the circumference of the earth. So it was known about 1,600 years before old Chris set sail that the earth was not flat. The "fact" that people thought the earth was flat is much more of a myth than fact. A uneducated serf might think so but anyone with education knew better.


I know all that...which is why I pointed out the myth earlier. The spherical earth idea is actually recorded as far back as the sixth century BC but was common by the third century BC.


----------



## greg273

JJ Grandits said:


> Didn't bother with the second article as the first one was full of poop to begin with. Come on, get real. The second law of thermodymanics applies to the Universe but not to earth because the Earth gets energy from the sun?


 You're misreading what the actual law says...

Entropy in a CLOSED system will increase or stay the same. Which by the way has zero to do with evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics


----------



## mmoetc

JJ Grandits said:


> Didn't bother with the second article as the first one was full of poop to begin with. Come on, get real. The second law of thermodymanics applies to the Universe but not to earth because the Earth gets energy from the sun? But it does apply to things on Earth unless of course it's inconvenient to an unproven theory. Sorry, you can't nit pick the laws of physics. If the second law does not apply to the developement of life on Earth then it applies to nothing at all on Earth because the sun shines on all. You can not create life. Life only comes from life. This is how I know I have a living God.


"Life only comes from life". Is God, who created life in earth then a living being. If so, who or what created God?


----------



## Awnry Abe

watcher said:


> And if you find a sample how are you to know if its contaminated or not? .


That one is EASY. Any sixth grader headed to the science fair knows that one. If it doesn't support your hypothesis, it is contaminated. If it does, it is not. Come on...

..oh, but peer review prevents that...

...but wait...technocracy permits applying the same principle to the selection of peers. Reject, blackball, & de-fund those that don't agree, publish those that do...


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> "Life only comes from life". Is God, who created life in earth then a living being. If so, who or what created God?


I would say God is a force... or energy.... very much alive and well. As to His "origin" you have to bear in mind that time as we understand it does not exist... its a manmade concept... God just is.... has always been and always will be.


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would say God is a force... or energy.... very much alive and well. As to His "origin" you have to bear in mind that time as we understand it does not exist... its a manmade concept... God just is.... has always been and always will be.


Once again with the time does not exist, another example of mental gymnastics a person goes through.

You are born, you grow old and die - perfect example of time existing.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Awnry Abe said:


> That one is EASY. Any sixth grader headed to the science fair knows that one. If it doesn't support your hypothesis, it is contaminated. If it does, it is not. Come on...
> 
> ..oh, but peer review prevents that...
> 
> ...but wait...technocracy permits applying the same principle to the selection of peers. Reject, blackball, & de-fund those that don't agree, publish those that do...




Yes ... if you expect to have a tenured position in a university science department you will believe evolution is truth.

High school science teachers are taught by these evolutionists in these universities

Evolution must be taught in public schools as if it is true.

*.... it's called indoctrination !!!*


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

mnn2501 said:


> Once again with the time does not exist, another example of mental gymnastics a person goes through.
> 
> You are born, you grow old and die - perfect example of time existing.


they say time is an illusion .... 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-time-an-illusion/


----------



## mnn2501

Johnny Dolittle said:


> they say time is an illusion ....
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-time-an-illusion/


and its on the internet so it must be true <<shakes head>>

"They" can say lots of things, saying it does not make it true (unless you are liberal or a politician)


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> You're misreading what the actual law says...
> 
> Entropy in a CLOSED system will increase or stay the same. Which by the way has zero to do with evolution.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics


The earth is not a closed system?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> The earth is not a closed system?


The earth itself, not hardly. We are bombarded each day with countless outside inputs from the energy if the sun to cosmic dust which has traveled who know how far and long.


----------



## supernovae

JJ Grandits said:


> In spite of the fact that scientists like to portray themselves as open minded investigators of the truth, the fact is, they're not. They are actually pretty close minded and defensive of what they believe. Probably more so then the average person. A truly questioning mind would be all over these findings.


Completely untrue.

What scientists "believe in" is the scientific method, that doesn't change. If the scientific method supports their hypothesis then "Standing firm" is a perfectly valid response.

We "non scientists" often fall back to our "hunch" or "beliefs" or "thoughts" and we naively believe our senses which can be subject to so much bias that we don't bother looking at.

The scientific method removes bias by allowing others to validate or invalidate your hypothesis and if your hypothesis can't be invalidated or tested then it isn't believed to be true at all.

There could be zillions of aliens out there, but we don't believe them to be true until we have evidence. Life can be abundant across the universe, but we don't believe that to be true until we have evidence. At the same time, scientists don't *NOT* believe in the abundance of life because the chemicals and physics of life is universal across the universe so the Earth isn't unique in that regard, what the earth is made up of us understood as the composition of any planet. Just not proof / observation to confirm at this time.

The beauty of science though is that we're building upon what we know to "tactically" research into the unknown and the other beauty of science is that people will change their views in the face of evidence.


----------



## watcher

How about a little bit of logic. Say you are walking through the woods and come upon a series of stones laying one on top of the other and forming a long straight wall.

You can clearly see there is no one around, there are no other structures near by, the wall appears to be very very old, there are no signs of construction, you have seen cliff faces which look like stones stacked upon one another and according to science entire mountain ranges have been formed by uplifting. 

Now which is the more logical point of view. 

A) The wall is the result of natural random events occurring over billions of years. 

B) Someone, unknown to you, created the wall.

Now be honest, is someone tried to use all kinds of data to 'prove' that the wall just happened to appear through 'natural selection' you'd think they were nuts wouldn't you. Yet when someone tries to do the same thing with something as complex as a living organism you go right along with them.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> The earth itself, not hardly. We are bombarded each day with countless outside inputs from the energy if the sun to cosmic dust which has traveled who know how far and long.


So what is a closed system? One which is completely shielded from light, background radiation and all forms of EM energy. 

To be honest with you if you apply scientific reasoning to it you would have to agree that entropy is rolling along quite well on the earth. Yet macroevolutionist say when it comes to evolution it does not apply because instead of organisms breaking down into simpler components they actually become more complex. Its illogical.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> How about a little bit of logic. Say you are walking through the woods and come upon a series of stones laying one on top of the other and forming a long straight wall.
> 
> You can clearly see there is no one around, there are no other structures near by, the wall appears to be very very old, there are no signs of construction, you have seen cliff faces which look like stones stacked upon one another and according to science entire mountain ranges have been formed by uplifting.
> 
> Now which is the more logical point of view.
> 
> A) The wall is the result of natural random events occurring over billions of years.
> 
> B) Someone, unknown to you, created the wall.
> 
> Now be honest, is someone tried to use all kinds of data to 'prove' that the wall just happened to appear through 'natural selection' you'd think they were nuts wouldn't you. Yet when someone tries to do the same thing with something as complex as a living organism you go right along with them.


This one is easy. One could look at the wall, see the composition and makeup of the elements and first figure out if its natural or artificial. If its natural, you may see deposits of soils around it that confirm it may have once been an ancient riverbed or ocean floor and this "Wall" is the left over bits that were stable enough to survive over eons - such as something where mussel/clam beds "concreted" the area or sandstones preserved materials or what have it be. If it was "made" then you will see the artifacts of it being made, you will see tool impressions, you would find presence of something creating it and or something living nearby. Usually if "man" stays long enough to build a stone wall, man has lived there long enough to leave a footprint of trash, living areas/space/materials.. (bones.. foods.... whatever it may be). There has never been a wall that couldn't have been explained. We know the earth is a "living" system and we know the rate by which plate tectonics "recycles" the earths crust so we know where in our planet the only ancient rocks survive so for this "hypothetical wall" to exist it would have to exist in the areas of the 1% where it doesn't exist (only a few ancient rocks still exist on the surface) and these ancient areas in fact add MUCH evidence to the theory of evolution.

Natural selection isn't randomness of a wall appearing out of nowhere. If all you see is a wall and you don't apply critical thinking and scientific reasoning, the wall would of course be mysterious but the mystery is only what you make of it.

We absolutely know enough about speciation that natural selection is an emergent property that we can observe and verify through rigorous testing and validation.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Completely untrue.
> 
> What scientists "believe in" is the scientific method, that doesn't change. If the scientific method supports their hypothesis then "Standing firm" is a perfectly valid response.
> 
> We "non scientists" often fall back to our "hunch" or "beliefs" or "thoughts" and we naively believe our senses which can be subject to so much bias that we don't bother looking at.
> 
> The scientific method removes bias by allowing others to validate or invalidate your hypothesis and if your hypothesis can't be invalidated or tested then it isn't believed to be true at all.
> 
> There could be zillions of aliens out there, but we don't believe them to be true until we have evidence. Life can be abundant across the universe, but we don't believe that to be true until we have evidence. At the same time, scientists don't *NOT* believe in the abundance of life because the chemicals and physics of life is universal across the universe so the Earth isn't unique in that regard, what the earth is made up of us understood as the composition of any planet. Just not proof / observation to confirm at this time.
> 
> The beauty of science though is that we're building upon what we know to "tactically" research into the unknown and the other beauty of science is that people will change their views in the face of evidence.


Have you worked much in the scientific world? From what you have posted here I'd guess the answer is no. Science is just like every other human field its full of people who are looking to get power/fame and/or keep same. If you were a tenured professor who has spent his entire life studying and teaching that macroevolution is the ONLY way life could have came into being would you want someone to pop up and show it wasn't? You'd be out of a job plus your entire life's view point would be shown as false. So you'd do whatever you had to do to keep this 'kook' with his 'uneducated religious beliefs' from being able to spread his 'scientific heresy'.

I have stated over and over I don't want to replace the theory of evolution with anything. I just want it to be taught as a THEORY, i.e. an unproven idea, and to allow the discussion of other ideas on how organisms have reached their level of complexity.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> The theory that C14 decay can give you accurate dating has had a black swan event therefore your theory is out the window.


I don't consider a contaminated sample to be a black swan event. C-14 decay half-life is a constant that you can rely on. Of course if you can show me an exception to its half-life then you've really got something.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> So what is a closed system? One which is completely shielded from light, background radiation and all forms of EM energy.


A closed system does not consume food and expel waste. A loving organism is not a closed system.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> Have you worked much in the scientific world? From what you have posted here I'd guess the answer is no. Science is just like every other human field its full of people who are looking to get power/fame and/or keep same. If you were a tenured professor who has spent his entire life studying and teaching that macroevolution is the ONLY way life could have came into being would you want someone to pop up and show it wasn't? You'd be out of a job plus your entire life's view point would be shown as false. So you'd do whatever you had to do to keep this 'kook' with his 'uneducated religious beliefs' from being able to spread his 'scientific heresy'.


You're projecting your biases and using them as a generalization that is false.

BTW, i work for an awesome biotech saving the lives of people by developing machines that do molecular diagnostics to help identify and prevent communicable diseases and other human conditions. Lots of scientists here. Plus, i work with lots of data scientists, engineers, chemists in other places i've worked at building roads/bridges/power plants and rockets to send stuff to outer space.




> I have stated over and over I don't want to replace the theory of evolution with anything. I just want it to be taught as a THEORY, i.e. an unproven idea, and to allow the discussion of other ideas on how organisms have reached their level of complexity.



Evolution isn't a theory in the "Theory" as you define it. It is a fact, your belief only exists because the definition of theory is so obtuse it allows it. That is a failure of the English language, not a failure of Evolution and our understanding of it.

Just to be clear, evolution doesn't preclude the existence of any other theory, its just so well understood and studied that it is accepted as fact in the sense that we humans accept anything as fact. We haven't found a single shred of evidence to show that evolution has anything wrong with it to not be accepted as fact.


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Yes ... if you expect to have a tenured position in a university science department you will believe evolution is truth.
> 
> High school science teachers are taught by these evolutionists in these universities
> 
> Evolution must be taught in public schools as if it is true.
> 
> *.... it's called indoctrination !!!*


What is it that you think scientists are up to? If you believe that evolution is a conspiracy, then what is the purpose of the conspiracy?


----------



## supernovae

Nevada said:


> What is it that you think scientists are up to? If you believe that evolution is a conspiracy, then what is the purpose of the conspiracy?


No idea what they're thinking. But teaching facts is absolutely not "indoctrination". Evolution has been criticized in every conceivable way and still proven to be true so it absolutely positively goes against every definition of "indoctrination" one could ever conceive 

That's the beauty of evolution. Someone was able to develop the theory before understanding what genetics/dna was yet, when we discovered genetics/dna it supported the theory with such a beautiful mechanism that proved it even more and gave us a deeper understanding Darwin could only dream of.


----------



## Nevada

supernovae said:


> Evolution isn't a theory in the "Theory" as you define it. It is a fact, your belief only exists because the definition of theory is so obtuse it allows it. That is a failure of the English language, not a failure of Evolution and our understanding of it.


The "it's just a theory" line is a ploy that exploits a quirk of the english language. It's no accident that creationists all use that same exploit. They try to project that there is something tentative or provisional about evolution by suggesting that it only meets the common usage of the term.


----------



## willow_girl

mmoetc said:


> "Life only comes from life". Is God, who created life in earth then a living being. If so, who or what created God?


That question had been posed before.



> "*Turtles all the way down*" is a jocular expression of the infinite regress problem in cosmology posed by the "unmoved mover" paradox. The metaphor in the anecdote represents a popular notion of the myth that Earth is actually flat and is supported on the back of a World Turtle, which itself is propped up by a chain of larger and larger turtles. Questioning what the final turtle might be standing on, the anecdote humorously concludes that it is "turtles all the way down".
> The phrase was used by Stephen Hawking in 1988, but has been commonly known since at least the early 20th century. A comparable metaphor describing the circular cause and consequence for the same problem is the "chicken and egg problem". The same problem in epistemology is known as the MÃ¼nchhausen trilemma.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down


----------



## supernovae

Nevada said:


> The "it's just a theory" line is a ploy that exploits a quirk of the english language. It's no accident that creationists all use that same exploit. They try to project that there is something tentative or provisional about evolution by suggesting that it only meets the common usage of the term.


Absolutely! 

Our schools often teach people what to memorize instead of how to think, so we're left trying to make sense of facts without a complete understanding of them and we play games with definitions and ideas to try and make them reflect our biases without even understanding we're biased to begin with. 

I'll happily admit i'm biased on behalf of facts, but that bias also comes with the notion that i have to suffer the pain of being wrong when i'm wrong, but i find that to be a pleasurable experience since it means i've learned something new


----------



## Nevada

supernovae said:


> But teaching facts is absolutely not "indoctrination".


Actually, I'm surprised that religious people criticize indoctrination. I've never known a religious person to have a problem with religious indoctrination.


----------



## supernovae

Nevada said:


> Actually, I'm surprised that religious people criticize indoctrination. I've never known a religious person to have a problem with religious indoctrination.


I think the problem is that the only indoctrination they want to believe in is their own, so they fear someone else "indoctrinating" their kids even though they're not being indoctrinated to begin with.

It's easier to project your fears and biases than it is to recognize when they may be wrong.


----------



## Shoden

Johnny Dolittle said:


> BTW:
> 
> biologos.org is the "Christian Darwinist" site .... (refer to my post #255)
> 
> Talkorigins.org is a pro evolution site


Well, considering I grew up in a church where "Christian Darwinism" is a generally accepted idea, I'm okay with that. I also saw your post #255, in which you state you don't accept that idea.



Johnny Dolittle said:


> And for a more fair and balanced study try this:
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...-thermodynamic-entropy-compensation-argument/
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/?s=entropy


Uncommondescent is only "fair and balanced" to you because it matches your beliefs. To me, it's an extremely biased view, based on a mix of bad science and superstition.

As others have already pointed out to those of you who have criticized the two links I provided, your rejection of the explanation is due to your flawed understanding of the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## Shoden

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Didnt think so.


The little smilely face doesn't help. Taking a partial quote and ignoring the relevant part is just rude, and shows that you refuse to accept that it's possible to prove what I had for breakfast, but it's not possible to prove your experience.




Yvonne's hubby said:


> The are the very same questions.... your assumptions are just that.... YOUR assumptions, not mine, and they relate no more to how creatures were created than you claim your mudpies have no relevance to how they performed the miracle of creating life. Your doublespeak proves only that YOU are up a stump for a reasonable answer.
> 
> And if Yaweh turns out to really be Rumplestiltzkin.... That too will have zero affect on the fact that He still created all life on this planet.


So you don't believe that your intellligent designer is intelligent? Or alive? I figured those were both pretty standard beliefs, as a dead dumb designer doesn't make much sense. 

And don't accuse me of doublespeak. I make a very concious effort to be clear in my communications. Your refusal to see the difference in the questions may simply be the result of us having worldviews that are just too different.


----------



## Awnry Abe

Nevada said:


> Actually, I'm surprised that religious people criticize indoctrination. I've never known a religious person to have a problem with religious indoctrination.


I have a problem with religious indoctrination. I am a Christian. I am not a religious person. I'll let you sort that all out.


----------



## JJ Grandits

It has everything to do with evolution. Well actually it does not, because evolution is a false theory.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> How about a little bit of logic. Say you are walking through the woods and come upon a series of stones laying one on top of the other and forming a long straight wall.
> 
> You can clearly see there is no one around, there are no other structures near by, the wall appears to be very very old, there are no signs of construction, you have seen cliff faces which look like stones stacked upon one another and according to science entire mountain ranges have been formed by uplifting.
> 
> Now which is the more logical point of view.
> 
> A) The wall is the result of natural random events occurring over billions of years.
> 
> B) Someone, unknown to you, created the wall.


You mean like this (Mexican Hat National Monument, Utah)?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I don't consider a contaminated sample to be a black swan event. C-14 decay half-life is a constant that you can rely on. Of course if you can show me an exception to its half-life then you've really got something.


I disagree with your term, contaminated, but I'll use it for now. How can you know if the sample you are about to test has or has not be contaminated? How can you be sure there are not other environmental contaminates out there which are much more wide spread but unknown as this one was? 

To me the fact you have found one sample which causes false readings must make you at least consider the readings from other samples might be false as well.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> A closed system does not consume food and expel waste. A loving organism is not a closed system.


Ah. . . the earth was consuming food and expelling waste when the first living organism formed?


----------



## Evons hubby

Shoden said:


> So you don't believe that your intellligent designer is intelligent? Or alive?
> 
> And don't accuse me of doublespeak. I make a very concious effort to be clear in my communications. Your refusal to see the difference in the questions may simply be the result of us having worldviews that are just too different.


I dont recall making any assertions about any intelligent designer being stupid or dead. You stated that life came from mudpies (or some similar nonorganic matter) but refuse to discuss where the mudpies come from, I stated that life was created by an intelligent force, and you demand to know where that force came from. Now from the part of the world I come from, that is just not right. Your putting words in my mouth and backing it up with your ideas is the doublespeak I was referring to. You are the only one here that claims an intelligent force had to be created by yet another intelligent force. Those are your assertions... not mine. As to your "proving" what you had for breakfast.... that only works if one plays by your rules..... I provided you with all the proof required of my experience.. according to my rules. If you fail to understand that.... then perhaps you just refuse to see things as they are.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> How can you know if the sample you are about to test has or has not be contaminated? How can you be sure there are not other environmental contaminates out there which are much more wide spread but unknown as this one was?


That's why scientists have so many years of training. That's the kind if thing we determine.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Ah. . . the earth was consuming food and expelling waste when the first living organism formed?


While the earth is not a form of life, the earth consumes a HUGE amount of energy from the sun. The earth is not a closed system from an energy balance standpoint.


----------



## supernovae

JJ Grandits said:


> It has everything to do with evolution. Well actually it does not, because evolution is a false theory.


Evolution is a fact. Who teaches otherwise?


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Ah. . . the earth was consuming food and expelling waste when the first living organism formed?


I have often wondered what those first one celled critters ate.... given that we all feed off one another. Had the first two cells ate each other.... they would have had no one to breed with.


----------



## Nevada

supernovae said:


> Evolution is a fact. Who teaches otherwise?


Yes, but scientists don't call their concepts facts. They call them theories and laws. Creationists introduce terms like "facts" and "kinds" to confuse the issue.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Yes, but scientists don't call their concepts facts. They call them theories and laws. Creationists introduce terms like "facts" and "kinds" to confuse the issue.


It seems some scientists are easily confused.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have often wondered what those first one celled critters ate.... given that we all feed off one another. Had the first two cells ate each other.... they would have had no one to breed with.


Single cell organisms don't breed, they divide.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Single cell organisms don't breed, they divide.


Very good... now what do they eat, or consume in order to grow?

No hurry on this, I am off to nap land for a while.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It seems some scientists are easily confused.


What is the scientific definition of a fact? How does a fact differ from a hypothesis, theory, or law?

What is the scientific definition of a kind? How does a kind differ from a genus, phylum, or species?


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have often wondered what those first one celled critters ate.... given that we all feed off one another. Had the first two cells ate each other.... they would have had no one to breed with.


We know that cells reproduce through cell division and that they "consume" nutrients in many ways. They usually are classified anaerobic or aerobic in how they get energy. 

One of the coolest things in the world is the study of structure. Amino acids and protein chains seem complex until you study how this happens in nature for things we don't even consider "alive" in the classical sense of "alive".

One can study clays and see that clay systems are essentially crystalline chains that form and reproduce in a way to distribute that specific type of clay and these "clay chains" act very much like a replicator such as RNA/DNA of molecules do. A clay system can be distributed by water/air and when a crystalline structure of the clay is lifted by air to another spot and starts having chemical reactions in the new area it was distributed to, it can "grow" and develop that type of clay system. It's one of the ways we can see distribution of land and understand long term patterns/events. we can study the clay samples of soils and see how they are distributed over an environment than derive the source/distribution and make predictions of what soils/clays will thrive in what areas and the "Crystalline" structure of the clay is what drives this property. 

It's cool stuff, especially when you realize that "Replicator" and "Distribution" can occur "naturally" for even something as benign as clay. Oh and btw, if you look at clay silicate under a microscope its absolutely beautiful too!

oh yeah, the coolest part of all this too is that through this replicator we can also identify evolutionary patterns of clays and see how they have changed through distribution.


----------



## supernovae

Nevada said:


> Yes, but scientists don't call their concepts facts. They call them theories and laws. Creationists introduce terms like "facts" and "kinds" to confuse the issue.


Yes, people introduce things to confuse the issue, but there is no harm in calling evolution and gravity a fact, the scientific community largely does call these theories facts to avoid the alternative meaning of "theory" being "just a theory".

It's perfectly valid and normal for scientists to use "scientific theory" not hypothetical theory in the sense of "Scientific fact".

Everything else is just a philosophical mind game of what "facts" really are.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> You're projecting your biases and using them as a generalization that is false.
> 
> BTW, i work for an awesome biotech saving the lives of people by developing machines that do molecular diagnostics to help identify and prevent communicable diseases and other human conditions. Lots of scientists here. Plus, i work with lots of data scientists, engineers, chemists in other places i've worked at building roads/bridges/power plants and rockets to send stuff to outer space.


And you have NEVER seen people with big egos who would step on anyone to get ahead?




supernovae said:


> Evolution isn't a theory in the "Theory" as you define it. It is a fact, your belief only exists because the definition of theory is so obtuse it allows it. That is a failure of the English language, not a failure of Evolution and our understanding of it.


Sigh. . .to work in a science environment you don't seem to understand its language that well. In science words have very clear and precise meanings. There are three and ONLY THREE types of scientific descriptions of ideas or thoughts. They are hypothesis, theory and law and each has a very specific and precise meaning and they are NOT used interchangeably. 

A hypothesis is a guess. It can be an educated guess based on observation or logic. Or it can be a WAG based on what you want. But either way its just a guess.

A theory is a hypothesis which has scientifically supported evidence (i.e. peer reviewed, gathered by accepted scientific methods, etc.) to support it and nothing disproving it. But either there is not enough evidence supporting it or there are questions which the theory can not answer for it to rise to the third level, a law.

A law is a theory which has been 'proven'. This 'proof' comes from repeated and repeatable experimentation and/or mathematical proofs (a different "proof") AND there are no questions which can not be explained.

If macroevolution was 'proven' or 'fact', i.e. either able to be shown via experimentation or mathematically and there were no questions it could not answer scientist would be talking about the LAW of evolution.




supernovae said:


> Just to be clear, evolution doesn't preclude the existence of any other theory, its just so well understood and studied that it is accepted as fact in the sense that we humans accept anything as fact. We haven't found a single shred of evidence to show that evolution has anything wrong with it to not be accepted as fact.


Then why hasn't the scientific community agreed to move it from theory to law?


----------



## Oggie

I don't believe science, or calculus for that matter, because I don't understand them.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Very good... now what do they eat, or consume in order to grow?
> 
> No hurry on this, I am off to nap land for a while.


Nutrients, such as sugars.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Very good... now what do they eat, or consume in order to grow?
> 
> No hurry on this, I am off to nap land for a while.


This is cell biology 101. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_biology

My daughters know the basics of cell division. Do we just forget it as adults or are people "unteaching" this?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> What is it that you think scientists are up to? If you believe that evolution is a conspiracy, then what is the purpose of the conspiracy?


The same thing the scientist were up to during the 'earth is the center of the universe' conspiracy, keeping their power, prestige and their belief system. If something was discovered tomorrow proving there was an unrepairable flaw with the theory of macroevolution think about what would happen. How many Noble prizes might have to be revoked? How many 'leading scientist' would be standing there with egg on their face?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Nutrients, such as sugars.


but where does one find sugar.... in a world where there are no life forms to produce it?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Then why hasn't the scientific community agreed to move it from theory to law?


Biological facts are not normally classified as laws because laws are generally expressed in mathematical terms, such as the law of gravity of Newton's second law of motion. Since evolution can't be expressed mathematically it's not appropriate to call it a law. Laws are also simpler statements, which only describe what happens under certain circumstances, where a theory seeks to explain why something happens.

Your suggestion that there are different degrees of certainty is just dead wrong. But it so common of a misconception I'll like to ask where you learned that.

Where did you learn that a scientific law has a higher degree of certainty that a scientific theory?


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> but where does one find sugar.... in a world where there are no life forms to produce it?


I had a feeling that's where you were going...now this is getting interesting.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> but where does one find sugar.... in a world where there are no life forms to produce it?


Chemical reactions occur without life.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The "it's just a theory" line is a ploy that exploits a quirk of the english language. It's no accident that creationists all use that same exploit. They try to project that there is something tentative or provisional about evolution by suggesting that it only meets the common usage of the term.


Scientist don't have "quirks in language", science terms are VERY precise and specific. When was the last time you heard a scientist discussing the thickness of a liquid instead of its viscosity? When was the last time your heard a scientist having a quirk and talk about speed when he was actually discussing velocity? And they don't use the terms theory and law loosely.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> And you have NEVER seen people with big egos who would step on anyone to get ahead?


I could say this about you, but that doesn't change the facts. Egos don't change facts, personalities don't change facts, beliefs don't change facts. Nothing changes facts. Yes, scientists use very specific languages, but those languages, as we have seen can have drastically different meanings when non scientists hear them and try and interpret them. When i'm out in homesteading forums, i generally don't bust out mathematical formulas and scientific terms to explain things, but again, that doesn't change the facts.




> Sigh. . .to work in a science environment you don't seem to understand its language that well. In science words have very clear and precise meanings. There are three and ONLY THREE types of scientific descriptions of ideas or thoughts. They are hypothesis, theory and law and each has a very specific and precise meaning and they are NOT used interchangeably.


I know this, its irrelevant to the discussion. You're fighting semantics which is ignoring the facts. 



> A hypothesis is a guess. It can be an educated guess based on observation or logic. Or it can be a WAG based on what you want. But either way its just a guess.


and? it's really much more than a "guess" but whatever.. we'd just be fighting semantics again right?



> A theory is a hypothesis which has scientifically supported evidence (i.e. peer reviewed, gathered by accepted scientific methods, etc.) to support it and nothing disproving it. But either there is not enough evidence supporting it or there are questions which the theory can not answer for it to rise to the third level, a law.


I'm not sure why you're quoting this to me. The English dictionary has two meanings for theory. One is the "hypothetical" meaning of "its just a theory" and the other is the "theory" as in scientific fact / body of knowledge.

non scientific literate people love to use "its just a theory" in this sense:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. 

scientific people use "theory" in this sense:

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. 



> If macroevolution was 'proven' or 'fact', i.e. either able to be shown via experimentation or mathematically and there were no questions it could not answer scientist would be talking about the LAW of evolution.


Again, you're just playing a semantic word game. No matter how you spin it, it doesn't change the facts, you're just redefining what fact means and what theory means to fit your own ideology and you're using this to attack the credibility of others.




> Then why hasn't the scientific community agreed to move it from theory to law?


It's just a game of semantics and philosophical belief of differences between laws and theories. Evolution isn't as predictive in the sense of say, the law of thermodynamics because evolution is a pattern where the pattern can lead to predictions of patterns but because its a statistical pattern its philosophically probably never going to be a law. But once again, that's just semantics of what a law and theory is, neither refute the evidence of evolution and its strength as a scientific fact.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Actually, I'm surprised that religious people criticize indoctrination. I've never known a religious person to have a problem with religious indoctrination.


Yes you do, me. I have stated in several post, indirectly, that indoctrination conflicts with the teachings of Christ. All Christians are told to do is spread the Word. Is someone is not interested in hearing it we are told to walk away, not beat them over the head until they agree.

So now you can say you have only know one religious person who has a problem with it.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Scientist don't have "quirks in language", science terms are VERY precise and specific. When was the last time you heard a scientist discussing the thickness of a liquid instead of its viscosity? When was the last time your heard a scientist having a quirk and talk about speed when he was actually discussing velocity? And they don't use the terms theory and law loosely.


We have lots of quirks in our language. Otherwise we wouldn't confuse engineers who solve problems & design things using physics with people who drive trains & unstop drains in hotels. Other languages don't have that confusion.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> That's why scientists have so many years of training. That's the kind if thing we determine.


Yet how many years did it take for them to discover there was such a contamination? If you don't know its not there its dang hard to find it, right?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> While the earth is not a form of life, the earth consumes a HUGE amount of energy from the sun. The earth is not a closed system from an energy balance standpoint.


So to have a closed system it must be totally isolated from any energy? I can't remember ever doing an experiment in such an environment. Have you even done one that way?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> So to have a closed system it must be totally isolated from any energy? I can't remember ever doing an experiment in such an environment. Have you even done one that way?


I'm growing weary of this nonsense...

Does a corn seed violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics when it grows from a single kernel to a mature plant with several ears of corn? Of course not, the corn plant gets nutrients and water from the soil and energy from the sun.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have often wondered what those first one celled critters ate.... given that we all feed off one another. Had the first two cells ate each other.... they would have had no one to breed with.


That's one of the questions the theory of macroevolution can't answer. With what did that first mutation breed with. 

Plus if it wasn't a mass mutation how did it breed to continue the mutation w/o the genetic problems of inbreeding. This is a MAJOR problem in micorevolution. Almost all 'pure breed' dogs have a genetic problem (e.g. Dalmatians and deafness) due to the fact they are breed to keep the traits wanted.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> but where does one find sugar.... in a world where there are no life forms to produce it?


 The first organisms on earth used sunlight and/or hydrothermal vents to obtain nutrients. 
For someone who is so sure evolution is bunk, you're sure not coming to this discussion with many facts.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> What is the scientific definition of a fact? How does a fact differ from a hypothesis, theory, or law?
> 
> What is the scientific definition of a kind? How does a kind differ from a genus, phylum, or species?


Why don't you provide a definition of the terms hypothesis, theory, and law?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Why don't you provide a definition of the terms hypothesis, theory, and law?


http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Notice that there is no definition for a scientific fact.


----------



## unregistered353870

This didn't get as interesting as I expected...I thought people would pounce immediately. I guess I need to be patient.


----------



## Nevada

Creationism has a distinct purpose. Religious people are using it to garner more political power so they can have religion dominate our culture. And they don't deny that they want to do it.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Yes, people introduce things to confuse the issue, but there is no harm in calling evolution and gravity a fact, the scientific community largely does call these theories facts to avoid the alternative meaning of "theory" being "just a theory".
> 
> It's perfectly valid and normal for scientists to use "scientific theory" not hypothetical theory in the sense of "Scientific fact".
> 
> Everything else is just a philosophical mind game of what "facts" really are.


When have you EVER heard a scientist refer to the theory of gravity? I'm willing to bet you have never heard such a thing. Why? Because gravity is not a theory its a law and in science that's a MAJOR difference, not (as someone put it) a quirk use of words.

The reason you don't hear scientist talking about the theory of gravity is the same reason you don't hear them talking about the law of evolution.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

watcher said:


> That's one of the questions the theory of macroevolution can't answer. With what did that first mutation breed with.
> 
> Plus if it wasn't a mass mutation how did it breed to continue the mutation w/o the genetic problems of inbreeding. This is a MAJOR problem in micorevolution. Almost all 'pure breed' dogs have a genetic problem (e.g. Dalmatians and deafness) due to the fact they are breed to keep the traits wanted.


Watcher you are getting in a little over your head

Single cells reproduce asexually by cell division. A single cell produces duplicates all of the internal parts and then the cell cleaves and you have two cells ... the process is called mitosis.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> That's one of the questions the theory of macroevolution can't answer. With what did that first mutation breed with.


 If you're talking about breeding, that answer would be members of its own species, which still had 99.9999% of the same DNA. 
Of course, sexual reproduction didn't come along until millions of years into the evolution of life.
You guys apparently think evolution happens all at once, like a lizard gives birth to a bird. its a bit more subtle than that, taking millions upon millions of years. 
Amazing that these questions you think 'can't be answered', actually can, and have been answered pretty easily. The knowledge is out there, you just have to want to find it.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> When have you EVER heard a scientist refer to the theory of gravity? I'm willing to bet you have never heard such a thing. Why? Because gravity is not a theory its a law and in science that's a MAJOR difference, not (as someone put it) a quirk use of words.
> 
> The reason you don't hear scientist talking about the theory of gravity is the same reason you don't hear them talking about the law of evolution.


Gravitational force can be expressed in mathematical terms, so it's properly classified as a law. But note also that the law of gravity doesn't explain why there is a gravitational force. That's left to theory.

Where did you learn that a law has a higher level of credibility that a theory?
[This is the second time I've asked that.]


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> but where does one find sugar.... in a world where there are no life forms to produce it?


Bacterias are largely regarded as the first forms of life and the byproduct of bacterial and microbial mats is largely believed to have evolved to more advanced organisms that evolved to thrive on photosynthesis to store energy rather than have to depend on chemical/heat/nutrient properties of where they are. Also, bacteria changed some of the chemical compositions of the oceans and lands to create the environment by which photosynthesis could biologically and chemically happen.. (if memory serves me correctly, something like 200 million years..)


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> When have you EVER heard a scientist refer to the theory of gravity? I'm willing to bet you have never heard such a thing. Why? Because gravity is not a theory its a law and in science that's a MAJOR difference, not (as someone put it) a quirk use of words.
> 
> The reason you don't hear scientist talking about the theory of gravity is the same reason you don't hear them talking about the law of evolution.


It's a law of gravity in the Newtonian/Einsteinien sense, but a theory in the particle physics sense since we don't "know" what gravity is, yet we can predict its effects with great certainty.

again, semantics..

edit: it would be awesome if we discover a graviton or a field like the higgs field that gives us "gravity"


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> Creationism has a distinct purpose. Religious people are using it to garner more political power so they can have religion dominate our culture. And they don't deny that they want to do it.


Don't take this the wrong way, but why did you quote my post to reply with this? I realize I left a lot of room for interpretation, but I don't see the connection between what I wrote and what you wrote.


----------



## Shoden

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont recall making any assertions about any intelligent designer being stupid or dead. You stated that life came from mudpies (or some similar nonorganic matter) but refuse to discuss where the mudpies come from, I stated that life was created by an intelligent force, and you demand to know where that force came from. Now from the part of the world I come from, that is just not right. Your putting words in my mouth and backing it up with your ideas is the doublespeak I was referring to. You are the only one here that claims an intelligent force had to be created by yet another intelligent force. Those are your assertions... not mine. As to your "proving" what you had for breakfast.... that only works if one plays by your rules..... I provided you with all the proof required of my experience.. according to my rules. If you fail to understand that.... then perhaps you just refuse to see things as they are.


No, you didn't assert anything about an intelligent designer being stupid or dead. However, you did state that my assumption about an intelligent designer being intelligent and alive was *my* assumption, and not yours. That implies that you disagree with statement.

I didn't put any words in your mouth, unless you consider my statement that "You're claiming as a creationist that life and intelligence requires an intelligent designer to come into existence" (post #306) as putting words in your mouth. If that's not what you believe, then instead of accusing me of putting words in your mouth, maybe you should clarify what your creationist beliefs are. I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the various creationist viewpoints, since I used to be one, but maybe your views are different than the standard ones.



> You are the only one here that claims an intelligent force had to be created by yet another intelligent force.


So does this mean that you think an intelligent force can come into being naturally without an intelligent designer? Do "intelligent life" and "intelligent force" have different meanings to you? To me, based on the religious views I was raised with, they're the same thing, just to very different degrees. Humans, as individuals, are very minor forces, while God was a much more powerful (infinite?) force. Perhaps that's why the question "If an intelligent designer can come into being without an even greater intelligent designer, then why can't we?" makes sense to me, but seems like nonsense to you. As I said in my initial post, an intelligent designer doesn't answer the question, it just moves it back one step, and then leaves it unanswered, which puts creationists right there with non-creationists. Where did God come from? Where did the universe come from? _Edit: I just saw your answer to this question in your post #343. You can claim that God is eternal, and I can claim that matter is eternal. My favorite theory (or wild guess) regarding this universe is that it's just one of an infinite number of universes in a multiverse, continually collapsing and expanding. And yes, I'm aware that it just moves the question back one more step and leaves it unanswered. Eternal God, eternal multiverse. End edit._

And I also don't refuse to where the "mudpies" come from. There are several interesting theories on the matter, but as I stated earlier, we non-creationists don't know. 

And as far as proving what I had for breakfast, yes, that only works if we play by my rules, which allow for evidence and scietific testing, and it only fails if we play by your rules, which rejects them, or limits the proof to an Internet discussion forum, where I can't even prove if I'm male or female, or even if I'm human or a well written computer program. Maybe I'm your intelligent designer, just hanging out here and messing with you because I have a "wicked sense of humor".

It's clear that I don't see things as you see them. I used to see them in a somewhat similar way (but obviously not the same), but it was a long journey breaking away from that belief system, and I don't see myself going back.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> Don't take this the wrong way, but why did you quote my post to reply with this? I realize I left a lot of room for interpretation, but I don't see the connection between what I wrote and what you wrote.


Didn't mean to.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> I could say this about you, but that doesn't change the facts. Egos don't change facts, personalities don't change facts, beliefs don't change facts. Nothing changes facts. Yes, scientists use very specific languages, but those languages, as we have seen can have drastically different meanings when non scientists hear them and try and interpret them. When i'm out in homesteading forums, i generally don't bust out mathematical formulas and scientific terms to explain things, but again, that doesn't change the facts.


Really? You might want to research some of the "facts" in the climate debate to see how egos changed them to fit what they wanted. 




supernovae said:


> I know this, its irrelevant to the discussion. You're fighting semantics which is ignoring the facts.


No I'm facing scientific FACT. The fact is scientist don't fling terms around. A scientist would no more say theory when he was discussing a law than he would say speed when he was discussing velocity. 




supernovae said:


> I'm not sure why you're quoting this to me. The English dictionary has two meanings for theory. One is the "hypothetical" meaning of "its just a theory" and the other is the "theory" as in scientific fact / body of knowledge.


We are talking about scientist and their use of terms.




supernovae said:


> non scientific literate people love to use "its just a theory" in this sense:
> 
> a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.


They also will mix up speed and velocity but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that in science the terms are not the same.




supernovae said:


> scientific people use "theory" in this sense:
> 
> a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.


You almost have it. Note the phrase "commonly regarded as correct". That is what separates a theory from a law. 




supernovae said:


> Again, you're just playing a semantic word game. No matter how you spin it, it doesn't change the facts, you're just redefining what fact means and what theory means to fit your own ideology and you're using this to attack the credibility of others.


As I have stated my problem is scientist and teachers who look at and teach the theory of macroevolution as being a proven 'fact' or law. IT IS NOT!! If it were then it would, in scientific uses, be called the law of evolution. Example when it comes to genetics do we have Mendel's theory or do we have Mendel's law? Why do we call it that? Could it be that it is 'proven' and there are no questions about it? Or is it just because we got tired of calling it a theory and decided its been around so long we'll just start calling it a law?




supernovae said:


> It's just a game of semantics and philosophical belief of differences between laws and theories.


No, words mean things and in science they mean very specific things. There are no semantics in science because of this.




supernovae said:


> Evolution isn't as predictive in the sense of say, the law of thermodynamics because evolution is a pattern where the pattern can lead to predictions of patterns but because its a statistical pattern its philosophically probably never going to be a law. But once again, that's just semantics of what a law and theory is, neither refute the evidence of evolution and its strength as a scientific fact.


The mere fact that after all these decades the scientific community has decided that there are enough problems with the theory to keep it from being elevated to a law should make people with a scientific background look at it much harder than those w/o such a background. What are the flaws in the theory? What are the unanswered questions? With all the time and research into it what's holding it back from that final step to full recognition?

These are the questions which MUST be discussed in any science class which is looking into where life came from but when was the last time you heard such a discussion? I'm willing to be no where other than here because to question the holy grail of the religion of science will get you tossed out of or ignored by the 'true believers'. Go back and look at how I'm treated here when I question it. 

If I were a betting man I'd bet you are so sure that its is correct you probably have never taken the time to research any of its problems. You have been told all your life that macroevolution is the ONLY way it could have happened therefore you believe it based only on the proof you have been shown. One of these rainy days take a few hours and skim around the net. You'll find plenty of off the wall ideas but you'll also find some real questions that the theory can not answer and those are the things which are NOT being taught. To me that's just like the early "church" forbidding the teaching that the universe doesn't revolve around the earth.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> The first organisms on earth used sunlight and/or hydrothermal vents to obtain nutrients.
> For someone who is so sure evolution is bunk, you're sure not coming to this discussion with many facts.


Who said evolution was bunk? 
I am not sure now just what a fact is!?!? I used to think I did, but after reading some of the experts opinions here... I aint so sure any more.  About the only thing I am sure of at this point is that I aint gonna step off no tall buildings coz I am pretty sure gravity still exists and behaves the same way it always has.... and that God exists.... those two I am sure of. Been there, seen em both, and experienced the results. The rest is up for discussion and I am open minded about most things.... as long as they dont get really goofy.... like having life springing forth from a lifeless mud puddle.


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have often wondered what those first one celled critters ate.... given that we all feed off one another. Had the first two cells ate each other.... they would have had no one to breed with.


You do realize how most single cell 'critters' reproduce?


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> Really? You might want to research some of the "facts" in the climate debate to see how egos changed them to fit what they wanted.


There is no debate, man made CO2 is increasing year over year and we can measure and quantify the parts per million impact that humans cause.



> No I'm facing scientific FACT. The fact is scientist don't fling terms around. A scientist would no more say theory when he was discussing a law than he would say speed when he was discussing velocity.


Semantics..




> We are talking about scientist and their use of terms.


Under the false premise that what we're discussion actually changes anything, which it doesn't. We're debating definitions at this point. That goes nowhere and is just a symptom of the language used to derive definitions. It really really stinks that in the English language "theory" means two completely different things.




> They also will mix up speed and velocity but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that in science the terms are not the same.


Lots of people do this.. we also have great debates about oxford commas, grammar of their, there and they're and many other debates that don't really change facts right? i mean, precision is great but being precise doesn't change the facts just as being imprecise doesn't change facts. We can't expect everyone to be a professional at everything.

Working on computers all day would you guys have any clue what i was talking about if i said the "TLS 1.1 was incompatible with wildcard cert from godaddy so i had to install a NGINX proxy server to rewrite the SSL urls using SSLv3 so chrome could access the site without warnings" or would i re-frame it in "we put a server in front that fixes the issue of SSL certificate warnings" and get the message across better? The process doesn't change even though i dilute the description thereof into simpler terms..



> You almost have it. Note the phrase "commonly regarded as correct". That is what separates a theory from a law.


You're simply on a mission to once again make something that doesn't matter, matter. You're implying doubt when there is no doubt.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> One of the coolest things in the world is the study of structure. Amino acids and protein chains seem complex until you study how this happens in nature for things we don't even consider "alive" in the classical sense of "alive".


Proteins are synthesized in a cell. The organelle which does the synthesizing is called a ribosome. The ribosome is made from proteins. You can't make proteins unless you have a ribosome and you can't make a ribosome unless you have proteins. *(Classic chicken before the egg kind of problem)*


Proteins are made by linking amino acids together in a chain. There are about 20 amino acids. A copy of DNA called RNA is used by the ribosome to determine the order of the amino acids in the protein chain. The primary function of DNA is to provide the information to make the protein chain.

To make a protein the amino acids must be connected together by a special bond called a peptide bond. Amino acids also can link together by other kinds of bonding and if they do you will not have a protein. The ribosome will connect the amino acids using peptide bonds only.

If you do not have a ribosome and DNA you can not make duplicate proteins. If you mix amino acids together they will connect together naturally without needing a ribosome.... however 2/3 's of the bonding will not be the peptide type and so you will not have a protein.

To have a functional protein the protein must fold. The chain of amino acids will have specific locations with either plus or minus charges. Plus charges attract to minus charges similar to the way plus and minus poles of a magnet attract each other. The protein folds in a way analogous to making a pretzel.... a pretzel starts out as a long rolled strand of dough and then the ends are looped around and parts of the dough strand adhere to one another. A protein chain is very long and when it folds it makes many many pretzel like loops with the crossing over strands being held together by plus and minus charges.

*I you randomly link together amino acids using only peptide bonds you will not have a protein that can fold. It takes information produced by knowledge to link together amino acids in a sequence which is able to fold. Randomly produced sequences of amino acids linked together by peptide bonds will not fold and can not function as proteins.

The building blocks of life are proteins.... you can not make them unless you have a functioning cell. You can not show me proteins being made outside of a cell.

If you do not believe me then Google


*


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> The mere fact that after all these decades the scientific community has decided that there are enough problems with the theory to keep it from being elevated to a law should make people with a scientific background look at it much harder than those w/o such a background. What are the flaws in the theory? What are the unanswered questions? With all the time and research into it what's holding it back from that final step to full recognition?


Where did you learn that a scientific law has more certainty that a scientific theory?
[This is the third time I've asked this.]


----------



## mnn2501

watcher said:


> That's one of the questions the theory of macroevolution can't answer. With what did that first mutation breed with.


Here's one of the questions that those who believe (a) God created the universe, who created God? How did he/she/it come to be?


(He always existed is not a valid answer)


----------



## Evons hubby

Shoden said:


> No, you didn't assert anything about an intelligent designer being stupid or dead. However, you did state that my assumption about an intelligent designer being intelligent and alive was *my* assumption, and not yours. That implies that you disagree with statement.
> 
> I didn't put any words in your mouth, unless you consider my statement that "You're claiming as a creationist that life and intelligence requires an intelligent designer to come into existence" (post #306) as putting words in your mouth. If that's not what you believe, then instead of accusing me of putting words in your mouth, maybe you should clarify what your creationist beliefs are. I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the various creationist viewpoints, since I used to be one, but maybe your views are different than the standard ones.
> 
> 
> 
> So does this mean that you think an intelligent force can come into being naturally without an intelligent designer? Do "intelligent life" and "intelligent force" have different meanings to you? To me, based on the religious views I was raised with, they're the same thing, just to very different degrees. Humans, as individuals, are very minor forces, while God was a much more powerful (infinite?) force. Perhaps that's why the question "If an intelligent designer can come into being without an even greater intelligent designer, then why can't we?" makes sense to me, but seems like nonsense to you. As I said in my initial post, an intelligent designer doesn't answer the question, it just moves it back one step, and then leaves it unanswered, which puts creationists right there with non-creationists. Where did God come from? Where did the universe come from?
> 
> And I also don't refuse to where the "mudpies" come from. There are several interesting theories on the matter, but as I stated earlier, we non-creationists don't know.
> 
> And as far as proving what I had for breakfast, yes, that only works if we play by my rules, which allow for evidence and scietific testing, and it only fails if we play by your rules, which rejects them, or limits the proof to an Internet discussion forum, where I can't even prove if I'm male or female, or even if I'm human or a well written computer program. Maybe I'm your intelligent designer, just hanging out here and messing with you because I have a "wicked sense of humor".
> 
> It's clear that I don't see things as you see them. I used to see them in a somewhat similar way (but obviously not the same), but it was a long journey breaking away from that belief system, and I don't see myself going back.


Ok, lemme try to help you out here. I mostly ask questions but in this instance I will attempt to let you know a few things that I know. 

There is more to infinity than most realize.... infinity can have infinite multiples of itself. As in a line a mile long can have an infinite number of points along its length.... and a two mile line can have twice as many. 

Our universe, and everything in it is nothing but energy.... or "force" if you prefer. 

Time is a manmade concept.... it makes it handy for us to think in units of "time", minutes, days weeks etc, but in reality all things just are.... thats it, past, present and future simply are. They all coexist together, but we only have the capacity to experience an infinitely... divided by infinity... segment of it. 

There is no beginning, there is no end, those are physical measurement we use to describe material things with, they have little to do with the grand scheme of things.

Whatever you want to call the energy force that we are all a part of set itself in motion in the distant future.... or the past.... or now... take your pick it makes no difference as they are all the same. 

Science with all its marvelous ego boosting theories and ideas has yet to scratch the pimple on the backside of the flea who is riding on the elephant we think of as knowledge. Once they figure out what the elephant is all about, they can then turn their attention to learning about the rest of the universe..... and the realms that lay beyond it. 

These are not things I believe.... these are a few of the things that I KNOW.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> Here's one of the questions that those who believe (a) God created the universe, who created God? How did he/she/it come to be?
> 
> 
> *(He always existed is not a valid answer)*


And yet... it is the correct answer. Been there, seen it, got the tshirt. see my post above.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Who said evolution was bunk?
> I am not sure now just what a fact is!?!? I used to think I did, but after reading some of the experts opinions here... I aint so sure any more.  About the only thing I am sure of at this point is that I aint gonna step off no tall buildings coz I am pretty sure gravity still exists and behaves the same way it always has.... and that God exists.... those two I am sure of. Been there, seen em both, and experienced the results. The rest is up for discussion and I am open minded about most things.... as long as they dont get really goofy.... like having life springing forth from a lifeless mud puddle.


:shocked:

We exist in such a small spectrum of what the universe really is, its really naive of us to talk about it in such terms - especially if you think life springs from a mud puddle or god did it.

The "Cosmos of the small" and the "Cosmos of the large" are largely beyond our comprehension because we don't exist in those realities but once you start to think in those terms, it makes you wonder. 

If you think randomness from "mud" is weird, you should understand how that empty space isn't really empty - the vacuum of space itself is really a cosmic soup of "something" that particles flash in and out of existence in. This is space we exist in, but we don't think is normal because we don't sense it.. 

Beyond that, isn't this just the god of gaps argument and isn't the gap less about facts and more about personal prejudices? I mean, have you really spent as much time learning about biology, chemistry, physics, quantum mechanics as you have about theology to really make such a blanket statement and isn't making such a statement denigrating of what we do know?

Spirituality is a great thing we humans can experience, i don't doubt that one bit. However, i am completely done with the "god of gaps" argument.


----------



## supernovae

mnn2501 said:


> Here's one of the questions that those who believe (a) God created the universe, who created God? How did he/she/it come to be?
> 
> 
> (He always existed is not a valid answer)


and how do they know which god created the universe? Is it the abrahamic god? zeus? or is zeus just in charge of lightning these days? Also, what did we do with the sun god? the summer goddesses? We're they all voted off the island for some reason? 

:trollface


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is more to infinity than most realize.... infinity can have infinite multiples of itself. As in a line a mile long can have an infinite number of points along its length.... and *a two mile line can have twice as many*.


If you studied calculus you would know that you can't do that.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> Bacterias are largely regarded as the first forms of life and the byproduct of bacterial and microbial mats is largely believed to have evolved to more advanced organisms that evolved to thrive on photosynthesis to store energy rather than have to depend on chemical/heat/nutrient properties of where they are. Also, bacteria changed some of the chemical compositions of the oceans and lands to create the environment by which photosynthesis could biologically and chemically happen.. (if memory serves me correctly, something like 200 million years..)


Photosynthesis is a very complex process requiring chlorophyll and many other molecules which work together. Chlorophyll is a very complex protein molecule.

Photosynthesis proceeds by harvesting the suns energy and stores it in the form of carbohydrates.

These systems are too complex and require many distinct components.... Photosynthesis will not occur without all of the components in place and working together.

Could random processes produce the equipment necessary to harvest energy from the sun ????


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> You do realize how most single cell 'critters' reproduce?


I do now.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> If you studied calculus you would know that you can't do that.


Really? Perhaps you need to work on our math system and get the kinks worked out of it so I can. 

While you are there.... see what you can do about division by zero too.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> While you are there.... see what you can do about division by zero too.


Calculus is based on division by zero. That's the method by which we can calculate instantaneous values.


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Photosynthesis is a very complex process requiring chlorophyll and many other molecules which work together. Chlorophyll is a very complex protein molecule.
> 
> Photosynthesis proceeds by harvesting the suns energy and stores it in the form of carbohydrates.
> 
> These systems are too complex and require many distinct components.... Photosynthesis will not occur without all of the components in place and working together.
> 
> Could random processes produce the equipment necessary to harvest energy from the sun ????


What is the basis for such argument?

"Suns" drive the entire universe - not just life - but everything. We can go further back beyond the complexity of life and understand how basic forms of matter are formed in the innards and explosions of suns.


The complexity you see is the reality of our relative existence. Because of the chemical composition of our skies and the type of light that comes in plants have a particular color to take advantage of that. That doesn't mean other plants didn't exist or simply systems of synthesis didn't exist after all, we believe microbial life began of natural heat vents and simple chemical processes which are all just symptoms of thermal energy as well.. The time between bacteria to simple cells was hundreds of millions of years and since cells have such a short lifecycle themselves (As well as bacterias) the evolution of bacteria and cells would be on scales unimaginably large.

Interestingly enough, if we were to leave our planet not only would humans evolve, but so would everything else we take for granted. IF we stayed in low gravity our bones would disappear, if we went to a higher gravity system they would shrink and become more dense, plants may change colors to take in other spectrums of light simply because there would be no natural blue sky.

There may have well been more "simple" systems prior to the ones we see today, but that doesn't change anything. Eyes seem complex, but we have examples of simple eyes to complex eyes and things we wouldn't think of eyes but really are eyes (bats & sonar for example) and there are species that see spectrums of light even our "complex" eyes don't see - yet we can know enough bout our eyes to fix them, supplement them and build tools to see in spectrums we don't natively see in but other species do.. so at which point does something seem complex or hard or simple or difficult? They're all simply adaptations for survival within each species that will continue to adapt as time goes on.

Its believed life started with microbes and it took microbes 200 million plus years to form basic cells.. that would be evolutions in the trillions of descendents/mutations/adaptations/exaptations.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Beyond that, isn't this just the god of gaps argument and isn't the gap less about facts and more about personal prejudices? I mean, have you really spent as much time learning about biology, chemistry, physics, quantum mechanics as you have about theology to really make such a blanket statement and isn't making such a statement denigrating of what we do know?


I am not familiar with your god of gaps. :shrug:
Rest assured that I have spent a whole lot more time studying and learning about biology, chemistry, physics and mechanics than I have ever devoted to theology or religion, both of which I have no use for.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> As I have stated my problem is scientist and teachers who look at and teach the theory of macroevolution as being a proven 'fact' or law. IT IS NOT!! If it were then it would, in scientific uses, be called the law of evolution.


I can't think of anything more unfair than telling science students that there is a realistic dispute among scientists of the validity of the theory of evolution. There is no such dispute.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Calculus is based on division by zero. That's the method by which we can calculate instantaneous values.


Cool.... my math teachers all told me that it was impossible to divide by zero.... even though I had done it a jillion times.... Kinda like you telling me that adding two lines worth of points together is impossible.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not familiar with your god of gaps. :shrug:
> Rest assured that I have spent a whole lot more time studying and learning about biology, chemistry, physics and mechanics than I have ever devoted to theology or religion, both of which I have no use for.


The creationism argument is based in the assumption that if one thing is wrong with a scientific theory then the who thing has to be discarded. That reasonable to a very religious person, since that would be true of faith. But science doesn't work that way.

If we find a problem with a scientific theory then we create a new hypothesis to explain the problem. We test the hypothesis, and when it's proven it is incorporated into the theory. You can't do that with scripture. Scripture has to be 100% correct or none of it is acceptable.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> I can't think of anything more unfair that telling science students that there is a realistic dispute among scientists of the validity of the theory of evolution. There is no such dispute.


I can't think of anything more deceptive than refusing to give kids information about the different theories of the origin of life! It's shameful. It's only because of an agenda that liberals have that keep children clueless! 

Yes, there is a dispute, you just don't want to admit it because it doesn't fit your agenda. It's as simple as that. You are to biased and set in your ways to understand that there are millions of folks that disagree with your views of sequestering information from kids!


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Cool.... my math teachers all told me that it was impossible to divide by zero....


I was told the same thing. They were wrong.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> The creationism argument is based in the assumption that if one thing is wrong with a scientific theory then the who thing has to be discarded. That reasonable to a very religious person, since that would be true of faith. But science doesn't work that way.
> 
> If we find a problem with a scientific theory then we create a new hypothesis to explain the problem. We test the hypothesis, and when it's proven it is incorporated into the theory. You can't do that with scripture. Scripture has to be 100% correct or none of it is acceptable.


Why do you want to hide this information from children? It's just as valid a theory as evolution!


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> I can't think of anything more unfair than telling science students that there is a realistic dispute among scientists of the validity of the theory of evolution. There is no such dispute.


Indoctrination works !!!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> I can't think of anything more deceptive than refusing to give kids information about the different theories of the origin of life! It's shameful. It's only because of an agenda that liberals have that keep children clueless!
> 
> Yes, there is a dispute, you just don't want to admit it because it doesn't fit your agenda. It's as simple as that. You are to biased and set in your ways to understand that there are millions of folks that disagree with your views of sequestering information from kids!


_Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism._
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

OK, so 0.15% of scientists believe in creationism and 99.85% of scientists believe in evolution. That leaves no room for a realistic dispute.


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> I can't think of anything more deceptive than refusing to give kids information about the different theories of the origin of life! It's shameful. It's only because of an agenda that liberals have that keep children clueless!
> 
> Yes, there is a dispute, you just don't want to admit it because it doesn't fit your agenda. It's as simple as that. You are to biased and set in your ways to understand that there are millions of folks that disagree with your views of sequestering information from kids!


Reality has no bias. There is no dispute. After all, do we still teach our kids zeus makes lightning and thunder, Ra makes the sun come up and down and the sun is the center of the universe? Do we go extinct because we choose to teach stork theory of reproduction in lieu of sexual reproduction?

Lets be clear though, Abiogenesis is the science of the origin of life, Evolution is the science of speciation (i'm being entirely simplistic here, there are way too many details of evolution, but this is it in simple terms..)

Are you teaching your kids biology, chemistry, quantum mechanics, mathematics, physics, critical thinking skills and to be inquisitive minds?

Why as adults do we blame everyone but ourselves for our own shortcomings? and why oh why do people say this nonsense of blaming liberals or conservatives? That has no bearing on reality whatsoever..


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjxSCAalsBE[/ame]


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> The creationism argument is based in the assumption that if one thing is wrong with a scientific theory then the who thing has to be discarded. That reasonable to a very religious person, since that would be true of faith. But science doesn't work that way.
> 
> If we find a problem with a scientific theory then we create a new hypothesis to explain the problem. We test the hypothesis, and when it's proven it is incorporated into the theory. *You can't do that with scripture. Scripture has to be 100% correct or none of it is acceptable.*


You are kidding right? There are more variations and creative interpretations of the Bible floating around out their than there are liberal interpretations of our Constitution. :hysterical:


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I was told the same thing. They were wrong.


Yep, I thought so, coz I knew I had divided lots of candy bars by zero and got to eat the whole thing myself!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Why do you want to hide this information from children? It's just as valid a theory as evolution!


If the issue is that we need to present both sides of the argument to students, why evolution? What I mean is that there are a lot of issues that people are skeptical about. Why not teach that some people believe that the holocaust didn't happen, as well as JFK & 9/11 conspiracy theories? There's active discussion within the scientific community about whether HIV and AIDS are related, yet you don't push for that to be presented.

We all know the answer. It's not to promote open discussion, it's to introduce scripture into public school curriculum.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You are kidding right? There are more variations and creative interpretations of the Bible floating around out their than there are liberal interpretations of our Constitution. :hysterical:


Depends.

Not everyone is a believer in Reformed theology and even then, reformed theologies are ideologically organized based upon their founders by and large.

Lets take Islam.. largely split between shia and sunnis.. they're so particular about their beliefs they're killing each other for being infidels but yet they both have things they agree on that the word of god can only be written and understand in Arabic. 

With that said, reformed theologies largely still have the same basis of the sacredness of scripture but the only thing "liberal" about religion is really the pluralism it enjoys in the assumption that everyone is religious. I mean, how can anything that dooms non believers to hell be considered "liberal" beliefs? liberty and equality my butt


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8ifTS5NEsI[/ame]


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> If the issue is that we need to present both sides of the argument to students, why evolution? What I mean is that there are a lot of issues that people are skeptical about. Why not teach that some people believe that the holocaust didn't happen, as well as JFK & 9/11 conspiracy theories? There's active discussion within the scientific community about whether HIV and AIDS are related, yet you don't push for that to be presented.
> 
> We all know the answer. It's not to promote open discussion, it's to introduce scripture into public school curriculum.


Those things you mentioned are absolutely provable! It's to remove religion from children with complete disregard to the subject is reprehensible! To teach them only what YOU think should be taught only limits them and their ability to comprehend different ideals!

The bottom line is that the school systems are deathly afraid of teaching curriculum
that doesn't fit their agenda.


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> Reality has no bias. There is no dispute. After all, do we still teach our kids zeus makes lightning and thunder, Ra makes the sun come up and down and the sun is the center of the universe? Do we go extinct because we choose to teach stork theory of reproduction in lieu of sexual reproduction?
> 
> Lets be clear though, Abiogenesis is the science of the origin of life, Evolution is the science of speciation (i'm being entirely simplistic here, there are way too many details of evolution, but this is it in simple terms..)
> 
> Are you teaching your kids biology, chemistry, quantum mechanics, mathematics, physics, critical thinking skills and to be inquisitive minds?
> 
> Why as adults do we blame everyone but ourselves for our own shortcomings? and why oh why do people say this nonsense of blaming liberals or conservatives? That has no bearing on reality whatsoever..


Schools teach all of the above, except intelligent design! Why not teach that too?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Romans 1:25 (NIV)

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Schools teach all of the above, except intelligent design! Why not teach that too?


Good question. Because it has not met the standards of the scientific process.

You see, there is a way to introduce new ideas to science. Creationists know that, but they aren't doing it. Why? Because in order for creationism to become scientific theory it would have to be demonstrated, which they can't do.

So they know they can't introduce creationism through normal scientific channels. Instead they are trying to introduce it through political channels, lobbying public officials and applying public pressure. This is not the scientific process.

If you want creationism, ID or whatever to become scientific theory, why not introduce your theory to the scientific community for public criticism? If you are so sure you're correct then I don't see why not.


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Romans 1:25 (NIV)
> 
> They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.


Did we have a choice? How does the Bible say to design a bridge? A tall building? What kind of cable should be used to raise and lower an elevator car? The Bible doesn't tell us and those are all life or death questions, so we had to develop science.


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> Those things you mentioned are absolutely provable! It's to remove religion from children with complete disregard to the subject is reprehensible! To teach them only what YOU think should be taught only limits them and their ability to comprehend different ideals!
> 
> The bottom line is that the school systems are deathly afraid of teaching curriculum
> that doesn't fit their agenda.


Would you be just as strongly in favor of religious studies if they learned Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Greek mythology and paganism all equally? I think if people got enlightened that their beliefs weren't the only ones the world would be better off


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> Would you be just as strongly in favor of religious studies if they learned Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Greek mythology and paganism?


Teaching how the different religions believe we came to be would be an excellent subject for biology class! Why keep any of this from kids? I just don't get it. :shrug:

If one theory is being taught, why not teach them all!


----------



## kasilofhome

Why not I learned all.of the above faiths and I learned about all different forms of governing.

Why limit information but to erase ideas.


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> Teaching how the different religions believe we came to be would be an excellent subject for biology class! Why keep any of this from kids? I just don't get it. :shrug:
> 
> If one theory is being taught, why not teach them all!


1. Religious studies is NOT biology
2. Teaching everything is absurd


----------



## supernovae

kasilofhome said:


> Why not I learned all.of the above faiths and I learned about all different forms of governing.
> 
> Why limit information but to erase ideas.


So what's the difference between Shia and Sunni Islam? Why is the Koran only valid in Arabic? What is the difference between a Mormon and a catholic? Why do so me Christians dismiss idolatry? Do we really study these or do we only accept pluralism that all faiths are just good?


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> 1. Religious studies is NOT biology
> 2. Teaching everything is absurd


Ah, I see!

I'm not talking about "religious studies", I'm talking about a companion theory to what is already being taught. Adding another theory to one that already exists, is not teaching everything. Your making some pretty big assumptions based on what I said! I find that, notion absurd!

Why do you not want to present these theories to kids? Do they not fit YOUR agenda?


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> Ah, I see!
> 
> I'm not talking about "religious studies", I'm talking about a companion theory to what is already being taught. Adding another theory to one that already exists, is not teaching everything. Your making some pretty big assumptions based on what I said! I find that, notion absurd!
> 
> Why do you not want to present these theories to kids? Do they not fit YOUR agenda?


 Maybe medical schools should teach obstetricians that the stork delivers babies. After all, you have to give equal time to all ideas, right?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Good question. Because it has not met the standards of the scientific process.
> 
> You see, there is a way to introduce new ideas to science. Creationists know that, but they aren't doing it. Why? Because in order for creationism to become scientific theory it would have to be demonstrated, which they can't do.
> 
> So they know they can't introduce creationism through normal scientific channels. Instead they are trying to introduce it through political channels, lobbying public officials and applying public pressure. This is not the scientific process.
> 
> If you want creationism, ID or whatever to become scientific theory, why not introduce your theory to the scientific community for public criticism? If you are so sure you're correct then I don't see why not.


Why is it necessary to convince the scientific community of anything? We are talking about education, not scientific theory here. Our school systems should be teaching a well rounded curriculum not just what one small sect believes. We seem to have time in school to teach revised history.... which is pretty far fetched in itself, we have time to teach them all about homosexual lifestyles, creative writing, and a host of other things they dont need.... whats the rub with taking a few minutes of class time and teaching them the basic known truths?


----------



## kasilofhome

supernovae said:


> So what's the difference between Shia and Sunni Islam? Why is the Koran only valid in Arabic? What is the difference between a Mormon and a catholic? Why do so me Christians dismiss idolatry? Do we really study these or do we only accept pluralism that all faiths are just good?


Start a new thread. Note till the primary season is over I will be busy. Also remember what you feel I need to know about a subject might not have been important to the teacher or to my self back in tenth grade when the year long theme was eithnocentism. One of the main and remembrance way he taught was where the similarities were and are and how are the difference as well as the events celebrated and how the were celebrated. And the impact of the faith on the social economical and government. As well as any geographical impact had on the belief.

I am sorry if your education was not as rich as mine was but I was the nerd in the front row who stayed after to get extra reading list.

I do not have to please you or meet a standard set by anyone but me. And I do not intimidate.


----------



## unregistered353870

JeffreyD said:


> If one theory is being taught, why not teach them all!





JeffreyD said:


> Adding another theory to one that already exists, is not teaching everything. Your making some pretty big assumptions based on what I said! I find that, notion absurd!


You say "why not teach them all" and then accuse someone of making assumptions because they thought you meant it?

Kids don't need to be taught anything about the origin of life or speciation in school. All they need to be taught is how the world and life exists now, to the best of current understanding. Anything beyond that should be elective, either on their own initiative or that of their parents. The situation in America now is that most kids don't even get a solid grasp of the basics. That's a much bigger problem than this debate.


----------



## bamasteader

bamasteader said:


> I've been caught up in these debates before and they tend to drag out for weeks with no one's mind being changed.


Keep it up, y'all are getting closer.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Our school systems should be teaching a well rounded curriculum not just what one small sect believes.


You missed my post where I showed that 99.85% of scientists were on board for evolution. That's not hardly a "small sect."


----------



## JeffreyD

jtbrandt said:


> You say "why not teach them all" and then accuse someone of making assumptions because they thought you meant it?
> 
> Kids don't need to be taught anything about the origin of life or speciation in school. All they need to be taught is how the world and life exists now, to the best of current understanding. Anything beyond that should be elective, either on their own initiative or that of their parents. The situation in America now is that most kids don't even get a solid grasp of the basics. That's a much bigger problem than this debate.


I should have made my point better! I agree with what you said here, my point was, teach one theory......teach them all, just to be fair. My preference, like you said...let their parents decide.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> You missed my post where I showed that 99.85% of scientists were on board for evolution. That's not hardly a "small sect."


And their proof is, what exactly?


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We are talking about education, not scientific theory here.


How are they not the same thing, at least in the context of science class?


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> And their proof is, what exactly?


_Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism._
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

700/480,000 = 0.15%


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> There is no debate, man made CO2 is increasing year over year and we can measure and quantify the parts per million impact that humans cause.


I see you failed to research or you would have found the released emails which show that data not showing warming was not included in the study I was referring.

Now I have some questions for you. First, is the increase in CO2 a cause or an effect of the warming? After it is well known that as a liquid warms its ability to hold a gas in solution lessens. AAMOF there is a scientific law (not theory) on it, Henry's law. Therefore as the world's waters (which cover 70+% of the earth's surface) warm they will release large volumes dissolved CO2. 

Second, if man-made CO2 is causing this warming what caused the others which science says have occurred in earth's past? 

I honestly don't know the answers, do you?




supernovae said:


> It really really stinks that in the English language "theory" means two completely different things.


But not in the scientific community. There it means one thing and one thing only. And its this community we are talking about. We aren't talking about what Joe and Jim down at the Git-N-Go are discussing. We are talking about professionals, people who usually have at least a few letters after their names and who are teaching others. They are the ones who should be beating the drum the loudest to put a stop to having an unproven theory taught as though it was a established and proven law.




supernovae said:


> Lots of people do this.. we also have great debates about oxford commas, grammar of their, there and they're and many other debates that don't really change facts right? i mean, precision is great but being precise doesn't change the facts just as being imprecise doesn't change facts. We can't expect everyone to be a professional at everything.


Would you expect your child's grammar teacher to teach them correct grammar? Should they teach them when they should use a comma or semicolon or colon or hyphen or just to teach them that a comma is just as good as the rest so don't worry about thinking just use a comma all the time?




supernovae said:


> Working on computers all day would you guys have any clue what i was talking about if i said the "TLS 1.1 was incompatible with wildcard cert from godaddy so i had to install a NGINX proxy server to rewrite the SSL urls using SSLv3 so chrome could access the site without warnings" or would i re-frame it in "we put a server in front that fixes the issue of SSL certificate warnings" and get the message across better? The process doesn't change even though i dilute the description thereof into simpler terms.


Not the point. If you were in a class teaching people would you tell them if this thingy breaks just put this dohicky in and it'll work? Or would you teach them how the entire system works so they can LEARN to THINK about a problem and apply the proper fix? In the case of macroevolution people are being taught this is the 'fix' and its all you need to know so we are not going to allow any discussion of anything else.




supernovae said:


> You're simply on a mission to once again make something that doesn't matter, matter. You're implying doubt when there is no doubt.


It does matter because if there were no doubt then it would be the _*LAW*_ of evolution. That's the difference between a theory and a law. In a theory there is doubt in a law there is none.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Where did you learn that a scientific law has more certainty that a scientific theory?
> [This is the third time I've asked this.]


I must have missed one but I replied to another. I was taught this in high school as well as college. Where were you taught otherwise?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> It does matter because if there were no doubt then it would be the _*LAW*_ of evolution. That's the difference between a theory and a law. In a theory there is doubt in a law there is none.


Where did you learn that there is more certainty in a scientific law than with a scientific theory?
[This is the 4th time I've asked this.]


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> I must have missed one but I replied to another. I was taught this in high school as well as college. Where were you taught otherwise?


Yes, I was taught otherwise in high school & college, then worked a career in science. Laws and theories undergo the same scrutiny.


----------



## watcher

mnn2501 said:


> Here's one of the questions that those who believe (a) God created the universe, who created God? How did he/she/it come to be?
> 
> 
> (He always existed is not a valid answer)



IDK I take it on faith. But if you ask a scientist how the universe was formed he'd have to give you the same answer, he doesn't know he just takes it on faith that it was. 

But if you go back you will see I have not interjected religion only pointing out the fact that macroevolution is still only a theory because it has not been proven to the degree science demands for it to become a law. Because of this teaching it w/o questioning it is bad science and WRONG. What are macroevolutionist so afraid of that they must suppress and/or ridicule anyone who questions their theory? 

Once you start questioning then you should allow ALL views in and debate them. If you think that the universe was created when a giant turtle sneezed and you bring that up in class you should not be looked at as a fool or religious zealot you should be looked at as someone with a different POV and allowed to offer your reasoning and any evidence you have. This is how people learn to think and thinking people will cause science to progress in ways that would amaze people.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> If you studied calculus you would know that you can't do that.


I know you can't have the square root of a negative number but I've done plenty of math problems with them. 

Also any number divided by itself is one therefore would not 0/0 equal one as well infinity/infinity?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Evidently people are not doing their homework in science class

2013 Gallop Poll

Humans created in present form by God 42%

Humans created by theistic evolution 31%

Humans evolved from the dust 19%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I can't think of anything more unfair than telling science students that there is a realistic dispute among scientists of the validity of the theory of evolution. There is no such dispute.


So there is scientific proof that an organism's DNA can change to the point it becomes a completely different organism? When did this happen?


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> IDK I take it on faith. But if you ask a scientist how the universe was formed he'd have to give you the same answer, he doesn't know he just takes it on faith that it was.


Different forms of faith.. 

A scientist would look at how the universe was formed by postulating new questions... It's how we theorized about dark energy, dark matter, antimatter, gravity waves, expansionary/inflationary universe and so much more. In fact, today, we know that even empty space isn't empty, space itself is something. That's not "Faith" - that's observational sciences with unanswered questions that don't need to be presumed because there is enough evidence to believe something is there without having to know what it is.

A cool story is how we didn't have telescopes powerful enough to see Neptune, yet, by understanding mathematics and orbits, we were able to predict a planet and later confirm that prediction with visible observation simply by how other planets acted in the solar system.

Religious faith is largely the postulation of an answer.



> But if you go back you will see I have not interjected religion only pointing out the fact that macroevolution is still only a theory because it has not been proven to the degree science demands for it to become a law. Because of this teaching it w/o questioning it is bad science and WRONG. What are macroevolutionist so afraid of that they must suppress and/or ridicule anyone who questions their theory?


You're just changing the definition(s) and plugging your ears when anyone says otherwise.



> Once you start questioning then you should allow ALL views in and debate them. If you think that the universe was created when a giant turtle sneezed and you bring that up in class you should not be looked at as a fool or religious zealot you should be looked at as someone with a different POV and allowed to offer your reasoning and any evidence you have. This is how people learn to think and thinking people will cause science to progress in ways that would amaze people.


Why shouldn't turtlers be seen as fools?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> If the issue is that we need to present both sides of the argument to students, why evolution? What I mean is that there are a lot of issues that people are skeptical about. Why not teach that some people believe that the holocaust didn't happen, as well as JFK & 9/11 conspiracy theories? There's active discussion within the scientific community about whether HIV and AIDS are related, yet you don't push for that to be presented.


This is how it was done when I was in a school. In any school that is interested in teaching kids how to think rather than what to think you would do it as well. Why would you want to suppress opposing viewpoints? 




Nevada said:


> We all know the answer. It's not to promote open discussion, it's to introduce scripture into public school curriculum.


Not from me.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> So there is scientific proof that an organism's DNA can change to the point it becomes a completely different organism? When did this happen?


You do realize that DNA/RNA is a HUGE supporter of evolution right? I mean, evolution was "discovered" long before we knew what genetics/dna/rna even was, yet, the discovery of genetics absolutely supports evolution.

BTW "change" is over generations..


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Would you be just as strongly in favor of religious studies if they learned Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Greek mythology and paganism all equally? I think if people got enlightened that their beliefs weren't the only ones the world would be better off


I am. Anyone who doesn't must not have much faith in their religion/god/God/science.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Where did you learn that there is more certainty in a scientific law than with a scientific theory?
> [This is the 4th time I've asked this.]


After all the times I've asked you direct questions and you refused to answer you are getting a bit testy ain't you?


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> This is how it was done when I was in a school. In any school that is interested in teaching kids how to think rather than what to think you would do it as well. Why would you want to suppress opposing viewpoints?


Cite some examples please. I'm curious if your school gave tribal shamanism medicine equal footing as say, the study of germs and our understanding of vaccinations or what level of this you're taking it to.

I went to public school, I've gone to trade schools, I take online classes at Coursera and edX.org and watch a lot of videos from the teaching corporation. There is no shortage of "alternative research" but its all based on sound reasoning.

"Creationism" and dinosaurs walking along the side of man, is not sound reasoning.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> I am.  Anyone who doesn't must not have much faith in their religion/god/God/science.


I'd say in this case, it isn't a class worth teaching if it doesn't get students challenging their own beliefs. The idea of education is to learn something.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> You do realize that DNA/RNA is a HUGE supporter of evolution right? I mean, evolution was "discovered" long before we knew what genetics/dna/rna even was, yet, the discovery of genetics absolutely supports evolution.
> 
> BTW "change" is over generations..


The Monk Gregor Mendel discovered modern genetics
(he was not an evolutionist)


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> Cite some examples please. I'm curious if your school gave tribal shamanism medicine equal footing as say, the study of germs and our understanding of vaccinations or what level of this you're taking it to.
> 
> I went to public school, I've gone to trade schools, I take online classes at Coursera and edX.org and watch a lot of videos from the teaching corporation. There is no shortage of "alternative research" but its all based on sound reasoning.
> 
> "Creationism" and dinosaurs walking along the side of man, is not sound reasoning.


We had field trips to local Shoshone hunting grounds and we were taught by one of their "Medicine Men". We also went to museums and listened to presentations by folks representing different cultures! Field trips to the Spanish missions were sometimes given by one of the Catholic priests! We also went to many more places (Marine Land of the Pacific)


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Different forms of faith..


I disagree, faith is faith. You don't have proof or answers but you believe based on what you see. 

You see a sky full of stars and your faith tells you that they are there, in that order because of the big bang. You have all kinds of proof that the bang happened but you have no idea why or how nor what was going on before. You just have faith that it happened. Therefore your view on where the stars are placed is based on faith. 

I see the same stars and believe they are there because that's what God wanted and He very well could have used something like the big bang to put them there. I have no proof just faith. So we both think the stars are where they are based on our faith.

Faith in different things but faith none the less.




supernovae said:


> Why shouldn't turtlers be seen as fools?


You ever heard the only stupid question is the one you don't ask? I've seen people destroy expensive machines and even lose body parts because they were too embarrassed to ask a question. Its the same general principle with the turtlers. If you make people afraid to discuss their POV you might just lose out on something. 

Not that long ago, in a historical time frame, someone who sat in a class and said they thought most diseases were caused by little things too small to see would have been seen as a fool. If we had, had an education system such as we have today where people who hold non-conformist views are belittled, scorned and not allowed to express their views who knows how long it would have taken before we found cures to diseases and how many more humans and animals would have died?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Also any number divided by itself is one therefore would not 0/0 equal one as well infinity/infinity?


To be honest, I don't know. Hopefully someone with a better background in number theory will come along. As a guess, I suspect that zero over just about anything is still zero but infinity/infinity might be 1.


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> We had field trips to local Shoshone hunting grounds and we were taught by one of their "Medicine Men". We also went to museums and listened to presentations by folks representing different cultures! Field trips to the Spanish missions were sometimes given by one of the Catholic priests! We also went to many more places (Marine Land of the Pacific)


This is history and anthropology. Great subjects that aren't based upon scientific philosophy. They're their own body of knowledge. Schools still teach this.

Here are some great free college courses on culture open for the world to take.

https://www.coursera.org/courses?orderby=upcoming&search=culture

I don't understand how learning what you describe changes the view that one should give turtles throwing up the universe as equal validity though..


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> This is history and anthropology. Great subjects that aren't based upon scientific philosophy. They're their own body of knowledge. Schools still teach this.
> 
> Here are some great free college courses on culture open for the world to take.
> 
> https://www.coursera.org/courses?orderby=upcoming&search=culture
> 
> I don't understand how learning what you describe changes the view that one should give turtles throwing up the universe as equal validity though..


Ah, turtles throwing up the universe? Is that an insult or an analogy, I can't tell! Some folks are just simply afraid of things they know nothing about, and refuse to learn more about those things because of that fear that they may indeed......be wrong! Elitists mostly!

Eta: Our Medicine man did speak about "the spirit that moved through all things" and learned about their "ceremonies". Doesn't that count for religion!


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> After all the times I've asked you direct questions and you refused to answer you are getting a bit testy ain't you?


Yes, I'm more testy than usual. But not because you didn't answer a question earlier. I'm testy because I doubt the sincerity of the ID argument. I think that the religious right is insisting in creationism & ID because they are trying to garner more political power. I believe that most creationists know that evolution is responsible for the creation of man but can't admit it for political reasons.

I liken it to the contention that tax cuts pay for themselves. Nobody really believes it, but conservatives have to pretend to believe it to get their tax cuts.


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, lemme try to help you out here. I mostly ask questions but in this instance I will attempt to let you know a few things that I know.
> 
> There is more to infinity than most realize.... infinity can have infinite multiples of itself. As in a line a mile long can have an infinite number of points along its length.... and a two mile line can have twice as many.
> 
> Our universe, and everything in it is nothing but energy.... or "force" if you prefer.
> 
> Time is a manmade concept.... it makes it handy for us to think in units of "time", minutes, days weeks etc, but in reality all things just are.... thats it, past, present and future simply are. They all coexist together, but we only have the capacity to experience an infinitely... divided by infinity... segment of it.
> 
> There is no beginning, there is no end, those are physical measurement we use to describe material things with, they have little to do with the grand scheme of things.
> 
> Whatever you want to call the energy force that we are all a part of set itself in motion in the distant future.... or the past.... or now... take your pick it makes no difference as they are all the same.
> 
> Science with all its marvelous ego boosting theories and ideas has yet to scratch the pimple on the backside of the flea who is riding on the elephant we think of as knowledge. Once they figure out what the elephant is all about, they can then turn their attention to learning about the rest of the universe..... and the realms that lay beyond it.
> 
> These are not things I believe.... these are a few of the things that I KNOW.


I doubt I'd post that you "know" these things in a public place.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Something that amazes me about DNA is that it is always mutating .... Luckily the cell has repair mechanisms. Special DNA monitors travel along the DNA strands searching for damage and when they find damage they assess the damage and order in the appropriate repair mechanisms. If DNA was not repaired all life would eventually become extinct. About one million damages per cell per day occur. However these repair services are not foolproof mutations do escape undetected or else the damage is too severe to be repaired. 

These DNA monitoring and repair mechanisms are protein complexes. 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr-ajrgvg5s[/ame]





[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-lKmNKR2zY[/ame]

*Lucky for life that these repair mechanisms evolved .... I just don't know how life got along without them before they evolved ????*


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> I disagree, faith is faith. You don't have proof or answers but you believe based on what you see.


Through science, we know full well, what we see is very little of the universe and is largely subjective and our brain is great at deceiving us. We can get drunk, get stoned, have sleep deprevation, have vitamin deficiencies, we can "See what we want to see" "hear what we want to hear" and we're experts at cognitive biases and predispositions, especially when raised with specific beliefs from birth.



> You see a sky full of stars and your faith tells you that they are there, in that order because of the big bang. You have all kinds of proof that the bang happened but you have no idea why or how nor what was going on before. You just have faith that it happened. Therefore your view on where the stars are placed is based on faith.


I have no faith it happened, I have evidence that supports the idea of the big bang. We have been able to measure the acceleration of the universe as it expands, we have been able to determine the speed of expansion through galaxy redshifts and measuring the light from standard candles (type 1a supernovas if memory serves me correct). Since we can measure this, there is a safe bet we can derive that at x speed of growth and x acceleration that it started from z at some time in the past.

Since we understand the elements of the universe, since we can compute how a "big bang" event would cause the "ingredients" of the universe to be what they are today and because we can measure the distribution of cosmic microwave background radiation and derive how long it would have taken for this radiation to be the energy and heat that it is and because of the distribution of this CMBR as it relates to the galactic structure of the universe - everything just aligns itself very beautifully with the idea of big bang and cosmic inflation.

It used to be we thought of the universe as absolute or steady state, and ironically it took a catholic astronomy to bring us the theory of the big bang but it was done so with great scientific scrutiny and it was debating for DECADES before the mountain of evidence supported it. That scientist didn't have CMBR measurements from satelites, didn't have the full appreciation of the theory of relativity and "einsteins biggest blunder" that actually turned out to be one of the coolest side effects of his theory.



> I see the same stars and believe they are there because that's what God wanted and He very well could have used something like the big bang to put them there. I have no proof just faith. So we both think the stars are where they are based on our faith.


I see them where they are because that is where they are. I know in our galaxy there are 200 billion suns. I know that the visible universe contains a billion billion galaxies and some galaxies have a billion billion suns. We have observational evidence of this. I know that suns are born and die every day. I know that suns are born from clouds of hydrogen and these cloud of hydrogen are the results of particle physics and the "cosmic soup" from the big bang. I know that inside me, the very elements i'm made of, a star had to blow up to create those. I know that all the iron in my blood was forged from a start that blew up so I could be born as we KNOW that the only place in the universe that creates iron (And heavier elements) is deep inside super massive stars that blow up. (and I love this study, hence my name)

I see GREAT value in humans, philosophy and spirituality. I definitely connect with nature, but with a sense of awe and respect for I am here just in one blink of the cosmic calendar.

Unfortunately we don't teach cosmology in our schools. IF one wants to believe in their gods, I have NO problem with that, I have my own beliefs but there is enough evidence those beliefs aren't hinged on any creator aspect of god.



> Faith in different things but faith none the less.


I have faith in my kids. Is that the same faith in God though? I don't think so. 



> You ever heard the only stupid question is the one you don't ask? I've seen people destroy expensive machines and even lose body parts because they were too embarrassed to ask a question. Its the same general principle with the turtlers. If you make people afraid to discuss their POV you might just lose out on something.


I absolutely agree here. But usually there is context, just as the example you cite is context. Would you not agree that if you taught them how to use the machine and they said a giant cosmic turtle told them to do opposite that you would say their full of it? 



> Not that long ago, in a historical time frame, someone who sat in a class and said they thought most diseases were caused by little things too small to see would have been seen as a fool. If we had, had an education system such as we have today where people who hold non-conformist views are belittled, scorned and not allowed to express their views who knows how long it would have taken before we found cures to diseases and how many more humans and animals would have died?


This isn't true at all. Wasn't it the romans who essentially talked about atoms but had no way of proving them? We postulated them mathematically a few years ago and it wasn't until recently we were able to actually image one. How cool is that!

BTW, people to this day still don't believe Germ theory. Look at the antivaxxer movement - its largely liberal hogwash or religious zealotry that supports that. It certainly isn't the wide acceptance of germ theory amongst the scientific community perpetuating those beliefs.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Cite some examples please. I'm curious if your school gave tribal shamanism medicine equal footing as say, the study of germs and our understanding of vaccinations or what level of this you're taking it to.


If someone in our school had believed that you could cure warts by rubbing a dead chicken's head on them and burying the head on the north side of a tree at midnight under a full moon we would have given them them time to express this and have a discussion of why it wouldn't work. We would not have called him a fool and demanded he be removed from class or not be allowed to express his views. 

Heck, depending on the teacher we might have allowed him to do an experiment on it. After all who knows, maybe there's an enzyme in chicken blood or a virus that lives on chicken heads which does kill warts. After all who would have thought putting a piece of moldy bread on a wound could keep it from getting infected?




supernovae said:


> I went to public school, I've gone to trade schools, I take online classes at Coursera and edX.org and watch a lot of videos from the teaching corporation. There is no shortage of "alternative research" but its all based on sound reasoning.
> 
> "Creationism" and dinosaurs walking along the side of man, is not sound reasoning.


Ok, how was the universe created? Where did all the matter and energy which exist today come from?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

More on DNA repair

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26879/


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> Ah, turtles throwing up the universe? Is that an insult or an analogy, I can't tell! Some folks are just simply afraid of things they know nothing about, and refuse to learn more about those things because of that fear that they may indeed......be wrong! Elitists mostly!
> 
> Eta: Our Medicine man did speak about "the spirit that moved through all things" and learned about their "ceremonies". Doesn't that count for religion!


I don't know who said the turtle thing, that was a few pages ago. 

Elitism is a weird thing.. its usually expressed by those who assume they know the most as a stamp of authority or its expressed by those who simply aren't bothered to learn anything and use that as a stamp of pride for not knowing as if knowing is pejorative.

ceremonies could be religious.. I spent a few weeks in Taos one summer learning about the Anasazi Indians and their culture, but is that culture or religion? does it really matter? 

When I think of teaching religion, I think of actually teaching philosophy and theology.. the Indians mostly showed ceremony and culture.. but that's just me. If we want to give equal time to religious study as an actual study it shouldn't be from a historical or anthropological angle as an outside study, but more as a philosophical understanding.

As a species, I don't think we're very good at understanding other world views, mostly because we're largely born into our beliefs.. its hard to think outside of something that has become part of your "blood"..


----------



## unregistered353870

watcher said:


> Also any number divided by itself is one therefore would not 0/0 equal one as well infinity/infinity?





Nevada said:


> To be honest, I don't know. Hopefully someone with a better background in number theory will come along. As a guess, I suspect that zero over just about anything is still zero but infinity/infinity might be 1.


Not sure about zero, but I don't think it can be divided. Infinity definitely can't be divided, though, because it's not a number.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> If someone in our school had believed that you could cure warts by rubbing a dead chicken's head on them and burying the head on the north side of a tree at midnight under a full moon we would have given them them time to express this and have a discussion of why it wouldn't work. We would not have called him a fool and demanded he be removed from class or not be allowed to express his views.


If it makes you feel any better, I don't accept everything offered by mainstream science at face value. For example, I have a problem with multiple parallel universes that quantum mechanics uses to explain why subatomic particles seem to appear and disappear. The suggestion that they are blipping in and out of parallel universes seems far-fetched to me. I can offer several alternative explanations that seem more plausible to me.

1. Maybe the analytical methods used to monitor the presence of subatomic particles isn't what it should be.
2. Maybe there are properties of subatomic particles that we don't understand that might explain it.

It's just that inventing alternative universes that might not exist is a bit of leap where other plausible explanations are reasonable. After all, even the existence of some of those subatomic particles is controversial.

But I can question parallel universes because it's not universally accepted on observation the way evolution is.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> If someone in our school had believed that you could cure warts by rubbing a dead chicken's head on them and burying the head on the north side of a tree at midnight under a full moon we would have given them them time to express this and have a discussion of why it wouldn't work. We would not have called him a fool and demanded he be removed from class or not be allowed to express his views.


This is still leading people on. Np one typically gets thrown out of class for wild hared ideas., and the real problem isn't the cutesy stories people tell, it's when those stories continue to be told in light of evidence. If you're 4 years into your collegiate degree and someone is still trying to convince you chicken heads remove warts, are you telling me you would still take them seriously? They most likely would not be passing and of their classes and would have failed/dropped out. This isn't a problem of science.. its a problem of peoples personalities, biases and behaviors that went unchecked for so long. Maybe they are right, but they need to prove that and with the rigors of the scientific method.




> Heck, depending on the teacher we might have allowed him to do an experiment on it. After all who knows, maybe there's an enzyme in chicken blood or a virus that lives on chicken heads which does kill warts. After all who would have thought putting a piece of moldy bread on a wound could keep it from getting infected?


That's awesome, but as a said earlier, this is something that works. What we're talking about is people making claims even though the teacher has let them try to prove it a 1000 times over.. you seem to suggest those claims should still be accepted as valid alternatives. If a teacher let a student try and remove a wart year after year to no avail, it shouldn't be accepted, that is an ok position to hold. evidence is a strong and valid concern of the sciences and sometimes annoyingly so! Yet, if 20 years down the road, that person DOES find a specific enzyme that removes warts, more power to him. That doesn't mean the teacher was wrong, that just means the student persevered. Has scientists just accepted the theory without any evidence it would dilute what science means, but if this person takes the time to give the evidence and isolate what is actually happen. kudos!



> Ok, how was the universe created? Where did all the matter and energy which exist today come from?


Fantastic question, and boy howdy is there a book for you.

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X/

Those most beautiful thing about science is the more you learn, the more you wonder "What next".

Another great thing to research is the highly theoretical but very intriguing string theory or m-theory.

BTW, matter and energy are equals. (e=mc2).. matter is just a stored form of energy.. whatever energy is  the big bang is largely considered an energetic event and an inflationary period. Matter itself didn't exist until the universe cooled and started to coalesce under gravity.. at least in theory lol. it has multiple transition events that explain the whole thing. Wikipedia does a decent job of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> *Lucky for life that these repair mechanisms evolved .... I just don't know how life got along without them before they evolved ????*


Obviously life forms without the ability to have an "immune" or "repair" systems wouldn't be "fit" for surviving would they? 

cool vids!


----------



## willow_girl

> As a species, I don't think we're very good at understanding other world views, mostly because we're largely born into our beliefs.. its hard to think outside of something that has become part of your "blood"..


I agree and am very grateful to have been raised by agnostics!


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> Obviously life forms without the ability to have an "immune" or "repair" systems wouldn't be "fit" for surviving would they?
> 
> cool vids!


The components of these systems are made from proteins. Science believes novel proteins are created when the DNA (which codes for an existing protein) mutates......

*Except science has yet to prove this. Experimental random manipulation of DNA has not yielded novel proteins.

However science has learned to engineer and produce novel proteins by intentional intelligent manipulation of DNA to produce man made synthetic proteins. However science must borrow (hyjack) a cells ribosome to produce these proteins. (Science has yet to invent a ribosome... which is made from protein components)

Interesting that random manipulations of DNA (which mimic random mutation) has yet to produce novel proteins with novel binding sites (which would be necessary to produce new function in a protein)

Researchers Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger have proven this in experiments which have been peer reviewed in scientific journals.

Douglas Axe's research has been peer reviewed......... Debunkings of his research should be peer reviewed also.... (Googling will produce amateur challenges to his work)

http://www.biologicinstitute.org/people/

and...

[ame]http://www.metacafe.com/watch/9243592/doug_axe_phd_on_the_rarity_and_non_evolvability_of_proteins/[/ame]
*


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

*Supernovae:

You have made many statements here but your claims are unsupported.

I have referenced my claims.... which you have mostly ignored.

Please show me evidence that complex molecules (in an inert world) have the ability to self replicate.

Crystalizing is not an example replicating
*


----------



## iti_oj

Abogensis is not evolution. Your question has no place n this debate.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

iti_oj said:


> Abogensis is not evolution. Your question has no place n this debate.


...... and have you noticed that this thread has slightly drifted in many directions with no complaints (until now)


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> We know that cells reproduce through cell division and that they "consume" nutrients in many ways. They usually are classified anaerobic or aerobic in how they get energy.
> 
> One of the coolest things in the world is the study of structure. Amino acids and protein chains seem complex until you study how this happens in nature for things we don't even consider "alive" in the classical sense of "alive".
> 
> One can study clays and see that clay systems are essentially crystalline chains that form and reproduce in a way to distribute that specific type of clay and these "clay chains" act very much like a replicator such as RNA/DNA of molecules do. A clay system can be distributed by water/air and when a crystalline structure of the clay is lifted by air to another spot and starts having chemical reactions in the new area it was distributed to, it can "grow" and develop that type of clay system. It's one of the ways we can see distribution of land and understand long term patterns/events. we can study the clay samples of soils and see how they are distributed over an environment than derive the source/distribution and make predictions of what soils/clays will thrive in what areas and the "Crystalline" structure of the clay is what drives this property.
> 
> It's cool stuff, especially when you realize that "Replicator" and "Distribution" can occur "naturally" for even something as benign as clay. Oh and btw, if you look at clay silicate under a microscope its absolutely beautiful too!
> 
> oh yeah, the coolest part of all this too is that through this replicator we can also identify evolutionary patterns of clays and see how they have changed through distribution.


Please provide references


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

iti_oj said:


> Abogensis is not evolution. Your question has no place n this debate.


Actually abogensis is described as happening by slight modifications..... going from simpler to more complex (unlike the theory of evolution, this modifying is not facilitated by mutation)


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> You missed my post where I showed that 99.85% of scientists were on board for evolution. That's not hardly a "small sect."


Last I heard there are something like 6 billion people in the world.... and about 12 million of them fall into the category of "scientists". If my math is correct thats one person in every 500 or so, which I think is one half of one percent..... so yeah they are a pretty small sect.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> How are they not the same thing, at least in the context of science class?


because there are a lot of things out there besides science to be learned. Education should be a combination of all the various important subjects. Right up front why does any student "need to know" that scientists believe that evolution is what brought about mankind? How is that relevant to his/her daily life?


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> I doubt I'd post that you "know" these things in a public place.


Interesting. I have to ask why not? There was nothing in that list of stuff that is not pretty well accepted in todays world.


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> The components of these systems are made from proteins. Science believes novel proteins are created when the DNA (which codes for an existing protein) mutates......


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Classification_of_mutation_types



> *Except science has yet to prove this. Experimental random manipulation of DNA has not yielded novel proteins.
> 
> *


*

Doesn't need to prove novel proteins, we understand the chemical bonding of proteins. If those bonds are established, they simply won't be created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein





However science has learned to engineer and produce novel proteins by intentional intelligent manipulation of DNA to produce man made synthetic proteins. However science must borrow (hyjack) a cells ribosome to produce these proteins. (Science has yet to invent a ribosome... which is made from protein components)

Click to expand...

We have learned to fill in the gaps on the atomic chart as well.. whats the point? We have all sorts of interesting polymers and synthetics but all based upon the same rules of chemistry and physics that nature follows. Let me know when we break these rules.*


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> because there are a lot of things out there besides science to be learned. Education should be a combination of all the various important subjects. Right up front why does any student "need to know" that scientists believe that evolution is what brought about mankind? How is that relevant to his/her daily life?


How is it not?

I mean, you're sitting here telling me its not relevant to ones daily life, yet there are pages and pages of you committed to disbelieving it for no reason at all.

If it really didn't matter to you, then you wouldn't be here complaining about it would you?

The fact is, it matters to most of you not because it is a beautiful theory that explains the natural world around us, but because you have been born and raised to disbelieve it for religious reasons.

Knowing how humans have evolved, how we will continue to evolve and how life is hereditary, how life has natural selection and sexual selection processes is absolutely amazing knowledge that explains a lot about our history and our place in the future.

I can't believe this was even asked.


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Please provide references


culter.colorado.edu/~kittel/ClayTypesStudyGuide.ppt

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app.39274/abstract

cool story about a dude who did lots of research on the abiogensis concept of "clay theory"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cairns-Smith


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> How is it not?
> 
> I mean, you're sitting here telling me its not relevant to ones daily life, yet there are pages and pages of you committed to disbelieving it for no reason at all.
> 
> If it really didn't matter to you, then you wouldn't be here complaining about it would you?
> 
> The fact is, it matters to most of you not because it is a beautiful theory that explains the natural world around us, but because you have been born and raised to disbelieve it for religious reasons.
> 
> Knowing how humans have evolved, how we will continue to evolve and how life is hereditary, how life has natural selection and sexual selection processes is absolutely amazing knowledge that explains a lot about our history and our place in the future.
> 
> I can't believe this was even asked.


You must have missed the posts where I very clearly pointed out that I have little or no use for theology or religion in any of its forms beyond the fact they can be a delightful form of entertainment on a rainy day when theres nothing else to do. You also must have missed the posts where I explain where I learned what little I do know about lifes creator. That came from a sitty down chat with Him. I also fail to see where even if science could prove absolutely that life originated in a swamp when lightning struck..... that having that knowledge would change the average students life by any great degree. These things all make for interesting discussions on rainy days when theres nothing much else to do, but they dont really put many beans in the pot. As to that last paragraph..... I am pretty sure todays kids will procreate and carry on our species with or without knowing all the details of how ameba's were first formed and evolved into humans.


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting. I have to ask why not? There was nothing in that list of stuff that is not pretty well accepted in todays world.


In asylums perhaps.


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> *Supernovae:
> 
> You have made many statements here but your claims are unsupported.
> 
> I have referenced my claims.... which you have mostly ignored.
> 
> Please show me evidence that complex molecules (in an inert world) have the ability to self replicate.
> 
> Crystalizing is not an example replicating
> *


The "Clay theory" is taught in first year biology classes.. been around since the mid 80's and if you have access to research papers, you can look up the research studies on it.

It was originally done to show how something so benign could be described as self replicating. The crystalline structure doesn't "Split" like the DNA does, but it does replicate by being broken and continuing the same crystalline structure or adapting/exapting to its local environment.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You must have missed the posts where I very clearly pointed out that I have little or no use for theology or religion in any of its forms beyond the fact they can be a delightful form of entertainment on a rainy day when theres nothing else to do. You also must have missed the posts where I explain where I learned what little I do know about lifes creator. That came from a sitty down chat with Him. I also fail to see where even if science could prove absolutely that life originated in a swamp when lightning struck..... that having that knowledge would change the average students life by any great degree. These things all make for interesting discussions on rainy days when theres nothing much else to do, but they dont really put many beans in the pot. As to that last paragraph..... I am pretty sure todays kids will procreate and carry on our species with or without knowing all the details of how ameba's were first formed and evolved into humans.


You're confusing Abiogenesis with Evolution.


I'm thankful its not religiously biased, i just can't figure out what drives you to doubt it or misrepresent it.

Its beautifully written, enlightening and it grows the body of knowledge and our understanding of all things living.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> You're confusing Abiogenesis with Evolution.
> 
> 
> I'm thankful its not religiously biased, i just can't figure out what drives you to doubt it or misrepresent it.
> 
> Its beautifully written, enlightening and it grows the body of knowledge and our understanding of all things living.


Nope, I am not confusing anything. One deals with the creation of life, the other deals with the changes of those life forms. 

There has been lots of well written literature.... libraries have lots of great books, some are in the reference section, many more can be found in the fiction section.... and some are just plain fantasy. I dont believe Romeo ever really existed or kilt hisself either... even though Shakespear wrote a beautiful story.... and it could have happened just that way.... I am pretty sure its still just a story.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> In asylums perhaps.


I think if you look around you will find those same ideas are pretty well respected in the scientific community as well.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, I am not confusing anything. One deals with the creation of life, the other deals with the changes of those life forms.


Then why in talking about evolution do you keep referring back to abiogenesis events as being the reason you don't trust evolution? You said it above..



> so fail to see where even if science could prove absolutely that life originated in a swamp when lightning struck...


That's abiogensis

Evolution doesn't need a lightning strike to supports its foundations, it just needs the evidence that lives around us.

If you want an abiogenesis story to follow, research clay theory and how scientists are looking for other replicators and parallels to lifes systems




> There has been lots of well written literature.... libraries have lots of great books, some are in the reference section, many more can be found in the fiction section.... and some are just plain fantasy. I dont believe Romeo ever really existed or kilt hisself either... even though Shakespear wrote a beautiful story.... and it could have happened just that way.... I am pretty sure its still just a story.


What does this have to do with anything?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Yes, I'm more testy than usual. But not because you didn't answer a question earlier. I'm testy because I doubt the sincerity of the ID argument. I think that the religious right is insisting in creationism & ID because they are trying to garner more political power. I believe that most creationists know that evolution is responsible for the creation of man but can't admit it for political reasons.


As I have stated again and again I believe that microevolution is possible, I see examples of it every day when I'm doing my chores. As for macroevolution I have doubts. 

As you have pointed out science is not absolute and somethings have to be taken as true based on faith because they can NOT be proven. Is that not a definition of religion? I get testy when people push the religion of science and refuse to allow questioning of their religious tenets nor other POVs to be discussed. 

But what are you afraid of? If macroevolution is true then in the end it will win out no matter what any religion says. That is unless schools demand that only one POV, religion, be taught.




Nevada said:


> I liken it to the contention that tax cuts pay for themselves. Nobody really believes it, but conservatives have to pretend to believe it to get their tax cuts.


As with all things economic, an usually otherwise, there is a balance. If taxes are too high people will take actions to avoid doing what ever it is that causes them to pay taxes. If taxes are too low there's not enough money for the government to function which results in people not being able to do what ever it is.

Want real life examples? Look at states with very high tax rates and see what the ratio of high vs low income earners are moving from and to those states. Then do the same with low tax states. Expand your view and look at nations with fairly low corporate taxes vs ones with very high taxes.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> What does this have to do with anything?


I have no idea.... you brought it up. 

"Its beautifully written, enlightening and it grows the body of knowledge and our understanding of all things living."


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> As I have stated again and again I believe that microevolution is possible, I see examples of it every day when I'm doing my chores. As for macroevolution I have doubts.


Doubts of what?



> As you have pointed out science is not absolute and somethings have to be taken as true based on faith because they can NOT be proven. Is that not a definition of religion? I get testy when people push the religion of science and refuse to allow questioning of their religious tenets nor other POVs to be discussed.


Nope, religion has things it postulates regardless of evidence and things you believe in regardless. 



> But what are you afraid of? If macroevolution is true then in the end it will win out no matter what any religion says. That is unless schools demand that only one POV, religion, be taught.


It is true. No one is really afraid of anything other than people who have an agenda against facts and its perfectly valid to not be afraid of such people but to staunchly oppose them.




> As with all things economic, an usually otherwise, there is a balance. If taxes are too high people will take actions to avoid doing what ever it is that causes them to pay taxes. If taxes are too low there's not enough money for the government to function which results in people not being able to do what ever it is.
> 
> Want real life examples? Look at states with very high tax rates and see what the ratio of high vs low income earners are moving from and to those states. Then do the same with low tax states. Expand your view and look at nations with fairly low corporate taxes vs ones with very high taxes.


When you figure in property taxes, social taxes (toll roads, toll bridges, expensive energy/expensive food/expensive or no public transportation), state taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, county taxes, municipal taxes it's all a wash. I like the fact that Texas doesn't have an income tax, but cities like Houston end up with property taxes up the wazoo, weak mass transit, expensive tolls roads are the only new roads being built in texas and we're funding these stupid roads with public bonds either way (yay, for profit roads that drive up the cost of living on the backs of the tax payers!).. its all smoke an mirrors.. Houston wants exxon mobile to stay? they refund the the corporate taxes and jack up the property taxes for people that work for the corporation.. and they think "problem solved" is it good or bad? who knows.. all i know, is we rarely talk about "taxes" in the concept of "social burden" but more so in the ideological view of big/vs/small government.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have no idea.... you brought it up.
> 
> "Its beautifully written, enlightening and it grows the body of knowledge and our understanding of all things living."


hahaha.. that's a first. never had anyone equate the elegance of an amazing theory to fiction before. You had me lost there.

i'm off :run: i can't take the absurdity of this anymore.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> hahaha.. that's a first. never had anyone equate the elegance of an amazing theory to fiction before. You had me lost there.
> 
> i'm off :run: i can't take the absurdity of this anymore.


From what I have read so far, other than what you have written here, this "theory" is still pretty much in the hypothesis stage... hardly "amazing", lots of folks dream up all sorts of ideas. It dont make them real.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> I have no faith it happened, I have evidence that supports the idea of the big bang. We have been able to measure the acceleration of the universe as it expands, we have been able to determine the speed of expansion through galaxy redshifts and measuring the light from standard candles (type 1a supernovas if memory serves me correct). Since we can measure this, there is a safe bet we can derive that at x speed of growth and x acceleration that it started from z at some time in the past.


You have evidence sure but can you provide proof of what set off the bang? Its the fact that you accept the evidence of the bang w/o proof of what caused it that requires faith. I could say that the big bang was a result from an action of God and another could say that it was caused when the former universe reached its maximum limit and imploded back upon itself. Neither of the idea can be proven nor disproven therefore they are each equally valid they can only be rejected based on the fact they violate the others faith.




supernovae said:


> I see them where they are because that is where they are.


But why do you _think_ they are where they are? What evidence do you have for the reason for the bang? That's where the faith lies. 




supernovae said:


> Unfortunately we don't teach cosmology in our schools. IF one wants to believe in their gods, I have NO problem with that, I have my own beliefs but there is enough evidence those beliefs aren't hinged on any creator aspect of god.


I have no problem with people believing what they want. I have a problem when they want their beliefs to be the only ones taught and/or discussed and not to have their belief questioned in any way.




supernovae said:


> I have faith in my kids. Is that the same faith in God though? I don't think so.


Yes it is. You have nothing but your belief that they will do what you expect. Its based on your personal experience and knowledge. You have faith when you sit in your computer chair its going to hold you up. Why? Because it always has and you know how its constructed, i.e. personal experience and knowledge. But have you ever had one fail on you? I have personally and have seen it happen to others. Usually the lift mechanism fails so when you sit in it you drop down to the lowest point but sometimes arms, backs and even seats fall off. Therefore every time you sit down you don't know that chair isn't going to fail you only have faith it isn't.




supernovae said:


> I absolutely agree here. But usually there is context, just as the example you cite is context. Would you not agree that if you taught them how to use the machine and they said a giant cosmic turtle told them to do opposite that you would say their full of it?


Most likely but that's because there is absolute proof. But unless there was something pressing I'd ask them to explain why they thought the other way would work better. Why? Because I've seen too many weird, 'that will never work' things that did.




supernovae said:


> BTW, people to this day still don't believe Germ theory. Look at the antivaxxer movement - its largely liberal hogwash or religious zealotry that supports that. It certainly isn't the wide acceptance of germ theory amongst the scientific community perpetuating those beliefs.


But it is a good thing in a teaching arena to have people feel free to express those beliefs and to have open discussions of them. Think about it. Which is the better way of convincing someone that they are wrong about something? A) Tell them "You are wrong and stupid to think that here's the right and smart thing." or B) Let them explain why they think the way they do then discuss/debate with them pointing out the flaws in their thinking and showing the evidence supporting your side.

You can't change what someone believes you must let them convince and change themselves.


----------



## watcher

JeffreyD said:


> Ah, turtles throwing up the universe? Is that an insult or an analogy, I can't tell!


Neither, if my slight grasp of grammar is correct. It was an example of something really weird someone might think.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> You have evidence sure but can you provide proof of what set off the bang? Its the fact that you accept the evidence of the bang w/o proof of what caused it that requires faith. I could say that the big bang was a result from an action of God and another could say that it was caused when the former universe reached its maximum limit and imploded back upon itself. Neither of the idea can be proven nor disproven therefore they are each equally valid they can only be rejected based on the fact they violate the others faith.


Evidence is proof.. If we didn't see acceleration, if we didn't have ability to measure the CMBR, if we didn't measure redshift, if we didn't see the expansion of the universe - i would have no reason to believe in big bang.



> But why do you _think_ they are where they are? What evidence do you have for the reason for the bang? That's where the faith lies.


I just explained it clear as day above.



> I have no problem with people believing what they want. I have a problem when they want their beliefs to be the only ones taught and/or discussed and not to have their belief questioned in any way.


Beliefs and facts are different though, they're not interchangeable. Beliefs are "thought" to be true and "Facts" are known to be true. We should question every thing but once we understand something, continuing to question it regardless is a colossal waste of time.




> Yes it is. You have nothing but your belief that they will do what you expect. Its based on your personal experience and knowledge. You have faith when you sit in your computer chair its going to hold you up. Why? Because it always has and you know how its constructed, i.e. personal experience and knowledge. But have you ever had one fail on you? I have personally and have seen it happen to others. Usually the lift mechanism fails so when you sit in it you drop down to the lowest point but sometimes arms, backs and even seats fall off. Therefore every time you sit down you don't know that chair isn't going to fail you only have faith it isn't.


This is absurd though and only exists because of the problems with our vocabulary, not because of reality.

The faith in god is the "belief" definition of faith:

_2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. _

Faith in "science", faith in your chair is this:
_
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. _

They're not interchangeable and not the same thing. You're just playing word games



> But it is a good thing in a teaching arena to have people feel free to express those beliefs and to have open discussions of them. Think about it. Which is the better way of convincing someone that they are wrong about something? A) Tell them "You are wrong and stupid to think that here's the right and smart thing." or B) Let them explain why they think the way they do then discuss/debate with them pointing out the flaws in their thinking and showing the evidence supporting your side.


This is what i don't get and it makes no sense. People should be proud to be proven wrong and accept that they weren't right to learn from that. People shouldn't be proud to BE wrong so much so that they refuse to accept evidence because its contrary to their beliefs.

Is there even a discussion/debate if said person is consistently in denial of facts and evidence?



> You can't change what someone believes you must let them convince and change themselves.


If only this were true we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

I absolutely believe in raising a "question everything" and "be skeptic" attitude - but those are foundational on facts, not beliefs. If you have beliefs that trump facts, you're not being skeptic and you're not "questioning everything", you're choosing quite the opposite.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> This is still leading people on. Np one typically gets thrown out of class for wild hared ideas., and the real problem isn't the cutesy stories people tell, it's when those stories continue to be told in light of evidence. If you're 4 years into your collegiate degree and someone is still trying to convince you chicken heads remove warts, are you telling me you would still take them seriously? They most likely would not be passing and of their classes and would have failed/dropped out. This isn't a problem of science.. its a problem of peoples personalities, biases and behaviors that went unchecked for so long. Maybe they are right, but they need to prove that and with the rigors of the scientific method.


If they had that much education and still believe it I'd have to wonder if there might just be something to it. I'd want to know if they had ever done it and what the results were. Think about being in a pre-med class decades ago and someone started talking about sticking needles into people to relive pain and help them heal. Do you think they would have been taken seriously? I really doubt it. But because SOMEONE took the time to listen, discuss and test it we now know it can work.




supernovae said:


> That's awesome, but as a said earlier, this is something that works. What we're talking about is people making claims even though the teacher has let them try to prove it a 1000 times over.. you seem to suggest those claims should still be accepted as valid alternatives.


Not at all unless there was no evidence to prove or disprove any POV (e.g. what caused the big bang). Then all ideas are just as valid and, IMNSHO, must be discussed and debated. I'm also saying once you start trying to prevent people from questioning and providing other ideas about something that is not completely known you have started killing pure/real science.




supernovae said:


> If a teacher let a student try and remove a wart year after year to no avail, it shouldn't be accepted, that is an ok position to hold. evidence is a strong and valid concern of the sciences and sometimes annoyingly so! Yet, if 20 years down the road, that person DOES find a specific enzyme that removes warts, more power to him. That doesn't mean the teacher was wrong, that just means the student persevered. Has scientists just accepted the theory without any evidence it would dilute what science means, but if this person takes the time to give the evidence and isolate what is actually happen. kudos!


Not a good analogy but lets go with it. Say they try it and it works and they announce that there is something in chicken blood which removes warts and a vast number of scientist agree. Then when someone points out there are holes in this theory. For example it could be something on the chicken's feathers that did it. Should the new thought be ridiculed and ignored?




supernovae said:


> BTW, matter and energy are equals. (e=mc2)..


Are you/we sure?  Think about this, what keeps all the positive charges in an atom seeing as how like charges repel each other? What prevents the electrons from being pulled into the nucleus seeing as how opposite charges attract each other? If we have no real idea how an atom works how can we even begin to say how much energy it may or may not have?

And I have worked around the blue glow enough to know there is plenty of scientific data to show that e=mc^2 is most likely true but there are still too many questions to stop exploring.


But that was a personal question. How do you, personally, think the universe was created?


----------



## watcher

jtbrandt said:


> Not sure about zero, but I don't think it can be divided. Infinity definitely can't be divided, though, because it's not a number.


The square root of negative one (-1) isn't a real number but you can divide it.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> From what I have read so far, other than what you have written here, this "theory" is still pretty much in the hypothesis stage... hardly "amazing", lots of folks dream up all sorts of ideas. It dont make them real.


I used to think when i saw this kind of stuff from delusional people on TV it was just a gimmick to get on TV.. Am i being trolled? You can't be serious with this statement.


----------



## watcher

*Please read.*​ 
I'm loving the debate here and I won't be ignoring or deliberately not responding to anyone's questions/post. The reason you I won't be replying is because I'm going to be going out of town and away from a computer for about a week.

With a thread like this by the time I get back there will either be way too many post for me to reply to or it will be locked because we all know that no one is going to change another's belief system here.

Ya'll have fun and just remember as always; in the end *I'M RIGHT* and you are wrong.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> How do you, personally, think the universe was created?


An energetic explosion that cooled into a quark-gluon mix that over time coalesced into matter as we see it today. The forces of nature we have today are merely boundaries of our space time existence that don't preclude or exclude other universes from existing.

We may live in a multiverse where everything that can happens, does happen in every conceivable way in every universe.

We may live in a "String theory" universe of multiple "brains" that exist and multiple dimensions..

The "universe" was created by the big bang.. what caused the big bang is a cool question and we can postulate about that all we want. I don't need to assume or seek comfort in saying anything caused it.

Plate tectonics caused an earth quake that caused a tsunami that caused 275,000 people to perish in one day. What caused plat tectonics? well, the earth has molten core where the crust floats on top of the core and as it floats around crusts collide and the collision has uplifts and downlifts where mountains form and valleys form as the crust is mangled and recycled.. What causes the earths core to be molten? Some of it is the nature of matter itself with the force of gravity crushing it and the properties of atomic structure of matter having stored energy trying to escape and radiate. Some of it is the fact our planet never cooled off to begin with, after it coalesced from remnants of our star being born it quickly got an atmosphere that helped the surface cool but acted as a heat shield to keep the core warm. We also have a moon, the moon causes our planet to squish and it pulls the oceans towards it causing tides. The "Squishing" of our planet through gravity counts for some heat as well - perhaps if mars had larger moons it too would have more gravitational tugging/heating and not cooled its core and held on to its gravitational field and preserved its atmosphere.

All of this is important because it answer why something happens on the front side but opens more questions as to how it happens down the rabbit hole. You can't understand earthquakes without understanding plate tectonics and without understanding the composition of the core of our planet and the materials within and how this "System" operates and cycles itself. 

Once you understand that, then you start theorizing how other planets work and since we see other planets and the physics/chemistry of what happens on earth is no different than what happens a billion light years away, we can start to hypothesize about how different conditions create different inputs/outputs.. we can also hyothesize that since we live in a normalized universe, maybe we're not the only universe as it appears the universe of the small is just as massive as the universe of the large and that no matter how hard it is for our brains to accept - orbits/structure and dimensions are a normal artifact of our esxistance so why should we have to postulate anything but what we can see? We can see that atoms are mostly made up of empty space, we can see that space is mostly empty space, so the universe could be an island universe floating in some "empty" space of another dimension/universe itself (or for lack of better word, cosmos)

Do people simply not learn enough to think like this? do they refuse to think like this? Do they not grasp that while these ideas may seem insane at first, they're based off the reality we live in today but simply don't recognize because its not part of our everyday life? we live in the scale of our relative existence on a small blue planet orbiting our small star. Its hard for us to realize how strange the world is and its easy for us to imply and apply beliefs to fill voids we simply don't care too seek out.

The tsunami was caused because the conditions are there for it. a shelf fell, a surge was created and the energy of the surge transferred through the water into a wave that killed a lot of people. yet, knowing all of this. People got on tv and said god did it. Sure, its a weird tangent to go from how the universe was made to a tidal wave, but both seem to show that the answers are there for us to discover if you look for them but at the same time, some people assume the answers and assert them too and there is a huge difference between the two.
*
Not having an answer is a perfectly valid view to hold, and quite comforting.* Assuming to have an answer usually just causes biases and opinions to cloud the truth.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> Ya'll have fun and just remember as always; in the end *I'M RIGHT* and you are wrong.


hahaha

I'll be out next week to!

Remember, i don't care if i'm wrong or right, i just like learning and thanks for the facts!


We're all born of star stuff. A star died so you could be born.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> But that was a personal question. How do you, personally, think the universe was created?


I have no hypothesis for how space was formed or how the hot dense matter came to be, or even how the matter got hot. Science starts its explanation at the big bang event, where the hot dense material exploded. You are free to hypothesize anything you wish for your 'pre big bang' explanation, since it won't conflict with science -- at least not yet.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> I used to think when i saw this kind of stuff from delusional people on TV it was just a gimmick to get on TV.. Am i being trolled? You can't be serious with this statement.


Nope, you are not being trolled, and yes, I am quite serious in making that statement. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Apparently quite a number of the scientific community also feel there is insufficient evidence to call this a theory. The word hypothesis is used quite frequently throughout this article.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, you are not being trolled, and yes, I am quite serious in making that statement.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
> 
> Apparently quite a number of the scientific community also feel there is insufficient evidence to call this a theory. The word hypothesis is used quite frequently throughout this article.


Life can, and has, been created in a "test tube." The problem with those experiments is that they start with a brew of amino acids, which would be difficult to explain in the context of early earth conditions.

This is another area of science where not enough is known. I accept that.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Do people simply not learn enough to think like this? do they refuse to think like this? Do they not grasp that while these ideas may seem insane at first, they're based off the reality we live in today but simply don't recognize because its not part of our everyday life?


I think along these same lines.... and have to wonder why our ever so intelligent science types cant seem to wrap their minds around the concept of all this energy that comprises the cosmos is intelligent beyond our wildest imagination and that intelligent energy has always been and will always exist? Seems so obvious and simple to me, why cant they grasp that concept?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Life can, and has, been created in a "test tube." The problem with those experiments is that they start with a brew of amino acids, which would be difficult to explain in the context of early earth conditions.
> 
> This is another area of science where not enough is known. I accept that.


I am thinking we discussed this nonsense a while back.... first of all life was not created in any test tube... life was at best replicated using materials taken from an existing life form. Again.... all this would have proven had someone actually taken out their chemistry set and created a new form of life purely from inorganic matter is that life could be created by intelligent design.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think along these same lines.... and have to wonder why our ever so intelligent science types cant seem to wrap their minds around the concept of all this energy that comprises the cosmos is intelligent beyond our wildest imagination and that intelligent energy has always been and will always exist? Seems so obvious and simple to me, why cant they grasp that concept?


Someone may as well just say this:










IF we set no standard, we have no standards.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> IF we set no standard, we have no standards.


Perhaps, but if you set your standards too small, you end up not being able to see the truth when its outside your standards.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am thinking we discussed this nonsense a while back.... first of all life was not created in any test tube... life was at best replicated using materials taken from an existing life form. Again.... all this would have proven had someone actually taken out their chemistry set and created a new form of life purely from inorganic matter is that life could be created by intelligent design.


Organic matter is spread across the universe. 

The miller-urey experiment showed how one could create organic molecules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

We often find organic compounds in meteors too!

http://www.space.com/23988-organic-material-meteorite-impact-glass.html

The chemistry of life is abundant.. have only barely scratched the surface of looking for it in our own cosmic backyard. We're one solar system out of 200 billion solar systems in our galaxy and our galaxy is small compared to other galaxies that contain a billion billion solar systems and planetary systems.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Perhaps, but if you set your standards too small, you end up not being able to see the truth when its outside your standards.


Not at all, if you seek out answers through constructive criticism and rational discourse then the properties become emergent and it only takes an educated person to realize such emergence. Not being able to sense emergent properties or actively refusing to accept emergent properties is setting low standards and is being ignorant.

"Truth" is another duality word that sucks to use because "truth" in the religious sense isn't "Truth" in the reality sense. You're good at tossing those out to muddy the waters


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Organic matter is spread across the universe.
> 
> The miller-urey experiment showed how one could create organic molecules.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment
> 
> We often find organic compounds in meteors too!
> 
> http://www.space.com/23988-organic-material-meteorite-impact-glass.html
> 
> The chemistry of life is abundant.. have only barely scratched the surface of looking for it in our own cosmic backyard. We're one solar system out of 200 billion solar systems in our galaxy and our galaxy is small compared to other galaxies that contain a billion billion solar systems and planetary systems.


And? :shrug:


----------



## DryHeat

Wow, 27 pages of creationist vs science postings in less than a week? My apologies if my comments have been gone over multiple times already, but I'm not about to read through that much stuff here. 

Number one, as the original fossil soft-tissue writer, Dr. Schweitzer of NC State, has been publishing about systematically since her first paper, the issue really is about *how* tissue structures might on rare occasions have been preserved for many millions of years. Here's a recent link to ongoing work: http://news.discovery.com/animals/d...act-t-rex-tissue-finally-explained-131127.htm

To make this bit of scientific debate into something that MUST be about creationism and religion is just whacked-out, to use an academic term. Just as whacked as to describe the fellow fired from his job as a "scientist." Here's a pretty good account, I think, of those circumstances: http://observationdeck.io9.com/how-to-not-handle-a-young-earth-creationist-employee-1611575699

Mr. (NOT "Dr.") Armitage was hired as a part-time microscope technician. He's an amateur scientist, but one who seems to try to fit everything into his obsessive religious framework, particularly that evolution has all happened recently, dinosaurs existed in the literal 7 days of creation, all that. He made a field trip to the collecting site where Dr. Schweitzer had noticed the odd preservation levels in some dinosaur fossils, brought samples back to his workbench, and was looking at and interpreting them, in itself admirable. Then some undergrads visited the electron microscopy room and he held forth to them about how the soft tissue proved recent existence of dinosaurs (rather than just that such tissues obviously CAN be preserved for millions of years, somehow). 

Suppose you are, say, raising goats, milking them, marketing the milk and cheese locally under a small brand name. One day, a scruffy fellow knocks on your door and asks if he can work a couple days a week and take it out in a bit of cash and some of your product. This fits your needs well, he has a good touch at milking already, and everything goes OK, you think. Then one week you discover that he's opened up a booth in the local market presenting himself as an expert at goat husbandry and is selling blocks of your cheeses that he's just plastered his own labels onto, but undercutting your prices to boot. You hurry up to your milking barn to discuss the situation and find him holding forth with several townie yuppie visitors about how all *his* goats there are treated specially and hear him spouting fantasy nonsense about his total organic approach to them. You fire his worthless butt, right? Similarly, I think the world of university, peer-reviewed article, science, has said good-bye to Mr. Armitage.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am thinking we discussed this nonsense a while back.... first of all life was not created in any test tube... life was at best replicated using materials taken from an existing life form. Again.... all this would have proven had someone actually taken out their chemistry set and created a new form of life purely from inorganic matter is that life could be created by intelligent design.


Just because something isn't understood or hasn't been done doesn't necessarily mean that God did it.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> "Truth" is another duality word that sucks to use because "truth" in the religious sense isn't "Truth" in the reality sense. You're good at tossing those out to muddy the waters


Again, lets leave religion and theology out of it.... those are nothing but philosophical concepts that have little to do with our discussions here. Why would anyone seeking answers (truths) want to automatically exclude looking for them in certain areas.... just because they dont understand or have a road map of the area? If we expand our parameters we just may find our answers.... it worked for me.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Just because something isn't understood or hasn't been done doesn't necessarily mean that God did it.


Quite true, but since you dont understand it, you should not rule out that He did it either.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Again, lets leave religion and theology out of it.... those are nothing but philosophical concepts that have little to do with our discussions here.


We can't really keep religion out of it. That's what this discussion is about. You can't have creationism without a creator.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> We can't really keep religion out of it. That's what this discussion is about. You can't have creationism without a creator.


Having a creator doesnt have much to do with religion. I am aware that most religions do claim to have a creator involved but its kinda like all chevys are automobiles, but not all automobiles are chevys. Meeting ones creator does not necessarily mean that the person is religious.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Having a creator doesnt have much to do with religion. I am aware that most religions do claim to have a creator involved but its kinda like all chevys are automobiles, but not all automobiles are chevys. Meeting ones creator does not necessarily mean that the person is religious.


But creationism depends on the existence of a creator, while no creator exists without a belief in religion. In fact, I question of a creator exists. If you could prove the existence of a creator a lot of scientists would consider creationism seriously.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> But creationism depends on the existence of a creator, while no creator exists without a belief in religion. In fact, I question of a creator exists. If you could prove the existence of a creator a lot of scientists would consider creationism seriously.


I am not quite as good at proving things as my creator is. He had almost no trouble at all proving His existence to me, and He did it sans religion! 
He just showed me a couple neat tricks, (telepathy and telekinesis) gave me a brief tour of His place and I was convinced. Upon attempting to convince others of His existence I soon discovered that a lot of folks can be rather skeptical. Especially those who have never worked those "magic" tricks or had the tour. Those that have... jump right on board when I bring up such discussions.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Quite true, but since you dont understand it, you should not rule out that He did it either.


Was it zeus? Ra? Olympus? Anu? Allah? Apsu? Ceres? Eos? Hades? Ixtab? Mazu? Pan? Siva?

He? She?

It?


God of gaps is a weak argument. 

I mean, do you believe in all the hundreds of gods we've believed in over the eons? If you don't believe in them all, why do you believe in one? Especially if you're insinuating the god of gaps argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not quite as good at proving things as my creator is. He had almost no trouble at all proving His existence to me, and He did it sans religion!
> He just showed me a couple neat tricks, (telepathy and telekinesis) gave me a brief tour of His place and I was convinced. Upon attempting to convince others of His existence I soon discovered that a lot of folks can be rather skeptical. Especially those who have never worked those "magic" tricks or had the tour. Those that have... jump right on board when I bring up such discussions.


I have a bag of magic beans to sell you

:wizard:

I'll be honest, there was one time When i didn't sleep for two days because something crazy happened at work and i worked myself to delirium that when my wife drove me home, i swore the signs on the side of the road were walking along the side of the road and talking to me and the back of big rig trailers were giant mouths telling me to get some sleep. I always thought i had to take psychedelic drugs to experience something like this, who knew something such as lack of sleep and stress could play games with our minds.. Not to mention dreams we confuse with real memories and tons of other cognitive experiences and biases. BUt nope, it was just sleep and stress and i was off in Rodger rabbit ville.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not quite as good at proving things as my creator is. He had almost no trouble at all proving His existence to me, and He did it sans religion!
> He just showed me a couple neat tricks, (telepathy and telekinesis) gave me a brief tour of His place and I was convinced. Upon attempting to convince others of His existence I soon discovered that a lot of folks can be rather skeptical. Especially those who have never worked those "magic" tricks or had the tour. Those that have... jump right on board when I bring up such discussions.


I don't think a creationism argument will go far without being able to establish the existence of a creator.


----------



## Nevada

supernovae said:


> I have a bag of magic beans to sell you
> 
> :wizard:


And that's the point. Biology is a rational science. That being the case, we can't allow irrational concepts to contaminate biology. So it's not a question of whether creationism is true or not, it's only a question of whether creationism is rational. Creationism can't be rational without establishing the existence of a creator, which can't be done.


----------



## supernovae

Nevada said:


> I don't think a creationism argument will go far without being able to establish the existence of a creator.


and then there is that whole "chicken and egg" problem.


----------



## rambotex

This has gone far enough. Nobody is going to change the other one's mind so just quit. If you believe in the Bible great; if you don't and the Christians are right, you won't be going to the Christian Heaven. If those who don't believe in God are right the christians wasted a lot of their time and money on Sundays. 

Enough.


----------



## Nevada

rambotex said:


> This has gone far enough. Nobody is going to change the other one's mind so just quit. If you believe in the Bible great; if you don't and the Christians are right, you won't be going to the Christian Heaven. If those who don't believe in God are right the christians wasted a lot of their time and money on Sundays.
> 
> Enough.


That's unfair. Most Christians visit doctors, yet the Bible tells you that God is your healer. Logic would dictate that you don't need a doctor, since no middleman should be required for God to do his work.

As for wasting your time on Sundays, that's up to you. If you enjoy going to church on Sundays then I wouldn't call it a waste of time, regardless of whether deity exists. But I doubt that any deity takes attendance...


----------



## rambotex

View Post Today, 02:23 PM 


Remove user from ignore list Nevada 
This message is hidden because Nevada is on your ignore list.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> God of gaps is a weak argument.


I am not sure where you get that having an intelligent creator is a "god of gaps" argument.... weak or otherwise? Introducing the probability of an intelligent force as the creator is totally unrelated to your own hypothesis which by the way does seem to contain several "gaps", but far be it from me to try to fill them for you.... that is YOUR job. When you produce the least bit of evidence of any new form of life that has been entirely created from nice clean mud (or other slime from the bottom of a pond) that has never been contaminated with previous life forms of any kind, or the assistance of any intelligent life form... I will be quite happy to concede your point that an intelligent creator is not required to produce life on this planet. Until that time.... I am sticking with what I have seen, touched, heard and experienced myself. I know I have lots and lots of evidence that life comes from other life.... no gaps in that one.... just a quick glance out doors and you will see it everywhere.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Was it zeus? Ra? Olympus? Anu? Allah? Apsu? Ceres? Eos? Hades? Ixtab? Mazu? Pan? Siva?
> 
> He? She?
> 
> It?
> 
> I mean, do you believe in all the hundreds of gods we've believed in over the eons? If you don't believe in them all, why do you believe in one?


Ya know, for whatever reason, I didnt catch His name... I can only vouch for the one I met, I am open to meeting some of the others though if you happen to run up on them in your travels.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> I have a bag of magic beans to sell you
> 
> :wizard:
> 
> I'll be honest, there was one time When i didn't sleep for two days because something crazy happened at work and i worked myself to delirium that when my wife drove me home, i swore the signs on the side of the road were walking along the side of the road and talking to me and the back of big rig trailers were giant mouths telling me to get some sleep. I always thought i had to take psychedelic drugs to experience something like this, who knew something such as lack of sleep and stress could play games with our minds.. Not to mention dreams we confuse with real memories and tons of other cognitive experiences and biases. BUt nope, it was just sleep and stress and i was off in Rodger rabbit ville.


aha... and the critics have come knocking..... without a shred of evidence whatsoever to discredit me.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not sure where you get that having an intelligent creator is a "god of gaps" argument.... weak or otherwise?


I don't get how its any other argument. Its a weak argument because it defines god as someone/something for which its realm of power diminishes every day as we learn more.

You know, the same god that said the earth was the center of the universe is no longer true because we know better, but back then, it was just the god of gaps argument..

further back people didn't understand lightning/thunder so it was Zeus battling in the sky... god of gaps argument.

It's probably the same argument of why you don't believe in Zeus or the sun god anymore. We know the sun really doesn't rise, the earth orbits the sun and rotates daily giving that appearance. We know what thunder and lightning are, we don't presume it to be gods mad at us anymore..



> Introducing the probability of an intelligent force as the creator is totally unrelated to your own hypothesis which by the way does seem to contain several "gaps", but far be it from me to try to fill them for you.... that is YOUR job. When you produce the least bit of evidence of any new form of life that has been entirely created from nice clean mud (or other slime from the bottom of a pond) that has never been contaminated with previous life forms of any kind, or the assistance of any intelligent life form... I will be quite happy to concede your point that an intelligent creator is not required to produce life on this planet. Until that time.... I am sticking with what I have seen, touched, heard and experienced myself. I know I have lots and lots of evidence that life comes from other life.... no gaps in that one.... just a quick glance out doors and you will see it everywhere.


This makes no sense. You're still focused on abiogenesis and not evolution while all the time debating evolution on the basis you don't understand abiogenesis.

I'm not sure what you're saying my job is. I can't teach what people choose to not understand.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I don't think a creationism argument will go far without being able to establish the existence of a creator.


I will go along with that logic.... but are you saying it has to be a religious creator? If so does it have to be Catholic? or would a nice protestant or perhaps a hindu creator be alright with you?


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> aha... and the critics have come knocking..... without a shred of evidence whatsoever to discredit me.


This assumes you had evidence to support your argument.

Make the Sriracha sauce at my desk move, then you will have a believer!


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I will go along with that logic.... but are you saying it has to be a religious creator? If so does it have to be Catholic? or would a nice protestant or perhaps a hindu creator be alright with you?


Any creator will do, as long as he was here when life started and had the ability to do it.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> This assumes you had evidence to support your argument.
> 
> Make the Sriracha sauce at my desk move, then you will have a believer!


I have a better idea... you make the Sriracha sauce at your desk move and then maybe you will be convinced... if I do it for you, you will simply insist that I somehow tricked you. I made the boots come off the shelf, that pretty well convinced me, then I raised the flag on a mailbox as I was driving by, and had told my second wife to watch as was about to do it... I dont think she was really convinced... wouldnt talk about it much... thought sure it was some kinda "trick". She saw me do it, and STILL wasnt convinced... and she had a lot of faith in me to begin with.... much more than you seem to have.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> This makes no sense. You're still focused on abiogenesis and not evolution while all the time debating evolution on the basis you don't understand abiogenesis.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're saying my job is. I can't teach what people choose to not understand.


I am not focused on anything.... I am just trying to answer questions. I understand your abiogenesis hypothesis just fine.... dont mean I buy it though.... it has too many of those "gaps" you keep referring to. Which btw is YOUR JOB if your going to sell it to me. fill in the gaps. provide a single instance when such life forms have been created by that method.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Any creator will do, as long as he was here when life started and had the ability to do it.


Cool coz the creator I am referring to has been here since the end of time, and long after it ever begins, and has the ability to do pretty much anything He wants.... ok, might not be able to make a rock bigger than He can lift... but you get the idea.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Cool coz the creator I am referring to has been here since the end of time, and long after it ever begins, and has the ability to do pretty much anything He wants.... ok, might not be able to make a rock bigger than He can lift... but you get the idea.


Good! If you can demonstrate that then you've got yourself a scientific theory and worldwide fame.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not focused on anything.... I am just trying to answer questions. I understand your abiogenesis hypothesis just fine.... dont mean I buy it though.... it has too many of those "gaps" you keep referring to. Which btw is YOUR JOB if your going to sell it to me. fill in the gaps. provide a single instance when such life forms have been created by that method.


The problem i have is that you keep talking about evolution in the concept of abiogenesis and then you keep saying something has gaps.

Are you talking about evolution or abiogenesis?

actually, i have no clue what you're talking about. off for some more


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> The problem i have is that you keep talking about evolution in the concept of abiogenesis and then you keep saying something has gaps.
> 
> Are you talking about evolution or abiogenesis?
> 
> actually, i have no clue what you're talking about. off for some more


Actually both evolution and abiogenesis have some pretty good gaps going on.... but at least evolution has a couple possibles going for it.... but thats after a life form exists and one begets another. Through enough time, and breakdowns in strands of old dna I can see how critters could change somewhat. 

The cool part about Intelligent design is there are NO gaps to be filled in.... He did it, it was done, life is here. Evidenced by a quick glance out your living room window. Life forms everywhere.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Good! If you can demonstrate that then you've got yourself a scientific theory and worldwide fame.


No, I have already demonstrated it... and what I get is skeptics, howls of laughter, and even some here think I should be very quiet about it else I might end up in the looney bin.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> No, I have already demonstrated it... and what I get is skeptics, howls of laughter, and even some here think I should be very quiet about it else I might end up in the looney bin.


I don't think you're crazy and I don't think it's funny, but I am skeptical. As I said before, you can't have creationism without a creator. I don't see one.


----------



## Oggie

Here's a link that might actually be pertinent to the original post:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?no-ist


----------



## unregistered353870

watcher said:


> The square root of negative one (-1) isn't a real number but you can divide it.


But infinity isn't a number at all, real or otherwise...it's just a concept.


----------



## Nevada

Oggie said:


> Here's a link that might actually be pertinent to the original post:
> 
> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?no-ist


As she said though, creationists will look at it differently.


----------



## Nevada

copperkid3 said:


> But it appears that the 'theory' of evolution that we were taught
> in high school has now been supplanted with it being taught as
> a "fact" in today's academia without first going through the required
> steps necessary to get it to that level.


Can you describe those steps? Can you find a definition of a scientific fact online for me?

Do you have a reference for evolution being taught as a fact?


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> But infinity isn't a number at all, real or otherwise...it's just a concept.


It's not a number, but if you assign a variable symbol to a value that's infinity you can manipulate it in an algebraic expression as if it were a number. When it's removed from the denominator, often the expression can be solved with meaningful results. That's what differential calculus teaches us to do.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> It's not a number, but if you assign a variable symbol to a value that's infinity you can manipulate it in an algebraic expression. When it's removed from the denominator, often the expression can be solved with meaningful results. That what differential calculus teaches us to do.


That made me dizzy.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I don't think you're crazy and I don't think it's funny, but I am skeptical. As I said before, you can't have creationism without a creator. I don't see one.


Oddly enough I too was pretty skeptical... until our creator revealed Himself to me personally. I understand your need to see for yourself. Perhaps someday you shall.


----------



## JJ Grandits

If we are a closed system why is the old wood shed at the back of my property starting to rot? Isn't that entopy? It gets hit by plenty of sunlight. I figure by now it would have new siding and windows. Evolution can be used as an explanation of the species but it can not explain the beginnig of life. Unless you can come up with an actual formula and repeat it's use in the laboratory it is nothing but an excuse not to believe in God. You can spin it anyway you want but thats the truth.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oddly enough I too was pretty skeptical... until our creator revealed Himself to me personally. I understand your need to see for yourself. Perhaps someday you shall.


It would be nice but I think we're describing a rainbow to a blind man. They are crippled by a little too much id.


----------



## Nevada

JJ Grandits said:


> Evolution can be used as an explanation of the species but it can not explain the beginnig of life.


That's true. Evolution and the origin of life are two different subjects.

There are various hypotheses about the origin of life. The important thing to remember when trying to wrap your head around the idea of spontaneous life is that non-living chemicals sometimes arrange themselves in an organized fashion on their own. For example, detergent and soap molecules sometimes arrange themselves into a bubble, yet nobody guided that organization. Once things are arranged in a convenient fashion the stage is set for things to happen. 

While we don't fully understand the mechanism that created the first life on earth, we can imagine that circumstances could have arisen that might have set the stage for the formation of life.

But we shouldn't attribute phenomena that we don't understand to be the result of actions by a supernatural being simply because we can't explain it satisfactorily. That mistake has already been made too many times in the past.


----------



## iti_oj

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Last I heard there are something like 6 billion people in the world.... and about 12 million of them fall into the category of "scientists". If my math is correct thats one person in every 500 or so, which I think is one half of one percent..... so yeah they are a pretty small sect.


I think I remember asking my math teacher similar question. Also something about an informed b educated voting base


----------



## JJ Grandits

Life only comes from life. If not then we would have examples of inantimate things that start living. A soap bubble is not a DNA molecule. and a soap bubble does not create other soap bubbles. It's nice to say terms like "sometimes" and "the stage is set" but lets face it, they mean nothing. With the lack of any information or examples supporting the theory that life just evolved, a trully open minded and inquistive person would also allow the idea of an intelligent designer. But such is not the case. My education was in Biology but I never learned anything that challenged my faith. If anything it reinforced it. Like I said before, our ego's and id make us more important then we are. All of our knowledge is pretty much next to nothing. It reminds me of the TV shows that had very young children explaining how things work. All of our science is nothing more then a guess. The strong supporters of evolution today are focused on denying the possibility of a Creator instead of understanding life.


----------



## iti_oj

What mechanism wow allows micro but not macro? This question needs to be answered.


----------



## mmoetc

JJ Grandits said:


> Life only comes from life. If not then we would have examples of inantimate things that start living. A soap bubble is not a DNA molecule. and a soap bubble does not create other soap bubbles. It's nice to say terms like "sometimes" and "the stage is set" but lets face it, they mean nothing. With the lack of any information or examples supporting the theory that life just evolved, a trully open minded and inquistive person would also allow the idea of an intelligent designer. But such is not the case. My education was in Biology but I never learned anything that challenged my faith. If anything it reinforced it. Like I said before, our ego's and id make us more important then we are. All of our knowledge is pretty much next to nothing. It reminds me of the TV shows that had very young children explaining how things work. All of our science is nothing more then a guess. The strong supporters of evolution today are focused on denying the possibility of a Creator instead of understanding life.


Unless I missed it and I admit I may have in all the posts you still haven't addressed the flaw in your life only comes from life premise. God, the creator, the intelligent designer, whatever you wish to call that that created life on earth must itself be life and how did it come about? I don't discount that there may indeed be some higher, godlike being steering things. But throughout history man has attributed to higher powers credit for things they did not have the scientific knowledge to explain. As more knowledge came do did less supernatural answers. I don't pretend to think that we have acquired all the knowledge we will. God may prove to be the answer, he may may not. I'll keep looking.


----------



## willow_girl

> All of our knowledge is pretty much next to nothing. It reminds me of the TV shows that had very young children explaining how things work. All of our science is nothing more then a guess.


If I ever need, oh say for instance, an organ transplant, I'm gonna hope those surgeons doing the job are good guessers! :teehee:


----------



## Evons hubby

willow_girl said:


> If I ever need, oh say for instance, an organ transplant, I'm gonna hope those surgeons doing the job are good guessers! :teehee:


If they were better guessers you would never need an organ transplant to begin with.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> That's true. Evolution and the origin of life are two different subjects.
> 
> There are various hypotheses about the origin of life. The important thing to remember when trying to wrap your head around the idea of spontaneous life is that non-living chemicals sometimes arrange themselves in an organized fashion on their own. For example, detergent and soap molecules sometimes arrange themselves into a bubble, yet nobody guided that organization. Once things are arranged in a convenient fashion the stage is set for things to happen.
> 
> While we don't fully understand the mechanism that created the first life on earth, we can imagine that circumstances could have arisen that might have set the stage for the formation of life.
> 
> 
> 
> But we shouldn't attribute phenomena that we don't understand to be the result of actions by a supernatural being simply because we can't explain it satisfactorily. That mistake has already been made too many times in the past.


Scientific law accounts for some organization. Hydrogen atoms randomly mixed with oxygen atoms will organize into H20.

Crystallization results from self ordering.

The organization you see in life has not been demonstrated to occur by natural processes

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhLRv...3..211A


----------



## Vahomesteaders

God has limited our understanding to what it is. He has always been and always will be. We will understand that one day. Dinos walked side by side with man. Job tells us all about the brachiousaures and stegasaurus and great water beasts. I believe in adaptation not evolution. Science can trace life back to the smallest one celled organism but cant say what created it. The conditions our earth was in when it formed according to science, is a condition a which no life form could exist. Let alone the billions that are here or have been here. Not much life can exist and especially not wate in a molten lava state that the earths crust would have been in if it happened the way evolution states it. But. Just watch the video serious God of Wonders. Evolution or creation?. That has some amazing scientific facts about evolution and creation. It opened my eyes.


----------



## mmoetc

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If they were better guessers you would never need an organ transplant to begin with.


Or if god were a more intelligent designer?


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> God has limited our understanding to what it is.


Not at all. 



> He has always been and always will be. We will understand that one day. Dinos walked side by side with man.


Nope.



> Job tells us all about the brachiousaures and stegasaurus and great water beasts.


?



> I believe in adaptation not evolution.


Then show us how you believe this.



> Science can trace life back to the smallest one celled organism but cant say what created it.


Doesn't need to. As you can't say what created it either. Open questions aren't wrong. Assuming you know the answer is. Ergo, god of gaps.



> The conditions our earth was in when it formed according to science, is a condition a which no life form could exist. Let alone the billions that are here or have been here.


Exactly! The earth formed from the material left over from when our star formed and this material was material ejected from other stars that blew up. We know the basic elements of matter, we know these elements are forged in stars. We know that our planet systems formed in "accretion disks" of matter that got pressed together into our round planet through gravity. We know that space is FULL of the chemicals of life, FULL of water, full of the same molecules here as everywhere. That is the beauty of science. We can clearly see this and we're building technology to observe this. We see "galactic nurseries" where stars are accretion formed and we can see the discs left over after the star "turns on" and we can see how gravity can coalesce this matter into larger and larger objects. It's absolutely beautiful.



> Not much life can exist and especially not wate in a molten lava state that the earths crust would have been in if it happened the way evolution states it.


There was no life on the early earth. Just as there is no life on the modern moon. The "chemical" of life though is however abundant across the universe and is forged inside the explosion of stars. In fact, our atmosphere was deadly for us until microbial life started the conversion to an O2 atmosphere. This is all easily understood through science.



> But. Just watch the video serious God of Wonders. Evolution or creation?. That has some amazing scientific facts about evolution and creation. It opened my eyes.


BBC Life is better and it doesn't have creationism non science interjected in it.

When the bible was written, people were murdered for believing we orbited the sun. Sounds to me like religion just has a problem accepting knowledge..

but then, i have some super religious friends who are micro biologists and don't seem to have this view of people walking with dinosuars and anti evolutionary stance and they're rather rational in their views.

So where does it come from?


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> Or if god were a more intelligent designer?


I have always figured He did a pretty good job with His design work. If we all lived forever the planet would be a wee bit crowded by now dontcha think?


----------



## Evons hubby

I sometimes think too many people confuse God with religion. The two actually have very little in common.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I sometimes think too many people confuse God with religion. The two actually have very little in common.


Religion is just a belief in a supernatural power/god..


----------



## greg273

JJ Grandits said:


> If we are a closed system why is the old wood shed at the back of my property starting to rot? Isn't that entopy? It gets hit by plenty of sunlight.


 You're free to go fix it. Having done so, entropy will have been reversed. Youre completely misreading the definition of thermodynamics, and trying to apply it to something completely unrelated.


----------



## mmoetc

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have always figured He did a pretty good job with His design work. If we all lived forever the planet would be a wee bit crowded by now dontcha think?


As crowded as it was when people walked with dinosaurs and all those other beasts the fossil record show. It must have been an interesting world with modern man walking along side Australopithecus, stegosaurs sharing Savannah's with modern elephants, and herds of eohippus cavorting alongside cave bears.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Religion is just a belief in a supernatural power/god..


Yep, which is just a wee bit off base.... when you consider that "God" is the perfectly natural, intelligent, energy force that our universe (and quite possibly numerous others) are made of. There is nothing "supernatural" about Him.


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> As crowded as it was when people walked with dinosaurs and all those other beasts the fossil record show. It must have been an interesting world with modern man walking along side Australopithecus, stegosaurs sharing Savannah's with modern elephants, and herds of eohippus cavorting alongside cave bears.


Kinda like it is today with all of us sharing space with all the creatures that didnt happen to go extinct.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

iti_oj said:


> What mechanism wow allows micro but not macro? This question needs to be answered.


The mutational mechanisms are possibly the same.

Mutation can modify the internal chemistry or can modify the physical structures (morphological or anatomical).

Micro evolution is a term which seems to be used to describe the modifying of internal chemistry.

However the belief that bacterial resistance results from mutation is presently being challenged by a evolutionist named James Shapiro .... who believes it is caused by lateral gene transfer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Shapiro


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, which is just a wee bit off base.... when you consider that "God" is the perfectly natural, intelligent, energy force that our universe (and quite possibly numerous others) are made of. There is nothing "supernatural" about Him.


Do we not use the same dictionary?

What you described is exactly:

suÂ·perÂ·natÂ·uÂ·ral


not of natural world: relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws

:catfight:

This is some creative trolling we have going on here.. but come on, nothing i haven't seen before. Lets get above this.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

But if you truly search for God you will find him. You will feel his touch, hear his voiceand taste they joy he gives. I have felt physical instant healing touch. And it cane from the simple prayer of a 3 year old one day when I was very sick. Throwing up stomach flu was hitting me hard. My little boy asked me to go outside and play. I was to sick to move. He then prayed and asked God to make my belly feel better so we could play. When he said on jesus name, amen. My pain instant left and I felt great. That was when I started living for god again.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> But if you truly search for God you will find him. You will feel his touch, hear his voiceand taste they joy he gives. I have felt physical instant healing touch. And it cane from the simple prayer of a 3 year old one day when I was very sick. Throwing up stomach flu was hitting me hard. My little boy asked me to go outside and play. I was to sick to move. He then prayed and asked God to make my belly feel better so we could play. When he said on jesus name, amen. My pain instant left and I felt great. That was when I started living for god again.


We have biological systems in our bodies that heal themselves. (or at least try to) - its a mechanism of our evolutionary advantages over species that never developed a nervous system with the capability to sense pain, avoid danger and develop antibodies against future sicknesses. There are humans born with conditions where the nervous system isn't working and they can't sense pain. They generally die young from broken bones or biting off their own tongue because the "system" isn't operating as a "system" without the ability to comprehend itself and operate with boundaries... pain is a big boundary our brain senses.

Now, spirituality has never been a bad thing. A positive mind, a healing spirit is definitely part of our will to survive and important to how healthy we maintain ourselves and how strong we persevere. The biochemistry of our body and mental health of our mind go hand in hand and spirituality can be a part of ones health.

None of which requires a helping hand from god that apparently has the time to heal your belly but not heal the thousands of people suffering and dying every minute..


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Micro evolution is a term which seems to be used to describe the modifying of internal chemistry.


Micro evolution is a term used to justify an admission that small evolutionary changes occur while still contending that big evolutionary changes are impossible. Creationists need to have the distinction between micro & macro evolution because they can't deny that small evolutionary changes occur, since small changes can be observed.


----------



## mmoetc

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Kinda like it is today with all of us sharing space with all the creatures that didnt happen to go extinct.


But isn't it intersecting that the fossil record shows no evidence of all these creatures coexisting. But hey, if you don't believe in time it doesn't really matter. See you tomorrow, or maybe last week.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> Micro evolution is a term used to justify an admission that small evolutionary changes occur while still contending that big evolutionary changes are impossible. Creationists need to have the distinction between micro & macro evolution because they can't deny that small evolutionary changes occur, since small changes can be observed.


Evolution theory is explained as small incremental changes accumulating to produce large changes. The terms micro and macro were not invented by creationists. The precise meaning of these terms has evolved over time and if you google now you will not find a coherent definition of these terms.

The original use of micro is the one I defined in my post and here are examples

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/evoscales_03


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Evolution theory is explained as small incremental changes accumulating to produce large changes. The terms micro and macro were not invented by creationists. The precise meaning of these terms has evolved over time and if you google now you will not find a coherent definition of these terms.
> 
> The original use of micro is the one I defined in my post and here are examples
> 
> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/evoscales_03


Micro / macro doesn't really matter, they're just misused when convenient and they're only differentiated by relativity. 

In the scale of the universe/cosmos - micro vs macro would be insanely huge.. in the scale of fruit flies, its very small.

It's still evolution


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Evolution of novel physical (anatomical or morphological) features in multi cellular organisms will eventually require evolution to produce novel tissues (you can not produce a brain unless you first produce brain tissue)

Embryo development starts with one cell (a fertilized egg) which multiplies by cell division. At some point cells specialize to produce specific tissues such as muscle, bone, artery etc. It is the varying protein composition of cells which causes cells of one tissue type to differ from from cells of another tissue type.

So evolution requires production of new proteins.

Back earlier I referred to research by Douglas Axe. He concluded that new proteins could not easily be invented by randomly manipulating DNA sequences. He calculated the probably of success and concluded almost impossible.

Supernovae's quick "wiki" link rebuttal did not address my post by providing an actual example of a mutation producing a new protein.


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Evolution of novel physical (anatomical or morphological) features in multi cellular organisms will eventually require evolution to produce novel tissues (you can not produce a brain unless you first produce brain tissue)
> 
> Embryo development starts with one cell (a fertilized egg) which multiplies by cell division. At some point cells specialize to produce specific tissues such as muscle, bone, artery etc. It is the varying protein composition of cells which causes cells of one tissue type to differ from from cells of another tissue type.
> 
> So evolution requires production of new proteins.
> 
> Back earlier I referred to research by Douglas Axe. He concluded that new proteins could not easily be invented by randomly manipulating DNA sequences. He calculated the probably of success and concluded almost impossible.
> 
> Supernovae's quick "wiki" link rebuttal did not address my post by providing an actual example of a mutation producing a new protein.


None of this really matters since what you described happens in nature and just because we haven't "broken the code" for every little bit of it, doesn't mean evolution is wrong or that not having every answer devalues what we do know. 

As i've said before, Evolution was discovered long before we knew genetics. Genetics only re-enforces evolution and does so beautifully. We then predicted the double helix, a few years later, we image that double helix. It's amazing, it answers the "what next" question and it does so without invaliding the entire theory to begin with.

Everything else is seeking out perceived complexity and using that perceived complexity to cast doubt where there is none. 

The more we learn, the more we learn just how much we don't know but not knowing doesn't mean what we do know is wrong, just that we're working hard to discover the knowable.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> Micro / macro doesn't really matter, they're just misused when convenient and they're only differentiated by relativity.
> 
> In the scale of the universe/cosmos - micro vs macro would be insanely huge.. in the scale of fruit flies, its very small.
> 
> It's still evolution


And you are good at spinning aren't you :spinsmiley:


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> And you are good at spinning aren't you :spinsmiley:


I'm just stopping the spin. :duel:

I mean, aren't you essentially using the gaps argument to try and poke holes in evolution? Aren't you looking at things and projecting complexity?

Lets forget biology for a minute.

A rock is complex. It contains minerals, molecules and atoms. It was formed in ways that would appear complex to. How were the conditions SO perfect for such a BEAUTIFUL rock to form if it was "so random" is the question i would expect from someone trying to shoot down my basic rock theory because they're projecting bias and complexity when the answer is rather simple. 

That rocked formed when conditions where right for that rock but that formation was also conditional on the conditions of the planet from which it was formed, the accretion disc from which the planet was born, the sun from which the accretion disc was derived from and the gas clouds by which the sun was created and the distribution of matter/energy by which the gas cloud was created with and the system by which that exists..

All of it "appears" complex if you seek out complexity but if you understand it from a systems perspective it really becomes simple because that rock needed the universe to be what it was for it to be what it is, but that universe was there for those conditions so the conditions happened and they happened with enough consistency that such a rock was able to flourish.

Put a rock next to a human and they don't appear equally complex, but they have complexity within. They're both made of elements, minerals, organics, both made from the same "star stuff", both are the "perfect combinations" of matter that allow them to be.

Look at a city from an airplane, it seems simple from 30,000 feet but within, its a complex system by which millions of things happen on their own but still appear to be part of a consistent whole. So much so, that cities thrive the world over. the mayor doesn't tell the garbage man to pickup garbage, we evolved to remove garbage with the intelligence it benefits our health and increases our survivability so cities, just like biological systems have complex moving parts by which we mimic our own parts because it works and what works, is what survives to evolve. If we didn't take out the trash, cities wouldn't survive. We almost failed to learn this lesson several times in recorded history with massive plagues and near extinctions.

If that rock didn't have a means to survive.. it wouldn't be a rock i'm holding up today and the elements by which its made of would have been recycled into other matter.

Complexity is not the problem. Its just a biased human perception.


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> He concluded that new proteins could not easily be invented by randomly manipulating DNA sequences.


It's not random. Cells specialize, then evolve to improve on their ability to perform that specialized function.

The idea that evolution is random it probably the biggest misconception about evolution. There is nothing random about natural selection, which accounts for the majority of evolution.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Funny that the man who created evolution said there are many things that could throw his whole theory out the window. And the most powerful one is the honey bee. He said the way it knows to make its comb so prefect in every design shows its intelegant design that was instilled in them by a creator. Here is the problem. Science cannot tell you how dna gets its information. There is no proof of it evolving. A fish no matter how hard it tries cannot tell itself it needs legs and grow them. It's information needs to already be in its dna. Science can't even add that information to dna. It can make mutations in dna but none can be carried over to its offspring.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Do we not use the same dictionary?
> 
> What you described is exactly:
> 
> suÂ·perÂ·natÂ·uÂ·ral
> 
> 
> not of natural world: relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws
> 
> :catfight:
> 
> This is some creative trolling we have going on here.. but come on, nothing i haven't seen before. Lets get above this.


Sorry, but just because you dont understand something does not mean is not of this world or "supernatural"... it just means that your level of understanding and comprehension doesnt "get it". Do you understand what gravity is? or even magnetic force? You probably understand how they behave in some ways, but do you really know what they are, what causes them? I think not..... are either of them part of your "supernatural" realms?


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> But isn't it intersecting that the fossil record shows no evidence of all these creatures coexisting. But hey, if you don't believe in time it doesn't really matter. See you tomorrow, or maybe last week.


There are a number of gaps in the known fossil record. If there werent this whole evolution thing would be considered a law instead of a theory.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> The more we learn, the more we learn just how much we don't know but not knowing doesn't mean what we do know is wrong, just that we're working hard to discover the knowable.


Very good.... at least up to that last clause. I honestly dont think many of the scientific world are really working very hard to discover much about God. But if you could just find it within yourself to understand that God fits into the same realms as everything else you have yet to learn about.... there is just maybe a chance you might be able to learn about Him too.... instead of writing Him off as some nonexistant myth.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> It's not random. Cells specialize, then evolve to improve on their ability to perform that specialized function.
> 
> The idea that evolution is random it probably the biggest misconception about evolution. There is nothing random about natural selection, which accounts for the majority of evolution.


Interesting.... this almost sounds like you are admitting some intelligent force is behind natural selection??


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting.... this almost sounds like you are admitting some intelligent force is behind natural selection??


Not at all. Quite the opposite.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Look at a city from an airplane, it seems simple from 30,000 feet but within, its a complex system by which millions of things happen on their own but still appear to be part of a consistent whole. So much so, that cities thrive the world over.
> 
> the mayor doesn't tell the garbage man to pickup garbage,


Ok, two points here.... first... You need to be really careful with this line of thinking.... you could easily find yourself staring God right in the face.... and secondly, no, the mayor doesnt tell the garbage man to pickup the garbage.... he PAYS him to do it.... else it would pile up and stink.... just like it has historically done in every city the world over.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Not at all. Quite the opposite.


Really? random chance is the opposite of careful, intelligent planning, and our good friend Nevada (with whom you also agreed and confirmed) just stated that random chance has nothing to do with it. So which is it? random chance or according to some organized planned out series of events?


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, two points here.... first... You need to be really careful with this line of thinking.... you could easily find yourself staring God right in the face.... and secondly, no, the mayor doesnt tell the garbage man to pickup the garbage.... he PAYS him to do it.... else it would pile up and stink.... just like it has historically done in every city the world over.


I have nothing to fear.

And the metaphor of a city is a metaphor. The city pays for city trash, but everyone who lives in the city pays for their own trash and private industry operating within the city is usually contracted to handle it. All of that is moot and just shows specialization/adaptaion/exaptation of traits that appear complex but are specialized and improve in specialization independent of the system they operate in.

But i digress, you're absolutely positively not interested in learning anything here.


----------



## doingitmyself

Personally, I believe God created the cosmos, and everything in it. After he created it all, he allows things to evolve naturally. I also believe we will never discover or be able to prove what the truth is, its not for us to know.

I hunt and find some of the worlds very finest detailed fossils in an area called Coal City, Braidwood, Diamond, and New Lenex Illinois. The detail contained in the fossils is so fine that individual strands of plant leaves are observable, so much so that it is like looking at a living leaf except its hard and brown No one here has ever found a fossil of a footprint of a Dino and a footprint of a human in the same rock.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> I have nothing to fear.
> 
> And the metaphor of a city is a metaphor. The city pays for city trash, but everyone who lives in the city pays for their own trash and private industry operating within the city is usually contracted to handle it. All of that is moot and just shows specialization/adaptaion/exaptation of traits that appear complex but are specialized and improve in specialization independent of the system they operate in.
> 
> But i digress, you're absolutely positively not interested in learning anything here.


I am always interested in learning.... its about the only thing I can still do. You dont see me shutting off the existence of the single most intelligent life force in the universe... I learn a lot from God. Not everyone seems to even recognize His existence... much less be willing to learn from Him. 

Trash pickup services didnt just randomly "evolve"..... they are quite carefully planned out.... by pseudo intelligent beings.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Really? random chance is the opposite of careful, intelligent planning, and our good friend Nevada (with whom you also agreed and confirmed) just stated that random chance has nothing to do with it. So which is it? random chance or according to some organized planned out series of events?


It's not random chance and being that its not random chance it doesn't mean its designed. When a female species shows sexual preference for a taller and stronger male, that is both hereditary, sexual preference, social preference and personal preference. If they have a child, depending on the genetic makeup of dominant/recessive traits a child will resemble the adult by which traits were inherited but will be different enough for reasons that we well understand and aren't considered "random" or "by design". IN this case tall males would survive and eventually the entire species may adapt to be taller since there is a natural selection for such traits.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am always interested in learning.... its about the only thing I can still do. You dont see me shutting off the existence of the single most intelligent life force in the universe... I learn a lot from God. Not everyone seems to even recognize His existence... much less be willing to learn from Him.
> 
> Trash pickup services didnt just randomly "evolve"..... they are quite carefully planned out.... by pseudo intelligent beings.


Then how about we get on a skype session so i can read the origin of species to you, so i can teach you about atomic theory, the periodic table of elements, how genetics is understood and we can take some free classes from Coursera and edX and talk about this stuff in terms that the world talks about them.

When it comes to everything i talk about in the context of evolution, god isn't part of it. If you want to talk about god, lets talk about god in the light of religion and philosophy, culture and theology, not under the guise of science.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> It's not random chance and being that its not random chance it doesn't mean its designed. When a female species shows sexual preference for a taller and stronger male, that is both hereditary, sexual preference, social preference and personal preference. If they have a child, depending on the genetic makeup of dominant/recessive traits a child will resemble the adult by which traits were inherited but will be different enough for reasons that we well understand and aren't considered "random" or "by design". IN this case tall males would survive and eventually the entire species may adapt to be taller since there is a natural selection for such traits.


So now you are trying to tell us that women arent "designing" nor intelligent? Ok, you are new here so that might help you out a little but let me tell you this... I have been posting here on HT for a number of years and I have indeed learned that the female posters on this site are not going to take kindly to that kind of talk! :hysterical:


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> When it comes to everything i talk about in the context of evolution, god isn't part of it. If you want to talk about god, lets talk about god in the light of religion and philosophy, culture and theology, not under the guise of science.


Why cant we discuss Gods rightful place in science? Is that because you think He is not part of the natural world around us??? That He is not found in every atom found on those periodic tables? That He isnt the energy your scientific friends insist that all matter is constructed of? Why would we discuss God and treat Him any differently than we would any of the rest of the natural phenomena we see around us every day? That would be similar to having a discussion about cooking but not being allowed to mention food. 

(I dont do skype)


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So now you are trying to tell us that women arent "designing" nor intelligent? Ok, you are new here so that might help you out a little but let me tell you this... I have been posting here on HT for a number of years and I have indeed learned that the female posters on this site are not going to take kindly to that kind of talk! :hysterical:


Seriously, you're trolling _way_ too hard now.

A female can be female of any species and talking about sexual preference is not taboo and is perfectly normal. *The selection process of female species isn't based on an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER its based on their PREFERENCE amongst MANY other things.*

You're the one who can't seem to keep "intelligence" in the right context. *NOWHERE* did i say women aren't intelligent.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why cant we discuss Gods rightful place in science? Is that because you think He is not part of the natural world around us??? That He is not found in every atom found on those periodic tables? That He isnt the energy your scientific friends insist that all matter is constructed of? Why would we discuss God and treat Him any differently than we would any of the rest of the natural phenomena we see around us every day? That would be similar to having a discussion about cooking but not being allowed to mention food.


Because there is nothing in science that has the burden of proof handed to god. Absolutely nothing. The context of god absolutely belongs in philosophy and I'm perfectly capable of discussing it there.



> (I dont do skype)


You don't make sense either.

What do you do? I can pickup a phone, we can google hangout, heck, if you're in Texas, i'll drive to your house and bring some books, DVD's, movies, my laptop/tablet and we'll get'r'done.

Anything is better than this trolling at this point.


----------



## watcher

I'm supposed to be gone but due to factors beyond my control I'm still here and might be for a few more days so. . . .I'm not going to start from where I left off I'm just going to start again from somewhere.


----------



## supernovae

This offer goes out to anyone who wants to understand the world around them. PM me and we can setup a study group. Fun stuff!


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Evolution theory is explained as small incremental changes accumulating to produce large changes. The terms micro and macro were not invented by creationists. The precise meaning of these terms has evolved over time and if you google now you will not find a coherent definition of these terms.http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/evoscales_03


Yes, but that's not to say that large changes don't eventually take place. As an example, when a population is cut off from the rest of the species it will evolve on its own path. We saw that with _The beak of the Finch_, when small changes over time allowed the finches on Galapagos to evolve into a different species.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> It's not a number, but if you assign a variable symbol to a value that's infinity you can manipulate it in an algebraic expression as if it were a number. When it's removed from the denominator, often the expression can be solved with meaningful results. That's what differential calculus teaches us to do.


Yep, that's math for you. If you need something to make it work you just make it up and say it works. 

Strange isn't it that math has no problem accepting things which don't really exist in our concept of the world, square root of -1, when its necessary to make things work but scientist can't accept the fact that something which may not exist in our concept of the world could be the answer they are looking for?


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> I'm supposed to be gone but due to factors beyond my control I'm still here and might be for a few more days so. . . .I'm not going to start from where I left off I'm just going to start again from somewhere.


hahaha, i'm out tomorrow afternoon for a week. I'm not sure i'll want to come back to this thread then. :gossip:


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> That's true. Evolution and the origin of life are two different subjects.
> 
> There are various hypotheses about the origin of life. The important thing to remember when trying to wrap your head around the idea of spontaneous life is that non-living chemicals sometimes arrange themselves in an organized fashion on their own. For example, detergent and soap molecules sometimes arrange themselves into a bubble, yet nobody guided that organization. Once things are arranged in a convenient fashion the stage is set for things to happen.
> 
> While we don't fully understand the mechanism that created the first life on earth, we can imagine that circumstances could have arisen that might have set the stage for the formation of life.
> 
> But we shouldn't attribute phenomena that we don't understand to be the result of actions by a supernatural being simply because we can't explain it satisfactorily. That mistake has already been made too many times in the past.


But w/o knowing how life started how can you make assumptions on how it grew? Heck for all we know lighting striking the primordial ooze might have cause a full grown T-Rex to pop up along with an Anatosaurus for him to snack on. A good sized thunderstorm could have created herds of critters.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> Yep, that's math for you. If you need something to make it work you just make it up and say it works.


Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

BTW, Calculus was invented by Isaac Newton and Leibniz and much of what we understand about math was the direct result of the number theory employed by calculus.

BTW2: Math is how you and i are able to communicate (000011101010101010001110011010101), how satellites orbit the earth, how the bridges you drive over don't fall down, how spaceships with rovers on them can fly to other planets. Cool stuff. It's got proofs and its got application.



> Strange isn't it that math has no problem accepting things which don't really exist in our concept of the world, square root of -1, when its necessary to make things work but scientist can't accept the fact that something which may not exist in our concept of the world could be the answer they are looking for?


The world is MUCH stranger than you give it credit for. Try and understand quantum mechanics, field theories, heck, electromagnetism and the photon wave/particle duality. You haven't even scratched the surface of weird.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why cant we discuss Gods rightful place in science?


As I've said before, science is a rational discipline. There is nothing rational about attributing phenomena to a god that we can't demonstrate exists. If you start teaching that God exists in science class then it becomes more like church and less like school. That's not only illegal, it's unfair to students who are there to develop a scientific background.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> But w/o knowing how life started how can you make assumptions on how it grew? Heck for all we know lighting striking the primordial ooze might have cause a full grown T-Rex to pop up along with an Anatosaurus for him to snack on. A good sized thunderstorm could have created herds of critters.


We absolutely know this didn't happen. We know species evolved from simple organisms. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the theory of evolution.

I doubt you believe the stuff you're even saying, this is silly.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Because there is nothing in science that has the burden of proof handed to god. Absolutely nothing. The context of god absolutely belongs in philosophy and I'm perfectly capable of discussing it there.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't make sense either.
> 
> What do you do? I can pickup a phone, we can google hangout, heck, if you're in Texas, i'll drive to your house and bring some books, DVD's, movies, my laptop/tablet and we'll get'r'done.
> 
> Anything is better than this trolling at this point.


I am not in Texas and I can type, read and think. Since you are relatively new here you are probably unaware of some of my physical limitations.... having little to no capacity for speech most of the time I dont do phones except on rare occasions. 

I have "done" a lot of things in the past, prior to my disabilities, but these days I mostly hang out on this forum. 

Please accept my most humble apologies for my lack of communication skills, but I am honestly trying to learn as well as pass on to others the few things that I have learned. I am not "trolling" or baiting nor anything of that nature.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Religion is just a belief in a supernatural power/god..


Ah. . .no. Its a set of beliefs which a person uses to guide themselves in their life.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> I'm supposed to be gone but due to factors beyond my control I'm still here and might be for a few more days so. . . .I'm not going to start from where I left off I'm just going to start again from somewhere.


Welcome back


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Yep, that's math for you. If you need something to make it work you just make it up and say it works.
> 
> Strange isn't it that math has no problem accepting things which don't really exist in our concept of the world, square root of -1, when its necessary to make things work but scientist can't accept the fact that something which may not exist in our concept of the world could be the answer they are looking for?


Your attitude towards math reminds me of a discussion between Alice and the Queen of Hearts in _Alice in Wonderland_.

Queen: Can you subtract?
Alice: Yes.
Queen: Okay, what's three take away five?
Alice: Three take away five? I can't...

But seriously, calculus can be used to solve some very down to earth problems.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not in Texas and I can type, read and think. Since you are relatively new here you are probably unaware of some of my physical limitations.... having little to no capacity for speech most of the time I dont do phones except on rare occasions.


You're right, i don't actually personally know anyone here that i'm aware of. I'm not making such a claim. I'm simply handing an olive branch out.



> I have "done" a lot of things in the past, prior to my disabilities, but these days I mostly hang out on this forum.
> 
> Please accept my most humble apologies for my lack of communication skills, but I am honestly trying to learn as well as pass on to others the few things that I have learned. I am not "trolling" or baiting nor anything of that nature.


I appreciate this. Sometimes it does seem like you're trolling when all you do is choose an odd context to attack the message rather than the subject matter.

I like learning and i love teaching. 

I also don't wish disabilities upon anyone and i think its fantastic and amazing that we have technology that allows you to stay connected to the world even through dissabilities.

I apologize if i got to rude myself. I'll try and keep my cool 

and yes, i totally understand you want to share the word of god in what you do and i respect that. I just haven't found a reason to put it into the context of evolution and without context, i have nothing to add to a god hypothesis.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Micro evolution is a term used to justify an admission that small evolutionary changes occur while still contending that big evolutionary changes are impossible. Creationists need to have the distinction between micro & macro evolution because they can't deny that small evolutionary changes occur, since small changes can be observed.


Are you saying that deevolution happens?


----------



## supernovae

Nevada said:


> But seriously, calculus can be used to solve some very down to earth problems.


Israel is using it to bomb Palestine as we speak..

probably not the best example huh.. :flameproofundies:


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> Are you saying that deevolution happens?


evolution isn't always forward, lots of species never make it. Its a tree with many branches and some of them are very short and really, there is no such thing as deevolution, only evolutionary dead ends from something that either fails or is detrimental to survival.

Some great stories about birds that evolved so much to attract mates that they became so visible their own survival was at risk.. its not "deevolution" but it can be "evolutionary dead end" for them if they all get eaten because they stick out like a sore thumb.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> As I've said before, science is a rational discipline. There is nothing rational about attributing phenomena to a god that we can't demonstrate exists. If you start teaching that God exists in science class then it becomes more like church and less like school. *That's not only illegal, it's unfair to students who are there to develop a scientific background.*


I dont think its illegal to teach students about God..... its teaching them about religion that is so frowned upon. (understandably so) 

Do you think it would be unfair to teach a cooking class, but forbidding the mention of any food?


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Micro / macro doesn't really matter, they're just misused when convenient and they're only differentiated by relativity.
> 
> In the scale of the universe/cosmos - micro vs macro would be insanely huge.. in the scale of fruit flies, its very small.
> 
> It's still evolution


But it doesn't work the same. The rules which govern microeconomics are not the same ones which govern macroeconomics. In the same the rules which govern microevolution are not the same as for macroevolution. 

If they were it would be very easy to prove macroevolution. You take a fast breeding organism and expose it to different forms of mutating energy (chemical, radiological, etc) and different environments. In a period of time you should be able to produce a different life form. After all a few years or decades being exposed to say the equivalent of 100 times the earth's background radiation in an environment so cold the organism can just survive should be able to change its DNA so it can grow fur, assuming it doesn't start with it, or something. Right? After all it only takes what one or two generations for microevolution to take place.

Wait. How about this. Since finches are used so much to show how evolution happens, you take a bunch of finches and you encase their food in an increasing thicker and harder substance. After a while they should grow teeth to chew through the shell.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont think its illegal to teach students about God..... its teaching them about religion that is so frowned upon. (understandably so)


Teach religion in religion studies and philosophy class.

Teach science in science class.



> Do you think it would be unfair to teach a cooking class, but forbidding the mention of any food?


Teach food in cooking/food science class.

I think you answered your own question.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Do you think it would be unfair to teach a cooking class, but forbidding the mention of any food?


The existence if food is a rational assertion.

To be fair, if we could prove the existence of God then I would have no problem covering his existence, and even his hand in the origin of man, in science class.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> You're right, i don't actually personally know anyone here that i'm aware of. I'm not making such a claim. I'm simply handing an olive branch out.
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate this. Sometimes it does seem like you're trolling when all you do is choose an odd context to attack the message rather than the subject matter.
> 
> I like learning and i love teaching.
> 
> I also don't wish disabilities upon anyone and i think its fantastic and amazing that we have technology that allows you to stay connected to the world even through dissabilities.
> 
> I apologize if i got to rude myself. I'll try and keep my cool
> 
> and yes, i totally understand you want to share the word of god in what you do and i respect that. I just haven't found a reason to put it into the context of evolution and without context, i have nothing to add to a god hypothesis.


No worries, Its all good. 

As to your last paragraph... again let me ask.... how can one teach someone to cook, without bringing in the context of food? Tricky to say the least.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont think its illegal to teach students about God..... its teaching them about religion that is so frowned upon. (understandably so)


My point was that if we could definitively establish the existence in God then teaching about him in science class wouldn't be teaching religion. It would be an undeniable fact that scientists and students would have to consider.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> But it doesn't work the same. The rules which govern microeconomics are not the same ones which govern macroeconomics. In the same the rules which govern microevolution are not the same as for macroevolution.


They are exactly the same "rules".



> If they were it would be very easy to prove macroevolution. You take a fast breeding organism and expose it to different forms of mutating energy (chemical, radiological, etc) and different environments.


We've done this experimentally. You can do it with food, temperature, selective breeding. It's how we get dogs, cats, rabbits and pets to look as funny as they do as well.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_45



> In a period of time you should be able to produce a different life form. After all a few years or decades being exposed to say the equivalent of 100 times the earth's background radiation in an environment so cold the organism can just survive should be able to change its DNA so it can grow fur, assuming it doesn't start with it, or something. Right? After all it only takes what one or two generations for microevolution to take place.


You don't get a new life form, you get speciation. The generations of microevolution can happen in a single event if all you care about are micro events such as bigger feet, different colored eyes or a different skin tone. I'm not sure what your point is.



> Wait. How about this. Since finches are used so much to show how evolution happens, you take a bunch of finches and you encase their food in an increasing thicker and harder substance. After a while they should grow teeth to chew through the shell.


They don't grow teeth, they grow different beaks and this was the experimental evidence for evolution in the galapagos islands where different species from the same evolutionary branch evolved to local adaptations to survive. They absolutely grew thicker beaks able to break nuts, just as others grew longer/thinner beaks to get nectar on islands with flowering plants and others specialized in digging for bugs.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> No worries, Its all good.
> 
> As to your last paragraph... again let me ask.... how can one teach someone to cook, without bringing in the context of food? Tricky to say the least.


Its obvious to teach someone to cook with food, just as its obvious to teach science in science class and god in religious studies.

You don't need god to cook food do you?
You don't need god to turn on your tv or push these bytes across the internet for all to read do you?

You need god to talk about religion, god and theology. So that's where it fits.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> It's not random. Cells specialize, then evolve to improve on their ability to perform that specialized function.
> 
> The idea that evolution is random it probably the biggest misconception about evolution. There is nothing random about natural selection, which accounts for the majority of evolution.


Time out. What makes a cell specialize? And what makes a cell that is specialized mutate into something which is outside its specialized need? What would make a cell which is specialized itself for carrying O2 to different parts of the organism start to mutate to react to light then specialize into a photoreceptor cell?

That kind of a leap is illogical. Your evolution model you'd think a cell which is carrying O2 would keep specializing to the point it would do nothing but carry O2 and another cell would be used to carry away the CO2 and others would do nothing but carry a single item needed.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> The existence if food is a rational assertion.


And the existence of God is every bit as rational.... to those who are willing to admit His existence. Again, I am not talking about sunday school here, nor anything any preacher has talked about... this isnt about religion or philosophy... its about God. The very force that the entire universe is comprised of at its smallest level... pure energy, but not unlike the "city as an organism" metaphor brought up a few posts back.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Its obvious to teach someone to cook with food, just as its obvious to teach science in science class and god in religious studies.
> 
> You don't need god to cook food do you?
> You don't need god to turn on your tv or push these bytes across the internet for all to read do you?
> 
> You need god to talk about religion, god and theology. So that's where it fits.


I dont seem to be able to find a way to get you to separate God from religion.... durn preachers anyway!!!! Its not your fault, I obviously lack the vocabulary required.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Yes, but that's not to say that large changes don't eventually take place. As an example, when a population is cut off from the rest of the species it will evolve on its own path. We saw that with _The beak of the Finch_, when small changes over time allowed the finches on Galapagos to evolve into a different species.


So they could no longer breed with finches from different parts of the world?


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> Time out. What makes a cell specialize?


Evolution drives specialization. Sexual Selection, Natural Selection, Survival of the fittest. Species adapt or die, that's the way life is and that's what makes evolution such a beautifully simple concept to understand. 



> And what makes a cell that is specialized mutate into something which is outside its specialized need?


Evolution does this.. its why you have vestigial organs. They may have served a purpose in prior generations or been a mutation of no purpose/value but our bodies haven't evolved far enough away to remove them.

Look at whale skeletons, they have funny looking arms but in reality they're flippers and they have a hip bone which is vestigial from actually once evolving out of the ocean. How cool is that! They started in the ocean as all species did, they went on land and then back to the ocean. Cool!



> What would make a cell which is specialized itself for carrying O2 to different parts of the organism start to mutate to react to light then specialize into a photoreceptor cell?


If such a cell offers the species an increase in survival and it isn't detrimental to the variety of other selectors then said mutation will translate to a beneficial trait that is passed down genetically. 



> That kind of a leap is illogical. Your evolution model you'd think a cell which is carrying O2 would keep specializing to the point it would do nothing but carry O2 and another cell would be used to carry away the CO2 and others would do nothing but carry a single item needed.


Just because one cell specializes in one way, doesn't stop cells from continuing to evolve as other evolutionary paths may increase or decease survivability dependent on many factors. specialization and speciation doesn't END evolution. The end of evolution is when said species becomes extinct and that is the end only for that species. We know ancestors live on since we all share common ancestors.

There *IS* a delicate balance. Look at cheetahs, they evolved to be fast. I mean, what, 75mph or something insane like that for top burst? With speed they had to sacrifice durability - they have fragile bones because their bones are designed for SPEED not durability and have evolved to be very light weight. Their pray specialized too because only the fittest survived. Rabbits survived by sexual abundance and burrowing. They just mate like crazy where as other animals developed hooves to kick (break the bones of predators) or horns or whatever it may be. All in all the animal kingdom is in a never ending balance of power, an arms race of sorts that drives the survival of traits that are advantageous to survival. BEAUTIFUL STUFF!


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Nope.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics
> 
> BTW, Calculus was invented by Isaac Newton and Leibniz and much of what we understand about math was the direct result of the number theory employed by calculus.
> 
> BTW2: Math is how you and i are able to communicate (000011101010101010001110011010101), how satellites orbit the earth, how the bridges you drive over don't fall down, how spaceships with rovers on them can fly to other planets. Cool stuff. It's got proofs and its got application.
> 
> 
> 
> The world is MUCH stranger than you give it credit for. Try and understand quantum mechanics, field theories, heck, electromagnetism and the photon wave/particle duality. You haven't even scratched the surface of weird.


The point is by math 'law' you can not multiply any number by itself and get a negative number therefore you can not get a square root of a negative number. But there are times when mathematics discovered they had to be able to do this for some of their math to work they just 'imagined' there was one and only one and called it "_i". _It doesn't exist, it can't exist and they know that and they all agree but they have no problem at all using it.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> So they could no longer breed with finches from different parts of the world?


The probably could, but I don't think they wanted to.

:hysterical:

But seriously, they evolved to the point where they couldn't have produced viable young.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> We absolutely know this didn't happen. We know species evolved from simple organisms. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the theory of evolution.


Really? Then what did happen? Who was there to see it? Do we know it or do we assume it based on a few theories stacked upon a few more?




supernovae said:


> I doubt you believe the stuff you're even saying, this is silly.


There was supposed to be a smiley after that because I was being silly. We all know that it took TWO lighting strikes to make the T-rex.


But it does raise the point. You assume things are true because someone shows you evidence of it being true. But many times that evidence is based on a theory. 

If I show you a stalagmite that is 1 meter tall and tell you it is 50,000 years old. How do you know that? Because there is evidence showing how minerals build up over time. But . . .Isn't the age based on the assumption that the water dripping on it has always had the same mineral content? Isn't it based on the assumption that the rate of water seeping in. How do you know that 30,000 years ago the water stopped for for 10,000 years?


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont seem to be able to find a way to get you to separate God from religion.... durn preachers anyway!!!! Its not your fault, I obviously lack the vocabulary required.


There is no need to try and convince me of this.

If you have a philosophy or belief in god, you have a religion. I don't think we get anywhere by playing word games to change this.

religion (r&#618;&#712;l&#618;d&#658;&#601;n) ân: 1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny.

I have some Christian friends who try and tell me they're not religious.. i snicker. Its just semantics. I understand they're trying to distinguish themselves from some pejorative view of religion when they do this, but that distinguishment doesn't mean anything to me. They're religious.

Am i being dense? sure.. But its only because i see things as religious or non religious.

Not God, no god, Religion and god, religion and not god, god and no religion, religion and no god or whatever variation of the same context people want to come up with. I hear it all the time.. I mean, if we want to really mess with words then EVERYONE is an atheist.. some people just one god further.. But that wins nothing and confuses people and is merely an argument for the sake of argument.


----------



## watcher

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Welcome back


Thanks but no thanks. I'm supposed to be on my way to see my daughter's new little boy but. . . .


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Your attitude towards math reminds me of a discussion between Alice and the Queen of Hearts in _Alice in Wonderland_.
> 
> Queen: Can you subtract?
> Alice: Yes.
> Queen: Okay, what's three take away five?
> Alice: Three take away five? I can't...
> 
> But seriously, calculus can be used to solve some very down to earth problems.


Oh I know. I've had a lot of it pounded into my head. If you did some of the graphs with colored ink on colored paper they could hang in art galleries and sell for big bucks. And you, like me, are old enough you didn't have fancy dodads to make them. I bet you are one of the few who wouldn't think about women when I say "french curve".


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> There is no need to try and convince me of this.
> 
> If you have a philosophy or belief in god, you have a religion. I don't think we get anywhere by playing word games to change this.
> 
> religion (r&#618;&#712;l&#618;d&#658;&#601;n) ân: 1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny.
> 
> I have some Christian friends who try and tell me they're not religious.. i snicker. Its just semantics. I understand they're trying to distinguish themselves from some pejorative view of religion when they do this, but that distinguishment doesn't mean anything to me. They're religious.
> 
> Am i being dense? sure.. But its only because i see things as religious or non religious.
> 
> Not God, no god, Religion and god, religion and not god, god and no religion, religion and no god or whatever variation of the same context people want to come up with. I hear it all the time.. I mean, if we want to really mess with words then EVERYONE is an atheist.. some people just one god further.. But that wins nothing and confuses people and is merely an argument for the sake of argument.


Yes, it is relevant, and until you understand what I have been trying to get across to you, you simply arent going to be able to understand what I am talking about.... you are still tying religion to God. Tie science to Him instead and then we can see much more eye to eye. I am unable to separate God and science.... they are so much intertwined they cannot be separated.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

In our context religion is a broad context word for a series of different beliefs. Thats why people ask what religion are you? Your babtist, pentecostal, catholic etc.. Beleiving in God does not make you a religious person. It makes yo believer. Thats hwo we are labled in the bible. Jesus said you are a believer or unbeliever, a Jew or gentile which is the same meaning. So you can def seperate God from religion because he has no religion either. But I also agree he is the greatest scientist the world has ever seen as well. He did with the snap of a finger what man will never be able to do or understand.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> evolution isn't always forward, lots of species never make it. Its a tree with many branches and some of them are very short and really, there is no such thing as deevolution, only evolutionary dead ends from something that either fails or is detrimental to survival.
> 
> Some great stories about birds that evolved so much to attract mates that they became so visible their own survival was at risk.. its not "deevolution" but it can be "evolutionary dead end" for them if they all get eaten because they stick out like a sore thumb.


So since you now say that (and I quote) "there is no such thing as deevolution" you have to say that once a finch has evolved to have a large beak it can never deevolve (should that be devolve?) to having a small beak?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> If I show you a stalagmite that is 1 meter tall and tell you it is 50,000 years old. How do you know that? Because there is evidence showing how minerals build up over time. But . . .Isn't the age based on the assumption that the water dripping on it has always had the same mineral content? Isn't it based on the assumption that the rate of water seeping in. How do you know that 30,000 years ago the water stopped for for 10,000 years?


There are more straightforward examples. There's a redwood tree in California that's said to be 6800 years old. They know that because of taking boring samples and counting rings.

Scientists have taken ice samples in Antarctica that are tens of thousands of years old. They know that by counting layers of ice.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> Really? Then what did happen? Who was there to see it? Do we know it or do we assume it based on a few theories stacked upon a few more?


hahaha. The "who saw it" attack vector, I haven't heard that one in a while. We see it everwhere. We see it when we research genetics, when we research fossils, when we research speciation. The evidence is everywhere.. the bacteria in your gut, your keyboard, you, me, the birds flying around us, the viruses ready to invade us. Evolution is emergent.



> There was supposed to be a smiley after that because I was being silly. We all know that it took TWO lighting strikes to make the T-rex.


Lightning strikes 630,720,000 times a year on average. You're still not going to generate a T-Rex instantly since we know evolution doesn't happen like that.



> But it does raise the point. You assume things are true because someone shows you evidence of it being true. But many times that evidence is based on a theory.


The evidence supports the theory and that theory is considered fact. You have no point other than trying to change the definition of theory.



> If I show you a stalagmite that is 1 meter tall and tell you it is 50,000 years old. How do you know that? Because there is evidence showing how minerals build up over time. But . . .Isn't the age based on the assumption that the water dripping on it has always had the same mineral content? Isn't it based on the assumption that the rate of water seeping in. How do you know that 30,000 years ago the water stopped for for 10,000 years?


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130606154403.htm


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> So since you now say that (and I quote) "there is no such thing as deevolution" you have to say that once a finch has evolved to have a large beak it can never deevolve (should that be devolve?) to having a small beak?


You get stuck on the words and miss the concepts,


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> So since you now say that (and I quote) "there is no such thing as deevolution" you have to say that once a finch has evolved to have a large beak it can never deevolve (should that be devolve?) to having a small beak?


This is a backwards question.

The entire finch population didn't evolve, just one species.

The other species still exist. 

It can evolve into a smaller beak if it is advantageous to survival such as if they re-migrate to an area or the environment changes around them. (or the ones with smaller beaks move in and the longer or harder beaks go extinct.. its not one way, its competitive, survival of the fittest, sexual and natural selection)

I already gave the example of a whale. They have vestigial organs from when they used to live on land and went back to water.

Nothing devolves, it just perpetually evolves or becomes a dead end. Survival of the fittest never ends.. well, at least until global extinction.

no matter what, if the habitat changes to be advantageous to smaller beaks, that is not "De evolving" that is evolving for survival of the fittest.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> You get stuck on the words and miss the concepts,


Seems to be a common problem in this discussion!


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Evolution drives specialization. Sexual Selection, Natural Selection, Survival of the fittest. Species adapt or die, that's the way life is and that's what makes evolution such a beautifully simple concept to understand.
> 
> Evolution does this.. its why you have vestigial organs. They may have served a purpose in prior generations or been a mutation of no purpose/value but our bodies haven't evolved far enough away to remove them.


A bit of circular logic there ain't it. You can't just say something evolves due to evolution. 




supernovae said:


> Just because one cell specializes in one way, doesn't stop cells from continuing to evolve as other evolutionary paths may increase or decease survivability dependent on many factors. specialization and speciation doesn't END evolution. The end of evolution is when said species becomes extinct and that is the end only for that species. We know ancestors live on since we all share common ancestors.


Now I'm very confused. Are you say specialization happens because of evolution but you also say that because of evolution specialization stops? Go back to my blood system analogy. Using evolution logic a blood cell which evolves to carry O2 should continue to evolve/specialize to the point its only job is to carry O2. After all doing anything else cause it to be less specialized right?




supernovae said:


> There *IS* a delicate balance. Look at cheetahs, they evolved to be fast. I mean, what, 75mph or something insane like that for top burst? With speed they had to sacrifice durability - they have fragile bones because their bones are designed for SPEED not durability and have evolved to be very light weight. Their pray specialized too because only the fittest survived. Rabbits survived by sexual abundance and burrowing. They just mate like crazy where as other animals developed hooves to kick (break the bones of predators) or horns or whatever it may be. All in all the animal kingdom is in a never ending balance of power, an arms race of sorts that drives the survival of traits that are advantageous to survival. BEAUTIFUL STUFF!


All of that is based on the fact that you already had cheetahs and rabbits and the ones with those traits were the ones who lived to pass them along.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> There are more straightforward examples. There's a redwood tree in California that's said to be 6800 years old. They know that because of taking boring samples and counting rings.
> 
> Scientists have taken ice samples in Antarctica that are tens of thousands of years old. They know that by counting layers of ice.


Doesn't work here because you can't count layers of rock and know it took one year for it to form. You have to take it on faith that what you are seeing today is what has always happened.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> You get stuck on the words and miss the concepts,


Words mean things. Something can either deevolve or not. If it can then in theory if something happens man should be able to devolve back to another state to wait to reevolve back into man when conditions change back. Is that not a logical view of evolution?


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> This is a backwards question.
> 
> The entire finch population didn't evolve, just one species.
> 
> The other species still exist.
> 
> I already gave the example of a whale. They have vestigial organs from when they used to live on land and went back to water.



I wish you guys would pick a critter and stay with it. If you wish let's change to whales. 

Say someone drilled a hole in the ocean floor and all the water started draining out. Would whales then deevolve back to land living critters? Seems logical to me. And would they still have the same DNA?




supernovae said:


> no matter what, if the habitat changes to be advantageous to smaller beaks, that is not "De evolving" that is evolving for survival of the fittest.


So it is possible for finches (back to the birds again) can't devolve but they can evolve backwards. Does that mean at some point a finch which can now no longer breed with another would be able to evolve backwards to the point it would be able to do so?

Yes I'm being a little silly (partly because I'm VERY short on sleep) but I am trying to make a point. You are saying that macroevolution takes place and when it does DNA changes to the point a bird becomes a lizard or a lizard a bird or a finch a whale or some such. If that is true then it must also be true that DNA should be able to revert/change back. Why have we never seen any evidence of this?


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> A bit of circular logic there ain't it. You can't just say something evolves due to evolution.


The theory of evolution describes the process of evolving. It's not circular when you understand the depth and breadth of the theory. The name of it does no justice to the science therein.



> Now I'm very confused. Are you say specialization happens because of evolution but you also say that because of evolution specialization stops? Go back to my blood system analogy. Using evolution logic a blood cell which evolves to carry O2 should continue to evolve/specialize to the point its only job is to carry O2. After all doing anything else cause it to be less specialized right?


Evolution never stops, specialization never stops, speciation never stops. Some people have different blood types, some people have genetic dispositions to diabetes or cycle cell anemia. These are genetic dispositions that we can map and understand then derive if they're dominant or recessive.

You're so focused on the "new" piece you're forgetting that the old still exists. When I had my kids, my wife and I didn't die and cease to exist or evolve into my children.



> All of that is based on the fact that you already had cheetahs and rabbits and the ones with those traits were the ones who lived to pass them along.


Not at all. Rabbits and cheetahs are still evolving and both species are part of greater families and share ancestors based upon their common and shared DNA.

A million years from now, we may not recognize any species as it is today as we will have all evolved.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Wow ... frame shift mutation creates new proteins

*I am finally convinced evolution is possible !!!!!

**"It is important to note that not all frameshift mutations result in unstable, inactive proteins. Indeed, frameshift mutations can lead to new genes and novel proteins. After all, it is the ability to change DNA that leads to genetic adaptation and, ultimately, evolution of a species."

http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/77358.aspx

Oh no ... where is the example of a new protein.... the article states 
*
*" frameshift mutations can lead to new genes and novel proteins."

......... then examples are provided of frameshift mutations causing damage to existing proteins and the resulting diseases produced.

Just as I suspected ... no example of mutation producing a novel protein...

maybe I should google again
*


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> I wish you guys would pick a critter and stay with it. If you wish let's change to whales.


The beauty of evolution is that it doesn't matter which animal we choose.



> Say someone drilled a hole in the ocean floor and all the water started draining out. Would whales then deevolve back to land living critters? Seems logical to me. And would they still have the same DNA?


Completely illogical. I had to chuckle at drilling a hole in the ocean floor since that assumes the middle of the earth is some void that water would fill but at the same time, its not logical at all to assume whales would survive. Now if the earth crust was to sink into the ocean again and the continents became vast swamps, perhaps whales over time would once again become land creatures as they adapt to trying to have more survivability in lush tropical swamps - but this again, is over eons. We're talking hundreds of millions of years where that means billions if not trillions of ancestral variations and transitions. The scale is mind boggling.



> So it is possible for finches (back to the birds again) can't devolve but they can evolve backwards. Does that mean at some point a finch which can now no longer breed with another would be able to evolve backwards to the point it would be able to do so?


Huh? There is no backwards and forwards as there is no "Control" finch that one measures as good or bad to move forward/backward from and the entire finch species doesn't change, just speciation within the species and they may die off or they may evolve independently as witnessed in the Galapagos. 



> Yes I'm being a little silly (partly because I'm VERY short on sleep) but I am trying to make a point. You are saying that macroevolution takes place and when it does DNA changes to the point a bird becomes a lizard or a lizard a bird or a finch a whale or some such. If that is true then it must also be true that DNA should be able to revert/change back. Why have we never seen any evidence of this?


There is no back and forth change. We're ancestors, not copies of an original. There is no master DNA that we all vary from, we just have heritage and variation which is described through evolution. We can trace back ancestry through our knowledge of the "tree of life" and find out where we branched off but there is no going back, that's absurd. The branches lead off to further branches or die off in evolutionary dead ends, they don't rewind but nothing stops them from converging as long as the variation isn't so strong to prevent such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution


----------



## unregistered353870

supernovae said:


> hahaha. The "who saw it" attack vector, I haven't heard that one in a while. We see it everwhere. We see it when we research genetics, when we research fossils, when we research speciation. The evidence is everywhere.. the bacteria in your gut, your keyboard, you, me, the birds flying around us, the viruses ready to invade us. Evolution is emergent.


I expect much better from science than an answer like this. This sounds a lot like religious people who see God everywhere...in the sunsets, in the mountains, in a baby's first step. I don't doubt that they see what they see or that you see what you see, but both are religious.


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> maybe I should google again



Or just realize every living creature is an example of evolution and just because you have a question, doesn't mean there isn't an answer.

Keep on researching!

BTW, mutations of proteins would be considered diseases since they aren't natural in the systems by which they mutated from (Cancers, parapalegia so on and so forth), unless you're trying to talk about a new protein for hereditary reasons that is passed down or something? I dunno. proteins having bonding and structure properties, what are you expecting the to do regarding these properties?


----------



## supernovae

jtbrandt said:


> I expect much better from science than an answer like this. This sounds a lot like religious people who see God everywhere...in the sunsets, in the mountains, in a baby's first step. I don't doubt that they see what they see or that you see what you see, but both are religious.


Hardly.

I gave great examples, but I skipped out on the mental/cognitive/biases/psychology and temporal issues of the human mind because it would detract from evolution.

We KNOW that "what we see" isn't everything and we see what we want to see and our memories are not as good as we think we are. Plenty of people on death row were wrongly convicted because someone thought they saw something they didn't see because of MANY reasons.

So "humans didn't see it" means very little.

So what is it that you were asking? I can't take the "humans didn't see it" nonsense as a serious question. Humans can't see atoms, we can't see galaxies billions of light years away, we can't see the entire spectrum of light, we can't see oxygen, we can't see molecules. We can't see, touch, hear, sense much of the "Real" world around us.

Do you see these bytes as I type them getting turned into packets and routed across the network to you for you to read or do you simply see the end result of what I typed and have to infer it was really me who typed them? I mean, you trust the network, trust http, trust the browser and your computer that this is a real reply being typing this and that the entire system worked. You can't "observe" me doing it, but by not "observing" it doesn't change the fact you're reading this and seeing it. Your observation is the final output, not the process and you can see the process as the topic evolved. How cute huh!

In science, what we see is called observations and we confirm these observations through peer review. Not everything survives peer review, its a great way to remove errors, biases and invalid results. That's just how it works. We have MANY decades of observational, statistical, biological and living evidence of evolution that we witness EVERY DAY and we have historical records that we analyze that were luckily preserved because.. Fossils. 

Its the very reason "intelligent design" isn't taught in science class because there is no observational evidence and every time they thought they had evidence science was able to prove and evolutionary mechanism to explain complexity and then we showed how complexity doesn't mean squat since complexity is only in the eye of the beholder.

*To be honest, you don't expect anything. If you did, you would respect the fact I've spent so much time spelling everything out that you still choose to deny. Make up your mind.*

The only thing you can do is insult me when I don't indulge something that isn't worth indulging??? If so, Fantastic! I indulged it and I'll presume you will still ignore it.

Did this answer the question? probably not... i'm sure it just opened more cans of worms..


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Doesn't work here because you can't count layers of rock and know it took one year for it to form. You have to take it on faith that what you are seeing today is what has always happened.


You can at the Grand Canyon.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Humans can't see atoms, we can't see galaxies billions of light years away, we can't see the entire spectrum of light, we can't see oxygen, we can't see molecules. We can't see, touch, hear, sense much of the "Real" world around us.


And yet many of us swallow hook line and sinker all of these things.... and totally reject the existence of God.... based on the fact that they havent seen Him.... even though thousands of others have. :shrug:


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And yet many of us swallow hook line and sinker all of these things.... and totally reject the existence of God.... based on the fact that they havent seen Him.... even though thousands of others have. :shrug:


Sometimes not. As I said before, I reject some of quantum mechanics because I don't accept parallel universes. I think they made it up.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And yet many of us swallow hook line and sinker all of these things.... and totally reject the existence of God.... based on the fact that they havent seen Him.... even though thousands of others have. :shrug:


This doesn't mean anything. I said earlier I once saw a car talk to me but I know I was sleep deprived and malnourished and over worked and stressed. Our mind plays games with us.

Other people have been able to replicate my psychosis by depriving themselves of sleep - studying brain waves, bio-chemical responses and neurological patterns to try and derive how/why this happens. It's a very interesting subject that I don't know much about, but I know enough to know that "observational data that can be experimentally verified" is much better than "a few people saying they saw god".

I saw Rodger rabbit! but I *know* I was delirious!

If we had no fossils, if we didn't know what DNA was, if we didn't see evolution on any scale, there would be nothing to it. Or if DNA wasn't consistent, if everyone was same or drastically different, or if there were no families of species, no tree of life, no genetic relationship to my ancestors, then I couldn't possibly say evolution had any truth - but it *has* all of this. We're not random people that look completely different than our parents but over generations we're much different than our ancestors were 100,000 years ago by a HUGE amount, yet were still genetically closely related and still part of the same species.

If we saw dinosaurs just popping out of thin air in my back yard.. well howdy doody, i'd have to believe some supernatural force caused that, but that doesn't happen either.

Do you believe everyone who sees bigfoot? aliens? god(s)? the future? reads your palms? reads your signs? writes your astrology? I think that stuff is cute, but its nonsense.. aliens.. quite possibly exist because the universe is huge for them to not.. but to think they fly around and read our minds while we sleep is a bit absurd.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

So If a creator created there should be no common parts in the various life forms ???

Why not?


----------



## unregistered353870

supernovae said:


> Hardly.
> 
> I gave great examples, but I skipped out on the mental/cognitive/biases/psychology and temporal issues of the human mind because it would detract from evolution.
> 
> We KNOW that "what we see" isn't everything and we see what we want to see and our memories are not as good as we think we are. Plenty of people on death row were wrongly convicted because someone thought they saw something they didn't see because of MANY reasons.
> 
> So "humans didn't see it" means very little.
> 
> So what is it that you were asking? I can't take the "humans didn't see it" nonsense as a serious question. Humans can't see atoms, we can't see galaxies billions of light years away, we can't see the entire spectrum of light, we can't see oxygen, we can't see molecules. We can't see, touch, hear, sense much of the "Real" world around us.
> 
> Do you see these bytes as I type them getting turned into packets and routed across the network to you for you to read or do you simply see the end result of what I typed and have to infer it was really me who typed them? I mean, you trust the network, trust http, trust the browser and your computer that this is a real reply being typing this and that the entire system worked. You can't "observe" me doing it, but by not "observing" it doesn't change the fact you're reading this and seeing it. Your observation is the final output, not the process and you can see the process as the topic evolved. How cute huh!
> 
> In science, what we see is called observations and we confirm these observations through peer review. Not everything survives peer review, its a great way to remove errors, biases and invalid results. That's just how it works. We have MANY decades of observational, statistical, biological and living evidence of evolution that we witness EVERY DAY and we have historical records that we analyze that were luckily preserved because.. Fossils.
> 
> Its the very reason "intelligent design" isn't taught in science class because there is no observational evidence and every time they thought they had evidence science was able to prove and evolutionary mechanism to explain complexity and then we showed how complexity doesn't mean squat since complexity is only in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> *To be honest, you don't expect anything. If you did, you would respect the fact I've spent so much time spelling everything out that you still choose to deny. Make up your mind.*
> 
> The only thing you can do is insult me when I don't indulge something that isn't worth indulging??? If so, Fantastic! I indulged it and I'll presume you will still ignore it.
> 
> Did this answer the question? probably not... i'm sure it just opened more cans of worms..


I didn't ask a question...and you certainly didn't answer anything I was wondering. I merely remarked on the religious nature of your answer to someone else's question. It wasn't meant as an insult to you. If you choose to take it as one, that's on you. I also haven't denied anything, so I'm not sure where you came up with that bolded part of your rant.

For what it's worth, I am a scientist, too. Not in a field that has much to do with any of this, but I understand the scientific method quite well, which is why I expect better from science than a nebulous religious answer. Carry on.


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> So If a creator created there should be no common parts in the various life forms ???
> 
> Why not?


Why would there be? 

What purpose would a creator have for creating such a system that causes so much suffering and pain where only the strongest survive? I could ask a million more questions but all they do is lead me back to the beauty of Evolution.

I can accept that evolution is emergent property of nature. Anything else seems to suggest a vengeful & spiteful god and that isn't a god most people believe in either. So would I have to invent a new god and convince everyone of this evil dictator?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> You can at the Grand Canyon.


When did the GC become a cave?


----------



## supernovae

jtbrandt said:


> I didn't ask a question...and you certainly didn't answer anything I was wondering. I merely remarked on the religious nature of your answer to someone else's question. It wasn't meant as an insult to you. If you choose to take it as one, that's on you. I also haven't denied anything, so I'm not sure where you came up with that bolded part of your rant.


What did I not answer? What can I answer? I took it as an attempt at insult because you didn't question anything I said, but how I said it and you didn't offer anything to support your argument other than questioning my character, such as what you have done here.

Clearly, I've spent the past 20 pages explaining things in great detail, and you're saying I still didn't answer what you were looking for?




> For what it's worth, I am a scientist, too. Not in a field that has much to do with any of this, but I understand the scientific method quite well, which is why I expect better from science than a nebulous religious answer. Carry on.


That's awesome! Glad to see other scientists in here. I don't know it all either. I just don't know what you were asking and why me not clarifying a tangent is religious? I went ahead and clarified it now now the thread is going to attack that. 

May I ask how the answer was nebulous? because again, by the tone of this response it seems the only utility of it is to guarantee the outcome becomes nebulous and devoid of meaning..

So what is it?

:kung:

Lets look at tactics. A great tactic of deniers is to say "you weren't there" is that not true? Does a tired and incorrect tactic need indulgence or can one say "nice tactic, lets get back to reality"? At what point in 20-30 pages of rope-a-dope discussions do we not realize that these people are sincerely just trolling and not out to seek out the answer but to derail the topic so bad no sane person could make sense of any of it?

I don't go around saying "you can't prove god is real" and if I did, people would be telling me to off or downright banning me for being rude.

So why the double standard?

The "you didn't see it" idea isn't based in reality, isn't falsifiable, isn't believable and it has issues of its own - that I spelled out in great detail of our minds capability to see things that aren't really there and all it serves is to denigrate the discussion to betting on faith which is exactly where they want this to go.

Some people call this a "Red herring".. 

I can clearly tell you're using a vocabulary and reference library much more robust than just about everyone in here, but alas, they seem to all be attacks to diverge, poke holes, cause red herrings or simply attack an idea. I'm not sure I've ever gotten any other response from ya. Your focus on proteins is a novel approach to internet debates on this topic and I admire that, but there is a point where you have to really state what it is that you believe. So please, state it. I see what you're against, what is it that you actually believe? If you're anti evolution, why not state that? if you believe in evolution but have doubts, why not state that? if you believe in ID, why not state that? What is the position behind the doubt you cast on those who have a strong position?


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> What did I not answer? What can I answer? I took it as an attempt at insult because you didn't question anything I said, but how I said it and you didn't offer anything to support your argument other than questioning my character, such as what you have done here.
> 
> Clearly, I've spent the past 20 pages explaining things in great detail, and you're saying I still didn't answer what you were looking for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's awesome! Glad to see other scientists in here. I don't know it all either. I just don't know what you were asking and why me not clarifying a tangent is religious? I went ahead and clarified it now now the thread is going to attack that.
> 
> May I ask how the answer was nebulous? because again, by the tone of this response it seems the only utility of it is to guarantee the outcome becomes nebulous and devoid of meaning..
> 
> So what is it?
> 
> :kung:
> 
> Lets look at tactics. A great tactic of deniers is to say "you weren't there" is that not true? Does a tired and incorrect tactic need indulgence or can one say "nice tactic, lets get back to reality"? At what point in 20-30 pages of rope-a-dope discussions do we not realize that these people are sincerely just trolling and not out to seek out the answer but to derail the topic so bad no sane person could make sense of any of it?
> 
> I don't go around saying "you can't prove god is real" and if I did, people would be telling me to off or downright banning me for being rude.
> 
> So why the double standard?
> 
> The "you didn't see it" idea isn't based in reality, isn't falsifiable, isn't believable and it has issues of its own - that I spelled out in great detail of our minds capability to see things that aren't really there and all it serves is to denigrate the discussion to betting on faith which is exactly where they want this to go.
> 
> Some people call this a "Red herring"..
> 
> I can clearly tell you're using a vocabulary and reference library much more robust than just about everyone in here, but alas, they seem to all be attacks to diverge, poke holes, cause red herrings or simply attack an idea. I'm not sure I've ever gotten any other response from ya.


Your rhetorical parroting is extremely amusing to me, please, carry on!


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> Your rhetorical parroting is extremely amusing to me, please, carry on!


Just playing the game you're dishing out, that's all.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> This doesn't mean anything. I said earlier I once saw a car talk to me but I know I was sleep deprived and malnourished and over worked and stressed. Our mind plays games with us.


I agree that minds sometimes play games with us.... but when thousands of people report in with the VERY SAME tales of things they have "seen", that happen to fit perfectly with my own experiences I tend to be a bit less skeptical. Also when I have eyewitness testimony of events that I saw at the same time they did.... this makes me think those events were pretty much real. The fact that I cannot duplicate them at will, or should I say in order to satisfy your curiosity, doesnt mean they didnt happen the first or even the second time. I KNOW they are real, not imagined or due to sleep deprivation. They were perfectly natural events, in a very natural setting.... there was nothing religious nor supernatural about them.


----------



## JeffreyD

Some posts here seem eerily familiar. I predict, based on my time on this board.....someone will have a melt down.....soon!


----------



## unregistered353870

supernovae said:


> What did I not answer? What can I answer? I took it as an attempt at insult because you didn't question anything I said, but how I said it and you didn't offer anything to support your argument other than questioning my character, such as what you have done here.
> 
> Clearly, I've spent the past 20 pages explaining things in great detail, and you're saying I still didn't answer what you were looking for?


I didn't bother reading past this point because it seemed to be more of the same. I'm only replying to say that I didn't make an argument or question your character. I'm not looking for an explanation of anything from you. I don't need you to "teach" me anything. I can learn on my own. I only replied to that other post because it wasn't a rational answer to a rational question and I felt compelled to point it out. If that hurts your feelings, I apologize.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> Why would there be?
> 
> What purpose would a creator have for creating such a system that causes so much suffering and pain where only the strongest survive? I could ask a million more questions but all they do is lead me back to the beauty of Evolution.
> 
> I can accept that evolution is emergent property of nature. Anything else seems to suggest a vengeful & spiteful god and that isn't a god most people believe in either. So would I have to invent a new god and convince everyone of this evil dictator?


This is a science thread and not philosophy .... you are engaging a moral argument. How could you know the mind of God?


----------



## JJ Grandits

Those who know better then God claim too. Like I said, ego and id.


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> This is a science thread and not philosophy .... you are engaging a moral argument. How could you know the mind of God?


You're the one who asked the loaded question. I gave a simple answer.

You're right this is a science thread. So why is everyone trying to turn it into something about religion?

It also goes worth repeating, I said a few times already i'm not in this to debate god and that was in direct response to you I do believe, where you quoted me as being nebulous when I spelled this out. ound:

warning, i'm spelling it out again.

You asked me why I don't see the need for a creator and I gave an answer and it was an honest answer. If my honesty offends you, I don't know what to say to you to change that. I only described the concept of a god. I never spoke about you, your beliefs or anyone's specific beliefs. That concept of a god doesn't fit my experience of god growing up as a Mormon or a Christian... (as you can tell, i'm not really practicing either.. i'm more interested in open discussions about this) so I said the honest truth that I would be making something up.. something I don't need to makeup since evolution explains it very well.

yup.. that's right.. a Mormon.. parents, grandparents, great grand parents all from Utah and BYU grads. yee haw. Church boy growing up my entire youth. Luckily or unluckily I never did my black pants white shirt door to door sales pitch.

then again, my upbringing and family has no bearing on evolution but if you guys want to push ID, how can you be offended by anyone's view of a god? That is, unless you're trying to imply ID is specific to your faith and your god with no ability to show any evidence? circular & nebulous at its finest.

So yeah, lets get this back on topic or open a new one.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> Organic matter is spread across the universe.
> 
> The miller-urey experiment showed how one could create organic molecules.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment
> 
> We often find organic compounds in meteors too!
> 
> http://www.space.com/23988-organic-material-meteorite-impact-glass.html
> 
> The chemistry of life is abundant.. have only barely scratched the surface of looking for it in our own cosmic backyard. We're one solar system out of 200 billion solar systems in our galaxy and our galaxy is small compared to other galaxies that contain a billion billion solar systems and planetary systems.


Yes the Miller-Urey experiment yielded organic molecules mostly amino acids. Your link alludes to a known problem because the the amino acids occur as a mixture of optical isomers. Isomers are variations in the spacial arrangement of the atoms in a molecule. Optical isomers are a special arrangement where one molecule mirrors the other and they are referred to as L and R meaning left and right. In life the cell can only use the L or left hand isomer. Having any amount of R hand isomers in the cell environment will be lethal to the cell.

Amino acids will naturally link together but 2/3's of the bonds will not be peptide and will not produce a polypeptide chain and thus can not produce a folding protein. Furthermore you can not reproduce proteins unless you have DNA to determine the sequence of amino acids. You can not make a RNA copy of the DNA without accessory equipment to assist in the replication and that accessory equipment is composed of proteins. Also the ribosome that manufactures the proteins is made of proteins.

You can not produce proteins unless you first have proteins and you also need DNA .... which is unstable and has to be constantly repaired by mechanisms which are made of proteins.

You have a big chicken before the egg problem here.

You can ignore it but it will not go away so how do you deal with it ?


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> You have a big chicken before the egg problem here.
> 
> You can ignore it but it will not go away so how do you deal with it ?


I'm not ignoring it, i'm just keeping it under abiogenesis where it belongs, its not really a problem of evolution is it? I believe I even posted the link in the context of abiogenesis... i'm not sure at this point because the gentleman I was debating turned it to weird tangents for a bit.

Also, its a universal problem. If you don't believe in evolution then whatever you believe in has a "big chicken before the egg problem".

So why struggle with it? The reason I don't struggle with it is that I find the problem itself intriguing and exciting and challenging. I don't see it as unknowable and unsolvable. Just because there is a question as you suggest, doesn't mean I project an answer.

I'm quite happy to say the answer is "i don't know" but at the very same time, how you phrased the question is very much on the basis of science itself, so like you phrased it, I believe science will be able to soon better answer it too.

That make sense?

Is there a reason that all 20 peptides had to exist in the beginning? could simple life forms have evolved and failed with such force for not being stable and many other reasons?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12225777?dopt=Abstract

Its my view that any evolutionary biologists would look at these in an evolutionary framework of just not magically appearing in quantity or en mass... just as life itself recorded in the fossil record went through several different phases of "bursts" of activity.. and not all living at once and some surviving across major periods.

edit: just to clarify, some of the claims are that early rna would have decayed to quickly, but there is no reason that that quick decay simply didn't evolve to stable organisms thriving as that fast decay could actually have accelerated the evolutionary transitions of organisms but even then, evolution doesn't say the first simple organisms started with rna, they could have been much more simple. (and probably were.. the premise of the theory is based on starting simple)

edit2: about the proteins again, aren't chemical bonds limited by the properties of the molecules themselves? sharing electrons isn't exactly stable in every mutation and the bonds are based more on properties of atoms and chemistry right? a mutation of a stable bond is usually cancerous as well right? 

IN terms of evolution, creating more proteins than what is needed for survival that don't increase survival would be an excess in the system showing no benefit for survival and thus may not ever come about.. but odd things have happened. There was a photo of a kid getting like 100 or 200 teeth pulled recently.. eww.. and we know of a few reptiles growing a second pair of eyes in independent of one another. (not the same species of reptile) so mutations happen that still cause change.. maybe the kid with 300 teeth will donate some dna for study


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

You are the one linking to the Miller-Urey experiment.

And btw I do not need science to verify my religious beliefs as I have significantly experienced a God who reveals himself to those who diligently seek after him. I am not so much of a church person but prayer and fasting works for me. My entering into the origins controversy had more to do with trying to help an atheist friend who believed in evolution back in the mid nineties.

.... and btw this God who reveals himself also hides himself from those who oppose him.

I do not have egg before chicken issues because I do not blindly follow a God who never interacts with me. I do not need to explain where he came from.... He is eternal.


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> You are the one linking to the Miller-Urey experiment.


I know, I clarified the context by which it was discussed.



> And btw I do not need science to verify my religious beliefs as I have significantly experienced a God who reveals himself to those who diligently seek after him. I am not so much of a church person but prayer and fasting works for me. My entering into the origins controversy had more to do with trying to help an atheist friend who believed in evolution back in the mid nineties.
> 
> .... and btw this God who reveals himself also hides himself from those who oppose him.


ok.. So its about conversion for you then?




> I do not have egg before chicken issues because I do not blindly follow a God who never interacts with me. I do not need to explain where he came from.... He is eternal.


Convenient but unscientific. How does this change evolution or prove dinosaurs walked along side of man?


----------



## willow_girl

> Why would there be?
> 
> What purpose would a creator have for creating such a system that causes so much suffering and pain where only the strongest survive? I could ask a million more questions but all they do is lead me back to the beauty of Evolution.
> 
> I can accept that evolution is emergent property of nature. Anything else seems to suggest a vengeful & spiteful god and that isn't a god most people believe in either. So would I have to invent a new god and convince everyone of this evil dictator?


An objective observation of the natural world does not suggest there is a benign deity deeply concerned with human welfare ...


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> I'm not ignoring it, i'm just keeping it under abiogenesis where it belongs, its not really a problem of evolution is it? I believe I even posted the link in the context of abiogenesis... i'm not sure at this point because the gentleman I was debating turned it to weird tangents for a bit.
> 
> Also, its a universal problem. If you don't believe in evolution then whatever you believe in has a "big chicken before the egg problem".
> 
> So why struggle with it? The reason I don't struggle with it is that I find the problem itself intriguing and exciting and challenging. I don't see it as unknowable and unsolvable. Just because there is a question as you suggest, doesn't mean I project an answer.
> 
> I'm quite happy to say the answer is "i don't know" but at the very same time, how you phrased the question is very much on the basis of science itself, so like you phrased it, I believe science will be able to soon better answer it too.
> 
> That make sense?
> 
> Is there a reason that all 20 peptides had to exist in the beginning? could simple life forms have evolved and failed with such force for not being stable and many other reasons?
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12225777?dopt=Abstract
> 
> Its my view that any evolutionary biologists would look at these in an evolutionary framework of just not magically appearing in quantity or en mass... just as life itself recorded in the fossil record went through several different phases of "bursts" of activity.. and not all living at once and some surviving across major periods.
> 
> edit: just to clarify, some of the claims are that early rna would have decayed to quickly, but there is no reason that that quick decay simply didn't evolve to stable organisms thriving as that fast decay could actually have accelerated the evolutionary transitions of organisms but even then, evolution doesn't say the first simple organisms started with rna, they could have been much more simple. (and probably were.. the premise of the theory is based on starting simple)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit2: about the proteins again, aren't chemical bonds limited by the properties of the molecules themselves? sharing electrons isn't exactly stable in every mutation and the bonds are based more on properties of atoms and chemistry right? a mutation of a stable bond is usually cancerous as well right?
> 
> 
> 
> IN terms of evolution, creating more proteins than what is needed for survival that don't increase survival would be an excess in the system showing no benefit for survival and thus may not ever come about.. but odd things have happened. There was a photo of a kid getting like 100 or 200 teeth pulled recently.. eww.. and we know of a few reptiles growing a second pair of eyes in independent of one another. (not the same species of reptile) so mutations happen that still cause change.. maybe the kid with 300 teeth will donate some dna for study
Click to expand...

The 2% of human DNA is protein coding and codes for about 20,000 proteins. Where did these proteins come from ?



> edit2: about the proteins again, aren't chemical bonds limited by the properties of the molecules themselves? sharing electrons isn't exactly stable in every mutation and the bonds are based more on properties of atoms and chemistry right? a mutation of a stable bond is usually cancerous as well right?


Gobblely---- !!! your knowledge of chemistry and biochemistry is very telling here


----------



## willow_girl

> What purpose would a creator have for creating such a system that causes so much suffering and pain where only the strongest survive?


Actually, at the risk of splitting hairs here, it's not the _strongest_, but rather the (reproductively) _fittest_ that survive. 

You can be Hercules, but if you don't mate and produce viable offspring, your genes aren't going to stay in the pool. :awh:


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> The 2% of human DNA is protein coding and codes for about 20,000 proteins. Where did these proteins come from ?


I have the perfect answer for you. "I don't know" 

What is your answer? Is this a quiz? Does not having the answer mean something to you?



> Gobblely---- !!! your knowledge of chemistry and biochemistry is very telling here


Covalant Bonds 
Ionic bonds
Hydrogen bonds
Hydrophobic bonds
.. other bonds I can't think of right now..


Where are you going with these questions?

Before we got involved with whatever protein or amino acids that build proteins or the fact these are all still built on chemical properties that are based upon chemistry which is based upon atomic theory. I did get into this topic of replication that I believe you touched on and quickly ignored when it came to clays and crystals. That is just one concept that I haven't research too much in and obviously my DNA and Protein and Amino acid knowledge is rusty since that isn't where I focus much on these days nor do I debate it as there is no answer.

I know you will assume god, but that doesn't mean god is the answer and i'm quite comfortable with that. I've said it 2-3 dozen times so far, but I'm not won over by the god of gaps argument. I'm more intrigued by the gaps themselves and how to figure them out.

Let me ask you a serious question. Is there anything in the temporal world that absolutely has a requirement for god to explain it that can't be explained by science? Just because it isn't currently explained by science doesn't mean it can't be. I mean, cases of something that completely violate "natural law" and give credence to a creator? Not this tired debate about complexity and design, which has been beaten like a dead horse.

If your goal is conversion, lets just stop this discussion now.


----------



## supernovae

willow_girl said:


> Actually, at the risk of splitting hairs here, it's not the _strongest_, but rather the (reproductively) _fittest_ that survive.
> 
> You can be Hercules, but if you don't mate and produce viable offspring, your genes aren't going to stay in the pool. :awh:


You are correct, fittest is the term typically used but either way the mechanism is "natural selection"

This topic has gone in so many tangents I've sort of lost interest in being pedantic since its obvious the basis for the non belief of evolution is heavily in the religiosity camp where there simply is nothing worth discussing further as it becomes too abstract.

Is there anyone here who seriously believes man walked along dinosaurs and has a reason beyond the god argument or has an alternative hypothesis outside the linked article to sustain such ideas? Certainly doesn't jive with evolution and it would be odd if god were to roll the dice and put things in and pull them back out or change the arrow of time to fit something that was put into scripture or allegory.

I know... I know.. mysterious ways


----------



## elkhound

supernovae said:


> You are correct, fittest is the term typically used but either way the mechanism is "natural selection"
> 
> This topic has gone in so many tangents I've sort of lost interest in being pedantic since its obvious the basis for the non belief of evolution is heavily in the religiosity camp where there simply is nothing worth discussing further as it becomes too abstract.



i have only read a few posts here so bare with me...please

do you say/think humans came from apes?


----------



## supernovae

elkhound said:


> i have only read a few posts here so bare with me...please
> 
> do you say/think humans came from apes?


Humans evolved from Primates, yes. We have pretty good knowledge about when our species started showing up in the fossil records. Primates were what, ~80 million years ago? Our Genus showed up about 2.4 million years ago, started walking upright a few eons after that and creatures that may have better closely resembled us in our minds eye showed up just a quarter million years ago. If there was no transitional record, there would be serious questions/concerns about our evolution but it seems to improve on a yearly basis.

I think in another 250k years, if we haven't gone extinct we will be quite different then.

So yes, we evolved from primates, which I guess technically our ancestors did walk with some dinosaurs as there is a 20 million overlap there heh.. but humans they were not  (At least not yet..)


----------



## elkhound

supernovae said:


> Humans evolved from Primates, yes. We have pretty good knowledge about when our species started showing up in the fossil records. Primates were what, ~80 million years ago? Our Genus showed up about 2.4 million years ago, started walking upright a few eons after that and creatures that may have better closely resembled us in our minds eye showed up just a quarter million years ago. If there was no transitional record, there would be serious questions/concerns about our evolution but it seems to improve on a yearly basis.
> 
> I think in another 250k years, if we haven't gone extinct we will be quite different then.


bare with me i am a dumb ******* that cant spell to good..lol

darwin said he couldnt find evidence of evolution transition species....he left it up to others afterwards to find the evidence.


humans couldnt evolve from an ape....it would mean a human was carried in the womb of a primate...cant happen....its mothers blood courses through the baby..if you put blood from a primate in a human we are dead.even another human of the wrong blood type cant be done....that alone should be a red flag it cant happen.

no humans or new species are walking out of jungles and woods.


----------



## elkhound

this is about man and dinosaurs being together.

have you read any scripture?bible stuff?


----------



## supernovae

elkhound said:


> bare with me i am a dumb ******* that cant spell to good..lol


don't worry, i'm way up past my bedtime 



> darwin said he couldnt find evidence of evolution species....he left it up to others afterwards to find the evidence.


This is one of those projection things, were you start choosing between macro and micro evolution - which is all based upon timescales. Since humans only really recently started tracking any species with any precesion there simply hasn't been enough time or resources available to "witness" evolution which often gets construed as "no evidence for evolution"

I think we got into this when I asked if people had to witness me typing this to know that what you're reading indeed was written.



> humans couldnt evolve from an ape....it would mean a human was carried in the womb of a primate...cant happen....its mothers blood courses through the baby..if you put blood from a primate in a human we are dead.even another human of the wrong blood type cant be done....that alone should be a red flag it cant happen.


Of course that couldn't happen. Evolution isn't based on this concept of one species carrying another. It's very small changes through natural selection. Small changes that happen over millions of years a millions and billions of generations.



> no humans or new species are walking out of jungles and woods.


I agree, that's preposterous. It seems ancient man preferred caves and living on the grass praries to the forests & jungles though


----------



## supernovae

elkhound said:


> this is about man and dinosaurs being together.
> 
> have you read any scripture?bible stuff?


I don't read young earth creationism stuff at all. I had plenty of Mormonism feed to me through my entire childhood though and having read through the bible, never read anything about dinosaurs in it.


----------



## elkhound

i wanna be clear i didnt come to argue only share a few thoughts and let it be at that..so enjoy a laugh on me...lol..if nothing else


explain the cave drawings....they had to see those animals to draw them

the word dinosaur only came about in mid 1800's. in scripture they are often called dragons.along with other specific names.

the book of job talks about a dinosaur......the word behmoth is used and then gives a description of it....i will stop there as you can read about it if interested.


----------



## elkhound

supernovae said:


> I don't read young earth creationism stuff at all. I had plenty of Mormonism feed to me through my entire childhood though and having read through the bible, never read anything about dinosaurs in it.



heres something very few know about...as it was taken out of most modern bibles in use in the states...the first bibles brought here had it in it.


*Daniel Kills the Dragon*

23 There was also a great dragon, which the Babylonians revered. 24 And the king said to Daniel, &#8220;You cannot deny that this is a living god; so worship him.&#8221; 25 Daniel said, &#8220;I will worship the Lord my God, for he is the living God. 26 But if you, O king, will give me permission, I will slay the dragon without sword or club.&#8221; The king said, &#8220;I give you permission.&#8221;
27 Then Daniel took pitch, fat, and hair, and boiled them together and made cakes, which he fed to the dragon. The dragon ate them, and burst open. And Daniel said, &#8220;See what you have been worshiping!&#8221;
28 When the Babylonians heard it, they were very indignant and conspired against the king, saying, &#8220;The king has become a Jew; he has destroyed Bel, and slain the dragon, and slaughtered the priests.&#8221; 29 Going to the king, they said, &#8220;Hand Daniel over to us, or else we will kill you and your household.&#8221; 30 The king saw that they were pressing him hard, and under compulsion he handed Daniel over to them.



(this dragon was a dinosaur that was being worshiped)

ETA...thanks for conversation carry on with super proteins and complex molecular compound whatevers yall were talking...its over my head....lol


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

You may need to wait for a Supernova response .... he was up posting until 2:30 AM.

I will be back later to respond to Nevada's comments concerning micro and macro evolution.

However I do not believe micro leads to macro


----------



## mmoetc

37 pages of posts and the fundamental question still remains- how did life begin on earth? Scientists admit they have theories but not all the answers and are working to find those answers. Do many of them have vested interests in proving themselves correct and may they interpret data to support that goal? Yes, but that alone doesn't neccessarily invalidate those interpretations. Those interpretations may yet be proven true or false by further data. Scientists may even one day find the proof of a supreme being. Not knowing all the answers doesn't mean you don't know any. The other side claims to know the answer with certainty. Yet there are questions about this certainty they cannot or refuse to answer. I'll go with the side seeking answers, asking questions, testing their hypothesis and beliefs. You are free to go your own way.

ETA- thanks and welcome to supernovae for having the patience and fortitude to stay with this thread and post all the info he did.


----------



## JJ Grandits

greg273 said:


> You're free to go fix it. Having done so, entropy will have been reversed. Youre completely misreading the definition of thermodynamics, and trying to apply it to something completely unrelated.


 So I would be an intelligent designer?


----------



## willow_girl

> 37 pages of posts and the fundamental question still remains- how did life begin on earth?


Why is it so difficult to simply say, "We don't know yet"?

Why do some insist on a pat answer, even if it's wrong? :bash:

I have never been able to understand that.


----------



## Oggie

I asked Pat.

She really didn't have a definitive answer.

(It was Pat at work. Her response was, "Why are you asking me this. Leave me alone.")


----------



## Evons hubby

willow_girl said:


> Why is it so difficult to simply say, "We don't know yet"?
> 
> Why do some insist on a pat answer, even if it's wrong? :bash:
> 
> I have never been able to understand that.


Some of us have the pat answer... others reject that answer flat out (something about no evidence.... hello... look out the window, there is a universe filled with evidence!) and have been trying for a couple hundred years to come up with one of their own with no great deal of success yet. They have come up with a lot of "maybe this led to that and that led to the other" but nothing really solid. In my brief lifetime they have had to change those maybes at least a half dozen times as new "evidence" comes in. Ours? It has no need to be changed... coz its the correct answer! Its kinda like if I say two and two is four.... they say I dont believe that so I will try to find some how, some way to prove that two and two equals seven. :shrug:


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Some of us have the pat answer...


That doesn't make you correct.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> That doesn't make you correct.


Thats what some keep telling me... but every time I add two and two I keep coming up with four. Doesnt seem to matter if its two oranges and two apples, or two dogs and two cats.... Four is all I can get out of it. :shrug:


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

I earlier referred to James Shapiro who is a researcher who is significantly challenging present science orthodoxy. For example he is believing that microbes develop resistance to antibiotics by lateral gene transfer and not mutation. This man rocks the boat. He is brilliant .... he is an evolutionist but he at times seems to come close to acknowledging intelligent design. The intelligent design camp is watching him closely .... we like him because he is an outside of the box thinker. 

What if in the future one man stands against all of science and proves that bacterial resistance results from lateral gene transfer instead of mutation ???

Science actually is not democratic ... the majority does not rule and there have been past occasions where the majority has been proven wrong.

So is it fair to count the number of creation believing scientists and disqualify their opinion because they are a small minority ?

It is possible that macro evolution will be proven wrong ... and it is possible that macro evolution is wrong but will never be proven wrong but will continue to be believed indefinitely.


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Science actually is not democratic ... the majority does not rule and there have been past occasions where the majority has been proven wrong.


That is what makes science great. It's not about being right or wrong.. If you're wrong, try a different hypothesis or learn from your failures and move on. That is a positive thing.



> So is it fair to count the number of creation believing scientists and disqualify their opinion because they are a small minority ?


Of course, because science isn't about opinions. Form a hypothesis and back it up with data / observation. 



> It is possible that macro evolution will be proven wrong ... and it is possible that macro evolution is wrong but will never be proven wrong but will continue to be believed indefinitely.


Indeed. That is the beauty of science and the beauty of evolution. Lots of things COULD have proven it wrong but haven't. Its withstood the test of time and experimentation and new data. 

Darwin didn't have scanning electron microscopes, dna, rna, replicators. He simply observed and cataloged the world around him and formed a hypothesis based on observations by which we have accepted as foundational because every science that has been developed since has absolutely supported the theory of evolution.

Doesn't mean its absolute either.

Newtonian mechanics are "good enough" for most things we do, but in some cases you need the precision of relativity - especially if you're trying to measure the gravitational lensing of distant galaxies or to see how gravity of objects shifts light and warps time/space.

And something in the future may offer even more precision or more elegance or more data - yet it will all be based on science, not opinion.


----------



## willow_girl

> Some of us have the pat answer...


The problem with personal revelation is it's just that, personal. There is no real way to verify your claims, so all a person has to go on is an assessment of your credibility, and for all we know (this being the Internet), you could be, IRL, a midget sumo wrestler, a rodeo clown or a Palm Beach hairdresser named Elaine. Thus you perhaps will forgive us for not being persuaded by your account. 

(For that matter, we have no idea who wrote the Book of Genesis or where they came by their knowledge. Since no human being apparently was present when the universe was created, they were either going on secondhand information (some entity who WAS told them what happened) or they invented the story wholesale. No? And since we don't know their identity, we have no way of assessing their credibility, either.)

Switching gears a bit .. Johnny, since you seem to be in the Intelligent Design camp, I'll pose a question: Let's say that it turns out the evidence does, indeed, point to an Intelligent Designer of some sort. What then?

However would humans determine the identity of this being? It could be any one (or more than one) of the pantheon of gods already devised by humans, or a being never before conceived by man. Short of this entity manifesting itself to us in some tangible way (outside of personal revelation, which, as we have seen, is not very persuasive) I can't see how we would ever know for certain, so in effect, we'd be no farther ahead than we are now. No?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

I will be responding to Supernonae's clay theory also.
(need some time to study it)


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

willow_girl said:


> The problem with personal revelation is it's just that, personal. There is no real way to verify your claims, so all a person has to go on is an assessment of your credibility, and for all we know (this being the Internet), you could be, IRL, a midget sumo wrestler, a rodeo clown or a Palm Beach hairdresser named Elaine. Thus you perhaps will forgive us for not being persuaded by your account.
> 
> (For that matter, we have no idea who wrote the Book of Genesis or where they came by their knowledge. Since no human being apparently was present when the universe was created, they were either going on secondhand information (some entity who WAS told them what happened) or they invented the story wholesale. No? And since we don't know their identity, we have no way of assessing their credibility, either.)
> 
> Switching gears a bit .. Johnny, since you seem to be in the Intelligent Design camp, I'll pose a question: Let's say that it turns out the evidence does, indeed, point to an Intelligent Designer of some sort. What then?
> 
> However would humans determine the identity of this being? It could be any one (or more than one) of the pantheon of gods already devised by humans, or a being never before conceived by man. Short of this entity manifesting itself to us in some tangible way (outside of personal revelation, which, as we have seen, is not very persuasive) I can't see how we would ever know for certain, so in effect, we'd be no farther ahead than we are now. No?


Good question !!!

Recognizing an intelligent designer would in a general sense give credence to religious believers of all faiths. 

We of religious belief were contented to believe by faith and then science came along with this challenge ... and our government will not allow us to defend ourselves in the public classroom (which is funded with our tax dollars).

So our children become indoctrinated in a country where government is not permitted to interfere with religion.


----------



## Evons hubby

willow_girl said:


> Thus you perhaps will forgive us for not being persuaded by your account.


I have no problem with those who refuse to accept my account of the events. This is for several reasons.... mostly its no skin off my nose what others think, or do as long as they arent doing it to me and mine. Secondly it really makes no difference. Its not going to change one thing about how we came into being. We really cant do much about it now can we?


----------



## Evons hubby

Johnny Dolittle said:


> So our children become indoctrinated in a country where government is not permitted to interfere with religion.


Yes, sadly there is that.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Some of us have the pat answer... others reject that answer flat out (something about no evidence.... hello... look out the window, there is a universe filled with evidence!) and have been trying for a couple hundred years to come up with one of their own with no great deal of success yet. They have come up with a lot of "maybe this led to that and that led to the other" but nothing really solid. In my brief lifetime they have had to change those maybes at least a half dozen times as new "evidence" comes in. Ours? It has no need to be changed... coz its the correct answer! Its kinda like if I say two and two is four.... they say I dont believe that so I will try to find some how, some way to prove that two and two equals seven. :shrug:



What i can say and what is worth repeating is that your beliefs don't change the facts. I look out the window and i see reality. I look at reality and think "isn't it amazing that all of this stuff is something we can know?". I look at a flower and see its beauty, but i don't just stop there. I realize that smell, is something my body is able to know. I realize that chemical reaction is something that the flower uses to survive. I know that many species see it as a beautiful flower. The bees are attracted which in turn spreads its pollen and allows it to flourish. I also know that plant survives because of nourishment, water, minerals, food and co2. I know its a symbiotic relationship not only with myself but with all of nature. I can trace the flower through its heritage, find out where it grows, where it thrives, where in time it may have flourished, where in time it may cease to exist. We have the tools to understand the world as it is, as it speaks to us and as we speak to it. I know this is through the sciences and every day we challenge ourselves to learn more, we know more.

The worst thing i can do is presume to have all the answers. The best thing i can do is be very comfortable and very proud that I can know the answers and sometimes the question itself is something worth living for.

We can't even agree on what the idea of god is, yet we all agree on what flowers are. We can use facts to represent them in species, habitats (they call them zones around these parts), families so on and so forth. We know enough about these flowers that we can cut them to grow them, graft them to change them, manipulate their environment to massage them through "unnatural" selection to a design we like. Evolution happens everywhere around us. My weiner dog is evidence of sexual selection.

This is stuff we know.

I don't have to be afraid of what we don't know. it's quite the opposite. Its a challenge to try and figure it out.

Some of you will jump back at me and say i can't know the the mind of god, word of god or what god thinks because you imply and prescribe god over evolution and i'll answer that with the simple statement that it doesn't matter, it simply doesn't matter. If there is a god, i've chosen a path to try and understand a world god created. If there isn't a god. I've chosen a path that the idea of god would surely appreciate. If there is a god that will punish me for not bowing down to his authority, then that is a god that isn't worth respecting to begin with. This is MY OPINION. I'm not projecting this upon anyone, but myself.

Sadly,I feel i'll be attacked, insulted, cherry picked, flamed, ignored, banned for holding a view that i consider fully rational to hold simply because people will refuse to have empathy for it and in doing so, i again question just what kind of god would allow his servants or beings to judge others? I'm living a life worth judgement from ANY being regardless of belief or faith. Who are YOU to judge not just what god is right but what man can or can't say about his own free self?

I will absolutely believe in whatever is factually available, even if that means the supernatural, god or cosmic being or cosmic conscious but until that happens, there isn't any reason to presume such.

I don't need an understanding for god for beauty, love, ethics, spirituality, well being, companionship, but if there is a god creating this, so be it. Again, i'll be judged as I am, by you, by everyone in this world, by every intelligent being temporal or not and i live a life worthy of respect and that's how i see it.

So yeah, next time you look out that window at the world and see people walking around, maybe you should think about them, how they feel, what their beliefs are and maybe if we talked about facts more often and stopped projecting our beliefs upon one another the beauty of the world would be more emergent and trump the sheer amount of hate we have for things we don't understand and realize that not understanding is a perfectly valid position to hold.

I appreciate the time to spit out my 2 cents. I'll be gone for a week as i'm volunteering for a kids camp to help make the world a better place.. and yes.. it will be through what we call "STEM" - science, technology, engineering and math.. but i'm also adding an "A" for art.. so its really "steam" 

live long and prosper! i'll be on off and on for a little bit


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have no problem with those who refuse to accept my account of the events. This is for several reasons.... mostly its no skin off my nose what others think, or do as long as they arent doing it to me and mine. Secondly it really makes no difference. Its not going to change one thing about how we came into being. We really cant do much about it now can we?


But this isn't about what people think, it's about what they teach in science class. You can believe anything you wish, but teaching scripture in science class still doesn't make sense.


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> I will be responding to Supernonae's clay theory also.
> (need some time to study it)


It's not my theory, its just something i've read about and i'm no master of. I reference it under abiogenesis studies, but its also about evolution since it does show clays, transitional clays and evolutionary clays... just not evolution in the biological sense.. (i don't think we call crystals life even though they grow and replicate.. which is a strange thing)


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

The science of recreating the prehistoric history of the universe is tricky .... even more so when you realize that time is an illusion.


----------



## mnn2501

Johnny Dolittle said:


> even more so when you realize that time is an illusion.


Why do you people keep saying time is an illusion?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I'm born, I live, I die. Try doing that in any other order.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

mnn2501 said:


> Why do you people keep saying time is an illusion?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> I'm born, I live, I die. Try doing that in any other order.


Actually science says there are 13 dimensions and time is not one of them !


----------



## supernovae

mnn2501 said:


> Why do you people keep saying time is an illusion?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> I'm born, I live, I die. Try doing that in any other order.


Time is relative, but like you said, it still has order... or what people call an "Arrow"


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Actually science says there are 13 dimensions and time is not one of them !


Isn't one of those dimensions space-time?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> But this isn't about what people think, it's about what they teach in science class. You can believe anything you wish, but teaching scripture in science class still doesn't make sense.


There is a difference twixt religion (scripture if you must) and God (intelligent designer if you prefer) Science truely is just one more of many religions.... and probably shouldnt be taught either if one really wants to follow the somewhat misguided creative interpretation of our first amendment rights. 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Which the supremes in their infinite wisdom have managed to turn around to mean "the supreme court has the right to remove all religious materials or references from our schools, places of employment and any other place we see fit"


----------



## willow_girl

> Good question !!!
> 
> Recognizing an intelligent designer would in a general sense give credence to religious believers of all faiths.


I'm not sure if that's the case, unless we accept the premise that _all_ gods that can be imagined by the human mind had a hand in Creation. (The Flying Spaghetti Monster obviously made the pasta.) ound: 

It would seem of paramount importance to know which god, or gods, actually did the creating, and I don't see a way to discern that unless the entity(ies) in question were to reveal themselves. So, like I said, we'd really be no better off than we are now.



> We of religious belief were contented to believe by faith and then science came along with this challenge ... and our government will not allow us to defend ourselves in the public classroom (which is funded with our tax dollars).
> 
> So our children become indoctrinated in a country where government is not permitted to interfere with religion.


I don't think you should lump all people of religious belief into the same category ... not everyone finds Darwinian evolution incompatible with the Biblical account. I believe the Roman Catholic church has bowed to science in this regard, and I've heard other Christians express the belief that evolution was a tool used by the Biblical god to bring about Creation. In short, I don't think the two ideas are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Evons hubby

willow_girl said:


> It would seem of paramount importance to know which god, or gods, actually did the creating, and I don't see a way to discern that unless the entity(ies) in question were to reveal themselves.


He has.... countless thousands of times.... quite a few people even went to the trouble of writing these events down... and they were later collected and an entire book was published for everyone to see and learn about them but those in the position to judge these matters seem unwilling to listen to those minor details. Something about credibility of the witness or some such.


----------



## willow_girl

> Science truely is just one more of many religions....


I think it's possible for some _individuals_ to have an irrational or religious belief in science.

However, science in and of itself is the anathema of religion.

Religion posits that everything important is already known and nothing can be questioned. Evidence that does not support dogma must be discarded or suppressed.

Science questions everything, although we can expect the usual human resistance to having sacred cows slaughtered. However, in science the truth will out, eventually .... there is simply no way to get around reality. 

Religion, being grounded not in reality but in dogma, has no such built-in mechanism of self-correction, and that's why it scares the bejeezus out of me! :teehee:


----------



## willow_girl

> He has.... countless thousands of times.... quite a few people even went to the trouble of writing these events down... and they were later collected and an entire book was published for everyone to see and learn about them


Ahh. I didn't realize you had so much reverence for the Quran ...

... or were you talking about the Vedas? 

Oh wait! I've got it! It's the Analects of Confucianism you're referring to, isn't it! :bouncy:

Silly me! :doh:


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is a difference twixt religion (scripture if you must) and God (intelligent designer if you prefer) Science truely is just one more of many religions.... and probably shouldnt be taught either if one really wants to follow the somewhat misguided creative interpretation of our first amendment rights.


rubbish



> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"


Science isn't religion. (Like Willow said, some people may treat it as such, but that doesn't make it so. It's usually misunderstood from lack of education about it and that is fixable/knowable... i haven't found one of these zealots that hasn't been able to be brought back to reality with a little empathy and if empathy and knowledge doesn't work, there is probably a real problem at hand that the person faces regardless of whatever philosophy they believe in)



> Which the supremes in their infinite wisdom have managed to turn around to mean "the supreme court has the right to remove all religious materials or references from our schools, places of employment and any other place we see fit"



I can't find any evidence to backup your claims that science is a religion (science isn't about supernatural) or the opposite claim that religion is being denied freedom.

This forum seems to observe religious freedom and allow you to speak your mind. I don't really see it any different on any other place on the internet.

At public school, no one stopped anyone from praying if you wanted to pray and nothing or no one stops you from opting into a private school where your faith is championed.

When i went to court to fight a ticket (i turned on a shoulder that apparently had a no turn on shoulder sign.. bahaha), i had to put my hand on the bible. 

WHen i was summoned to jury duty, in god we trust and pledged.

When i took my daughters to the state house so they could be girl scouts color guard, there was god all over the court room.

Should i be appalled through all of this that my rights were infringed?


----------



## Evons hubby

willow_girl said:


> Ahh. I didn't realize you had so much reverence for the Quran ...
> 
> ... or were you talking about the Vedas?
> 
> Oh wait! I've got it! It's the Analects of Confucianism you're referring to, isn't it! :bouncy:
> 
> Silly me! :doh:


Ya know, I really hadnt even thought about all those other books out there.... obviously lots an lots of people have attempted to relay their experiences to the world.... and sadly all have had about as much luck as I have had here. Snickers, mockery, and suggestions of mental problems. 
These reactions cause me to think that some folks simply dont want to know.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is a difference twixt religion (scripture if you must) and God (intelligent designer if you prefer) Science truely is just one more of many religions.... and probably shouldnt be taught either if one really wants to follow the somewhat misguided creative interpretation of our first amendment rights.


But if you interpret the Bible to say that God created the heavens and earth 6,000 years ago, that doesn't make sense. The mere fact that we can see stars millions of light years away shows you that. If that were true then we couldn't see any stars that are more than 6,000 light years away, since their light wouldn't have reached us yet.

I can't help but wonder why God made the earth to appear to be 4 billion years old when it's only 6,000 years old. Why did God create dinosaurs, kill them off, then scatter their bones in fossils that appear older than they are? Just to confuse scientists?


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Science isn't religion.
> 
> 
> I can't find any evidence to backup your claims that science is a religion (science isn't about supernatural) or the opposite claim that religion is being denied freedom.


Of course science is a religion.... its based entirely upon what some people believe... period. 

If you think religion in our country is not being suppressed show me a public school anywhere that begins its day with an opening prayer? Or one where the Ten Commandments are openly displayed in the halls and classrooms like they were just a few years ago..... pre 1970.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> But if you interpret the Bible to say that God created the heavens and earth 6,000 years ago, that doesn't make sense. The mere fact that we can see stars millions of light years away shows you that. If that were true then we couldn't see any stars that are more than 6,000 light years away, since their light wouldn't have reached us yet.


and what makes you think you have seen ANYTHING that is more than 6000 years old???? nothing but your own belief system! You seem to have a tremendous amount of faith in what some folks tell you..... and very little faith in what others have to say. Who died and made you king of the world, so you get to impose YOUR beliefs on anyone else?


----------



## Paumon

Yvonne's hubby said:


> He has.... countless thousands of times.... quite a few people even went to the trouble of writing these events down... *and they were later collected and an entire book was published for everyone to see* and learn about them but those in the position to judge these matters seem unwilling to listen to those minor details. Something about credibility of the witness or some such.


Which book? There are at least 20 recognized books like that from diverse cultures that I know of and then hundreds of less recognized holy texts. Are they all correct, or is each one only correct for each person that chooses to accept only one of them?


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> and what makes you think you have seen ANYTHING that is more than 6000 years old???? nothing but your own belief system! You seem to have a tremendous amount of faith in what some folks tell you..... and very little faith in what others have to say. Who died and made you king of the world, so you get to impose YOUR beliefs on anyone else?


We know the speed of light, we can measure the distance to neighboring galaxies. Knowing the distance and the speed of light, we know we're seeing history in the billions of years.

That is an easy question to answer.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course science is a religion.... its based entirely upon what some people believe... period.


Nope, not at all. Again, no matter how many times you repeat this, it isn't true.




> If you think religion in our country is not being suppressed show me a public school anywhere that begins its day with an opening prayer? Or one where the Ten Commandments are openly displayed in the halls and classrooms like they were just a few years ago..... pre 1970.


Why would an entire school of people who have different beliefs and values be forced to say your prayer? a prayer that you can say to yourself without ANYONE infringing on you.


----------



## willow_girl

> Ya know, I really hadnt even thought about all those other books out there.... obviously lots an lots of people have attempted to relay their experiences to the world.... and sadly all have had about as much luck as I have had here. Snickers, mockery, and suggestions of mental problems.


Actually that isn't the case at all. All three of the books I cited (and many others, including the Christian Bible) have been widely revered by their respective sects down through the ages. Even the (often regarded as spurious) relatively modern religious text called The Book of Mormon has millions of devout believers. Some followers of Islam have threatened to do bodily harm to anyone who defiles their sacred book, the Koran. So it's not as if religious beliefs and texts are universally mocked ... some do develop a following!



> Why would an entire school of people who have different beliefs and values be forced to say your prayer? a prayer that you can say to yourself without ANYONE infringing on you.


Exactly. Keep your religion to yourself ... after all, didn't Jesus instruct believers to pray secretly in their closets? Maybe he wanted to avoid these sorts of controversies, which usual result in Christians looking boorish to nonbelievers.


----------



## Paumon

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course science is a religion.... its based entirely upon what some people believe... period.
> 
> If you think religion in our country is not being suppressed show me a public school anywhere that begins its day with an opening prayer? Or one where the Ten Commandments are openly displayed in the halls and classrooms like they were just a few years ago..... pre 1970.


That's what private schools are for, where the parents who support the private school are paying to have their religion taught to their children. If you don't want suppression of religion in a school you must pay to have that religion taught in a private school of your choice. 

I support public schools and teacher's wages through my taxes and private contributions. I don't want my tax money and private contributions being used so that the public school can teach somebody else's religion to my children. If I want my children to learn about any religions then it needs to be at my discretion, not somebody else's discretion. When my children are old enough to take an interest in learning more about religions of their own accord (which they are old enough, of course) they will also be old enough to indicate what type of school they want to attend. It's my choice and their choice - not somebody else's choice.

Why is that so difficult for religionists to accept? Why don't religionists understand that trying to force their religion on somebody else's children in a public school is *predatory behaviour* and it means they are being *predators*?


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> We know the speed of light, we can measure the distance to neighboring galaxies. Knowing the distance and the speed of light, we know we're seeing history in the billions of years.
> 
> That is an easy question to answer.


Yes, its easy to answer.... as long as you use measuring tools that you THINK or believe to be accurate.... as accurate today as they were hundreds of millions of years ago.... IF everything behaves exactly the way it happens to behave today.... what are the unknown factors that you arent counting on? Does light always travel through space at the same rate??? are there any distorting factors with either that light.... or "time" that couple possibly affect your calculations? Of course not.... because if there were it might mean that all your other theories could come crashing down on your head!


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> That's what private schools are for, where the parents who support the private school are paying to have their religion taught to their children. If you don't want suppression of religion in a school you must pay to have that religion taught in a private school of your choice.
> 
> I support public schools and teacher's wages through my taxes and private contributions. I don't want my tax money and private contributions being used so that the public school can teach somebody else's religion to my children. If I want my children to learn about any religions then it needs to be at my discretion, not somebody else's discretion. When my children are old enough to take an interest in learning more about religions of their own accord (which they are old enough, of course) they will also be old enough to indicate what type of school they want to attend. It's my choice and their choice - not somebody else's choice.
> 
> *Why is that so difficult for religionists to accept?*


Maybe you forgot..... religionists as you call them are taxpayers too.... just like you! Our public school taxes didnt stop when we put our boy in private school. I still dont understand why God had to be removed from our public schools? It was good enough for George and Thomas and the rest of the founding fathers, it was good enough for everyone else up until the 1970s.... nearly two hundred years worth! Now all at once its become an issue worthy of tossing our Constitution out the window. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Nope, not at all. Again, no matter how many times you repeat this, it isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would an entire school of people who have different beliefs and values be forced to say your prayer? a prayer that you can say to yourself without ANYONE infringing on you.


That street runs two ways, no matter how many times you repeat it you cant change the fact that science is no more than any other religion.... a collection of beliefs that some folks place a great deal of faith in. 

I have no idea which school you think it was that infringed upon anyones rights by starting the day with a morning prayer.... much less an entire school!


----------



## Oggie

Math is merely a set of symbols that some people believe represent quantities and measurements.

English is also a set of symbols and words that some people believe can be used to describe the world.

I'm tired of being subject to and judged by that sort of religion.


----------



## Paumon

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Maybe you forgot..... religionists as you call them are taxpayers too.... just like you! Our public school taxes didnt stop when we put our boy in private school. I still dont understand why God had to be removed from our public schools? It was good enough for George and Thomas and the rest of the founding fathers, it was good enough for everyone else up until the 1970s.... nearly two hundred years worth! Now all at once its become an issue worthy of tossing our Constitution out the window. :shrug:


YH, times are changing. You can't fight progress and you can't stay stuck in the past. People came to North America to escape from religious oppression and tyranny. You can't expect to get a pass on imposing a different kind of religious oppression and tyranny on people a few hundred years later.


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> YH, times are changing. You can't fight progress and you can't stay stuck in the past. People came to North America to escape from religious oppression and tyranny. You can't expect to get a pass on imposing a different kind of religious oppression and tyranny on people a few hundred years later.


No one is suggesting that we impose any religious oppression or tyranny on anyone. Starting class with a prayer is not oppressive nor is it tyrannical. It is however perfectly Constitutional by any rational definition of our first amendment. Now, if someone wants to invoke Article five of our Constitution, and legally remove the right of the people to practice any religion they see fit to practice.... along with our freedom of speech.... help themselves, lets see how that works.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> Isn't one of those dimensions space-time?


i dunno ... I was parrotingound:


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Maybe you forgot..... religionists as you call them are taxpayers too.... just like you! Our public school taxes didnt stop when we put our boy in private school. I still dont understand why God had to be removed from our public schools? It was good enough for George and Thomas and the rest of the founding fathers, it was good enough for everyone else up until the 1970s.... nearly two hundred years worth! Now all at once its become an issue worthy of tossing our Constitution out the window. :shrug:


George and Thomas didn't go to public schools. Public schools didn't become so widespread until much later.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Starting class with a prayer is not oppressive nor is it tyrannical.


Unless it's an Islamic prayer.


----------



## mnn2501

Nevada said:


> I can't help but wonder why God made the earth to appear to be 4 billion years old when it's only 6,000 years old. Why did God create dinosaurs, kill them off, then scatter their bones in fossils that appear older then they are? Just to confuse scientists?


It goes back to their believing in a God who is a liar.


----------



## mnn2501

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Actually science says there are 13 dimensions and time is not one of them !


Actually time is considered the 4th dimension
and still I ask where are you getting this "time is an illusion' from?


----------



## mnn2501

willow_girl said:


> I don't think you should lump all people of religious belief into the same category ... not everyone finds Darwinian evolution incompatible with the Biblical account. I believe the Roman Catholic church has bowed to science in this regard, and I've heard other Christians express the belief that evolution was a tool used by the Biblical god to bring about Creation. In short, I don't think the two ideas are mutually exclusive.


True, there is no reason why "God" could not use Terra-forming and Evolution to achieve his/her/its goals. I am a Christian I also believe in science and evolution. 
I don't believe in the 'Young Earth' fallacy or a God who lies by placing older appearing objects to trick people.


----------



## Nevada

mnn2501 said:


> It goes back to their believing in a God who is a liar.


That's kind of harsh. I would sooner say that the Bible has parables that some people take literally.


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes, its easy to answer.... as long as you use measuring tools that you THINK or believe to be accurate.... as accurate today as they were hundreds of millions of years ago.... IF everything behaves exactly the way it happens to behave today.... what are the unknown factors that you arent counting on? Does light always travel through space at the same rate??? are there any distorting factors with either that light.... or "time" that couple possibly affect your calculations? Of course not.... because if there were it might mean that all your other theories could come crashing down on your head!


So you don't believe the speed of light is 299,792,458 m / s ??


----------



## mnn2501

Nevada said:


> That's kind of harsh. I would sooner say that the Bible has parables that some people take literally.


Its the logical extension of that:

If the earth = ~6000 years old
and God put objects that test to be older than that on/in the earth
Then God is tricking us
Thus God lies.

I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth, its not logical. 
If, on the off chance they are right and God is a liar, then He is not worthy of my worship.

BTW its not a parable, someone counted the generations of people listed in the Bible and multiplied by 30 (years to a generation)


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Unless it's an Islamic prayer.


shouldnt make any difference... pretty sure Islamic kids could use a boost with their studies same as any others.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> So you don't believe the speed of light is 299,792,458 m / s ??


That sounds like the number I have heard before.... but I have never chased a photon before, not sure if its that speed or not. My question is this.... is that speed constant through out the universe in all types of conditions? and has it always been that speed?


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> Actually time is considered the 4th dimension
> and still I ask where are you getting this "time is an illusion' from?


Tell ya what... you run down to the "time well" and fetch us up a bucket full.  While yer at it tell me just how much time is involved in the present, how much is past and how much left in the future. Then come back and we can discuss whether time is real or not.


----------



## Evons hubby

jtbrandt said:


> George and Thomas didn't go to public schools. Public schools didn't become so widespread until much later.


You might be right about that, I really never gave much thought to what sorta schools were around in those days.... I know not too long after they were running things (early 1800s) little one room community schools were pretty popular. I had just presumed that type system had been around for centuries. It might be worth checking into if someone brings me a bucket ful of time.... seems as though I am out at the moment.


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Tell ya what... you run down to the "time well" and fetch us up a bucket full.  While yer at it tell me just how much time is involved in the present, how much is past and how much left in the future. Then come back and we can discuss whether time is real or not.


I'll do that right after you bring me an armful of : length, width, and height.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> *Its the logical extension* of that:
> 
> If the earth = ~6000 years old
> and God put objects that test to be older than that on/in the earth
> Then God is tricking us
> Thus God lies.
> 
> I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth, its not logical.
> If, on the off chance they are right and God is a liar, then He is not worthy of my worship.
> 
> BTW its not a parable, someone counted the generations of people listed in the Bible and multiplied by 30 (years to a generation)


lets talk about logic a moment.... if the universe and all its contents are the result of purely random chance.... how does logic or any kind of order come about?

This is one more thing that points to an intelligent force behind its creation... according to the science guys the universe is quite neat and orderly... not chaotic in any way. It all follows predetermined "rules".

Oh. I did some tracking of the geneolgy mentioned in the Bible... yeah, sometime life gets really boring! LOL Anyway, I didnt do a multiplier for the generations... I followed it through from the garden to the flood.... back when either time moved faster or people lived a very very long time. If memory serves Adam was still hangin round when Noah was born!


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

mnn2501 said:


> Actually time is considered the 4th dimension
> and still I ask where are you getting this "time is an illusion' from?


Actually there are 5 dimensions.... here is the 5th dimension

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr6qj93Wltk[/ame]


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You might be right about that, I really never gave much thought to what sorta schools were around in those days.... I know not too long after they were running things (early 1800s) little one room community schools were pretty popular. I had just presumed that type system had been around for centuries. It might be worth checking into if someone brings me a bucket ful of time.... seems as though I am out at the moment.


For the first half of the 1800's the vast majority of those little community schools were private, not in the sense that they excluded anyone, but in the sense that the parents of the communities built them and paid the teachers. Public schools were only common in big cities. I think Boston may have been the first. Government-run schools did become more and more prevalent, until they became more common than private ones right about the end of the century. The near-universality of public schools is relatively new. The prayer/religion in schools issue popped up right about the time public schools became so dominant.


----------



## watcher

willow_girl said:


> I'm not sure if that's the case, unless we accept the premise that _all_ gods that can be imagined by the human mind had a hand in Creation. (The Flying Spaghetti Monster obviously made the pasta.)


There is where you thinking goes off track a bit. To say that you must know who the specific designer to discuss ID is like saying you must know each specific cell mutation to discuss macroevolution. 

What difference does it make to the idea of a intelligent designer if it was an all powerful being, a group of all powerful beings or some scientist from outside our dimension doing an experiment?


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> There is where you thinking goes off track a bit. To say that you must know who the specific designer to discuss ID is like saying you must know each specific cell mutation to discuss macroevolution.
> 
> What difference does it make to the idea of a intelligent designer if it was an all powerful being, a group of all powerful beings or some scientist from outside our dimension doing an experiment?


 Or maybe that the universe is full of the seeds of life, and given a suitable environment and a few billion years, it flourishes?


----------



## supernovae

mnn2501 said:


> Actually time is considered the 4th dimension
> and still I ask where are you getting this "time is an illusion' from?


I'm curious as well.

I also love how others are chiming in saying language and math is an illusion or a religion.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> There is where you thinking goes off track a bit. To say that you must know who the specific designer to discuss ID is like saying you must know each specific cell mutation to discuss macroevolution.
> 
> What difference does it make to the idea of a intelligent designer if it was an all powerful being, a group of all powerful beings or some scientist from outside our dimension doing an experiment?


ID / Creationism is a belief system held by Christians who have a more literal interpretation of the bible.

If we did live in a simulation, hologram or whatever hypothetical reality, it is interesting to think that what we call god may just be another person pulling the strings.. sort of like our Corporate and Government masters... :grin:


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That street runs two ways, no matter how many times you repeat it you cant change the fact that science is no more than any other religion.... a collection of beliefs that some folks place a great deal of faith in.


It's that semantic debate you guys love to play. The faith in science is a faith built on trust by observation.

The faith in religion / god is exactly the opposite.. It's only because of our limited vocabulary we have to express ourselves with that its rather unfortunate faith has two completely separate meanings for people to play word games with.

We talked about this when we beat "theory" like a dead horse.. will we ever end these debates on word games?



> I have no idea which school you think it was that infringed upon anyones rights by starting the day with a morning prayer.... much less an entire school!


I'm slightly amused you don't think forced prayer wouldn't be an infringement of your rights. Would you welcome Muslims to your town and forcing you to pray to mecha multiple times a day and implementing sharia law? I don't think so. Yet, they see it as the perfect natural law.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> But if you interpret the Bible to say that God created the heavens and earth 6,000 years ago, that doesn't make sense. The mere fact that we can see stars millions of light years away shows you that. If that were true then we couldn't see any stars that are more than 6,000 light years away, since their light wouldn't have reached us yet.
> 
> I can't help but wonder why God made the earth to appear to be 4 billion years old when it's only 6,000 years old. Why did God create dinosaurs, kill them off, then scatter their bones in fossils that appear older than they are? Just to confuse scientists?


You ever thought that some of our basic scientific 'truths' are wrong? 

Unless I'm mistaken, I am working on memory here not research, it wasn't that long ago it was a 'truth' that light traveled in a straight path and could not be bent (reflected but not bent). That 'fact' was discovered to be wrong when it was discovered gravity could bend light's path.

How do we know that light doesn't speed up or slow down as it travels long distances? We won't even get into the effect gravity and motion have on time. Maybe those stars we see that we are so sure are millions of light years away are much, much closer because what we "know" is wrong?

This is one of the problem with science is the fact that it requires you (general you) to stack assumption upon assumption. You find a way to make what you see fit with other assumptions. Wow when you do the math you discover that there's not enough mass in the universe to fit your assumption what do you do? You assume there must be other matter out there but you just can't see it, hence dark matter is born. Now the math works and you can sleep at nights.

You assume that star HKI is 20 million light years away based on the 'facts' as you know them today. Next year we may discover its only 3 light years away. After all do we know how fast light travels near or though dark matter?


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> We know the speed of light, we can measure the distance to neighboring galaxies. Knowing the distance and the speed of light, we know we're seeing history in the billions of years.
> 
> That is an easy question to answer.


We know the speed of light on earth and maybe in earth orbit. Do we have ANY proof that it travels the same speed in interstellar space or is that just an assumption or taken on "faith"?

Also do photons decay? And do the decay at a set rate? If not how do we know how long that photon has been flying through space before it hit the detection device here on earth?


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> You ever thought that some of our basic scientific 'truths' are wrong?


We change all the time. We thought the world was flat, we thought the sun orbited around us, we thought that Zeus created thunder, we thought our milky way was the entire universe, we thought planets were wandering stars, we thought a lot of things.



> Unless I'm mistaken, I am working on memory here not research, it wasn't that long ago it was a 'truth' that light traveled in a straight path and could not be bent (reflected but not bent). That 'fact' was discovered to be wrong when it was discovered gravity could bend light's path.


Something can be true until proven otherwise. We only recently had the technology and knowledge to understand that light follows the warping of space-time. However, this discover of bending of light only improved our scientific knowledge - it didn't cast doubt on science - only added to its integrity.



> How do we know that light doesn't speed up or slow down as it travels long distances? We won't even get into the effect gravity and motion have on time. Maybe those stars we see that we are so sure are millions of light years away are much, much closer because what we "know" is wrong?


Photons travel at a constant speed. We know this as "c" We know that photos are massless because of this as anything with mass, can't travel at the speed of light because it would need more energy than the universe has to try and accelerate an object with mass and because energy and mass are an equivalence the faster we try and go, the more mass we add. 

However, because light is a wave, we can see the stretching of the wavelength of light. THis is called measuring the redshift. We can use this to calculate if something is either moving away from us or moving towards us - this is called the Doppler effect. When something is accelerating away from us the wavelength is stretched into the red space while if its moving towards us the wavelength is shrunk the blue space. 

I'm way over simplifying this concept which you can read more about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect#Astronomy

It's because of this, that we know so much about light and matter. We know that our galaxies are part of a gravitational super cluster called the "local group" and that in a few billion years, the Andromeda galaxy will collide with the milky way, but being that there is so much empty space out there, the stars won't collide they will just interact gravitationally. Cool stuff.

But anyway, its the "Standard candle" from type 1a supernovas that give us a "Constant" by which we measure the distance to far reaching galaxies and just like fossils, its sort of a lucky chance of nature that we can discover these "Standard candles" just as we discovered the fossils.

Oh, and the coolest ramification about the speed of light, is that those stars we see that are 4-5 billion light years away, probably don't exist anymore and we're seeing them as they were 4-5 billion years ago as it takes that long for the light they emitted to travel the cosmos to our little blue planet.



> This is one of the problem with science is the fact that it requires you (general you) to stack assumption upon assumption. You find a way to make what you see fit with other assumptions. Wow when you do the math you discover that there's not enough mass in the universe to fit your assumption what do you do? You assume there must be other matter out there but you just can't see it, hence dark matter is born. Now the math works and you can sleep at nights.


As you can see, these are not assumptions. These are properties of nature that are experimentally verified by observation and tested by scrutiny of peer review.

The "not enough mass" problem is how we measure what we see. We know full well today that what we see is very little of the universe so good scientists don't shrug that off.

Even what Einstein considered to be his biggest blunder was the acceleration of the expansion of space that he simply refused to accept because it cast doubt on his steady state preconception of the universe. He later came to terms with that and became obsessed with a "Theory of everything" that physicists have been hard at work on ever since.



> You assume that star HKI is 20 million light years away based on the 'facts' as you know them today. Next year we may discover its only 3 light years away. After all do we know how fast light travels near or though dark matter?


Not really. There is a margin of error to all measurements, but that's just part of living in a universe that is all relative. Since we only measure things as they are today, which in the event that a star is 3 light years away, that is where the star was 3 years ago, not where it is today 

edit 12:04 am: as I forgot to embellish on dark matter, we can actually see the gravitational lensing (and infer distribution of dark matter) where the gravity is so strong in a region of space that it appears to magnify and distort the distant galaxies, so yes, that is how we calculate the "matter" necessary that we're not seeing to formulate what should be there.. but it may not be a single form of matter/energy - it may be many things but for all intents and purposes, we have confidence its there because we have observations of its impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

some cool stuff on that wiki page. Science backed up with observational data, mathematics and everything one needs to confirm the hypothesis.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> We know the speed of light on earth and maybe in earth orbit. Do we have ANY proof that it travels the same speed in interstellar space or is that just an assumption or taken on "faith"?


It's not an assumption at all. It's experimentally verified with the greatest of precision. Electricity travels at the speed of light. We measure this every second we shoot electrons down the utility grid. 



> Also do photons decay? And do the decay at a set rate? If not how do we know how long that photon has been flying through space before it hit the detection device here on earth?


Photons don't decay (per se), they stretch/shrink or change frequency because space is stretching or because they have shifted all of their energy. (such as the cosmic microwave radiation measurements) Its the stretching/shrinking of the wavelength that can tell us the velocity by which something is either traveling towards us or away from us (if its blue shifted or red shifted).

Another cool artifact of the wavelength of light is that we can analyze the spectrum to understand what emitted that light. We can point telescopes at stars, capture their light and analyze the spectrum to see what the core elements of that star are.

We can also use our precise measurements of stars to detect the "wobble" of a gravity field. This is how we use telescopes to discover new planetary systems. A star will appear to "wobble" because of its gravitational impact with neighboring planets and the amount of wobble gives us a clue as to the mass of the object causing the perturbations. 

This stuff is amazing


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> ID / Creationism is a belief system held by Christians who have a more literal interpretation of the bible.
> 
> If we did live in a simulation, hologram or whatever hypothetical reality, it is interesting to think that what we call god may just be another person pulling the strings.. sort of like our Corporate and Government masters... :grin:


Creation Science followers believe in the Genesis account of creation and typically are young earth but can be old earth believers.

Intelligent Design reasoning has actually been around since before Christ. Due to more recent discoveries in molecular biology we have developed this modern version of it.

Intelligent design makes no effort to support any religious account of creation .... however many participants in the ID movement are Christians.

ID does have agnostics deists and theists of non Christian belief and a few doubting atheists.

....................................................................

Actually many who belong to the Creation Science camp do not approve of the intelligent design movement and are critical of Christian participation in the movement.

Interestingly many of the proofs found in Creation Science literature are actually Intelligent Design arguments !!!!!!


----------



## unregistered353870

supernovae said:


> Since we only measure things as they are today, which in the event that a star is 3 light years away, that is where the star was *3 light years ago*, not where it is today


I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk by pouncing on one little mistake, but just thought you might want to edit this.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

*The dirty dozen: Twelve fallacies evolutionists make when arguing about the origin of life*



1. The fallacy of begging the question.
2. The fallacy of conflating the issues.
3. The fallacy of confusing the unknown with the undemonstrated.
4. The fallacy of large numbers.
5. The fallacy of invoking the infinite.
6. The fallacy of invoking a hidden intelligent designer.
7. The fallacy of the over-generalized description.
8. The fallacy of inferring possibility from picturability, a.k.a. the Pegasus fallacy.
9. The fallacy of ignoring the experimental evidence.
10. The fallacy of understating the problem.
11. The fallacy of adopting over-optimistic estimates.
12. The fallacy of arguing from unproven conjectures.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...s-make-when-arguing-about-the-origin-of-life/


----------



## supernovae

jtbrandt said:


> I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk by pouncing on one little mistake, but just thought you might want to edit this.


good find, i'll edit that. i'm just spending time replying when I should be heading to bed, I got a busy week next week


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> *The dirty dozen: Twelve fallacies evolutionists make when arguing about the origin of life*
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The fallacy of begging the question.
> 2. The fallacy of conflating the issues.
> 3. The fallacy of confusing the unknown with the undemonstrated.
> 4. The fallacy of large numbers.
> 5. The fallacy of invoking the infinite.
> 6. The fallacy of invoking a hidden intelligent designer.
> 7. The fallacy of the over-generalized description.
> 8. The fallacy of inferring possibility from picturability, a.k.a. the Pegasus fallacy.
> 9. The fallacy of ignoring the experimental evidence.
> 10. The fallacy of understating the problem.
> 11. The fallacy of adopting over-optimistic estimates.
> 12. The fallacy of arguing from unproven conjectures.
> 
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...s-make-when-arguing-about-the-origin-of-life/


Meaningless unless you cite specific cases by which we can go back and clarify positions.

If I wanted to divert this topic again, I could have very well spent a lot of time talking about the many ways you implement these very fallacies and then some.

But again, where does that get us? Evolution isn't a fallacy. Also, the study of these is a body of knowledge that falls in the domain of cognitive research, which is an arm of the sciences. So I don't mind you using the sciences to catch me if I do go astray, which seems to be the tactic you employ as a strategy to force people to go astray as to dilute or diminish the value of what is being talked about. Such as posting this very post with no data to back it up.

some of those are great though, I didn't know ID'ers developed their own cognitive biases/logical fallacies.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> Meaningless unless you cite specific cases by which we can go back and clarify positions.
> 
> If I wanted to divert this topic again, I could have very well spent a lot of time talking about the many ways you implement these very fallacies and then some.
> 
> But again, where does that get us? Evolution isn't a fallacy. Also, the study of these is a body of knowledge that falls in the domain of cognitive research, which is an arm of the sciences. So I don't mind you using the sciences to catch me if I do go astray, which seems to be the tactic you employ as a strategy to force people to go astray as to dilute or diminish the value of what is being talked about. Such as posting this very post with no data to back it up.
> 
> some of those are great though, I didn't know ID'ers developed their own cognitive biases/logical fallacies.


The 12 fallacies were written by a philosopher .... There are many philosophers on the ID blog.... philosophers are good at evaluating reasoning skills.

*Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

*en.wikipedia.org*/wiki/*Fallacy*http://www.bing.com/search?q=fallac...E0B9B5249408FF&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127#
A *fallacy* is an argument that uses poor reasoning. An argument can be *fallacious* whether or not its conclusion is true.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Photons travel at a constant speed. We know this as "c" We know that photos are massless because of this as anything with mass, can't travel at the speed of light because it would need more energy than the universe has to try and accelerate an object with mass and because energy and mass are an equivalence the faster we try and go, the more mass we add.


Not quite. You need to qualify your statement; photons travel at a constant speed ON earth. You only ASSUME they do so in interstellar space. There is no proof of that. Also if photons are massless then why does gravity affect them? 




supernovae said:


> However, because light is a wave, we can see the stretching of the wavelength of light. THis is called measuring the redshift. We can use this to calculate if something is either moving away from us or moving towards us - this is called the Doppler effect. When something is accelerating away from us the wavelength is stretched into the red space while if its moving towards us the wavelength is shrunk the blue space.


You have just introduced another troubling issue here. Photons act like waves AND particles so who is to say the Doppler effect acts upon them the way it does as pure waves?




supernovae said:


> But anyway, its the "Standard candle" from type 1a supernovas that give us a "Constant" by which we measure the distance to far reaching galaxies and just like fossils, its sort of a lucky chance of nature that we can discover these "Standard candles" just as we discovered the fossils.


So we have picked something and made it our standard based on assumptions mentioned above.




supernovae said:


> As you can see, these are not assumptions. These are properties of nature that are experimentally verified by observation and tested by scrutiny of peer review.


Just how do you peer review an assumption that light traveling through interstellar space does at the same speed as it does in the gravity fields of our solar system.




supernovae said:


> The "not enough mass" problem is how we measure what we see. We know full well today that what we see is very little of the universe so good scientists don't shrug that off.


Again because what they can see doesn't fit with what they think they decide there is something they can't see out there which makes it work. Funny to me that sounds a lot like they have FAITH in something unseen. Could dark matter be considered the 'god' of astrophysics?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> Meaningless unless you cite specific cases by which we can go back and clarify positions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted to divert this topic again, I could have very well spent a lot of time talking about the many ways you implement these very fallacies and then some.
> 
> 
> 
> But again, where does that get us? Evolution isn't a fallacy. Also, the study of these is a body of knowledge that falls in the domain of cognitive research, which is an arm of the sciences. So I don't mind you using the sciences to catch me if I do go astray, which seems to be the tactic you employ as a strategy to force people to go astray as to dilute or diminish the value of what is being talked about. Such as posting this very post with no data to back it up.
> 
> some of those are great though, I didn't know ID'ers developed their own cognitive biases/logical fallacies.
Click to expand...




> If I wanted to divert this topic again, I could have very well spent a lot of time talking about the many ways you implement these very fallacies and then some.


... and you have not engaged any of these ????????????????????????????


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> It's not an assumption at all. It's experimentally verified with the greatest of precision. Electricity travels at the speed of light. We measure this every second we shoot electrons down the utility grid.



Really? You have PROOF that photons act the same way in interstellar space? How did you prove that? Research the effect of gravity on light then tell me how you can make the assumption that in an environment w/o the strong, gravity fields it doesn't act differently? Could it be you are taking this on FAITH?




supernovae said:


> Photons don't decay (per se), they stretch/shrink or change frequency because space is stretching or because they have shifted all of their energy. (such as the cosmic microwave radiation measurements) Its the stretching/shrinking of the wavelength that can tell us the velocity by which something is either traveling towards us or away from us (if its blue shifted or red shifted).
> 
> Another cool artifact of the wavelength of light is that we can analyze the spectrum to understand what emitted that light. We can point telescopes at stars, capture their light and analyze the spectrum to see what the core elements of that star are.
> 
> We can also use our precise measurements of stars to detect the "wobble" of a gravity field. This is how we use telescopes to discover new planetary systems. A star will appear to "wobble" because of its gravitational impact with neighboring planets and the amount of wobble gives us a clue as to the mass of the object causing the perturbations.


All of this is based on your assumption, or faith, that in a gravity free environment light acts EXACTLY as it does in earth's gravity field. 

If there is even a small percentage difference then your calculations are going to be off by huge amounts due to the sheer size of the numbers you are dealing with.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> Not quite. You need to qualify your statement; photons travel at a constant speed ON earth. You only ASSUME they do so in interstellar space. There is no proof of that. Also if photons are massless then why does gravity affect them?


They travel at a constant speed regardless since they're massless. We have instruments in space btw. We can test this by zipping electricity across power lines, we can test this by flashing a laser to the moon and back. (when we landed on the moon, we left a mirror on it that we bounce a laser off of periodically to track the earth and moon interactions. We can see that the earth and moon are moving away from each other as they try to achieve a harmonic rotation, but we can also know the measurement of distance by measuring how long it takes for the laser to bounce back)

We also have vacuum chambers (easy way to simulate vacuum of space) and we have super colliders experimenting with accelerating items OF mass as close to the speed of light as they can get (which is related to the power and size of the collider to begin with)

we have done a tremendous amount of research on light which powers our cities, lights up our skies, powers the internet and allows us to have global communications, cell phones, radio waves, tv broadcasts and so much more.

light is also the measurement of space-time and is considered fairly fundamental and foundational to our knowledge and its had one experiment after another verify it to great precision. So much so, that we know how to manipulate light (lasers) and even slow it down.. (just can't make it go faster than the constant c)

we also know it takes about 7 or 8 minutes for photons that escape the suns gravity (they don't interact with the suns gravity but the sun has so much gravity it condenses matter so tight that particles collide for 10s of thousands of years before they escape.. so maybe saying gravity per se isn't exactly right but it isn't wrong, its what holds the stars mass together and causes its fusion) to hit the earth and give us light. If the sun were to instantly turn off, we wouldn't know for 7 or 8 minutes.

We have sent out spaceships to the ends of our solar system and can also measure how long it takes to receive and send a transmission - which is exactly the speed of light.



> You have just introduced another troubling issue here. Photons act like waves AND particles so who is to say the Doppler effect acts upon them the way it does as pure waves?


Yes. The particle/wave duality is just weird for us. Reality is weird. LIght is waves, radio is waves. sound is waves, (sound waves are not part of the EMR as Sound waves need to interact with particles to be distributed err propagated) They have the same properties indeed as they're all a waves. (just edited to clarify..)



> So we have picked something and made it our standard based on assumptions mentioned above.


I don't know what you're trying to get here. What do you mean assumptions? Lets take the internet for example, the technology that runs the internet runs on the electromagnetic spectrum as lightwaves when it travels through fiber optics. We measure the distance by which the packets have to travel through latency - this is all a symptom of physics that is easily measured. Some of the latency is congestion of the bandwidth and physical link issues - but again, as soon as you calculate for the physical link and congestions, the math ads up - always has, always will. Every variability is calculable and derivable.

Because we know this, is this an "assumption" in the frame you're trying to convey, or an "Assumption" that we know this as fact since nothing strays from our observations and calculations and our degree of confidence is near absolute?

So much so that we take for granted were all miles apart from each other and talking in near real time in our heads but limited by the physics of nature and the speed of light.



> Just how do you peer review an assumption that light traveling through interstellar space does at the same speed as it does in the gravity fields of our solar system.


Its massless. There are lots of other "particles" besides light. There are neutrinos raining down through us and even through the empty space within our atoms. "ghost particles" they say. Neutrinos aren't massless per say, but they're so good at passing through everything as if it doesn't exist because they're actually going through the empty space of matter itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle

massless doesn't explain everything about light, there is a massive amount of research on photons and EM.



> Again because what they can see doesn't fit with what they think they decide there is something they can't see out there which makes it work. Funny to me that sounds a lot like they have FAITH in something unseen. Could dark matter be considered the 'god' of astrophysics?


dark matter isn't considered a god, its just something we don't have an answer for yet. We used to think empty space was empty, but space itself is something. 

Recently the LHC collected enough evidence to basically prove the theoretical "god particle" or higgs boson.. but that name is merely metaphor for the field that gives particles mass - which is a pretty important field to have discovered as it shows just how low of a level we're starting to understand nature. (and i'll say it again, its weird). Its the "god particle" because it answers what many thought was unanswerable - how particles achieve mass.

Just think of the possibilities of man were able to understand the properties of the boson or fields itself. Star trek teleportation is something I think of, being able to shoot matter down as energy.. but then again, the mind starts to melt when you realize we're basically killing and re-assembling someone if that we're indeed a possible technology. Did many people consider that as they watch their favorite sci fi with teleporters?


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> ... and you have not engaged any of these ????????????????????????????


I don't need to engage the concepts of the fallacies, they have no bearing on evolution or dinosaurs. If you want to point out specific use cases where I used a fallacy, please do.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Time is an illusion

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-an-illusion/


----------



## supernovae

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Time is an illusion
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-an-illusion/


Did you read it? Curious to what you're trying to insinuate.

Time is weird, does that make it an illusion? I mean, when you talk of it in relativity is all based upon the frame of observation and the "illusion" is that time is universal as we "Feel" it in our relative existence on earth, but "spooky" when you try and understand it as it really is.

But time itself, isn't an illusion, its part of the fabric of space.

Article seems more metaphorical but I don't have a subscription to read the rest of it. Quantum mechanics has no arrow of time itself in the sense of space-time (wave form collapse craziness... I guess one could say it collapses in every existence/dimension and plays out as it does in the one we exist in.. but then that gets into weird multiverse stuff which we don't need to go into), which makes the possibility of anything/everything happen possible which is why quantum physics is so weird.

Imagine one day in the not so distant future we build a spaceship that accelerates away from earth and humans start experiencing time dilation.. will time seem illusory or will we finally witness the effects of time through great distance and acceleration beyond us driving our cars and flying our airplanes where the effects of relativity are so small they're negligible (all though still measurable!)


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> I'll do that right after you bring me an armful of : length, width, and height.


not a problem.... my bucket is a foot tall, and 15 inches wide.... its round so that covers the length too... now... off to the well, fill it with time.


----------



## Evons hubby

jtbrandt said:


> For the first half of the 1800's the vast majority of those little community schools were private, not in the sense that they excluded anyone, but in the sense that the parents of the communities built them and paid the teachers. Public schools were only common in big cities. I think Boston may have been the first. Government-run schools did become more and more prevalent, until they became more common than private ones right about the end of the century. The near-universality of public schools is relatively new. The prayer/religion in schools issue popped up right about the time public schools became so dominant.


I went to school during the fifties and sixties.... graduated in 69... we were never concerned with prayers at that point... we opened class with a prayer and the pledge of allegiance.... zero concern from anyone at that point. The prayer went something like "grant our teacher the wisdom to teach these lil monsters what they need to know when they grow up" not those exact words but that was the general drift.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> not a problem.... my bucket is a foot tall, and 15 inches wide.... its round so that covers the length too... now... off to the well, fill it with time.


You're not filling it up with time, you're actually spending energy moving through space-time


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I went to school during the fifties and sixties.... graduated in 69... we were never concerned with prayers at that point... we opened class with a prayer and the pledge of allegiance.... zero concern from anyone at that point. The prayer went something like "grant our teacher the wisdom to teach these lil monsters what they need to know when they grow up" not those exact words but that was the general drift.


I graduated in '57 and it was much the same as you describe. I was never religious but the prayers didn't bother me. I don't think they did any good either, though. Seemed to be just another thing to do.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> So you don't believe the speed of light is 299,792,458 m / s ??


I have rethunk my previous answer to this and NO I dont think that is correct.... Seems to me the sun is only like 93 million miles from us, and it takes something like 7 minutes theoretically for that light to reach us. At the rate of nearly 300 million miles per second.... it would take that light only about a third of a second to get here. Something is awry with the math here. Could it be thats feet per second instead of miles?


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> It's that semantic debate you guys love to play. The faith in science is a faith built on trust by observation.
> 
> The faith in religion / god is exactly the opposite.. It's only because of our limited vocabulary we have to express ourselves with that its rather unfortunate faith has two completely separate meanings for people to play word games with.


:umno: My faith in God is based on EXACTLY the same thing your faith in science is based on... observations.... my own personal observations... not those of anyone else. It has nothing to do with language or semantics. I know exactly what I have seen and experienced..... how much of your faith is based upon your personal observations instead of those made by others in your scientific community?


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> You're not filling it up with time, you're actually spending energy moving through space-time


Ok, again, I am going to give you a break here coz your new. "I" am not even spending energy trying to fill the bucket with time. That is someone elses job. you would have to go back a couple pages to pick up on that. I have been out for a while, having a few drinks and playing some guitars... hence the delay in getting back to them... and you as well as a couple other folks here.


----------



## Evons hubby

jtbrandt said:


> I graduated in '57 and it was much the same as you describe. I was never religious but the prayers didn't bother me. I don't think they did any good either, though. Seemed to be just another thing to do.


I always kinda looked at it as one of those "cant hurt, might help" things.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> :umno: My faith in God is based on EXACTLY the same thing your faith in science is based on... observations.... my own personal observations... not those of anyone else. It has nothing to do with language or semantics. I know exactly what I have seen and experienced..... how much of your faith is based upon your personal observations instead of those made by others in your scientific community?



You're playing the semantic game, logical fallacy game (pulling that up per the recommendations of another post) and you're also mixing supernatural philosophies with natural philosophies as if they're one in the same. They're not.

Trust in observations is something I can confirm. I can't confirm you seeing your god, but I can go and study observation data and confirm exactly what science is observing.

Not the same faith or concepts at all.

I'm not a psychologist so I don't know the terms for how our mind plays tricks on us, but it is a pervasive problem within our species because we're not perfect by any means. Science understands this and that is why it has peer review, observations, experimentations stands so strongly on evidence as we have knowledge of just how fallible we are. Knowing this, I respect your views, but I don't take them as truths. They are your own personal beliefs.

I trust you're not pulling my leg, but i'll verify. I have no way to do that, so i'll remain skeptical until proven otherwise. Which there is no proof 

however, with science, if I were to make a claim, you can absolutely verify said claim, otherwise, it isn't science. You don't need to take my word for it. (WARNING: this overly simplifies it, big time.. so please, don't choose just to attack me because I'm not pedantic enough again, I don't want to debate the meaning of words much more or dilute the meaning so much that they have none)


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Did you read it? Curious to what you're trying to insinuate.
> 
> Time is weird, does that make it an illusion? I mean, when you talk of it in relativity is all based upon the frame of observation and the "illusion" is that time is universal as we "Feel" it in our relative existence on earth, but "spooky" when you try and understand it as it really is.
> 
> But time itself, isn't an illusion, its part of the fabric of space.
> 
> Article seems more metaphorical but I don't have a subscription to read the rest of it. Quantum mechanics has no arrow of time itself in the sense of space-time (wave form collapse craziness... I guess one could say it collapses in every existence/dimension and plays out as it does in the one we exist in.. but then that gets into weird multiverse stuff which we don't need to go into), which makes the possibility of anything/everything happen possible which is why quantum physics is so weird.
> 
> Imagine one day in the not so distant future we build a spaceship that accelerates away from earth and humans start experiencing time dilation.. will time seem illusory or will we finally witness the effects of time through great distance and acceleration beyond us driving our cars and flying our airplanes where the effects of relativity are so small they're negligible (all though still measurable!)


It is my understanding that our concept of time slows down in a direct relationship to rate of speed... to the point that time basically stops when something is moving at the speed of light. 

Its also my understanding the light travels at the maximum speed of anything in our universe... which raises another question... if light is the fastest thing going.... how does "dark" get out of its way? Wouldnt dark have to travel just a wee bit faster than light?


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I always kinda looked at it as one of those "cant hurt, might help" things.


you still have the freedom to pray, so it still "can't hurt, might help".

What is the utility/purpose of forcing prayer as a ritual for all and how is not forcing it hurting you?


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It is my understanding that our concept of time slows down in a direct relationship to rate of speed... to the point that time basically stops when something is moving at the speed of light.


Close enough, but yes  photons have no reference, essentially they are the reference. If you are traveling at 99.9% the speed of light, from your reference, light is still traveling away from you at the speed of light. It's time that dilates/changes. I keep saying "spooky" because that's how a lot of brilliant people try to describe what happens since none of this exists in any frame we exist in for our day to day lives as we see them with our biological systems.

but again, if we were space travelers, that would all change. and by space travelers I mean traveling to other stars.. even flying to the moon is negligible to detect where as flying to another star would have major consequences for those on the trip who age slower than those who stay on earth in respect to one another.

we have proof (evidence, experimental data, data other people can use to reproduce the experiment.. whatever we ant to call it) of time dilation in our super colliders as well. We know the decay rate of protons that we accelerate around the beam and we know by how long we can increase the life of the photon and reduce its decay rate by how fast we're accelerating it (against our frame). If we didn't accelerate it, it would decay before we could do the experiment. (but to itself, it decays as it normally would) "spooky"

Another "cool" from me 

http://home.web.cern.ch/topics/large-hadron-collider

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator



> Its also my understanding the light travels at the maximum speed of anything in our universe... which raises another question... if light is the fastest thing going.... how does "dark" get out of its way? Wouldnt dark have to travel just a wee bit faster than light?


hehe, these thoughts actually once passed through our head when we thought of light like sound waves, we thought there had to be an ether of sorts, but now we don't consider "dark" to be a problem or anything that gets out of the way. I don't have much information on this to share, but I just wanted to say "now you're thinking!" because this is exactly what went through our heads as we tried to understand light & space time! (dark matter and dark energy being something completely different that we see interacting with light, such as the gravitational lensing I spoke of earlier)

when I get back from my camp/volunteering over the next 8 days i'd love to discuss this more. I think i'm done unless I have a few minutes in the morning until then.

have a great weekend people!


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> You're playing the semantic game, logical fallacy game (pulling that up per the recommendations of another post) and you're also mixing supernatural philosophies with natural philosophies as if they're one in the same. They're not.
> 
> Trust in observations is something I can confirm. I can't confirm you seeing your god, but I can go and study observation data and confirm exactly what science is observing.
> 
> Not the same faith or concepts at all.
> 
> I'm not a psychologist so I don't know the terms for how our mind plays tricks on us, but it is a pervasive problem within our species because we're not perfect by any means. Science understands this and that is why it has peer review, observations, experimentations stands so strongly on evidence as we have knowledge of just how fallible we are. Knowing this, I respect your views, but I don't take them as truths. They are your own personal beliefs.
> 
> I trust you're not pulling my leg, but i'll verify. I have no way to do that, so i'll remain skeptical until proven otherwise. Which there is no proof
> 
> however, with science, if I were to make a claim, you can absolutely verify said claim, otherwise, it isn't science. You don't need to take my word for it. (WARNING: this overly simplifies it, big time.. so please, don't choose just to attack me because I'm not pedantic enough again, I don't want to debate the meaning of words much more or dilute the meaning so much that they have none)


Ok, right up front lets clear this up... I am NOT attacking you in any way shape or form.... its all good.  

now a couple of points...

A. My experiences have all been in relationship to perfectly natural phenomenon... some are not very well understood... especially not by the science crowd, but perfectly natural just the same. 

B. It makes little difference to me whether you believe me or not... that is irrelevant... but there are literally thousands of others, like myself who have experienced the very same things I have... I have spoken directly with dozens of them and we ALL understand each other and trust one another... kinda like your "peer reviews". 

C. Its not Gods fault that you science guys have yet to figure out how all this stuff works.... maybe someday you will overcome that stumbling block that you all seem to have and look into what you refer to as "supernatural"... admit to yourselves that its quite natural and learn about it. That would make for one very happy day.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Close enough, but yes  photons have no reference, essentially they are the reference. If you are traveling at 99.9% the speed of light, from your reference, light is still traveling away from you at the speed of light. It's time that dilates/changes. I keep saying "spooky" because that's how a lot of brilliant people try to describe what happens since none of this exists in any frame we exist in for our day to day lives as we see them with our biological systems.
> 
> but again, if we were space travelers, that would all change. and by space travelers I mean traveling to other stars.. even flying to the moon is negligible to detect where as flying to another star would have major consequences for those on the trip who age slower than those who stay on earth in respect to one another.
> 
> we have proof (evidence, experimental data, data other people can use to reproduce the experiment.. whatever we ant to call it) of time dilation in our super colliders as well. We know the decay rate of protons that we accelerate around the beam and we know by how long we can increase the life of the photon and reduce its decay rate by how fast we're accelerating it (against our frame). If we didn't accelerate it, it would decay before we could do the experiment. (but to itself, it decays as it normally would) "spooky"
> 
> Another "cool" from me
> 
> http://home.web.cern.ch/topics/large-hadron-collider
> 
> 
> 
> hehe, these thoughts actually once passed through our head when we thought of light like sound waves, we thought there had to be an ether of sorts, but now we don't consider "dark" to be a problem or anything that gets out of the way. I don't have much information on this to share, but *I just wanted to say "now you're thinking!"* because this is exactly what went through our heads as we tried to understand light & space time!
> 
> when I get back from my camp/volunteering over the next 8 days i'd love to discuss this more. I think i'm done unless I have a few minutes in the morning until then.
> 
> have a great weekend people!


Thanks for recognizing that little fact... as I pointed out several pages ago, Some of us sit and think.... others just sit. 

Have a safe trip! see ya when you get back.


----------



## mnn2501

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Time is an illusion
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-an-illusion/


You're using a book review to prove your point?


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> not a problem.... my bucket is a foot tall, and 15 inches wide.... its round so that covers the length too... now... off to the well, fill it with time.


Didn't say I wanted an empty bucket, just bring me an armful.


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have rethunk my previous answer to this and NO I dont think that is correct.... Seems to me the sun is only like 93 million miles from us, and it takes something like 7 minutes theoretically for that light to reach us. At the rate of nearly 300 million miles per second.... it would take that light only about a third of a second to get here. Something is awry with the math here. Could it be thats feet per second instead of miles?


meters per second.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

mnn2501 said:


> You're using a book review to prove your point?


I posted the wrong link ... you can google "time is an illusion" and get science's responses


----------



## willow_girl

> There is where you thinking goes off track a bit. To say that you must know who the specific designer to discuss ID is like saying you must know each specific cell mutation to discuss macroevolution.
> 
> What difference does it make to the idea of a intelligent designer if it was an all powerful being, a group of all powerful beings or some scientist from outside our dimension doing an experiment?


I was responding to a poster who seemed to be saying that if the evidence pointed conclusively to an intelligent designer, then all believers in gods of some sort would automatically gain credibility. 

I didn't think that would be the case, as only the god(s) who actually did the creating would deserve credit, and since we have no way of figuring out exactly which entity that is ... ?

Or, to put it another way, I don't think the worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would suddenly gain respect by way of this revelation.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> Didn't say I wanted an empty bucket, just bring me an armful.


ok, my arm is about 2 feet in length, about 5 inches wide (at the big end) and about 6 inches in depth.... now... if you dont mind would you please take that bucket and fetch us up a bucketful of time.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> meters per second.


thanks


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

iti_oj said:


> What mechanism wow allows micro but not macro? This question needs to be answered.


(This same question was asked by Nevada... who states that micro evolution is small mutational steps which accumulate over time to result in the major changes we refer to as macro evolution)

Evolution is a blind process where small modifications are randomly produced and are either selected or rejected. The modifications are selected when there is improved survivability in a local reproducing population.

The theory seems reasonable but requires that each modification be selected or rejected bases on improved fitness.

*However sometimes producing new function requires producing new morphological or anatomical structures by the accumulating of a number of successive mutations. The individual mutations do not improve fitness ... you need the interacting of a combination of mutations working together to improve fitness. So by what mechanism does evolution select these mutations ? The probably of chance producing the right combination of mutations is rediculous 

Micro evolution is one mutation producing change (which is selected by improved fitness)

Some macro changes require accumulations of mutations before fitness is improved... and evolution theory does not define a mechanism to select them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






*


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Evolution is a blind process where small modifications are randomly produced and are either selected or rejected. The modifications are selected when there is improved survivability in a local reproducing population.
> 
> The theory seems reasonable but requires that each modification be selected or rejected bases on improved fitness.


Most modifications are not randomly produced, since Natural selection accounts for most of evolution. Only a minority of changes are introduced though genetic mutations. If a mutation is detrimental to the survivability of the species, it will go by the wayside through natural selection.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

(quoted from post # 595)


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> But. Just watch the video serious God of Wonders. Evolution or creation?. That has some amazing scientific facts about evolution and creation. It opened my eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> BBC Life is better and it doesn't have creationism non science interjected in it.
> 
> When the bible was written, people were murdered for believing we orbited the sun. Sounds to me like religion just has a problem accepting knowledge..
> 
> but then, i have some super religious friends who are micro biologists and don't seem to have this view of people walking with dinosuars and anti evolutionary stance and they're rather rational in their views.
> 
> So where does it come from?
Click to expand...




> When the bible was written, people were murdered for believing we orbited the sun. Sounds to me like religion just has a problem accepting knowledge..


*Supernovae your rhetoric is quite devious.... Way back in history the church persecuted some whose opinions were at variance.

But is this happening today?

Is the church having a problem accepting scientifically proven knowledge?

... This thread is concerned with the fact that some who believe in the supernatural .... are not willing to accept science's assumptions.


*


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> Most modifications are not randomly produced, since Natural selection accounts for most of evolution. Only a minority of changes are introduced though genetic mutations. If a mutation is detrimental to the survivability of the species, it will go by the wayside through natural selection.


mutations are randomly produced and then either selected or rejected


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> Most modifications are not randomly produced, since Natural selection accounts for most of evolution. Only a minority of changes are introduced though genetic mutations. If a mutation is detrimental to the survivability of the species, it will go by the wayside through natural selection.


The mutations which produce the modifications are randomly produced. The modifications which produce improved survivability will be selected


----------



## Vahomesteaders

I believe God was the greatest scientist ever. I beleive they go hand in hand. Here is my problem with evolution. No animal can tell itsself it needs something and grow it. Its DNA is programed in that way. Even with mutations that is seen as foerign mutation and the body will not pass it on through the DNA. So where does that animal get the information from? Science cant add information to the DNA and pas it on. They have tried. They have formed mutations to genes but they are not passed down the line. The bodies breeds it back out. So hwo does it happen? I can tell myself I want a two more legs to run fast ever single day for 100 years and it will never happen. My DNA does not contain the information t do so. No animal ever has. Even animals in nuclear waste areas who have serious mutations do not pass on those mutations. There is no fosil record of a fish with half a leg in the iddle of the growing process. There is no fosil record of whales with legs. The DNA of whales today would still carry that information had it ever been there.


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> ok, my arm is about 2 feet in length, about 5 inches wide (at the big end) and about 6 inches in depth.... now... if you dont mind would you please take that bucket and fetch us up a bucketful of time.


No, I want your arms full of it, not your arm itself.

Just pointing out that your claim and followup request is totally ridiculous


----------



## unregistered353870

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I always kinda looked at it as one of those "cant hurt, might help" things.


Yeah, I kind of agree. I don't see a lot of harm in it. But I've never been sensitive to things like that because I don't take them all that seriously. We did have a Jehova's Witness kid in my school who was teased a little for not taking part, but he rolled with it. The country is a lot more religiously diverse now, so even if prayer wasn't a big deal when we were kids, I'm not in favor of going back to it. There's nothing stopping the kids who want to pray from praying. That's good enough for me.


----------



## unregistered353870

willow_girl said:


> I was responding to a poster who seemed to be saying that if the evidence pointed conclusively to an intelligent designer, then all believers in gods of some sort would automatically gain credibility.
> 
> I didn't think that would be the case, as only the god(s) who actually did the creating would deserve credit, and since we have no way of figuring out exactly which entity that is ... ?
> 
> Or, to put it another way, I don't think the worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would suddenly gain respect by way of this revelation.


They could all claim credit for their God/god, just as they do now...it would be one step closer to proving them right.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnny Dolittle*
> _Evolution of novel physical (anatomical or morphological) features in multi cellular organisms will eventually require evolution to produce novel tissues (you can not produce a brain unless you first produce brain tissue)
> 
> Embryo development starts with one cell (a fertilized egg) which multiplies by cell division. At some point cells specialize to produce specific tissues such as muscle, bone, artery etc. It is the varying protein composition of cells which causes cells of one tissue type to differ from from cells of another tissue type.
> 
> So evolution requires production of new proteins.
> 
> Back earlier I referred to research by Douglas Axe. He concluded that new proteins could not easily be invented by randomly manipulating DNA sequences. He calculated the probably of success and concluded almost impossible.
> 
> Supernovae's quick "wiki" link rebuttal did not address my post by providing an actual example of a mutation producing a new protein._
> 
> 
> supernovae said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this really matters since what you described happens in nature and just because we haven't "broken the code" for every little bit of it, doesn't mean evolution is wrong or that not having every answer devalues what we do know.
> 
> As i've said before, Evolution was discovered long before we knew genetics. Genetics only re-enforces evolution and does so beautifully. We then predicted the double helix, a few years later, we image that double helix. It's amazing, it answers the "what next" question and it does so without invaliding the entire theory to begin with.
> 
> Everything else is seeking out perceived complexity and using that perceived complexity to cast doubt where there is none.
> 
> The more we learn, the more we learn just how much we don't know but not knowing doesn't mean what we do know is wrong, just that we're working hard to discover the knowable.
Click to expand...




> None of this really matters since what you described happens in nature and just because we haven't "broken the code" for every little bit of it, doesn't mean evolution is wrong or that not having every answer devalues what we do know.


Yes it does matter .... science is about verifying with proof. Science speculates that random altering of DNA sequences will produce novel proteins. The peer reviewed experiment suggests random altering of DNA sequences will not.

.... but science has learned to intelligently manipulate DNA sequences to produce novel "engineered" proteins.

..... Unless science can prove mutation produces novel protein the theory of evolution is falsified.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> There was no life on the early earth. Just as there is no life on the modern moon. The "chemical" of life though is however abundant across the universe and is forged inside the explosion of stars. In fact, our atmosphere was deadly for us until microbial life started the conversion to an O2 atmosphere. This is all easily understood through science.





> In fact, our atmosphere was deadly for us until microbial life started the conversion to an O2 atmosphere.


Abiogenesis theory requires a (chemically reducing) methane atmosphere for life to form ... once formed the methane atmosphere is deadly to it.

.... There was no methane atmosphere at the time life is theorized to have formed.


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Abiogenesis theory requires a (chemically reducing) methane atmosphere for life to form ...


I never heard that...

I would have thought life started under water anyway.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> Or just realize every living creature is an example of evolution and just because you have a question, doesn't mean there isn't an answer.
> 
> Keep on researching!





> .... just because you have a question, doesn't mean there isn't an answer.


Maybe you need to keep on researching ..... I have been researching for evidence that mutation can produce novel proteins and the answer is .... there is no evidence.

You spin this by advising me to keep on researching

(the lack of evidence is your problem because you lack the evidence that evolution can produce novel proteins)

..... so keep on researching friend .... science requires verification by providing evidence


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> I never heard that...
> 
> I would have thought life started under water anyway.


Just read it from this book. Author is a cell biologist and evolutionist.

(the book was a hard read for me... fairly technical)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Cell-Molecules-Organisms/dp/0195163389


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> I'm not ignoring it, i'm just keeping it under abiogenesis where it belongs, its not really a problem of evolution is it? I believe I even posted the link in the context of abiogenesis... i'm not sure at this point because the gentleman I was debating turned it to weird tangents for a bit.
> 
> Also, its a universal problem. If you don't believe in evolution then whatever you believe in has a "big chicken before the egg problem".
> 
> So why struggle with it? The reason I don't struggle with it is that I find the problem itself intriguing and exciting and challenging. I don't see it as unknowable and unsolvable. Just because there is a question as you suggest, doesn't mean I project an answer.
> 
> I'm quite happy to say the answer is "i don't know" but at the very same time, how you phrased the question is very much on the basis of science itself, so like you phrased it, I believe science will be able to soon better answer it too.
> 
> That make sense?
> 
> Is there a reason that all 20 peptides had to exist in the beginning? could simple life forms have evolved and failed with such force for not being stable and many other reasons?
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12225777?dopt=Abstract
> 
> Its my view that any evolutionary biologists would look at these in an evolutionary framework of just not magically appearing in quantity or en mass... just as life itself recorded in the fossil record went through several different phases of "bursts" of activity.. and not all living at once and some surviving across major periods.
> 
> edit: just to clarify, some of the claims are that early rna would have decayed to quickly, but there is no reason that that quick decay simply didn't evolve to stable organisms thriving as that fast decay could actually have accelerated the evolutionary transitions of organisms but even then, evolution doesn't say the first simple organisms started with rna, they could have been much more simple. (and probably were.. the premise of the theory is based on starting simple)
> 
> edit2: about the proteins again, aren't chemical bonds limited by the properties of the molecules themselves? sharing electrons isn't exactly stable in every mutation and the bonds are based more on properties of atoms and chemistry right? a mutation of a stable bond is usually cancerous as well right?
> 
> IN terms of evolution, creating more proteins than what is needed for survival that don't increase survival would be an excess in the system showing no benefit for survival and thus may not ever come about.. but odd things have happened. There was a photo of a kid getting like 100 or 200 teeth pulled recently.. eww.. and we know of a few reptiles growing a second pair of eyes in independent of one another. (not the same species of reptile) so mutations happen that still cause change.. maybe the kid with 300 teeth will donate some dna for study


Yes I said there are now about 20 amino acids and I never said 20 were needed to produce life ..... 

Looks like you are beating around the bush instead of answering my question.

In nature a mixture of amino acids will bond together with about 1/3 peptide bonding and 2/3 covalent or ionic bonding.

To have a protein the amino acid chain must be linked by only peptide bonding.... which only occurs in a ribosome (and the ribosome is composed of about 50 differing proteins)

So you need a protein to make a protein .... which is a chicken before egg kind of issue.

(and please don't repeat your belief that religion also has a chicken before the egg issue.... I just don't need that kind of rhetoric and diversion)


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> I never heard that...
> 
> I would have thought life started under water anyway.


We have been discussing the miller-Urey experiment where back in 1953 amino acids were artificially produced in a lab by producing a spark In a chamber filled with methane gas and no oxygen.

Proteins are produced by peptide bonding of amino acids.

So abiogenesis theory requires an oxygen free methane atmosphere to produce the amino acids.... however methane is deadly to life.

Now they are proposing life began in underground pockets of methane.


----------



## SJSFarm

Wow, I dropped the ball not opening this up earlier! 

I do feel compelled to make a few comments:

Peer review: there is extreme bias in peer review. If one does not follow the 'party line' one does not get published. They may be passed over from hire, promotion, or even dismissed. This is well documented. 

As far as 99% of scientists believe in evolution- again, peer review bias, how the question is asked (adaptation may have been included as an acceptance of evolution) and the old tradition of disqualifying those responses not deemed to the benefit of the desired outcome. Look over some info on climate change. There was a tremendous bit of info on how those disagreeing - with valid data - in climate change, were dismissed from positions, papers refused for publication, and in a few extreme cases, threatened with harm! 

Now I'm not saying they were right in their data- I just want true to science evaluation! That means that all valid data be included- not cherry picked.

Evolution- Darwin's final edition(6th I believe) questioned his own theory of evolution over creation. Yet schools still teach the origin of species as a fact of evolution eventhough the author commented his theories didn't explain life fully.

The Miller/Urey or Miller/Fox experiments: in the 80's -I believe- an attempt at recreation of the experiment resulted in total failure and it was determined that the chemical composition of the 'atmosphere' used was not the one claimed to have been used. Additionally, the atmospheric composition used to create 'life' was not believed to exist on earth at the time and/or not in those quantities.

There were at times massive leaps in evolution where explination cannot be made. How such a massive change occured is in question. 

I read a few books from a man named Lee Stroble. Very interesting
http://www.leestrobel.com/Bio.php


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> No, I want your arms full of it, not your arm itself.
> 
> Just pointing out that your claim and followup request is totally ridiculous


not as ridiculous as it may appear.... lets take a different approach since you dont like this path. I think most people will agree that time consists of three major aspects... past, present, and future. Are you good with that? Some folks insist they are living in the present... some have even said that I live in the past. When one stops for a bit and actually thinks about time questions are raised. How much time is in the past? the present, and the future. The answer I come up with is infinity..... along with the same for future, but the present (if it exists at all) is an infinitely small "slice". Similar to length, width, and depth, "time" is a manmade concept we created to help us in our daily lives.... but if it does exist at all it is a very slippery concept entirely dependent upon how we believe.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> not as ridiculous as it may appear.... lets take a different approach since you dont like this path. I think most people will agree that time consists of three major aspects... past, present, and future. Are you good with that? Some folks insist they are living in the present... some have even said that I live in the past. When one stops for a bit and actually thinks about time questions are raised. How much time is in the past? the present, and the future. The answer I come up with is infinity..... along with the same for future, but the present (if it exists at all) is an infinitely small "slice". Similar to length, width, and depth, "time" is a manmade concept we created to help us in our daily lives.... but if it does exist at all it is a very slippery concept entirely dependent upon how we believe.


Again, just because we don't understand when or how time started or might end, that doesn't prove that God did it.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Again, just because we don't understand when or how time started or might end, that doesn't prove that God did it.


Nope, but it doesnt help some folks argument that He didnt. This of course depends entirely upon whether there even is such a thing.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, but it doesnt help some folks argument that He didnt. This of course depends entirely upon whether there even is such a thing.


My observation of time is that it dovetails into the math of physics too well, too reliably, and too reproducibly to question that it exists. You've got to admit, the speedometer in your car is pretty reliable. In fact, reliable enough to base traffic laws on.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> My observation of time is that it dovetails into the math of physics too well, too reliably, and too reproducibly to question that it exists. You've got to admit, the speedometer in your car is pretty reliable. In fact, reliable enough to base traffic laws on.


I am not too sure about the reliability of my speedometer.... particularly when traffic laws are involved.... When I see a speed limit sign and match that number with the one on my speedometer nearly everyone starts tailgaiting, honking their horns an passing me! This happens in all the vehicles I drive.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

> Originally Posted by *Yvonne's hubby*
> _And yet many of us swallow hook line and sinker all of these things.... and totally reject the existence of God.... based on the fact that they havent seen Him.... even though thousands of others have. :shrug:
> 
> _





supernovae said:


> This doesn't mean anything. I said earlier I once saw a car talk to me but I know I was sleep deprived and malnourished and over worked and stressed. Our mind plays games with us.
> 
> Other people have been able to replicate my psychosis by depriving themselves of sleep - studying brain waves, bio-chemical responses and neurological patterns to try and derive how/why this happens. It's a very interesting subject that I don't know much about, but I know enough to know that "observational data that can be experimentally verified" is much better than "a few people saying they saw god".
> 
> I saw Rodger rabbit! but I *know* I was delirious!
> 
> If we had no fossils, if we didn't know what DNA was, if we didn't see evolution on any scale, there would be nothing to it. Or if DNA wasn't consistent, if everyone was same or drastically different, or if there were no families of species, no tree of life, no genetic relationship to my ancestors, then I couldn't possibly say evolution had any truth - but it *has* all of this. We're not random people that look completely different than our parents but over generations we're much different than our ancestors were 100,000 years ago by a HUGE amount, yet were still genetically closely related and still part of the same species.
> 
> If we saw dinosaurs just popping out of thin air in my back yard.. well howdy doody, i'd have to believe some supernatural force caused that, but that doesn't happen either.
> 
> Do you believe everyone who sees bigfoot? aliens? god(s)? the future? reads your palms? reads your signs? writes your astrology? I think that stuff is cute, but its nonsense.. aliens.. quite possibly exist because the universe is huge for them to not.. but to think they fly around and read our minds while we sleep is a bit absurd.





> If we had no fossils, if we didn't know what DNA was, if we didn't see evolution on any scale, there would be nothing to it. Or if DNA wasn't consistent, if everyone was same or drastically different, or if there were no families of species, no tree of life, no genetic relationship to my ancestors, then I couldn't possibly say evolution had any truth - but it *has* all of this. We're not random people that look completely different than our parents but over generations we're much different than our ancestors were 100,000 years ago by a HUGE amount, yet were still genetically closely related and still part of the same species.


Yes there is lots of evidence for evolution but the same evidence can be interpreted to support intentional design.

Henry Ford invented a car then a truck and then a tractor. He used the same engine in the car and the truck. He decided he needed a 4 cylinder engine for the tractor and so he designed an engine block that could use the same components as the v-8 block which was used in the car and truck. So the V-8 and 4 cylinder engines shared the same piston, valves etc. The differential gears designed for the truck were later used in the tractor. 

Likewise a designer of life might reasonably share components in the varying types or forms of life.

A creator designer might proceed by designing a vertebrate mammal... He looks at what he designed and makes some modifications to produce another type of mammal. They have similar genetic make up .... but they do not interbreed. The designer continues making other mammals.... He decides to make the various designs differ by about 15-20%.

........ the evolutionist's tree of life also belongs to the creationist !!!!


And while there is a great deal of consistency in the supposed evolutionary tree of life there are also significant inconsistencies which draw the attention of creationists.... or sometimes the inconsistencies convert evolutionists into creationists.

...Maybe those inconsistencies were designed into life for the purpose of converting evolutionists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## watcher

I've seem to have lost a huge bundle of replies somehow. I know I replied to this one and others but I don't seem them posted. GRRR



supernovae said:


> Photons travel at a constant speed. We know this as "c" We know that photos are massless because of this as anything with mass, can't travel at the speed of light because it would need more energy than the universe has to try and accelerate an object with mass and because energy and mass are an equivalence the faster we try and go, the more mass we add.


More faith based on what you assume. You "know" light travels at a constant speed throughout the universe yet in another post you say that we have proven this to be a false statement. Remember where you said we could slow it down?

Your masslessness is based on more assumptions. You assume nothing can go faster than c based on the fact here in our gravity field the equation E=mc^2 seems to always hold true. Also is they are massless why would gravity effect them in any way and why could they not escape a black hole?




supernovae said:


> However, because light is a wave, we can see the stretching of the wavelength of light. THis is called measuring the redshift. We can use this to calculate if something is either moving away from us or moving towards us - this is called the Doppler effect. When something is accelerating away from us the wavelength is stretched into the red space while if its moving towards us the wavelength is shrunk the blue space.


Based, again, on the assumptions. If the light from a star is moving slower than c, which you have admitted is possible, then would that not effect any calculations you make on the shift?





supernovae said:


> But anyway, its the "Standard candle" from type 1a supernovas that give us a "Constant" by which we measure the distance to far reaching galaxies and just like fossils, its sort of a lucky chance of nature that we can discover these "Standard candles" just as we discovered the fossils.


Again what is this standard based on? I'm willing to bet it is based on the speed of light being constant.





supernovae said:


> As you can see, these are not assumptions. These are properties of nature that are experimentally verified by observation and tested by scrutiny of peer review.


They are assumptions with known flaws. Once we discovered we could slow the speed of light down everyone of these "known" things had a black swan event. You can no longer know how far a star is from you because you can not know how fast the light was moving the entire time it was traveling toward earth.




supernovae said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
> 
> some cool stuff on that wiki page. Science backed up with observational data, mathematics and everything one needs to confirm the hypothesis.


All of which I'm sure age based on the black swanned theory that c is always c.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Your masslessness is based on more assumptions. You assume nothing can go faster than c based on the fact here in our gravity field the equation E=mc^2 seems to always hold true. Also is they are massless why would gravity effect them in any way and why could they not escape a black hole?


Photons have no rest mass.

In answer to your black hole question, it's believed that space itself is distorted in the vicinity of a black hole. That distortion bends space back into the black hole. So the photon itself isn't being acted upon by black hole forces. The photon is simply traveling through distorted space, and that path leads back into the black hole.


----------



## rambotex




----------



## greg273

lol seems appropriate.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> My observation of time


Wow, I have never ever seen any time.... not even a second of it....whats it look like?


----------



## Nate_in_IN

greg273 said:


> lol seems appropriate.


Interesting. May I ask what is your definition of "science"?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nate_in_IN said:


> Interesting. May I ask what is your definition of "science"?


its a hobby for some of the most avid meddlers in the world.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> its a hobby for some of the most avid meddlers in the world.


 Hopefully you can see the irony of disrespecting science while typing on your computer and sending your message to the far flung corners of the world in a few seconds.


----------



## greg273

Nate_in_IN said:


> Interesting. May I ask what is your definition of "science"?


 Nah, I am still waiting for someone to answer my question of why God and evolution cannot both be true.


----------



## TRellis

greg273 said:


> Hopefully you can see the irony of disrespecting science while typing on your computer and sending your message to the far flung corners of the world in a few seconds.


Maybe we should just chalk it up to "selective scientific belief"?

TRellis


----------



## unregistered353870

greg273 said:


> Nah, I am still waiting for someone to answer my question of why God and evolution cannot both be true.


Or they could both be untrue....


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Nah, I am still waiting for someone to answer my question of why God and evolution cannot both be true.


They are.... science is basically a bunch of curious meddlers trying to sort out how God puts stuff together. Their "job" would be so much simpler if they simply would recognize that everything they observe, touch, experiment with and study is part of Gods creation.... put the credit where it belongs and get on with things.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Hopefully you can see the irony of disrespecting science while typing on your computer and sending your message to the far flung corners of the world in a few seconds.


What disrespect? Its not my fault that the science guys are running so far behind God in intelligence that they cannot even relate to His existence! Of course they do have a slight disadvantage.... they have only really been working at it for a few hundred years.... Gods been practicing it throughout eternity.


----------



## Nate_in_IN

greg273 said:


> Nah, I am still waiting for someone to answer my question of why God and evolution cannot both be true.


That's why I asked mine. Here is one of the definitions from dictionary.com which I think is most appropriate to this conversation.

science:
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Notice the terms "physical" and "material". Plus the fact this knowledge is gained through *our* observation. I think this definition definitely leaves room to have science leading to discoveries of what God created.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

The definition of science has changed over the decades and centuries and now refuses to acknowledge the supernatural is required to explain the material world. Science is materialistic philosophy based on presumptions.

So while theistic forms of evolution may be believed .... science will not recognize them if supernatural manipulation or organization of matter is involved in the process of evolution or abiogenesis.

However there is a theoretical form of evolution which assumes a creator designed the universe so that it is fine tuned for life to emerge and evolve without direct supernatural assistance.

..... Francis Collins who headed the encode project which mapped the human genome is a Christian who believes in this unassisted form of evolution.

http://biologos.org/


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

> Originally Posted by *greg273*
> _Nah, I am still waiting for someone to answer my question of why God and evolution cannot both be true._





jtbrandt said:


> Or they could both be untrue....


well that is thinking way outside of the box.

Michael Denton an admitted atheist who is an M.D. and holds a PhD in molecular genetics wrote this book back in the '80's . He wasn't abandoning evolution but was very critical of the physical proof and described mechanisms of evolution.

.... and while he has not given into design he is a fellow at The Discovery Institute... which is a think tank for the intelligent design movement.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-A-Theory-In-Crisis/dp/091756152X

I will talk about this later ... but there is a growing consensus among scientists that random mutation coupled with natural selection is not up to the task of making an elephant from an amoeba. Michael Denton is of this opinion.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

* Human*
/
*Common primate ancestor *

\
[FONT=&quot] *Chimpanzee*[/FONT]


Evolution believes that Humans and Chimpanzees evolved seperately from one common primate ancestor. 

The ENCODE project of the '90's successfully mapped the Human genome and a few years later the Chimpanzee genome was mapped. A comparison of these two genomes has yielded conflicting results. The conflicting results can be attributed to assumptions made by the individual researchers. 

I see a range of 65 to 99 % simularity.

*Assume that the 99% is accurate. 

Now carefully observe the Chimpanzee and compare to a human .... You see more than a 1% difference don't you !!!!!!!

At least I see more than a 1 % difference when I compare them !!!

So I conclude that something more than DNA is causing the Chimpanzee to differ from the Human... and if it is not DNA then it might not be evolution which caused the differences !!!

*And if you assume 65% simularity between Human and Chimpanzee then you admit they are not so closely related !!!!

Yet it is the evolutionists who bias the genome comparrison using the assumptions which produce 99% simularity between Human and Chimpanzee !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*

 




*


----------



## Nate_in_IN

As an engineer I have studied science and mathematics my whole life. These are the tools I use on a daily basis in the performance of my job. I have a slightly different view of what "science" is than what most have represented in this thread.

For me science and mathematics are our (being human beings) attempt at predicting (maybe understanding) how things interact. For instance Newton found that objects will accelerate based upon their mass and the force applied upon them. This relationship has proven to be repeatable and engineers have used that relationship in designs of tools. This I think we can all agree upon. But for me I believe the equation is man's perception of how objects move, not that objects follow the rules of the equation. It may be a nuance but let me point out another example. A lot of people on here would say "Science says The Earth orbits around The Sun". I don't think it makes such a claim. I think science and math are perfectly content in having things orbit about the earth. Most people profess to the solar-centric model because frankly the math becomes much easier. But a geo-centric model does still work, the math to evaluate it is just more complex. For me science is not defining _how_ things work, but rather putting forth models for _predicting_ expected behavior.

There was a point in time when I thought science could explain everything that happened in the Universe. Sure there may be some things which we have not yet discovered, and there are things which we have not found developed sufficient mathematics to describe but I felt that given enough time and resources this _could_ be accomplished. But that lead me to a quandary.

Do people possess free will? If everything in the universe has a scientific explanation, and can be modeled and predicted with mathematics then, knowing the current state of things the future could be perfectly predicted. This removes the possibility that people have free will to do as they please. I know there are many psychological sciences which work to identify peoples past and they are able to attempt to predict what choices they make, however these fields all are based on probabilities. When dealing with living things there seems to be some underlying principal which science cannot model, only guess at. This may be more appropriately called a things soul. I don't think humans have the ability to apply science and math to the soul, it is something entirely different than the material matters those subjects were founded upon.

The fact that living things posses this soul and are free to make choices which cannot be modeled or predicted would indicate to me there is more than material parts to the Universe. These is some kind of super-natural component and that is what religion pertains to.


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> I will talk about this later ... but there is a growing consensus among scientists that random mutation coupled with natural selection is not up to the task of making an elephant from an amoeba. Michael Denton is of this opinion.


A consensus is not a matter of opinion. In infers a majority. There is either a consensus among scientists or there isn't. I've posted evidence that 99.85% of scientists believe that evolution was responsible for the creation of man. That's only about 1 scientist in 1,000. It's only fair that you show me evidence that there's a consensus among scientists that intelligent design played a part.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> A consensus is not a matter of opinion. There is either a consensus among scientists or there isn't. I've posted evidence that 99.85% of scientists believe that evolution was responsible for the creation of man. It's only fair that you show me evidence that there's a consensus among scientists that intelligent design played a part.


You are kidding right? This would be a little like getting a consensus among preachers that God is evil and Satan is the good guy. Its just not how it works! When one looks at a particular club and expects them to stray from their own basic beliefs.... its asking a bit much. Hows about we find a group of folks predominately in the Intelligent Design camp (say 99.85%) and see if they want to offer up their consensus of how things began. Of course consensus is a matter of opinion.... its also a matter of "whose" opinion!


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You are kidding right? This would be a little like getting a consensus among preachers that God is evil and Satan is the good guy. Its just not how it works! When one looks at a particular club and expects them to stray from their own basic beliefs.... its asking a bit much. Hows about we find a group of folks predominately in the Intelligent Design camp (say 99.85%) and see if they want to offer up their consensus of how things began. Of course consensus is a matter of opinion.... its also a matter of "whose" opinion!


Then there is not a consensus. To say otherwise might lead readers to the conclusion that more than 1 in 1,000 scientists maintain a belief in ID.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Then there is not a consensus. To say otherwise might lead readers to the conclusion that more than 1 in 1,000 scientists maintain a belief in ID.


That whooshing sound you heard was obviously my point going over your head. Entirely my fault I am sure.... as I know I often make comments here that most dont grasp... must be something lacking in my communication skills. Lets try this instead... there seems to be a growing consensus within that small fraction of scientists that believe......


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> A consensus is not a matter of opinion. In infers a majority. There is either a consensus among scientists or there isn't. I've posted evidence that 99.85% of scientists believe that evolution was responsible for the creation of man. That's only about 1 scientist in 1,000. It's only fair that you show me evidence that there's a consensus among scientists that intelligent design played a part.


OK thanks ... I stand corrected Nevada and I knew it was not a majority.... but....

There is a small growing movement amongst evolutionists that mutation and/or natural selection are inadequate to drive macro evolution.

I quote Lynn Margulis who was the wife of Carl Sagan the notorious science populizer.



> &#8220;This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn&#8217;t create.&#8221;


http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/...is-on-the-insufficiency-of-natural-selection/

Science is not giving up on evolution but some are realizing the mechanisms which drive it are insufficient. But until they find replacements they will continue to parrot what they have.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nate_in_IN said:


> As an engineer I have studied science and mathematics my whole life. These are the tools I use on a daily basis in the performance of my job. I have a slightly different view of what "science" is than what most have represented in this thread.
> 
> For me science and mathematics are our (being human beings) attempt at predicting (maybe understanding) how things interact. For instance Newton found that objects will accelerate based upon their mass and the force applied upon them. This relationship has proven to be repeatable and engineers have used that relationship in designs of tools. This I think we can all agree upon. But for me I believe the equation is man's perception of how objects move, not that objects follow the rules of the equation. It may be a nuance but let me point out another example. A lot of people on here would say "Science says The Earth orbits around The Sun". I don't think it makes such a claim. I think science and math are perfectly content in having things orbit about the earth. Most people profess to the solar-centric model because frankly the math becomes much easier. But a geo-centric model does still work, the math to evaluate it is just more complex. For me science is not defining _how_ things work, but rather putting forth models for _predicting_ expected behavior.
> 
> There was a point in time when I thought science could explain everything that happened in the Universe. Sure there may be some things which we have not yet discovered, and there are things which we have not found developed sufficient mathematics to describe but I felt that given enough time and resources this _could_ be accomplished. But that lead me to a quandary.
> 
> Do people possess free will? If everything in the universe has a scientific explanation, and can be modeled and predicted with mathematics then, knowing the current state of things the future could be perfectly predicted. This removes the possibility that people have free will to do as they please. I know there are many psychological sciences which work to identify peoples past and they are able to attempt to predict what choices they make, however these fields all are based on probabilities. When dealing with living things there seems to be some underlying principal which science cannot model, only guess at. This may be more appropriately called a things soul. I don't think humans have the ability to apply science and math to the soul, it is something entirely different than the material matters those subjects were founded upon.
> 
> The fact that living things posses this soul and are free to make choices which cannot be modeled or predicted would indicate to me there is more than material parts to the Universe. These is some kind of super-natural component and that is what religion pertains to.


*Yes ! ... "free to make choices" and making choices requires reasoning abilities which are a function of intelligence (unless you just toss the dice)


*


----------



## SJSFarm

Regarding science and conservatives believe/skepticism in it. There is valid reason to question "science" as fact. Often, opposing viewpoints are ignored by peer review panels. The author's papers may be rejected outright, the authors themselves may be passed over for hire or promotion, dismissed from positions, and/or "blackballed" in their positions. If you don't follow the party line, you are disciplined. Climate change is a major point on this. Scientists who pointed out the flaws in studies, the altering of data, the rejection of data, and other fraud, were dismissed from positions, called frauds, and in some extreme cases, were threatened with harm. Gee, I wonder why I question "consensus of opinion" and "it's fact".

The questioning of intelligence of conservatives often comes up as well. "Holding to God and Guns" and claiming a lack of intelligence as to why they don't believe the way the liberals believe. This is also a farce. The "studies" come out every few years claiming lower IQ's for conservatives, or even genetic differences. Again, it goes back to the accuracy of the research. How the so-called study was conducted and who it included and why. One may create a set of questions in which attempt to determine a set of beliefs and through that determine intelligence, but one must review HOW the study was conducted - what questions were asked, who was chosen to answer, how they were chosen, how many were involved, how many and what criteria was used to dismiss participants, or questions/answers. So many factors are involved in a study and it is so easy to manipulate that study in order to reach the desired outcome. 

Some citations: 
It is often claimed conservatives refuse to evaluate anything opposing their viewpoint. This study was an attempt to prove just that, but ended up determining conservatives read more opposing view points than did libers. So who is really ignoring potential alternate information?
http://m.livescience.com/3640-people-choose-news-fits-views.html

This one discusses why conservatives distrust science
http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/r...vatives-distrust-science-are-they-right-do-so

Tea Partiers know more about science than others!
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/tea-party-science-98488.html

A fun test whose questions are completely insane. Talk about pigeon holing someone!
http://www.blogthings.com/howliberalorconservativeareyouquiz/

IQ tests: 
http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/13/are-conservatives-dumber-than-liberals

Evaluation, personal, of similar IQ studies 
http://ironshrink.com/2010/04/are-l...ervatives-another-broken-study-says-it-is-so/

A rather interesting and bias evaluation on the differences between conservatives and liberals
http://www.primohistory.com/Conservative vs Liberals.pdf

and just for fun; does anyone recall the "amazing" discovery of the Hobbit people of Flores? Physical Anthropologists determined this was a previously unknown race of little people. A 2004 discovery. And a good reason why science should be questioned. It was determined that an entire race of little people lived on this tiny island, having evolved into small statured individuals. All based up one a single find. 
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/****-floresiensis


Whoops; science basing a new species on ONE PARTIAL skeleton! Guess what? It was not a new species; it was an individual with Downs Syndrome. At least that's what they say now, 10 years later. 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...evidence-new-human-species-study-reveals.html

This is why questions are asked on science.


----------



## Nevada

SJSFarm said:


> Often, opposing viewpoints are ignored by peer review panels.


I didn't observe that in the oil business.



SJSFarm said:


> The author's papers may be rejected outright


Sure. If you don't have the credentials to be taken seriously and you didn't cowrite with someone who does, your paper isn't going to be published anyplace of significance. That weeds-out the amateurs and propeller beanie nut jobs.

[prophead]



SJSFarm said:


> the authors themselves may be passed over for hire or promotion, dismissed from positions, and/or "blackballed" in their positions.


And if you're an engineer you can lose your license -- or worse. In fact if you design a bridge or tall building and don't use accepted science, you can actually go to prison if someone dies or gets hurt. Nobody can afford to have someone like that on staff. But if you think about it, you wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## SJSFarm

Nevada, please inform me of what you are referring to regarding peer review and the oil industry? Sorry, I don't know what it's about. 

Also. I'm having problems with my computer resetting the page when I try to pull a link from the web and attach it to a response. When this happens, everything I've written vanishes! 

I'll try to get it tonight, but please let me know what your concern is/was with the oil industry. 

Thanks


----------



## Nevada

SJSFarm said:


> Nevada, please inform me of what you are referring to regarding peer review and the oil industry? Sorry, I don't know what it's about.


Various specialties in oil refining have little panels of self-appointed experts. They decide things like whether a new synthetic zeolite is really new. 



SJSFarm said:


> I'll try to get it tonight, but please let me know what your concern is/was with the oil industry.


I'm not particularly concerned about the oil industry. I'm sure it's doing fine.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada, there are some big differences between the general topic of this thread and your career. Yes, they both involve science, but that's about the extent of the connection. People could die if you screwed up at your job. Not a lot of lives are at stake if a scientist is wrong about whether dinosaurs and people roamed the earth at the same time...unless the dinosaurs are still here, just laying low and waiting patiently for a chance to attack us.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> Nevada, there are some big differences between the general topic of this thread and your career. Yes, they both involve science, but that's about the extent of the connection. People could die if you screwed up at your job. Not a lot of lives are at stake if a scientist is wrong about whether dinosaurs and people roamed the earth at the same time...unless the dinosaurs are still here, just laying low and waiting patiently for a chance to attack us.


The big difference is not between my career and reality, the difference is between physical science and life science. The principles of physical science are much more straightforward to demonstrate and apply than life sciences. But I have faith and respect for the principles of life sciences, since the follow the same standards as physical science.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> The big difference is not between my career and reality, the difference is between physical science and life science. The principles of physical science are much more straightforward to demonstrate and apply than life sciences. But I have faith and respect for the principles of life sciences, since the follow the same standards as physical science.


That's pretty much what I was trying to get across. I'm not all that familiar with the right words to describe the different sciences. I was thinking applied, fundamental, and empirical sciences, but those didn't seem like quite the right distinctions.

Anyway, my point is, nobody's life is in immediate danger if somebody is wrong about a broad theory involving evolution. There probably are some specific cases in medicine where it comes into play, though.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> That's pretty much what I was trying to get across. I'm not all that familiar with the right words to describe the different sciences. I was thinking applied, fundamental, and empirical sciences, but those didn't seem like quite the right distinctions.
> 
> Anyway, my point is, nobody's life is in immediate danger if somebody is wrong about a broad theory involving evolution. There probably are some specific cases in medicine where it comes into play, though.


To be fair, there are some areas of physical science that are a bit pie-in-the-sky, in my opinion. As I mentioned before, the existence of parallel universes is a pretty bazaar hypothesis to me. But that's why those fields of study were selected for careers on the TV show Big Bang Theory, because it's easier to be tongue-in-cheek about their careers.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnEaI-Lw2j0[/ame]


----------



## greg273

Johnny Dolittle said:


> I will talk about this later ... but there is a growing consensus among scientists that random mutation coupled with natural selection is not up to the task of making an elephant from an amoeba. Michael Denton is of this opinion.


 Evolution as a random, mechanical soulless thing, is not the way I view the evolutionary process. Whenever life is involved, there is intention. That translates on down to a molecular, DNA level. It is entirely reasonable that life would evolve from super-simple one-celled organisms to higher and higher lifeforms given enough time, suitable conditions, and the WILL to live. Evolution is indeed 'up to the task', that is what the available evidence and signs point to... Did 'God' start the process? Is God driving the process, dwelling in each soul? Holding up the entire show? Most holy scriptures say there is, and I am inclined to believe that.


----------



## Nate_in_IN

greg273 said:


> Evolution as a random, mechanical soulless thing, is not the way I view the evolutionary process. Whenever life is involved, there is intention. That translates on down to a molecular, DNA level. It is entirely reasonable that life would evolve from super-simple one-celled organisms to higher and higher lifeforms given enough time, suitable conditions, and the WILL to live. Evolution is indeed 'up to the task', that is what the available evidence and signs point to... Did 'God' start the process? Is God driving the process, dwelling in each soul? Holding up the entire show? Most holy scriptures say there is, and I am inclined to believe that.


So do you believe that life has free will? Then do you also agree there will be some things which humans will not be able to use science to explain / predict?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nate_in_IN said:


> So do you believe that life has free will? Then do you also agree there will be some things which humans will not be able to use science to explain / predict?


Like art? Music? Womens minds?


----------



## supernovae

Did I miss much? lol


----------



## Nevada

supernovae said:


> Did I miss much? lol


Not anything new. Creationists are still in denial of the evidence, while the rest of us accept science.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Not anything new. Creationists are still in denial of the evidence, while the rest of us accept science.


Flieshman and pons! 

Gotta love them Scientists! And some STILL deny that there is no absolutely no proof that evolution caused humans to come into existence.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Flieshman and pons!
> 
> Gotta love them Scientists! And some STILL deny that there is no absolutely no proof that evolution caused humans to come into existence.


There's lots of proof that evolution occurs, and undeniable proof that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Your arguments depend on two ideas.

1. Evolution can't be proven (to your satisfaction) to have created man, so it must be wrong.
2. Creationism can't be disproven, so it must be correct.

You see the logical error?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Johnny Dolittle said:


> (This same question was asked by Nevada... who states that micro evolution is small mutational steps which accumulate over time to result in the major changes we refer to as macro evolution)
> 
> Evolution is a blind process where small modifications are randomly produced and are either selected or rejected. The modifications are selected when there is improved survivability in a local reproducing population.
> 
> The theory seems reasonable but requires that each modification be selected or rejected bases on improved fitness.
> 
> *However sometimes producing new function requires producing new morphological or anatomical structures by the accumulating of a number of successive mutations. The individual mutations do not improve fitness ... you need the interacting of a combination of mutations working together to improve fitness. So by what mechanism does evolution select these mutations ? The probably of chance producing the right combination of mutations is rediculous
> 
> Micro evolution is one mutation producing change (which is selected by improved fitness)
> 
> Some macro changes require accumulations of mutations before fitness is improved... and evolution theory does not define a mechanism to select them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


*
OK maybe my explanation would be helped by an example. Evolutionists believe the ability to fly evolved more than once. Mammals (bats) evolved separately from birds. Birds are believed to have evolved from reptiles or dinosaurs. Flying dinosaurs are believed to have evolved from non flying ones. These examples involve the modification of existing appendages which were used for walking (tetrapods)and later slowly modified into functional wings. Flight also evolved separately in insects but not via the modifying of existing legs.

To produce flight requires a succession of intermediate mutational steps which would eventually accumulate into a new function (flight). The intermediate steps (mutations) would need to be selected for even though individually they do nothing to produce flight or improve survivability.

Now imagine a reptile like creature that walks on its hind legs while the fore legs are slowly changing into wings which are yet too underdeveloped to produce flight. Why would these non functional wings be selected for ??? Functioning less like legs but not yet producing flight would seem to be a disadvantage to survival.

The fossil record has yet to produce good examples of legs transitioning into wings. The examples in science textbooks are only artist's conceptional drawings. *


----------



## Nate_in_IN

Nevada said:


> Not anything new. Creationists are still in denial of the evidence, while the rest of us accept science.


So does evolution say that life evolved from rocks?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> Did I miss much? lol


Yes... your camping vacation gave me a chance to catch up with replying to your many posts (you made about 100 posts over a 17 hour period)

Glad to have you back (I think ???)


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> There's lots of proof that evolution occurs, and undeniable proof that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Your arguments depend on two ideas.
> 
> 1. Evolution can't be proven (to your satisfaction) to have created man, so it must be wrong.
> 2. Creationism can't be disproven, so it must be correct.
> 
> You see the logical error?


I never said evolution was wrong, so there goes your "theory"! I just said it can't be proven. 

You see how your wrong by assumption! Your error!


----------



## Nevada

Nate_in_IN said:


> So does evolution say that life evolved from rocks?


More likely from an aqueous brew of some sort.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> More likely from an aqueous brew of some sort.


So there's your theory of evolution...aqueous brew of some sort? Yeah, that's real science right there! ound:


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> So there's your theory of evolution...aqueous brew of some sort? Yeah, that's real science right there! ound:


You're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. The hypothesis for the origin of life (i.e., abiogenesis) is not very well developed at this time. Much of it is conjecture. We just don't know enough about it. But that doesn't prove that God did it.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> You're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. The hypothesis for the origin of life (i.e., abiogenesis) is not very well developed at this time. Much of it is conjecture. We just don't know enough about it. But that doesn't prove that God did it.


Never said he did! Why do you insist on attributing things to me that I have never said? 
I'm not confusing anything, you are!

Here, it's very simple:

No matter what anyone says, Darwins theory on the origin of man, cannot be proven to be true.
But, it's taught as the ONLY realistic way that humans came to be. 

Creationism is the same, cannot be proven, but not taught.

So why teach one and not the other? Teach them both or don't, and let the parents teach them.

Pretty simple really! !!


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> Never said he did! Why do you insist on attributing things to me that I have never said?
> I'm not confusing anything, you are!
> 
> Here, it's very simple:
> 
> No matter what anyone says, Darwins theory on the origin of man, cannot be proven to be true.
> But, it's taught as the ONLY realistic way that humans came to be.
> 
> Creationism is the same, cannot be proven, but not taught.
> 
> So why teach one and not the other? Teach them both or don't, and let the parents teach them.
> 
> Pretty simple really! !!


Creationism is based on biblical theology and faith.

Evolution is based on evidence.

I have a kids book that contains 20 or so "creationism" beliefs that have been passed down from the generations.. it makes for good reading to understand culture but that's about it. We certainly don't believe in stork theory today.

Simply put, if we had no evidence for evolution it wouldn't be accepted.


----------



## mmoetc

supernovae said:


> Did I miss much? lol


Not much. Still waiting for that explanation of where life came from if "life can only come from life", some creationist explanation of the fossil record or why there is no evidence of all the animals that ever existed existing together at one time. Hope you had a good time at camp and welcome back.


----------



## supernovae

mmoetc said:


> Not much. Still waiting for that explanation of where life came from if "life can only come from life", some creationist explanation of the fossil record or why there is no evidence of all the animals that ever existed existing together at one time. Hope you had a good time at camp and welcome back.


Thanks! It was a lot, and i mean, a LOT of hard work, but i had a blast and can't wait to do it again next year!


----------



## mmoetc

supernovae said:


> Thanks! It was a lot, and i mean, a LOT of hard work, but i had a blast and can't wait to do it again next year!


It's amazing how working with kids can restore energy and help counter much of the negativity we hear about the next generation(s).


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> There's lots of proof that evolution occurs, and undeniable proof that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Your arguments depend on two ideas.
> 
> 1. Evolution can't be proven (to your satisfaction) to have created man, so it must be wrong.
> 2. Creationism can't be disproven, so it must be correct.
> 
> You see the logical error?


Where is your proof that one organism can change into a completely different organism with DNA so different that it is a different kingdom? AFAIK, there is zero evidence to show that environmental evolution can cause such a change. Sure you can evolve a dog into a larger dog with a different coat but you can't evolve a fruit fly into a furry, warm blooded, quadruped.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Sure you can evolve a dog into a larger dog with a different coat but* you can't evolve* a fruit fly into a furry, warm blooded, quadruped.


 Maybe YOU can't, but the evidence shows that LIFE ITSELF can, given the right conditions and a LONG LONG LONG amount of time.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> There's lots of proof that evolution occurs, and undeniable proof that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Your arguments depend on two ideas.
> 
> 1. Evolution can't be proven (to your satisfaction) to have created man, so it must be wrong.
> 2. Creationism can't be disproven, so it must be correct.
> 
> You see the logical error?


No. but I see the error in your statement. I dont think anyone is denying that evolution... or some degrees of it anyway can happen and has happened. I also see huge gaps and missing links when ever someone trys to string all these events together to get us from that single cell to modern man. 

This doesnt mean it "couldnt" have happened that way.... but it certainly leaves a LOT of room for doubt too. 

By the same token, creationism cannot be disproven.... but that doesnt necessarily mean it happened just the way some say it was either. 

The point here is that it "might" have come to pass in many different ways... some that have never even been thought of yet. Until someone somewhere can prove one hypothesis is indeed the absolute truth.... its anybodys guess. Emphasis on "guess".


----------



## Paumon

The first people were the Sky People, they lived beyond the sky because there was no earth beneath. One day the chief's daughter became very ill and no one was able to provide a cure for her sickness. A wise elder was consulted and he told them to dig up a tree and lay the girl beside the hole that remained. The Sky People respected the elder and began to dig up the tree. Suddenly the tree fell down through the hole and dragged the chief's daughter with it. As the girl fell she saw that below was only an ocean of water. Two swans were alarmed by the girl falling and decided she was too beautiful to drown so they swam to catch her. They landed her on the back of the Great Turtle, and all of the animals of the earth gathered. 

The Great Turtle counselled that the Sky Woman was a symbol of good fortune. He ordered the animals to find where the Sky World tree had landed in the ocean and to bring it back with its earth-covered roots. The swans lead the animals to the place where the tree had fallen into the ocean. First otter, then muskrat, and then beaver dove in search of the tree. Each animal came back to the surface without the tree and died from exhaustion. Many other animals tried but they also died. An elder woman toad volunteered. She dove and remained below a long time. All of the animals thought she had been lost, when at last she surfaced and before dying managed to spit a mouthful of earth onto the back of the Great Turtle. This earth was magical and contained the power of growth. The island grew and grew until it was large enough for the Sky Woman to live on. The two swans set the woman upon the island and circled it encouraging it to grow into the world island it is today. 

Yet the world was dark. Again the Great Turtle called for the animals to gather. They decided to put a great light in the sky. A little turtle volunteered and climbed up to the sky with the help of the other animals' magic. Little turtle climbed into a black cloud and crawled around the sky collecting the lightning as she went. She made a big bright ball from the lightening and threw it into the sky. Then she collected more for a smaller ball which she also threw into the sky. The first ball became the sun, the second ball became the moon. Then the Great Turtle commanded the burrowing animals to make holes in the corners of the sky so that the sun and moon could go down through one and climb up again through the other as they circled. So there was day and night. 

The Sky woman lived on the island on top of the Great Turtle's back. She gave birth to twins, one good called Tharonhiawagon, one evil called Tawiskaron. From the breast of Sky Woman grows the three sisters corn, beans, and squash.


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> The first people were the Sky People, they lived beyond the sky because there was no earth beneath. One day the chief's daughter became very ill and no one was able to provide a cure for her sickness. A wise elder was consulted and he told them to dig up a tree and lay the girl beside the hole that remained. The Sky People respected the elder and began to dig up the tree. Suddenly the tree fell down through the hole and dragged the chief's daughter with it. As the girl fell she saw that below was only an ocean of water. Two swans were alarmed by the girl falling and decided she was too beautiful to drown so they swam to catch her. They landed her on the back of the Great Turtle, and all of the animals of the earth gathered.
> 
> The Great Turtle counselled that the Sky Woman was a symbol of good fortune. He ordered the animals to find where the Sky World tree had landed in the ocean and to bring it back with its earth-covered roots. The swans lead the animals to the place where the tree had fallen into the ocean. First otter, then muskrat, and then beaver dove in search of the tree. Each animal came back to the surface without the tree and died from exhaustion. Many other animals tried but they also died. An elder woman toad volunteered. She dove and remained below a long time. All of the animals thought she had been lost, when at last she surfaced and before dying managed to spit a mouthful of earth onto the back of the Great Turtle. This earth was magical and contained the power of growth. The island grew and grew until it was large enough for the Sky Woman to live on. The two swans set the woman upon the island and circled it encouraging it to grow into the world island it is today.
> 
> Yet the world was dark. Again the Great Turtle called for the animals to gather. They decided to put a great light in the sky. A little turtle volunteered and climbed up to the sky with the help of the other animals' magic. Little turtle climbed into a black cloud and crawled around the sky collecting the lightning as she went. She made a big bright ball from the lightening and threw it into the sky. Then she collected more for a smaller ball which she also threw into the sky. The first ball became the sun, the second ball became the moon. Then the Great Turtle commanded the burrowing animals to make holes in the corners of the sky so that the sun and moon could go down through one and climb up again through the other as they circled. So there was day and night.
> 
> The Sky woman lived on the island on top of the Great Turtle's back. She gave birth to twins, one good called Tharonhiawagon, one evil called Tawiskaron. From the breast of Sky Woman grows the three sisters corn, beans, and squash.


:clap: Very good :clap: I like this version... and its every bit as believable as that crock about the creature from the black lagoon.


----------



## mnn2501

Paumon said:


> The first people were the Sky People, they lived beyond the sky because there was no earth beneath. One day the chief's daughter became very ill and no one was able to provide a cure for her sickness. A wise elder was consulted and he told them to dig up a tree and lay the girl beside the hole that remained. The Sky People respected the elder and began to dig up the tree. Suddenly the tree fell down through the hole and dragged the chief's daughter with it. As the girl fell she saw that below was only an ocean of water. Two swans were alarmed by the girl falling and decided she was too beautiful to drown so they swam to catch her. They landed her on the back of the Great Turtle, and all of the animals of the earth gathered.
> 
> The Great Turtle counselled that the Sky Woman was a symbol of good fortune. He ordered the animals to find where the Sky World tree had landed in the ocean and to bring it back with its earth-covered roots. The swans lead the animals to the place where the tree had fallen into the ocean. First otter, then muskrat, and then beaver dove in search of the tree. Each animal came back to the surface without the tree and died from exhaustion. Many other animals tried but they also died. An elder woman toad volunteered. She dove and remained below a long time. All of the animals thought she had been lost, when at last she surfaced and before dying managed to spit a mouthful of earth onto the back of the Great Turtle. This earth was magical and contained the power of growth. The island grew and grew until it was large enough for the Sky Woman to live on. The two swans set the woman upon the island and circled it encouraging it to grow into the world island it is today.
> 
> Yet the world was dark. Again the Great Turtle called for the animals to gather. They decided to put a great light in the sky. A little turtle volunteered and climbed up to the sky with the help of the other animals' magic. Little turtle climbed into a black cloud and crawled around the sky collecting the lightning as she went. She made a big bright ball from the lightening and threw it into the sky. Then she collected more for a smaller ball which she also threw into the sky. The first ball became the sun, the second ball became the moon. Then the Great Turtle commanded the burrowing animals to make holes in the corners of the sky so that the sun and moon could go down through one and climb up again through the other as they circled. So there was day and night.
> 
> The Sky woman lived on the island on top of the Great Turtle's back. She gave birth to twins, one good called Tharonhiawagon, one evil called Tawiskaron. From the breast of Sky Woman grows the three sisters corn, beans, and squash.


So say we all.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> More likely from an aqueous brew of some sort.


Nothing in this world moves without an energy input. Cells require energy to function. That energy is supplied by breaking the bonds in energy rich molecules. The cell via metabolism breaks down these energy rich molecules and harvests the energy and repackages this energy in a transportable form so that it can be used where it is needed. The transportable form is a molecule called ATP (adenosine triphosphate). A diphosphate form of the molecule is called ADP (adenosine triphosphate) and this molecule is the energy depleted form. So ADP is energy depleted but can be converted to ATP by adding another phosphorus atom. Adding this Phosphorus atom requires an input of energy. When the ATP is converted back to ADP this input of energy is released and is used by the cell. The ADP-to-ATP conversion functions like a portable rechargeable battery. Devices called ATP motors charge the ADP by adding a phosphorus atom converting it to ATP. The ATP is transportable to a site where energy is needed. The ATP converts to ADP releasing energy to the cell and then the ADP is recharged to ATP by this ATP motor.

The ATP motor has components which are made from proteins. These protein parts fit together making a functioning mechanical assembly which is similar to an electric motor. There are thousands of these ATP motors in a cell.

What is the origin of these complex functioning structures which are composed of specifically shaped proteins.... did they evolve ? Since they are made of proteins the recipe for each different component is from a segment of DNA called a gene.

How could these structures evolve one protein at a time over a period of time... the motor has no function until all the parts are provided.

ATP motors is a common name ... the correct biological name for these motor like structures is ATP Synthase ... because they function to synthesise or produce ATP from ADP

These ATP motors are built into the membranes of cellular organelles called mitochondria. Organelles in a cell are analogous to organs in multi-cellular life.

Each component in the ATP motor is a protein.... when various proteins work together to produce a function and the the proteins are collectively referred to as a protein complex 

....... now you know what you need to know to understand this animation of a working ATP motor.

*Could natural processes produce this device ???

*[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y1dO4nNaKY[/ame]


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> What is the origin of these complex functioning structures which are composed of specifically shaped proteins.... did they evolve ?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y1dO4nNaKY


We really don't know how simple a first cell might have been. But I'm not ready to conclude that it was too complex to occur.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> We really don't know how simple a first cell might have been. But I'm not ready to conclude that it was too complex to occur.


Back a few decades ago technology improved providing better instrumentation for "seeing" the molecular components of a cell. What was shocking was to see protein components in assemblies which provided a function. These protein assemblies resembled man made machines. Science started calling these functioning devices "molecular machines"

What is also very interesting is the components of these machines will self assemble if provided in logical order for assembly. However the assembly process must occur in an area free of proteins not used in the assembly.

For example this ATP motor might be composed of 25 different protein parts. Some of those parts may be used one time but other parts may be used repetitiously.

Cells reproduce by division and before they divide copies of the internal parts are made. For the cell to make a new ATP motor the cell needs a location where extraneous proteins will not interfere with the assembly of the ATP motor. Within a cell are very elaborate folding membranes. The protein motors are located in organelles called mitochondria. The interior of the mitodhondria are composed of these folding membranes which partition off spaces. First step is to provide a kind of revolving door into the wall of a chosen assembly space. The installed revolving door is actually a protein. The revolving door will only permit the protein parts required for the assembly of the ATP motor to enter. The cell then orders the protein parts to be made in the sequence they are needed for the logical assembly of the motor. The recipe for making the protein parts is contained in a gene which is a segment of DNA. So a copy of DNA is made and called RNA ... the RNA is taken to a Ribosome where it is used to link together the amino acids in the order necessary to make the requested protein.

The protein parts for the motor are produced in this manner and are assembled in a location where they will function as an ATP motor.

The protein parts have areas on their surfaces called binding sites. One protein can bond or bind to another if their irregularly shaped surfaces mate together and if the surfaces have electrical charges which will attract the corresponding parts. There is a phenominom within a cell called brownian movement ... a kind of background vibration which keeps parts moving around in the aqueous cell interior... so if surfaces mate and charges attract... the proteins will bind together. A protein often has many specifically shaped binding sites which allow binding with a number of other proteins.

Sometimes two specific proteins can bind together but only in the presence of a third protein which functions as a tool to facilitate the binding. This requires the third protein to have binding sites with each of the two proteins which are being bound. These proteins which function as assembly tools are called "chaperones" because they must be there for the proteins to assemble (bind together)


----------



## Evons hubby

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Back a few decades ago technology improved providing better instrumentation for "seeing" the molecular components of a cell. What was shocking was to see protein components in assemblies which provided a function. These protein assemblies resembled man made machines. Science started calling these functioning devices "molecular machines"
> 
> What is also very interesting is the components of these machines will self assemble if provided in logical order for assembly. However the assembly process must occur in an area free of proteins not used in the assembly.
> 
> For example this ATP motor might be composed of 25 different protein parts. Some of those parts may be used one time but other parts may be used repetitiously.
> 
> Cells reproduce by division and before they divide copies of the internal parts are made. For the cell to make a new ATP motor the cell needs a location where extraneous proteins will not interfere with the assembly of the ATP motor. Within a cell are very elaborate folding membranes. The protein motors are located in organelles called mitochondria. The interior of the mitodhondria are composed of these folding membranes which partition off spaces. First step is to provide a kind of revolving door into the wall of a chosen assembly space. The installed revolving door is actually a protein. The revolving door will only permit the protein parts required for the assembly of the ATP motor to enter. The cell then orders the protein parts to be made in the sequence they are needed for the logical assembly of the motor. The recipe for making the protein parts is contained in a gene which is a segment of DNA. So a copy of DNA is made and called RNA ... the RNA is taken to a Ribosome where it is used to link together the amino acids in the order necessary to make the requested protein.
> 
> The protein parts for the motor are produced in this manner and are assembled in a location where they will function as an ATP motor.
> 
> The protein parts have areas on their surfaces called binding sites. One protein can bond or bind to another if their irregularly shaped surfaces mate together and if the surfaces have electrical charges which will attract the corresponding parts. There is a phenominom within a cell called brownian movement ... a kind of background vibration which keeps parts moving around in the aqueous cell interior... so if surfaces mate and charges attract... the proteins will bind together. A protein often has many specifically shaped binding sites which allow binding with a number of other proteins.
> 
> Sometimes two specific proteins can bind together but only in the presence of a third protein which functions as a tool to facilitate the binding. This requires the third protein to have binding sites with each of the two proteins which are being bound. These proteins which function as assembly tools are called "chaperones" because they must be there for the proteins to assemble (bind together)


Thanks for the explanation.... It would appear that even at this lowest level of life... it takes some pretty logical well thought out design work to make every thing happen as it should. Sounds almost like some intelligence would be required in this design.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks for the explanation.... It would appear that even at this lowest level of life... it takes some pretty logical well thought out design work to make every thing happen as it should. Sounds almost like some intelligence would be required in this design.


I need to go get some work done but I will return and post more videos of molecular machines (or you can search youtube yourself)

The molecular machinery is just a bunch of very clever gagetry which anyone with any mechanical aptitude can comprehend.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks for the explanation.... It would appear that even at this lowest level of life... it takes some pretty logical well thought out design work to make every thing happen as it should. Sounds almost like some intelligence would be required in this design.


Unless life could have started on a simpler level. Remember that viruses have traits of both non-living chemicals and of life forms.


----------



## Paumon

Yvonne's hubby said:


> :clap: Very good :clap: I like this version... and its every bit as believable as that crock about the creature from the black lagoon.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks for the explanation.... It would appear that even at this lowest level of life... it takes some pretty logical well thought out design work to make every thing happen as it should. *Sounds almost like some intelligence would be required in this design.*


The above story I posted was just one of many, many creation myths from around the world. Each one is just as valid as any other because they are all myths. Not all of them are the same but if you were to study all of the creation myths you would find that there are common threads that run through all of them.

The common threads are that in the beginning of life on the planet, the planet became a ball of water in which living things slowly evolved. Then solid earth formed and grew above the water and living things (plants first and then moving animals) over the course of time came up out of the water and continued to evolve on land. The earth was hot and giants of all manner grew in the waters and on the land then something happened and the earth became cold and then became warm again and then there was a great flood that covered most of the land. After the flood different animals and plants that had survived the cold and the flood continued to evolve in both the water and the land while the land itself continued to evolve and grow. Then when the earth was suitable the descendents of the sky people were brought to the earth and set down in very small groups in many places throughout the earth. The descendents were left to populate the earth and to evolve and do for themselves as well as they could in harmony with the earth and animals while the sky people who brought them there abandoned them to their own devices, only checking in on them once in a while to see how the planet and it's inhabitants are coming along on their own.

If there is any truth to all the many creation myths and their common factors then it sounds as though the solar system and this planet were designed and nurtured to grow by higher intelligences (the sky people) and the planet was seeded with living organisms by the sky people.


----------



## Evons hubby

Paumon said:


> The above story I posted was just one of many, many creation myths from around the world. Each one is just as valid as any other because they are all myths. Not all of them are the same but if you were to study all of the creation myths you would find that there are common threads that run through all of them.
> 
> The common threads are that in the beginning of life on the planet, the planet became a ball of water in which living things slowly evolved. Then solid earth formed and grew above the water and living things (plants first and then moving animals) over the course of time came up out of the water and continued to evolve on land. The earth was hot and giants of all manner grew in the waters and on the land then something happened and the earth became cold and then became warm again and then there was a great flood that covered most of the land. After the flood different animals and plants that had survived the cold and the flood continued to evolve in both the water and the land while the land itself continued to evolve and grow. Then when the earth was suitable the descendents of the sky people were brought to the earth and set down in very small groups in many places throughout the earth. The descendents were left to populate the earth and to evolve and do for themselves as well as they could in harmony with the earth and animals while the sky people who brought them there abandoned them to their own devices, only checking in on them once in a while to see how the planet and it's inhabitants are coming along on their own.
> 
> If there is any truth to all the many creation myths and their common factors then it sounds as though the solar system and this planet were designed and nurtured to grow by higher intelligences (the sky people) and the planet was seeded with living organisms by the sky people.


yep, and some are a bit more colorful than others, but this one is cool. I liked it...


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> Unless life could have started on a simpler level. Remember that viruses have traits of both non-living chemicals and of life forms.


Viruses can not reproduce by themselves .... they enter a living cell and hy-jack the cells apparatus for reproducing DNA. That reproducing apparatus is composed of numerous protein complexes.

Also a virus does not produce any metabolic functions

Read this short description...

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/virus.html


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks for the explanation.... It would appear that even at this lowest level of life... it takes some pretty logical well thought out design work to make every thing happen as it should. Sounds almost like some intelligence would be required in this design.


Not at all. Through the simplicity of evolution, the "machines" of life have evolved to operate where the operation provides a method for survival. Machines without such modes, fail and don't evolve.

What you are seeing is a mechanism of survival. 

Add another billion years and what you consider complex today may be trivial. We also have evidence showing speciation - the very same thing creationists said were designed we have evidence of transitional states showing evolutionary processes.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> Unless life could have started on a simpler level. Remember that viruses have traits of both non-living chemicals and of life forms.


But even if so .... you would eventually have to produce these ATP motors with the mating together protein parts.... and the Darwinian mechanism fails because of the explanation I gave in post #887 which requires each mutation to improve function so that natural selection will choose it. The ATP motor would require many mutations to produce these parts ..... and what mechanism would reject the parts which will not mate with and function with the other chosen parts ?

.... Evolutionists are well aware of this problem and that is why some propose that evolution occurs without natural selection (aka neutral theories of selection).... but that solution produces more problems than it solves IMO.

.... and of course even if you have the genes to make the protein parts for assembly of an ATP motor....you need to have those parts produced in a logical order otherwise they will not self assemble. There is no "brain" to direct the order in which these protein parts are made.... instead there is a cascading of events where the completion of one event triggers the initiation of another or various other events. So the ordering of events is "fixed" into the process which produces an ATP motor.

.... which brings up another issue ... Often a process is composed of many other processes which are "fixed" so that they must occur in a certain order to produce a desired effect.... How does evolution "fix" these processes so that the completion of one triggers the initiation of the next process in the sequence ?

The ordering of these processes is not a function of genes and therefore can not be inherited nor are they subject to mutations which could be inherited???


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> We really don't know how simple a first cell might have been. But I'm not ready to conclude that it was too complex to occur.


Well you need something which harvests energy to produce cellular functions such as reproduction.

There are no self replicating molecules in the inert world ... there are self ordering in which crystallization is an example of.

Also a self replicating molecule uncontrolled would simply reproduce itself untill all available resources are depleted. Replication requires controls or it is simply out of control.

There is a huge amount of chemistry occurring simultaneously in a cell ... all of that chemistry is controlled and directed.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Not at all. Through the simplicity of evolution, the "machines" of life have evolved to operate where the operation provides a method for survival. Machines without such modes, fail and don't evolve.
> 
> What you are seeing is a mechanism of survival.
> 
> Add another billion years and what you consider complex today may be trivial. We also have evidence showing speciation - the very same thing creationists said were designed we have evidence of transitional states showing evolutionary processes.


We were discussing the origin of life here, not the evolutionary fantasy of how the creature from the black lagoon turned into a butterfly. Heres the thing.... in my shop I have all the parts of a very simple machine.... already formed, machined and ready to be assembled, I also have all of the tools required to put it together. How about you put all those tools, and only the parts required for this machine.... no extras, they would only add confusion... put them all in a tumbler and wait for this machine to come out, all assembled and ready for use? How long do you suppose that would take? How long do you suppose it would take with a little intelligent help? How long do you think it would take if the parts had not already been formed and machined to fit, if they were simply hunks of steel?


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We were discussing the origin of life here, not the evolutionary fantasy of how the creature from the black lagoon turned into a butterfly. Heres the thing.... in my shop I have all the parts of a very simple machine.... already formed, machined and ready to be assembled, I also have all of the tools required to put it together. How about you put all those tools, and only the parts required for this machine.... no extras, they would only add confusion... put them all in a tumbler and wait for this machine to come out, all assembled and ready for use? How long do you suppose that would take? How long do you suppose it would take with a little intelligent help? How long do you think it would take if the parts had not already been formed and machined to fit, if they were simply hunks of steel?


 Your parts in your shop aren't living things. They have no incentive to come together, unlike life, which has a vested interest in adapting and surviving. But who knows, tumble them for 5,000,000,000 years and see what happens. 
And why do you keep acting as if 'the black lagoon' is such a bad thing? Does not the Bible say God formed man from dust? Isn't that just another word for dirt? Lots of dirt and mud in a lagoon.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We were discussing the origin of life here, not the evolutionary fantasy of how the creature from the black lagoon turned into a butterfly. Heres the thing.... in my shop I have all the parts of a very simple machine.... already formed, machined and ready to be assembled, I also have all of the tools required to put it together. How about you put all those tools, and only the parts required for this machine.... no extras, they would only add confusion... put them all in a tumbler and wait for this machine to come out, all assembled and ready for use? How long do you suppose that would take? How long do you suppose it would take with a little intelligent help? How long do you think it would take if the parts had not already been formed and machined to fit, if they were simply hunks of steel?


 And to further use your example, saying God made everything just as it is would be akin to saying that machine just appeared, fully functional, with no steps in creating it. No lathe work, no machining, just appeared. Sounds highly unlikely.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We were discussing the origin of life here, not the evolutionary fantasy of how the creature from the black lagoon turned into a butterfly. Heres the thing.... in my shop I have all the parts of a very simple machine.... already formed, machined and ready to be assembled, I also have all of the tools required to put it together. How about you put all those tools, and only the parts required for this machine.... no extras, they would only add confusion... put them all in a tumbler and wait for this machine to come out, all assembled and ready for use? How long do you suppose that would take? How long do you suppose it would take with a little intelligent help? How long do you think it would take if the parts had not already been formed and machined to fit, if they were simply hunks of steel?


You just made my day !!!

Individually these parts have no function.... function occurs after assembly.
How could this machine be made by a blind process which is not able to see ahead by visualizing the parts working together to produce the machine. Your machinist is making parts with no blueprint or forethought.... just grinding boring and cutting making random shapes and tossing then onto a big pile and expecting some of them to eventually fit together into an assembly of parts which will produce some unknown function.

Natural selection can not pick out the parts which fit together because the individual parts when made provide no function so they would not improve survivability. Survivability is not improved *until after the machine is assembled*. So what mechanism sorts through the huge pile of parts looking for ones which will work together in an assembly to produce a new functioning machine ?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

greg273 said:


> Your parts in your shop aren't living things. They have no incentive to come together, unlike life, which has a vested interest in adapting and surviving. But who knows, tumble them for 5,000,000,000 years and see what happens.
> And why do you keep acting as if 'the black lagoon' is such a bad thing? Does not the Bible say God formed man from dust? Isn't that just another word for dirt? Lots of dirt and mud in a lagoon.


This entire origins debate is based on each individuals own metaphysical assumptions.

My assumptions will differ from yours.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysics


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Bill Gates said this about the information storage ability of DNA

http://x-evolutionist.com/2010/04/1...ed-than-any-software-ever-created-bill-gates/


----------



## JJ Grandits

This is such a stupid thread. Nothing against who started it. Im a fundamentalist Christian. Im also a Horticultruralist (ie Biologist), nature freak, science maven. Folks, the bottom line is that we just don't know. No insult to anyones intelligence. We just don't know. Knowing, is knowing without any doubt what so ever. None of us have that ability. I've been a serious nature freak since I was a toddler. It's just the way Im built. I've gone one way, and then I've gone another, and the more I learned then less I knew. I have thought on this for almost fifty seven years. Started right after potty training. Sometime I think I understand things and then my mind gets totally blown. I know understanding that it is beyond my grasp. And to be honest, it's probably beyond yours too. And if you are so arrogant to think you are smarter then anyone else, that is the first sign you are wrong. This is what I have learned.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

... more ATP motor videos...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4[/ame]

This one shows a cam on the rotating shaft ... like a cam shaft that opens valves in an engine !!

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI8m6o0gXDY[/ame]


----------



## Nevada

JJ Grandits said:


> This is such a stupid thread. Nothing against who started it. Im a fundamentalist Christian. Im also a Horticultruralist (ie Biologist), nature freak, science maven. Folks, the bottom line is that we just don't know. No insult to anyones intelligence. We just don't know.


True, but we all have a stake in this. Americans are falling behind in technology. Introducing scripture into our science classes is going to give an edge to Asian countries. I think we all want the USA to remain competitive. We're importing too much scientific talent as it is.


----------



## supernovae

What does any of this have to do with the absurdity of dinosaurs living while man walked the earth and how does the coolness of what has evolved over a few billion years change anything? All the evidence points clearly to evolution.

Intelligent design lost its day in court: 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

It lost big time, in front of a conservative judge at that. A judge who upheld is duty to the people of the united states of America and preserved the foundations of science and education to uphold them against the onslaught of religious theology in disguise.

All you're doing is pulling out videos from creation.org and evolutionnews.org (way to high jack a term and turn it into ID) and spewing the same rubbish there... all of the links are SEO optimized too as to hide the real terms and science papers that are published. brownie points for googlefu I guess.











http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myosin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

we see evolutionary patterns in everything we study, even things that we presume complex, we find interim variants. It's pretty amazing.


----------



## Evons hubby

JJ Grandits said:


> This is such a stupid thread. Nothing against who started it. Im a fundamentalist Christian. Im also a Horticultruralist (ie Biologist), nature freak, science maven. Folks, the bottom line is that we just don't know. No insult to anyones intelligence. We just don't know.* Knowing, is knowing without any doubt what so ever. None of us have that ability.* I've been a serious nature freak since I was a toddler. It's just the way Im built. I've gone one way, and then I've gone another, and the more I learned then less I knew. I have thought on this for almost fifty seven years. Started right after potty training. Sometime I think I understand things and then my mind gets totally blown. I know understanding that it is beyond my grasp. And to be honest, it's probably beyond yours too. And if you are so arrogant to think you are smarter then anyone else, that is the first sign you are wrong. This is what I have learned.


Ok, while I like your post here overall I do feel compelled to disagree with the part I bolded. I was very much like yourself for the first half of my 63 years... but when I was thirty something... I did have an experience that changed a lot of my thinking. Since that time I DO KNOW that there is a higher power... vastly superior to anything that we mortals can possibly comprehend. Can I duplicate this experience? Can I "prove" it? Can I convince anyone of its truth using current human capacity of language? NO to all of the above, but oddly enough there are others that I have talked to that have had the same experience and we all understand exactly what each other have seen, heard, or felt while having this same experience. For those reasons I feel I "know". Someday hopefully you will know.


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> This entire origins debate is based on each individuals own metaphysical assumptions.
> 
> My assumptions will differ from yours.


That's nonsense. Science is knowledge based on experimentation and observation. This debate is about offering scripture as an alternative to experimentation and observation. Teach scripture all you want, but not in science class.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> we see evolutionary patterns in everything we study, even things that we presume complex, we find interim variants. It's pretty amazing.


And when you ever... if you do... see God.... I think you will think thats pretty amazing too. BTDT and it was beyond amazing and awesome.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> That's nonsense. Science is knowledge based on experimentation and observation. *This debate is about offering scripture as an alternative to experimentation and observation.* Teach scripture all you want, but not in science class.


That may be true for some here... but when I discuss, or debate if you will, this issue it has NOTHING to do with scripture. It has everything to do with observation.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And when you ever... if you do... see God.... I think you will think thats pretty amazing too. BTDT and it was beyond amazing and awesome.


Maybe someday he will find God to be amazing, but it still won't be science.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Maybe someday he will find God to be amazing, but it still won't be science.


Of course it will. You have to understand that what we think of as science and knowledge, while very real, occupies but a tiny corner of a basement room in Gods realm.... its all there, but there is sooooooo much more in His realm that is beyond our ability to even begin to comprehend. Ya really gotta see it to even be able to fathom the concept. Let me put it this way, all of mans current knowledge would be like a black cat firecracker (I am sure you are familiar with those) compared to Gods world.... being a twenty million megaton nuclear bomb.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That may be true for some here... but when I discuss, or debate if you will, this issue it has NOTHING to do with scripture. It has everything to do with observation.


You have not observed an intelligent designer at work. You only hypothesize that there was an intelligent designer based on the complexity of the results. That amounts to suggesting that "God did it" for any scientific process that we don't understand. That's a mistake that has been made far too many times in the past.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> That's nonsense. Science is knowledge based on experimentation and observation. This debate is about offering scripture as an alternative to experimentation and observation. Teach scripture all you want, but not in science class.


Where do I offer scripture as an alternative to science?

I am ok with a young earth or an old earth.

If I were not a Christian I would still be a deist.... because science can not explain the origin of life and because the mechanisms of evolution fail and the proof for evolution can be equally be interpreted as proof for creation.


----------



## Nevada

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Where do I offer scripture as an alternative to science?


Creationism and intelligent design are all about promoting a Christian agenda, but they can't say that out loud because of the Edwards decision. "Creation Science" is an end run around Edwards.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course it will. You have to understand that what we think of as science and knowledge, while very real, occupies but a tiny corner of a basement room in Gods realm.... its all there, but there is sooooooo much more in His realm that is beyond our ability to even begin to comprehend. Ya really gotta see it to even be able to fathom the concept. Let me put it this way, all of mans current knowledge would be like a black cat firecracker (I am sure you are familiar with those) compared to Gods world.... being a twenty million megaton nuclear bomb.


But still, this has nothing to do with what is taught in science class. Honestly, there is enough for kids to learn without teaching alternative theories in K-12. And why pick on evolution? Why not teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy? That would be absurd beyond reason.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> *You have not observed an intelligent designer at work.* You only hypothesize that there was an intelligent designer based on the complexity of the results. That amounts to suggesting that "God did it" for any scientific process that we don't understand. That's a mistake that has been made far too many times in the past.


 ahhh but that is where YOU are mistaken! I have observed an intelligent designer at work many times, my own father, now deceased was a very intelligent designer, and I watch him work many times. Somewhere in his stuff we ran up on a patent of his. But thats really not the intelligent designer that you are referring to, but what you fail to understand is that I have met that designer as well, and observed Him. It is those very observations that I have mentioned here in this thread as well as others, countless times!


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> But still, this has nothing to do with what is taught in science class. Honestly, there is enough for kids to learn without teaching alternative theories in K-12. And why pick on evolution? Why not teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy? That would be absurd beyond reason.


Ok, heres the thing... you and our other good poster here who sides with you both are willing to openly admit that science, with all its marvelous accumulated empirical knowledge is still unable to come up with a positive track on how life originated, where the big bang originated, or how life actually progressed from the black lagoon to modern day man... not enough evidence, too many missing links and its all just "hypothesis" and unproven theory at this point. The evidence points to.. doesnt mean its not up for discussion and it could all be wrong. So how is it that our students come out of class with the universe began with a big bang, life spontaneously appeared billions of years ago in a primordial ooze and eventually all life we see today evolved from that first creature from the black lagoon? They are being taught this as a fact! Even though all of the very top scientists will deny its a fact, and only a theory. Splain that please?


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

supernovae said:


> What does any of this have to do with the absurdity of dinosaurs living while man walked the earth and how does the coolness of what has evolved over a few billion years change anything? All the evidence points clearly to evolution.
> 
> Intelligent design lost its day in court:
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
> 
> It lost big time, in front of a conservative judge at that. A judge who upheld is duty to the people of the united states of America and preserved the foundations of science and education to uphold them against the onslaught of religious theology in disguise.
> 
> All you're doing is pulling out videos from creation.org and evolutionnews.org (way to high jack a term and turn it into ID) and spewing the same rubbish there... all of the links are SEO optimized too as to hide the real terms and science papers that are published. brownie points for googlefu I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myosin
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate
> 
> we see evolutionary patterns in everything we study, even things that we presume complex, we find interim variants. It's pretty amazing.





> Intelligent design lost its day in court:


.... Creationists have always lost in court ... goes way back to the Scopes trial http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Scopes_trial.aspx


> All you're doing is pulling out videos from creation.org


Yes creationist rely on scientifically accurate information and sometimes they display this accurate information on youtube.... if any of this information is not true you can always call me out with a reply.



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myosin


Well you know this also can be explained by common design.... all of life's diversity is composed of common elements such as DNA ATP motors etc ... so these can be interpreted as common descent or common design.... what would you expect if everything was produced by one designer ?

*BTW why do you constantly attack religion when you can not prove it is untrue. This is a science thread with religious implications. So keep attacking religion instead of defending your science when I refute it. Speaking of fairy tales you offer no proof for your cell theory (abiogenesis)... and you ignore issues I have presented concerning the Miller-Urey experiment where I discuss the optical isomer issue and the problem with producing a poly peptide chain without the assistance of a ribosome. You can ignore these problems but they will not go away because I will be here to dog you about them.*


----------



## Johnny Dolittle

Nevada said:


> Creationism and intelligent design are all about promoting a Christian agenda, but they can't say that out loud because of the Edwards decision. "Creation Science" is an end run around Edwards.


Intelligent design theory supports many religions and is unable to endorse any of them as being ultimate truth.

Here is a scientific fact ....*Evolution can not provide a step by step account for the evolving of an ATP motor along with a lot of other stuff in that primordial brew*... *But maybe Edwards can explain it.*


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Again. I'll ask a simply question that nobody answers the 2 previous times I asked it. Science can't add information to dna. No cell can become what is not or add any information to its dna. There is zero evidence of it ever happening. So how can an animal tell itself it needs something and add the info to its dna to grow our?


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> Again. I'll ask a simply question that nobody answers the 2 previous times I asked it. Science can't add information to dna. No cell can become what is not or add any information to its dna. There is zero evidence of it ever happening. So how can an animal tell itself it needs something and add the info to its dna to grow our?


Ill point out that there has been much discussion on these forums about science manipulating and even adding to DNA in organisms. You might want to search GMO. That being said how this may have happened in nature is still an open question. It doesn't mean it hasn't happened, it dies not mean it won't happen as time goes on, it just means that we don't have the tools or knowledge to explain it now. There are a whole lot of things science couldn't explain 10 years ago that they can now. Even more 100 years ago whose scientific explanation seems quite obvious and exponentially more than 1000 years ago. At any of those points in time man could have simply said God made it so and stopped looking for other answers. Some did, but we can be thankful for our modern day conveniences from antibiotics to cell phones that many didn't. 

Now, the answer to how life started and the mechanisms it took to get us to where we are today may well lead to some higher power. But, it behoove a creationists to prove that, offering evidence. Pointing out what the other side doesn't know isn't enough. The other side knows quite a lot. That they don't know all the answers simply means they need to keep searching.

Since you asked for the third time, so will I. If life can only come from life as some have claimed where did that first life that created life arise. And please explain the fossil record, which does show transitional forms, and explain how there is no evidence in the fossil record of all these life forms existing at the same time.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Nevada said:


> That's nonsense. Science is knowledge based on experimentation and observation. This debate is about offering scripture as an alternative to experimentation and observation. Teach scripture all you want, but not in science class.


 This has nothing to do with offering scripture instead of experimentation. It is all about the CONCLUSIONS made after the experimentation was done. This whole thread is about how someone in a lab came up with an IDEA, repeat IDEA, that challenged the status quo. All the open minded experimenting seekers of truth shut him down in a heartbeat. a real scientist would have said "That's interesting, lets see where it goes". Science does nothing but try to explain how things work. Im a person of faith but have performed many scientific experiments to find how things work. I can write a wonderful scientific paper about my wifes perennial bed without explaining her motivation for growing it.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> life spontaneously appeared billions of years ago in a primordial ooze and eventually all life we see today evolved from that first creature from the black lagoon? They are being taught this as a fact!


How do you know that's being taught as a fact?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> How do you know that's being taught as a fact?


Personal observations joined with basic logic. In the age of the dinosaur (the 60s) it was taught as fact to me. Then later, in the 80s it was taught as fact to my kids, then in the tens of this century it was taught as fact to my last boy. Those would be the personal observations.... Combine those personal encounters with the "fact" that kids coming out of school (and even some adults who post here) are of the opinion that its fact.... somebody somewhere must be teaching it as fact. I am thinking the most likely place would be in school, and most likely in a science class.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Personal observations joined with basic logic. In the age of the dinosaur (the 60s) it was taught as fact to me.


What did they tell you that a scientific fact was? How does a fact relate to a hypothesis or theory?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> What did they tell you that a scientific fact was? How does a fact relate to a hypothesis or theory?


I dont exactly recall the specific definition.... that was well over forty years and a lot of cheap drugs and booze ago. Couple that with the fact that I wasnt all that interested at the time... I had different "biology lessons" on my mind... and there are bits and pieces that seem to have fallen through the cracks.... suffice it to say that the "theory" of evolution was taught to us as fact... as in "thats how it happened". Any answer on the test that contradicted it happened just the way they said it did got you an F.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont exactly recall the specific definition.... that was well over forty years and a lot of cheap drugs and booze ago. Couple that with the fact that I wasnt all that interested at the time... I had different "biology lessons" on my mind... and there are bits and pieces that seem to have fallen through the cracks.... suffice it to say that the "theory" of evolution was taught to us as fact... as in "thats how it happened". Any answer on the test that contradicted it happened just the way they said it did got you an F.


What would you say if I told you that scientists didn't have a designation for a scientific fact?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> What would you say if I told you that scientists didn't have a designation for a scientific fact?


I wouldnt quarrel the issue. But then we are not discussing the language used by scientists... we are talking about the practical outcome on students in schools. They come out of there under the impression that life was spawned eons ago in some swamp... and has evolved slowly over time to all the various life forms we see today. Its being taught that its how it happened... period.


----------



## mnn2501

Vahomesteaders said:


> Again. I'll ask a simply question that nobody answers the 2 previous times I asked it. Science can't add information to dna. No cell can become what is not or add any information to its dna. There is zero evidence of it ever happening. So how can an animal tell itself it needs something and add the info to its dna to grow our?


The animal does not tell itself it needs something, Lets take the Giraffe, at some point longer necked giraffe's survived to breed because they could reach a higher food supply probably when shorter necked ones could not, thus they bred for long necks


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> They come out of there under the impression that life was spawned eons ago in some swamp... and has evolved slowly over time to all the various life forms we see today. Its being taught that its how it happened... period.


 Yep, because that is what the evidence points to.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Any answer on the test that contradicted it happened just the way they said it did got you an F.


Well, that's how I remember school. The answers on the test had to match what the teacher presented, otherwise it was wrong. It's like that with any subject.


----------



## Paumon

Vahomesteaders said:


> Again. I'll ask a simply question that nobody answers the 2 previous times I asked it. Science can't add information to dna. No cell can become what is not or add any information to its dna. *There is zero evidence of it ever happening. So how can an animal tell itself it needs something and add the info to its dna to grow our*?


Why do ptarmigans, arctic hares and weasels turn white in the winter to blend in with snow? Why do male ducks lose their brightly coloured winter and mating plumage in summer and grow feathers that make them look like females? Why do certain animals, like all the big cats for example, have uniquely marked camoflage colouring that allows them to blend in with their habitat? Is it possible it's because their environments caused the animals' cells to tell their dna they needed those colourings at crucial times and they added the information to their dna to make it happen?

If the snow disappears and never returns again will the ptarmigans, hares and weasels eventually over the course of many generations stop turning white in winter?


----------



## copperkid3

Paumon said:


> Why do ptarmigans, arctic hares and weasels turn white in the winter to blend in with snow?
> Why do male ducks lose their brightly coloured winter and mating plumage in summer and grow feathers that make them look like females?
> Why do certain animals, like all the big cats for example, have uniquely marked camoflage colouring that allows them to blend in with their habitat?
> Is it possible it's because their environments caused the animals' cells to tell their dna they needed those colourings at crucial times and they added the information to their dna to make it happen?
> *
> If the snow disappears and never returns again will the ptarmigans,hares and
> weasels eventually over the course of many generations stop turning white in winter?*


*************************
Highly unlikely if we are to believe the spiel of the evolutionists....
Since these creatures NOW stand out as 'sore thumbs' to predators,
they will likely be wiped out of the gene pool before they can re-adapt.
Extinction of those species is the result.


----------



## Kasota

Why don't humans have fur? Other than the hair on our heads and a few other places we are essentially naked. What is the evolutionary advantage to that? Evolution states that small changes that contribute to individual success/survivability add up and due to natural selection over time new species emerged. How does being naked fit in with that one?


----------



## JJ Grandits

Don't confuse adaptation with evolution.


----------



## mmoetc

Kasota said:


> Why don't humans have fur? Other than the hair on our heads and a few other places we are essentially naked. What is the evolutionary advantage to that? Evolution states that small changes that contribute to individual success/survivability add up and due to natural selection over time new species emerged. How does being naked fit in with that one?


You've obviously never met my Uncle Guido. Hairiest man alive.


----------



## JJ Grandits

I know what you mean. I had a boss once who could walk around naked and cause Bigfoot sightings.


----------



## mmoetc

JJ Grandits said:


> I know what you mean. I had a boss once who could walk around naked and cause Bigfoot sightings.


Guido's been known to scare women and small children. We don't allow him to walk around bare chested during bear season.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Maybe YOU can't, but the evidence shows that LIFE ITSELF can, given the right conditions and a LONG LONG LONG amount of time.


Only if you make some fairly big assumptions.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Only if you make some fairly big assumptions.


A bigger assumption than "God did it"?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> True, but we all have a stake in this. Americans are falling behind in technology. Introducing scripture into our science classes is going to give an edge to Asian countries. I think we all want the USA to remain competitive. We're importing too much scientific talent as it is.


If you think this is the reason the US education system is failing you need to do a LOT more research.

Find a detailed school system budget and research how much money is being spent for non-education activates. And I'm NOT talking about sports.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> That's nonsense. Science is knowledge based on experimentation and observation. This debate is about offering scripture as an alternative to experimentation and observation. Teach scripture all you want, but not in science class.


Teach science in science class. Teach the FACT that there are holes in the theory of macroevolution. Allow discussion about these holes and what other unknown things out there might fill in these holes.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> But still, this has nothing to do with what is taught in science class. Honestly, there is enough for kids to learn without teaching alternative theories in K-12. And why pick on evolution? Why not teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy? That would be absurd beyond reason.


Have you read my post about the assumptions we make which are taken as truth in astronomy?


----------



## watcher

mnn2501 said:


> The animal does not tell itself it needs something, Lets take the Giraffe, at some point longer necked giraffe's survived to breed because they could reach a higher food supply probably when shorter necked ones could not, thus they bred for long necks


Ok, if reaching higher leaves means survival for giraffes why didn't they evolve wings?


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> A bigger assumption than "God did it"?


So you are now admitting that science is a religion?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> So you are now admitting that science is a religion?


Nope. Science is about making assumptions and working to prove those assumptions correct. Religion is about believing your assumptions are correct no matter what. You can prove a scientist wrong about their assumptions. You can never prove a religous fanatic wrong about their's.


----------



## mnn2501

watcher said:


> Ok, if reaching higher leaves means survival for giraffes why didn't they evolve wings?


Necks got them what they needed and those with longer necks survived and bred.

I think you missed the whole point of my post which is that individuals of a species that have adaptions that allow them to survive and breed will eventually become the norm for the species.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> If you think this is the reason the US education system is failing you need to do a LOT more research.
> 
> Find a detailed school system budget and research how much money is being spent for non-education activates. And I'm NOT talking about sports.


But why would you even want to introduce non-scientific principles into science class? What possible purpose does it serve?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> But why would you even want to introduce non-scientific principles into science class? What possible purpose does it serve?


To be fair and to teach kids to have an open mind! Why are you against this?


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> To be fair and to teach kids to have an open mind! Why are you against this?


Because its not fair and it most certainly doesn't teach them to have an open mind.


----------



## Bret

There is evidence that one is still here and has learned to type, though not type well nor spell well.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> To be fair and to teach kids to have an open mind! Why are you against this?


K-12 Kids have their hands full just learning the material that's in front of them, and when they're that young they aren't really prepared to make a determination like that.


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> Because its not fair and it most certainly doesn't teach them to have an open mind.


How very tolerant and understanding of you to want to limit what our children are taught! You really want kids to learn only what you want them too? Pretty selfish of you!


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> K-12 Kids have their hands full just learning the material that's in front of them, and when they're that young they aren't really prepared to make a determination like that.


But high schoolers can fight in wars, I think they can add a little more subject matter. Why do you want to limit their education?


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> But high schoolers can fight in wars, I think they can add a little more subject matter. Why do you want to limit their education?


 Should medical schools teach that the stork delivers babies?


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> How very tolerant and understanding of you to want to limit what our children are taught! You really want kids to learn only what you want them too? Pretty selfish of you!


 Yeah, I do want to limit what is taught to what is regarded as the best scientific knowledge to date. You want to teach kids that the earth is 6000 years old? When all reason, logic, and evidence shows its not?


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Yeah, I do want to limit what is taught to what is regarded as the best scientific knowledge to date. You want to teach kids that the earth is 6000 years old? When all reason, logic, and evidence shows its not?


Did I ever say or mention that I believe that the earth is 6000 years old, or do you just lump everyone that believes a certain way, together like most liberals do? It appears you do! Since that's the case you must still support the KKK since their founders were democrats! 

Why are you afraid to let's kids learn that their are different and opposing views? Why does this seem to scare liberals to death?


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Should medical schools teach that the stork delivers babies?


Most intelligent comeback post ever written! ound:


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> Since that's the case you must still support the KKK since their founders were democrats!


 Yeah, but then they went and turned into the Republican party we know and love to this day. 

Now you want to teach kids 'alternate theories', go right ahead. It should be a short day in class. Then they can get back to learning the scientific things discovered over many many years of human thought and investigation into the physical world.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Yeah, but then they went and turned into the Republican party we know and love to this day.
> 
> Now you want to teach kids 'alternate theories', go right ahead. It should be a short day in class. Then they can get back to learning the scientific things discovered over many many years of human thought and investigation into the physical world.


ound::hysterical: KKK=Republicans!!!!! To funny. They were still started by democrats and the democrats still use slavery as a tool.

So prove Darwins theory true! Must be pretty simple for someone as smart as you!

Still. I would like to know, why are liberals so afraid to teach different theories about our creation? From your posts, it sure does seem to upset you guys! I thought you guys were the compassionate and tolerant folks, I was wrong!


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> ound::hysterical: KKK=Republicans!!!!! To funny. They were still started by democrats and the democrats still use slavery as a tool.
> 
> So prove Darwins theory true! Must be pretty simple for someone as smart as you!
> 
> Still. I would like to know, why are liberals so afraid to teach different theories about our creation? From your posts, it sure does seem to upset you guys! I thought you guys were the compassionate and tolerant folks, I was wrong!


Apparently some would benefit from a deeper study of how this country's political parties have evolved over time. I have no problem teaching the Christian theory about how life came about in public schools. It should be taught in a comparative religion class alongside all the other creation myths from religions great and small, past and present. When you can provide some scientific evidence of a creator's existence you can present that in a science classroom.


----------



## greg273

mmoetc said:


> Apparently some would benefit from a deeper study of how this country's political parties have evolved over time. I have no problem teaching the Christian theory about how life came about in public schools. It should be taught in a comparative religion class alongside all the other creation myths from religions great and small, past and present. When you can provide some scientific evidence of a creator's existence you can present that in a science classroom.


 I agree with you 100%. Now I wonder if JefferyD will advocate that preachers and pastors should teach evolution and other 'alternative theories' from their pulpits. Ya know, to be 'fair' and all.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> I agree with you 100%. Now I wonder if JefferyD will advocate that preachers and pastors should teach evolution and other 'alternative theories' from their pulpits. Ya know, to be 'fair' and all.


If they use taxpayer money to fund their schools! That's fair.

So, seriously, why are liberals so afraid to be fair and teach kids all theories? Is it because of your prejudices? Angry about the fact that you maybe wrong?


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> *Apparently some would benefit from a deeper study of how this country's political parties have evolved over time.* I have no problem teaching the Christian theory about how life came about in public schools. It should be taught in a comparative religion class alongside all the other creation myths from religions great and small, past and present. When you can provide some scientific evidence of a creator's existence you can present that in a science classroom.


That's very true! But liberals can't see their own faults, so it really would be futile.

But, since you can't prove how humans evolved, we shouldn't teach that either! According to you, that's fair! I get it now! :smack


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> That's very true! But liberals can't see their own faults, so it really would be futile.
> 
> But, since you can't prove how humans evolved, we shouldn't teach that either! According to you, that's fair! I get it now! :smack


The Theory of Evolution is supported by the fossil record. There are species from horses to kangaroos which have long fossil records showing many transitional forms. Science doesn't have to provide absolute proof and have every I dotted or t crossed to have validity. Provide me one scientifically based piece of evidence of your gods existence and I will gladly allow it to be presented in a science class. Provide me your theory of the fossil record based on your religous beliefs and backed up by basic science and I'll listen. Until then your theory belongs in a different classroom with all the other creation stories of all the religions that preceded and followed yours. I'll tolerate that if you will.


----------



## supernovae

mmoetc said:


> The Theory of Evolution is supported by the fossil record. There are species from horses to kangaroos which have long fossil records showing many transitional forms. Science doesn't have to provide absolute proof and have every I dotted or t crossed to have validity. Provide me one scientifically based piece of evidence of your gods existence and I will gladly allow it to be presented in a science class. Provide me your theory of the fossil record based on your religous beliefs and backed up by basic science and I'll listen. Until then your theory belongs in a different classroom with all the other creation stories of all the religions that preceded and followed yours. I'll tolerate that if you will.


Not only do we have a great fossil record, but everything we have learned since the days of Darwin has absolutely supported evolution. Darwin didn't know about genetics, DNA or any of that and he didn't have the fossil record we have today. This new evidence didn't contradict evolution at all, it just showed us a deeper understanding of the mechanisms thereof.

Teach creationism in theology, it's not based on science.


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> That's very true! But liberals can't see their own faults, so it really would be futile.


You must not know any liberals.

Everyone has problems with biases.. everyone does. YOu do, I do.. heck, even my dog has problems with her biases where she will eat something until she pukes and then eat the puke and repeat the cycle all over because she's biased. Just as some people smoke knowing it will kill them.

However, liberals fight their demons and see their faults just as any human being does. I would add almost more so. They see the plight of others, the planet, the environment in many ways that conservatives simply ignore or refuse to accept. You're ignorance or refusal to accept their beliefs does not make them ignorant. In fact, with a little basic knowledge of science and psychology and anthropology one can quantify beliefs, thoughts, values, morals and actually talk about them rationally and its something liberals have been wanting to do for ages. Many of us can't wait for a true discourse on this topic rather than senseless and baseless finger pointing.



> But, since you can't prove how humans evolved, we shouldn't teach that either! According to you, that's fair! I get it now! :smack


We have mountains of proof, there is zero evidence showing that humans are an exception to the evolution of life. Zero, nada.. zilch.


----------



## greg273

mmoetc said:


> Provide me your theory of the fossil record based on your religous beliefs and backed up by basic science and I'll listen. Until then your theory belongs in a different classroom with all the other creation stories of all the religions that preceded and followed yours. I'll tolerate that if you will.


 I think we've heard their explanation for the fossil record, a trickster deity put them there just to fool people. Basically trying to make the world conform to their religious beliefs rather than observing and coming to logical conclusions based on physical evidence.


----------



## Nevada

supernovae said:


> We have mountains of proof, there is zero evidence showing that humans are an exception to the evolution of life. Zero, nada.. zilch.


We're the ape that got lucky.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2ZE2NGvJ0I[/ame]


----------



## JeffreyD

supernovae said:


> You must not know any liberals.
> 
> Everyone has problems with biases.. everyone does. YOu do, I do.. heck, even my dog has problems with her biases where she will eat something until she pukes and then eat the puke and repeat the cycle all over because she's biased. Just as some people smoke knowing it will kill them.
> 
> However, liberals fight their demons and see their faults just as any human being does. I would add almost more so. They see the plight of others, the planet, the environment in many ways that conservatives simply ignore or refuse to accept. You're ignorance or refusal to accept their beliefs does not make them ignorant. In fact, with a little basic knowledge of science and psychology and anthropology one can quantify beliefs, thoughts, values, morals and actually talk about them rationally and its something liberals have been wanting to do for ages. Many of us can't wait for a true discourse on this topic rather than senseless and baseless finger pointing.
> 
> 
> 
> We have mountains of proof, there is zero evidence showing that humans are an exception to the evolution of life. Zero, nada.. zilch.


Show it! The children's Museum here in Los Angeles curator told.me there was no definitive proof, I'll pay attention to him!

But still, your ignorance of the hundreds of millions that believe different than you do, is clouding your judgement. 

Why is it that liberals are scared to death to let things they do not agree with be taught?

I get insults, but no answer! Typical.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> I think we've heard their explanation for the fossil record, a trickster deity put them there just to fool people. Basically trying to make the world conform to their religious beliefs rather than observing and coming to logical conclusions based on physical evidence.


"Trickster deity", really? All you have are insults? No answer as to why your so scared to let the beliefs of others who disagree with you views be taught? Terror, I suspect, it's the only answer that makes sense with these insults!


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Show it! The children's Museum here in Los Angeles curator told.me there was no definitive proof, I'll pay attention to him!
> 
> But still, your ignorance of the hundreds of millions that believe different than you do, is clouding your judgement.
> 
> Why is it that liberals are scared to death to let things they do not agree with be taught?
> 
> I get insults, but no answer! Typical.


Speaking of answers, how about one reconciling your beliefs with that fossil record. How about showing some scientific evidence that your god even exists. I've given you several answers to your questions. I've even agreed to allowing your creation myth to be taught alongside all the other creation myths. You got enough tolerance for that?


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> Why is it that liberals are scared to death to let things they do not agree with be taught?
> 
> I get insults, but no answer! Typical.


 You've been answered numerous times. Not our fault if you don't like the answers.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> Speaking of answers, how about one reconciling your beliefs with that fossil record. How about showing some scientific evidence that your god even exists. I've given you several answers to your questions. I've even agreed to allowing your creation myth to be taught alongside all the other creation myths. You got enough tolerance for that?


You've agreed to allow it to be taught! How very generous of you! But, you really don't mean it because there are those insults again! Just can't help your self eh? Keep them coming, their really helping your cause!

You want proof of God's existence? Look around!


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> You've been answered numerous times. Not our fault if you don't like the answers.


The answers I've seen have been insults! It's that intolerant racist thing again!


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> You've agreed to allow it to be taught! How very generous of you! But, you really don't mean it because there are those insults again! Just can't help your self eh? Keep them coming, their really helping your cause!
> 
> You want proof of God's existence? Look around!


I'd like you to point out the insult in my post. I'd also like you to answer any if my questions, including the one as to whether you're tolerant enough to allow other creation myths equal standing with yours in schools. When I look around I see many wonders of nature. I'll even admit they may be due to the work of some higher power. Or they may all be the confluence of billions of years of random interaction.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> "Trickster deity", really? All you have are insults? No answer as to why your so scared to let the beliefs of others who disagree with you views be taught? Terror, I suspect, it's the only answer that makes sense with these insults!


I look at the layers in the walls of the Grand Canyon and see millions of years of sediment, just in depositing the layers. Then carving the canyon out is another story.

I also see the Great Lakes. It's estimated that it took about a 10,000 year ice age to accumulate enough mass in the glacier to carve out the lakes, and that the ice age that did it ended about 10,000 years ago. I just don't see how it could have happened in less time.

We also see evidence around the world of ancient calderas having blown, which would have undoubtedly darkened the sky worldwide for a very long time. There's no way that happened and the world recovered in such a short time.

I've considered creationism, ID, and a young earth, but I don't find anything to hang my hat on. It's not only lacking evidence, but it's just too far fetched to take seriously.


----------



## Paumon

JeffreyD said:


> The answers I've seen have been insults! It's that intolerant racist thing again!


Insults? Where?

You're pulling the race card ??? Really?? :huh:

Man, that's lame.

You really need to get a grip on yourself and quit with all the drama queen stuff.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

mmoetc said:


> Speaking of answers, how about one reconciling your beliefs with that fossil record. How about showing some scientific evidence that your god even exists. I've given you several answers to your questions. I've even agreed to allowing your creation myth to be taught alongside all the other creation myths. You got enough tolerance for that?


Actually there are several findings using mathematics that prove many of man's theories on time don't work and that a higher being is very possible.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Here is a good read. 

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> Here is a good read.
> 
> http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html


It's indeed interesting. Using the order of nature as proof that your God exists isn't really an answer. It could be that the order in nature exists because that is the only way that nature can organize regardless of whether there is a higher power. Nothing in that link answered how the fossil record shows distinct epochs, how it shows intermediate steps in development in many species, including our own, or even how it came to exist at all. Science has a number of ideas explaining these things and they can back them up and are working everyday to prove, and yes disprove, them. You're free to have you're beliefs, even the one in the link about your god's Kung fu being the best. Every other religous believer has the same right in this country. When you start advocating that all creation myths be taught equally I'll believe you have an interest in the truth being taught. Until then, I'll believe you have an interest in only your truth being taught.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Not only do we have a great fossil record, but everything we have learned since the days of Darwin has absolutely supported evolution. Darwin didn't know about genetics, DNA or any of that and he didn't have the fossil record we have today. This new evidence didn't contradict evolution at all, it just showed us a deeper understanding of the mechanisms thereof.
> 
> *Teach creationism in theology, it's not based on science.*


Of course not... thats totally backwards... science is based on creationism. If God had not created the universe... including life forms, there would be no scientists attempting to figure out how He did it now would there?


----------



## mmoetc

http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/07/22/18-natural-formations-that-look-man-made/

God's hand or just nature doing what nature does. You'll see what you will.


----------



## mmoetc

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course not... thats totally backwards... science is based on creationism. If God had not created the universe... including life forms, there would be no scientists attempting to figure out how He did it now would there?


Or maybe creationism is just the first hypothesis of early scientists who lacked the tools and knowledge to explain what they were seeing. Hypothoses which should have been set aside as more information became available. Maybe it's not modern science that can't stop defending false ideas.


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> Or maybe creationism is just the first hypothesis of early scientists who lacked the tools and knowledge to explain what they were seeing. Hypothoses which should have been set aside as more information became available. Maybe it's not modern science that can't stop defending false ideas.


Maybe, but I doubt it. Right up front... todays "modern scientists" really are not very well prepared themselves... they cant even seem to be able to explore the real possibilities.... they tend to write most things they dont understand off as "supernatural phenomenon". Of course they are pretty new at the job just yet... a few hundred years at most. Give them ten, maybe twenty thousand years and maybe they will begin to understand a great many things. Those scientists will be looking back laughing out loud at the preposterous nonsense believed by these primitives!


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course not... thats totally backwards... science is based on creationism. If God had not created the universe... including life forms, there would be no scientists attempting to figure out how He did it now would there?


:umno:


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Maybe, but I doubt it. Right up front... todays "modern scientists" really are not very well prepared themselves... they cant even seem to be able to explore the real possibilities.... they tend to write most things they dont understand off as "supernatural phenomenon". Of course they are pretty new at the job just yet... a few hundred years at most. Give them ten, maybe twenty thousand years and maybe they will begin to understand a great many things. Those scientists will be looking back laughing out loud at the preposterous nonsense believed by these primitives!


What are you talking about? This is nonsense. There isn't a single scientific paper in existence that passes peer review that attributes a "supernatural phenomenon" as such attribution is simply not science.

Also, you have it backwards. More religions have faded away because of our ability to understand the universe around us without presuming gods are responsible for it. The god of gaps argument is an ever shrinking god.. it's why you don't believe in the greek gods and sun god


----------



## JeffreyD

Paumon said:


> Insults? Where?
> 
> You're pulling the race card ??? Really?? :huh:
> 
> Man, that's lame.
> 
> You really need to get a grip on yourself and quit with all the drama queen stuff.


You first! If the shoe fits!!!!!!


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> What are you talking about? This is nonsense. There isn't a single scientific paper in existence that passes peer review that attributes a "supernatural phenomenon" as such attribution is simply not science.
> 
> Also, you have it backwards. More religions have faded away because of our ability to understand the universe around us without presuming gods are responsible for it. The god of gaps argument is an ever shrinking god.. it's why you don't believe in the greek gods and sun god


Who is talking about religion??? If you want to discuss religion perhaps we should start a theology thread.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Who is talking about religion??? If you want to discuss religion perhaps we should start a theology thread.


I have no idea what you mean here. How is this a response to what you quoted?


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Who is talking about religion???


Excuse me for being observant, but you've been discussing how God created life and designed the universe this entire thread. Why do you believe that? Religion, of course...


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Excuse me for being observant, but you've been discussing how God created life and designed the universe this entire thread. Why do you believe that? Religion, of course...



Well, first, you not that observant. ..only when you want to!

Just looking around....maybe that's how some found religion. Since no one can prove how everything was created, religion is as good as science!


----------



## emdeengee

There is a phrase - Dead Clade Walking. This refers to a clade (group) of organisms which survived a mass extinction but became extinct a few million years after the mass extinction or failed to recover in numbers and diversity.

In geology there is a clear band that covers the world which shows the extinction even when the Yucatan asteroid hit 65 million years ago and killed off the dinosaurs. So far there have been no dinosaur fossils found above this geological marker. If and when some are discovered then this would be Dead Clade Walking. But unless large quantities of fossils are found it would only show that some lived after 65 million years ago but not in sufficient numbers to recover.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Excuse me for being observant, but you've been discussing how God created life and designed the universe this entire thread. Why do you believe that? Religion, of course...


Nope.... God and religion are not necessarily joined at the hip. As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure God has very little use for religion... kinda like myself.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Also, you have it backwards. *More religions have faded away because of our ability to understand the universe around us without presuming gods are responsible for it. *The god of gaps argument is an ever shrinking god.. it's why you don't believe in the greek gods and sun god





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Who is talking about religion??? If you want to discuss religion perhaps we should start a theology thread.





supernovae said:


> I have no idea what you mean here. How is this a response to what you quoted?


Musta been that bolded part....


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Nope. Science is about making assumptions and working to prove those assumptions correct. Religion is about believing your assumptions are correct no matter what. You can prove a scientist wrong about their assumptions. You can never prove a religous fanatic wrong about their's.


Science is just as faith based as any religion I know of. They just are more willing than most other religions to change there stand. When they don't know something they use their faith to accept it. As I have pointed out before they take it on faith, i.e. w/o anything to support it, that light travels at c through interstellar space. They take it on faith the 'fact' that millions/billions of years ago everything acted and reacted just as it does today.

Look at the C14 dating. It has been proven to be fallible but because throwing it out would upset so many other of their beliefs they must twist it to say "well it only fails in this ONE instance".

Heck, if you read all the threads you will see that they already have proof that light does NOT always travel at c. But again they must say this only happens in specific instances because all their "facts" on how large the universe is will have to be tossed out.


----------



## watcher

mnn2501 said:


> Necks got them what they needed and those with longer necks survived and bred.
> 
> I think you missed the whole point of my post which is that individuals of a species that have adaptions that allow them to survive and breed will eventually become the norm for the species.


But if long necks allowed more of the to survive then wouldn't having wings to reach even higher leaves would have allowed even more to survive?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> But why would you even want to introduce non-scientific principles into science class? What possible purpose does it serve?


Why would you want to forbid the questioning of science?


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Because its not fair and it most certainly doesn't teach them to have an open mind.


To me bring up questions about an accepted 'fact' is the ONLY way to teach people to have open minds.

If you can't support your position when its questioned then, IMO, you have a very weak position. This applies to science when it exiles fellows who question them as much as it does to religions who believe they must kill anyone who disagrees with them.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> K-12 Kids have their hands full just learning the material that's in front of them, and when they're that young they aren't really prepared to make a determination like that.


Hum. . .are you suggesting that schools should be teaching kids WHAT to think? I always thought schools were supposed to teach them HOW to think.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Should medical schools teach that the stork delivers babies?


Look at it this way. Say no one ever saw how a baby came to be but there is some evidence on what happens. Should what that evidence seems to point to be the ONLY thing taught and not allow discussion of the flaws in the theory?

This is what is happen in macroevolution teaching.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Yeah, but then they went and turned into the Republican party we know and love to this day.


Seeing what 50+ years of dem "help" has done to the blacks you have to wonder just how far they have strayed from their Klan roots.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Apparently some would benefit from a deeper study of how this country's political parties have evolved over time. I have no problem teaching the Christian theory about how life came about in public schools. It should be taught in a comparative religion class alongside all the other creation myths from religions great and small, past and present. When you can provide some scientific evidence of a creator's existence you can present that in a science classroom.


Seeing as how each side has the same amount of proof of how things really started I'd think one is just as good as the other. Science takes the start of the universe with just as much faith as any religion out there. Who is to say that our universe didn't come to be when some being shot radiation through the beaker holding us right now?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I look at the layers in the walls of the Grand Canyon and see millions of years of sediment, just in depositing the layers. Then carving the canyon out is another story.
> 
> I also see the Great Lakes. It's estimated that it took about a 10,000 year ice age to accumulate enough mass in the glacier to carve out the lakes, and that the ice age that did it ended about 10,000 years ago. I just don't see how it could have happened in less time.
> 
> We also see evidence around the world of ancient calderas having blown, which would have undoubtedly darkened the sky worldwide for a very long time. There's no way that happened and the world recovered in such a short time.
> 
> I've considered creationism, ID, and a young earth, but I don't find anything to hang my hat on. It's not only lacking evidence, but it's just too far fetched to take seriously.


All based on the "fact" that things happened then exactly as it does now. Seeing as how science is based on evidence and proof where's the evidence and proof to this? Or do you just take it on FAITH that its the same today, yesterday and always?


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> :umno:


Ok, how does science show the first matter/energy which was used to make the current universe was created?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> All based on the "fact" that things happened then exactly as it does now. Seeing as how science is based on evidence and proof where's the evidence and proof to this? Or do you just take it on FAITH that its the same today, yesterday and always?


Maybe you can provide your evidence that it hasn't.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> What are you talking about? This is nonsense. There isn't a single scientific paper in existence that passes peer review that attributes a "supernatural phenomenon" as such attribution is simply not science.
> 
> Also, you have it backwards. More religions have faded away because of our ability to understand the universe around us without presuming gods are responsible for it. The god of gaps argument is an ever shrinking god.. it's why you don't believe in the greek gods and sun god


Seeing as how many "peer reviewed papers" have been pulled because its been proven they were written by computer programs I don't think peer review is what it used to be.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Excuse me for being observant, but you've been discussing how God created life and designed the universe this entire thread. Why do you believe that? Religion, of course...


I haven't. I have been pointing out the facts there are flaws in the theory of macroevolution and we don't know who or what created the universe.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> All based on the "fact" that things happened then exactly as it does now. Seeing as how science is based on evidence and proof where's the evidence and proof to this? Or do you just take it on FAITH that its the same today, yesterday and always?


It seems that if you want us to believe that the laws of physics have changed that you should provide evidence to support that. I believe that the laws of physics have been constant throughout the life of the earth, and I have no reason to doubt that.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> I haven't. I have been pointing out the facts there are flaws in the theory of macroevolution and we don't know who or what created the universe.


 Evolution may not be a perfect theory, but its the best one we have, based on the vast preponderance of the evidence.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> It seems that if you want us to believe that the laws of physics have changed that you should provide evidence to support that. I believe that the laws of physics have been constant throughout the life of the earth, and I have no reason to doubt that.


History is full of science "facts" which have been proven to be wrong. As, IIRC, supernova pointed out we KNOW that light can be slowed down and is effected by gravity therefore isn't it a leap of faith to believe that it acts the same way in interstellar space where there is no gravity?


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Evolution may not be a perfect theory, but its the best one we have, based on the vast preponderance of the evidence.


And seeing as how any questioning of the theory is belittled and/or ignored it will always be so.

The theory is based on assumptions which are based on either other assumptions or interpenetration of facts to fit the theory.

When you try to backtrack the theory those assumptions become glaring. The theory of macroevolution is that each life from came from one before it. That means at some point there must have been the original life. That original life is said to have came from inorganic compounds on the earth. For that to have happened the earth had to be formed, according to science that happened sometime after the big bang caused when all the matter/energy in the universe suddenly and violently expanded. Now where did all that matter/energy come from? Well its just assumed that it came from somewhere but no one can say where. So the entire thing is based on the 'fact' everything was created out of nothing by something which can not be understood by man. To me that sounds a lot like what almost every religion out there teaches. Therefore isn't the teaching it nothing more than the teaching of religion using a different name?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> History is full of science "facts" which have been proven to be wrong. As, IIRC, supernova pointed out we KNOW that light can be slowed down and is effected by gravity therefore isn't it a leap of faith to believe that it acts the same way in interstellar space where there is no gravity?


We're talking about the laws of physics on earth. I'm confident that the laws of physics has remained constant throughout the life of the earth, but I';m willing to listen if you have evidence to disprove that.


----------



## DryHeat

What *predictions* about upcoming events have religions given us, other than generalized tripe like evil-doers will be destroyed, or "god" did this or that IN THE PAST (how convenient!), or ideas of how things work that LEAD to other better ways of dealing with physical reality engineering? For pity's sake, none of the "great" religions even stated slavery was evil, or wrong, or to be avoided while they were imbedded in societies that practiced it! Much of what I see religions doing is giving a bunch of ya-ya that extracts time and that 10% tithe money from the sheeples. The person-to-person charity and ethics can be handled just fine without some invisible god(s). Geology is a *physical* science, as is zoology, so I'd just thank the ethereal folks who deal with gods and angels to stay off in that realm and let schools and science point facts out to their kids. Pity some get home-schooled into Bible-thumping anti-science, but, OK, have at it and see what they ever do to advance enlightened thinking.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> The theory is based on assumptions


Sure, assumptions. Along with fossil evidence, nuclear dating evidence, DNA evidence, anatomic evidence, and experimental evidence.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> It seems that if you want us to believe that the laws of physics have changed that you should provide evidence to support that. *I believe that the laws of physics have been constant throughout the life of the earth, and I have no reason to doubt that.*


And I believe that God created the universe and set things in motion and I have no reason to doubt that either.


----------



## JeffreyD

DryHeat said:


> What *predictions* about upcoming events have religions given us, other than generalized tripe like evil-doers will be destroyed, or "god" did this or that IN THE PAST (how convenient!), or ideas of how things work that LEAD to other better ways of dealing with physical reality engineering? For pity's sake, none of the "great" religions even stated slavery was evil, or wrong, or to be avoided while they were imbedded in societies that practiced it! Much of what I see religions doing is giving a bunch of ya-ya that extracts time and that 10% tithe money from the sheeples. The person-to-person charity and ethics can be handled just fine without some invisible god(s). Geology is a *physical* science, as is zoology, so I'd just thank the ethereal folks who deal with gods and angels to stay off in that realm and let schools and science point facts out to their kids. Pity some get home-schooled into Bible-thumping anti-science, but, OK, have at it and see what they ever do to advance enlightened thinking.


You need to take a look at what some of those anti-science home schooled kids have done to advance not only science, but all technical fields! With your attitude, you may have a stroke!


----------



## Evons hubby

DryHeat said:


> What *predictions* about upcoming events have religions given us, other than generalized tripe like evil-doers will be destroyed, or "god" did this or that IN THE PAST (how convenient!), or ideas of how things work that LEAD to other better ways of dealing with physical reality engineering? For pity's sake, none of the "great" religions even stated slavery was evil, or wrong, or to be avoided while they were imbedded in societies that practiced it! Much of what I see religions doing is giving a bunch of ya-ya that extracts time and that 10% tithe money from the sheeples. The person-to-person charity and ethics can be handled just fine without some invisible god(s). Geology is a *physical* science, as is zoology, so I'd just thank the ethereal folks who deal with gods and angels to stay off in that realm and *let schools and science point facts out to their kids.* Pity some get home-schooled into Bible-thumping anti-science, but, OK, have at it and see what they ever do to advance enlightened thinking.


According to some here.... scientists work only in the world of theory,,, they dont even have a definition for the word "fact".... how could they possibly point them out!


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> We're talking about the laws of physics on earth. I'm confident that the laws of physics has remained constant throughout the life of the earth, but I';m willing to listen if you have evidence to disprove that.


I'm talking about science in general not specifically physics on earth. Scientist go on faith that everything they see today has been that way forever and will continue to be so. There is no evidence showing that this is true nor false. Remember my stalagmite example? Science 'knows' how long it took to form because they see the mineral content of the water _today_, the rate of water flow _today_ and use that to calculate how long it took it to form. The same thing is being done to calculate how far stars are from earth. They assume that in a completely different environment light acts exactly the same as it does here on earth even though we have evidence that gravity effects light in transit.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Sure, assumptions. Along with fossil evidence, nuclear dating evidence, DNA evidence, anatomic evidence, and experimental evidence.


Each based on the faith that the assumptions before are correct. 

Do you not admit that science doesn't have any more of an idea of how things got started than any other religion? 

BTW, what experimental evidence has ever even suggested that you can change an X into anything other than a different looking X?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> I'm talking about science in general not specifically physics on earth.


Actually, you were replying to my post that there were millions of years of sedimentary evidence in the walls of the Gran Canyon. You said that the laws of physics might have changed.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Here is the thing with fossils. We know that system is flawed. When Mt. St. Helens erupted there were animals that were fossilized by that eruption. Yet those same animal fossils tested to be over 5000 years old. So a 5 year fossil became 5000 years old according to science. We know carbon dating is flawed because carbon had never been found in anything over 10000 years old. I'm not a young earth Christian. It could be add young as 6000 or as old a millions of years. There is no way to tell God's true timeline. We know the earth was void and without life. But don't know how long is was that way. But either way the scientific systems are flawed. Just add the thought that an animal can change is own dna to grow news limbs or lungs which is impossible. And the fact that despite the claims there is no fossil record that truly says this is the evolution of a species versus a similar species. There are no one legged fish showing limbs beginning to grow. The fossils ate one species or another that they say is closer enough to call the missing link.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> Here is the thing with fossils. We know that system is flawed. When Mt. St. Helens erupted there were animals that were fossilized by that eruption. Yet those same animal fossils tested to be over 5000 years old. So a 5 year fossil became 5000 years old according to science. We know carbon dating is flawed because carbon had never been found in anything over 10000 years old. I'm not a young earth Christian. It could be add young as 6000 or as old a millions of years. There is no way to tell God's true timeline. We know the earth was void and without life. But don't know how long is was that way. But either way the scientific systems are flawed. Just add the thought that an animal can change is own dna to grow news limbs or lungs which is impossible. And the fact that despite the claims there is no fossil record that truly says this is the evolution of a species versus a similar species. There are no one legged fish showing limbs beginning to grow. The fossils ate one species or another that they say is closer enough to call the missing link.


 I really must question your knowledge of fossils, the fossil record, and DNA ... the system isn't 'flawed', although perhaps your understanding of it is. 
And yes, the earth was 'void and without life' for a good long while, especially considering it was most likely a molten sphere for the first 500+million years at least.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> I really must question your knowledge of fossils, the fossil record, and DNA ... the system isn't 'flawed', although perhaps your understanding of it is.
> And yes, the earth was 'void and without life' for a good long while, especially considering it was most likely a molten sphere for the first 500+million years at least.


The fossil test at Mt. St. Helens was conducted by students from Tulane University. They set to prove the system flawed and did. And please tellme something. By your own statement earth was a molten sphere for 500 million years. How did everything get here? How could any organism or seed exist in such conditions? We have found no life outside of our earth let alone billions of different forms of it. So how did it get here?


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> The fossil test at Mt. St. Helens was conducted by students from Tulane University. They set to prove the system flawed and did. And please tellme something. By your own statement earth was a molten sphere for 500 million years. How did everything get here? How could any organism or seed exist in such conditions? We have found no life outside of our earth let alone billions of different forms of it. So how did it get here?


Ah, the difference 4.5 billion years can make.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Good answer. Considering they have supposed meteorites that are millions to billions of years old that show no signs of ever carrying life or water.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> And please tellme something. By your own statement earth was a molten sphere for 500 million years. How did everything get here? How could any organism or seed exist in such conditions? We have found no life outside of our earth let alone billions of different forms of it. So how did it get here?


 The solar system is filled with the building blocks of organic compounds, mainly in the outer, colder regions. Comets are a particularly rich source. Even interstellar space has them. Given the right environment and enough time, it is no great leap to think they could form into simple life forms. Maybe thats how God makes life? 

http://www.space.com/1686-life-building-blocks-abundant-space.html


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> Good answer. Considering they have supposed meteorites that are millions to billions of years old that show no signs of ever carrying life or water.


The fact that we don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so. Our difference of opinion doesn't change the facts. Believing that God did it won't change anything.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> The fossil test at Mt. St. Helens was conducted by students from Tulane University. They set to prove the system flawed and did. And please tellme something. By your own statement earth was a molten sphere for 500 million years. How did everything get here? How could any organism or seed exist in such conditions? We have found no life outside of our earth let alone billions of different forms of it. So how did it get here?


It's the way every planet is formed. 

There is a creationist by the name of Steve Austin who makes the claims you suggest, but they're simply obscuring facts. 

We have found no life outside of earth as of yet, but we have only explored our closest planet.

There are 200 billion more solar systems in our galaxy to look at and there are a 200 billion galaxies out there. Andromeda Galaxy itself has a billion stars that are potential solar systems.

They all have planets that form the same way the earth forms, from the accretion discs of their hosting "sun".


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> Good answer. Considering they have supposed meteorites that are millions to billions of years old that show no signs of ever carrying life or water.


water is very abundant in the universe btw. Hydrogen and Oxygen aren't rare by any means.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> Good answer. Considering they have supposed meteorites that are millions to billions of years old that show no signs of ever carrying life or water.


 Huh? Who said they ALL had organic compounds or water??? 
How much have you really looked into these subjects, apart from a biblical context?


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> Each based on the faith that the assumptions before are correct.


Not at all. Being able to confirm data is not faith. Having to believe in something without data is, ergo god(s).



> Do you not admit that science doesn't have any more of an idea of how things got started than any other religion?


Nope. There isn't a single religion out there that has any idea how it got started. Religions are quite devoid of this actually. No predictive capability, no data, no concept of science. Religion was largely applied where humans didn't have the capability to understand the world around them. God of thunder hear me roar!



> BTW, what experimental evidence has ever even suggested that you can change an X into anything other than a different looking X?


We've only been trying for a few years. We're talking about time frames well beyond our own existence. All of our fossils, all of our evidence supports evolutionary theory. Nothing has yet been found that shows the idea is wrong. Nothing shows anything out of place or out of time. We don't see humans with dinosaurs as this thread suggests.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> The fact that we don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so. Our difference of opinion doesn't change the facts. Believing that God did it won't change anything.


But I thought science didnt believe in "facts" ... only hypothesis and theories?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> The fact that we don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so. Our difference of opinion doesn't change the facts. Believing that God did it won't change anything.


You just said it yourself! "The fact that we don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't so". 

Yes, exactly! Just because you don't understand creationism, doesn't mean it isn't so!


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But I thought science didnt believe in "facts" ... only hypothesis and theories?


Theories are considered facts when nothing has ever been found to prove them wrong.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Semantic games don't change the "Facts"..


----------



## supernovae

JeffreyD said:


> You just said it yourself! "The fact that we don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't so".
> 
> Yes, exactly! Just because you don't understand creationism, doesn't mean it isn't so!


There isn't a shred of science in creationism to actually make it a viable hypothesis for that which we can't explain. 

Not having the answer is a perfectly valid answer. Claiming to have an answer without evidence is simply something one can shrug off without evidence.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But I thought science didnt believe in "facts" ... only hypothesis and theories?


I didn't say that. What I said is that scientists don't happen to classify knowledge as a "fact." The term "fact" has been introduced into the discussion to confuse people who don't understand how scientists classify knowledge. 

This is similar to the introduction of the term "kinds" into the discussion about how biologists classify organisms. Biologists don't use the term "kinds" to classify anything, so it confuses the discussion. Creationists need the term "kinds" because speciation is undeniable. They can say, "Yes, it's a different species, but it's still the same kind." Creationists then challenge scientists to demonstrate evolution by showing them something radical, like turning eagle into a turtle.

The same tired arguments of twisting words keep being made.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Theories are considered facts when nothing has ever been found to prove them wrong.
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.
> 
> Semantic games don't change the "Facts"..


So then it must be a fact that God created the universe and all of its contents. 

My point was that it had been argued earlier that science had no definition for a fact... that they had only hypothesis and theorys to work with. This had come up when I mentioned our students had been graduating and had somehow come to the conclusion that the big bang, some form of spontaneous generation had created life at the bottom of a swamp and all living things had evolved from that critter was a "fact". 

Thanks for clearing up the fact that scientists do indeed believe in facts.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> There isn't a shred of science in creationism to actually make it a viable hypothesis for that which we can't explain.
> 
> Not having the answer is a perfectly valid answer. Claiming to have an answer without evidence is simply something one can shrug off without evidence.


Oddly enough I have seen a lot of evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of an intelligent creator.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oddly enough I have seen a lot of evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of an intelligent creator.


Where is this evidence? What is a reasonable doubt for you? Could you not have been hallucinating?


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So then it must be a fact that God created the universe and all of its contents.


Not at all. Just because you have no experience in cosmology doesn't mean you change the world to wrap around your naive views.



> My point was that it had been argued earlier that science had no definition for a fact... that they had only hypothesis and theorys to work with. This had come up when I mentioned our students had been graduating and had somehow come to the conclusion that the big bang, some form of spontaneous generation had created life at the bottom of a swamp and all living things had evolved from that critter was a "fact".


Not at all. You're the one that keeps suggesting the "Swamp" theory and only because you refuse to accept everything you don't bother to understand and imply your own beliefs.



> Thanks for clearing up the fact that scientists do indeed believe in facts.


Others have cleared it up. They are considered "Scientific facts" when they are known to be true. It's not the same convoluted belief in facts as you want to believe them to be. It's a game of semantics you are playing, doesn't change reality.

i'll quote wikipedia for you since this seems difficult for everyone involved.

"In science, a "fact" is a careful observation or measurement, also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fact#Fact_in_science


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Where is this evidence? What is a reasonable doubt for you? Could you not have been hallucinating?


"this evidence" is all around us all day and all night every day and night.... it is not my fault science refuses to look for it. Perhaps they need to look under different rocks. :shrug: and no... I am not hallucinating! Havent been able to get a hold of any of those drugs in many many years now! LOL


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Not at all. Just because you have no experience in cosmology doesn't mean you change the world to wrap around your naive views.


But I do have experience with cosmology... I get a haircut every 6 months whilst I need it or not. 





supernovae said:


> Not at all. You're the one that keeps suggesting the "Swamp" theory and only because you refuse to accept everything you don't bother to understand and imply your own beliefs.


Nope, I keep mentioning the swamp "theory" because thats the theory/fact or whatever you call it that I was taught in school, its what my kids were taught, and I presume they are still teaching in our schools. 


Hey Nevada.... listen up, I think this part is for you. 


supernovae said:


> Others have cleared it up. They are considered "Scientific facts" when they are known to be true. It's not the same convoluted belief in facts as you want to believe them to be. It's a game of semantics you are playing, doesn't change reality.
> 
> i'll quote wikipedia for you since this seems difficult for everyone involved.
> 
> "In science, a "fact" is a careful observation or measurement, also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.
> 
> In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts"
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fact#Fact_in_science


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> "this evidence" is all around us all day and all night every day and night.... it is not my fault science refuses to look for it. Perhaps they need to look under different rocks. :shrug: and no... I am not hallucinating! Havent been able to get a hold of any of those drugs in many many years now! LOL


What evidence? Science has never refused to look at anything BTW, if there was scientific evidence for God(s) it would be accepted as such. That is the beauty of science.

Lack of sleep, poor nutrition, toxicity, intoxication and many other things can cause the mind to see things.. there are a zillion reasons we see things we want to see and our brain processes them as true.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Lack of sleep, poor nutrition, toxicity, intoxication and many other things can cause the mind to see things.. there are a zillion reasons we see things we want to see and our brain processes them as true.


I see, and what makes you think scientists are somehow immune to these factors?


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> What evidence?


We can start with something simple, like the time I was able to raise a flag on a mailbox while driving by.... just by thinking it. This incident was witnessed by my second wife, I made sure she saw it by telling her I was going to do it as we approached the mail box. The first time I moved a pair of boots off a shelf in a dept store, sadly, I was the only witness that time so I am sure you will deny it happened.... probably due to that unwillingness to look thing that you also deny exists.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

supernovae said:


> What evidence? Science has never refused to look at anything BTW, if there was scientific evidence for God(s) it would be accepted as such. That is the beauty of science.
> 
> Lack of sleep, poor nutrition, toxicity, intoxication and many other things can cause the mind to see things.. there are a zillion reasons we see things we want to see and our brain processes them as true.


Can those things causer miracles that happen everyday? Like when my son had a seizure and stopped breathing and the paramedics couldn't get him started and I grabbed him from the docs and prayed and he emediatly started breathing and came right back. Or how about when I was so sick from my diseased gallbladder that I couldn't move and my 3 year old walked over prayed for my belly and instantly I sat up and all the pain was gone. Our how about when I was 19 and so broke I was scrounging change to get my kids some milk and bread. Got out of the car at food lion with 2 dollars in change hoping to find 99 cent bread and a snack thing of milk only to have a large gust of wind blow out of nowhere and a 20 blew right up against my pants leg. And last but not least at that same time when we were struggling bad and were behind several months on our mortgage and they were going to foreclose and that very day we found out they were going to, we got a check in the mail for the exact amount we owed for our mortgage. That's just acouple of instances. I have many more. Science can't explain those things. Only God can


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I see, and what makes you think scientists are somehow immune to these factors?


Peer review, scrutiny, objectivity, observations and verifiable data (amongst other things). No one is immune to these factors 100%, it's the reason science goes through so much effort to be validated.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

You see like you I once doubted many things. Then things like the above happened to me and I could not deny it any longer. So I started to learn about God and boy did he open my eyes. Then it became clear. I would rather life a good life loving God and be wrong than to deny him and find out I was wrong. Plus what is a life lived of that's all there is? Why would anyone want to deny the possibility of an eternity of life and beauty.?


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> Can those things causer miracles that happen everyday? Like when my son had a seizure and stopped breathing and the paramedics couldn't get him started and I grabbed him from the docs and prayed and he emediatly started breathing and came right back. Or how about when I was so sick from my diseased gallbladder that I couldn't move and my 3 year old walked over prayed for my belly and instantly I sat up and all the pain was gone. Our how about when I was 19 and so broke I was scrounging change to get my kids some milk and bread. Got out of the car at food lion with 2 dollars in change hoping to find 99 cent bread and a snack thing of milk only to have a large gist of wind blow out of nowhere and a 20 blew right up against my pants leg. And last but not least at that same time when we were struggling bad and were behind several months on our mortgage and they were going to foreclose and that very day we found out got a check in the mail for the exact amount we owed for our mortgage. That's just acouple of instances. I havemany more. Science can't explain those things. Only God can


Science can explain those things, absolutely. I can find out when/where your check came from, that change you found to buy food was probably lost by another being and as far as the medical problems, lots of things can be analyzed to find out how/why something happened. 

Inversely, Why does God have to be the god of good? Maybe god is punishing you and it was a human that left you two dollars. Maybe god is punishing you and it was the paramedics who saved your life... I'm just trying to show the "attribution belief" can be had both ways when you're talking about stuff without looking at the evidence.

The "human state of mind" is absolutely core to our survival. For example, when mountain climbers get stuck on a mountain they use all of their mental energy trying not to fall asleep.. for a religious person, they may pray to never fall asleep having the same action as a non religious person saying "don't fall asleep" for if you do fall asleep, your body will basically automatically shutdown and there is a good chance you will die. However, this isn't something "magical", its just willpower and our conscious ability to focus on our survival.. It was the right selection of clothes, the right state of mind, the right training and the understanding of the environment and how you can "survive" in it that caused you to survive. 

I find everything you have stated has a practical explanation.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

We know it's not God punishing us. It's his word coming true to us. When you love a hollow shallow life you can never understand those experiences. You say its the mind playing tricks. That's just not the case. After my mother died I struggled with alot of things. And I prayed one night and asked God to help me. That night I had a dream. Very sorry but to the point. I walked into a bright area. My mom was there but she was different. I had dreams of my mom before. But she was mom as looked on earth. But this dream she was changed. And I was allowed to see her face. I asked her 3 questions. Was heaven real and what did it look like. She said yes son. It is real and more beautiful than you can ever imagine. I then asked her if God loves us as much as his word says. She said son. He loves you more than you know for all of eternity. Then I woke right up. It was a 5 minute dream that touched my life. I'm not a person who believes dreams always tell us something. But that dreamed lined up with scripture. So I take it to heart. If you never experience those things you will always doubt and put your faith into man's fallacies.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> You see like you I once doubted many things. Then things like the above happened to me and I could not deny it any longer. So I started to learn about God and boy did he open my eyes. Then it became clear. I would rather life a good life loving God and be wrong than to deny him and find out I was wrong. Plus what is a life lived of that's all there is? Why would anyone want to deny the possibility of an eternity of life and beauty.?


That's your religious belief, and that's fine for you to believe in. Other people believe the better thing to do is to kill infidels and when they die, they get 72 virgins. There is no universal beauty, no universal belief.

How did it open your eyes? Seems like you have closed them. Would a loving god want to you disbelieve in evolution and the sciences? 

What is a good life to you? How do you justify that goodness and live that goodness? Do you do that by denying the world around you? Do you only believe in a specific bible or scripture? How do you know which scripture to abide by and believe? Do you believe it all?


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> We know it's not God punishing us.


How do you objectively know this though?



> It's his word coming true to us.


What makes you say this?



> When you love a hollow shallow life you can never understand those experiences.


I consider my life very rewarding and very deep. I love my increasing understanding of everything around us. Its a very good & rewarding feeling.

What kind of god would create a person such as yourself to judge others as you do? Shouldn't judgement be left to your god?



> You say its the mind playing tricks. That's just not the case.


It's a possibility. Tricks are things humans are great at seeing and believing.



> After my mother died I struggled with alot of things. And I prayed one night and asked God to help me. That night I had a dream. Very sorry but to the point. I walked into a bright area. My mom was there but she was different. I had dreams of my mom before. But she was mom as looked on earth. But this dream she was changed. And I was allowed to see her face. I asked her 3 questions. Was heaven real and what did it look like. She said yes son. It is real and more beautiful than you can ever imagine. I then asked her if God loves us as much as his word says. She said son. He loves you more than you know for all of eternity. Then I woke right up. It was a 5 minute dream that touched my life. I'm not a person who believes dreams always tell us something. But that dreamed lined up with scripture. So I take it to heart. If you never experience those things you will always doubt and put your faith into man's fallacies.


Dreams are cool things we humans experience. My dogs dream too and its funny when they start barking in their sleep. With that said, dreams are based on our conscious reality but play out in our subconscious mind. I've had dreams where i can fly.. i had dreams where i fell and then flipped out of bed just as i was going to hit the ground. I had dreams where I got hit by the car and ran over instead of my brother or where I had no kids or where things where drastically different then they are. Its a huge thing to lose a family member such as a parent or sibling and people cope with that in the many ways they can. A religious mind will cope with that in religious terms and that could be dreaming up something that they want to dream that re-enforces their temporal beliefs. If you had never been taught about a god, guiding light or heaven and hell i'm not sure you would have dreamed that and if you did, it would probably reflect whatever conscious beliefs you wanted to believe anyway (just as muslims dream of their god and their heaven, not yours).

When 5 of my high school friends were killed in a car accident where they burned to death or were thrown from the vehicle, i had vivid dreams of what could or couldn't have happened and i had dreams and hopes they were in something better or at a better place to seek comfort in what i had to deal with. None of it was very comforting and it seemed to be a way to lie to myself that we're not responsible for our actions. Had they not been speeding, they may be alive. Had they worn seatbelts, they wouldn't have been ejected from car. Had there not been a drunk driver involved, they may all be alive. Everything stemmed from poor actions of a temporal human being. The only real way to cope with that is to make a purposeful promise to myself to not drink and drive, to wear my seat belt and take actions that benefit my survival. praying i never make those mistakes is the same things as promising to never make those mistakes, a purposeful projection of what/where i want to be, just different ways of achieving it. Doesn't mean god is on your side if you do pray and it doesn't mean god isn't on my side if i just promise. Still doing what is right with our without a superstitious belief applied to it.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

supernovae said:


> That's your religious belief, and that's fine for you to believe in. Other people believe the better thing to do is to kill infidels and when they die, they get 72 virgins. There is no universal beauty, no universal belief.
> 
> How did it open your eyes? Seems like you have closed them. Would a loving god want to you disbelieve in evolution and the sciences?
> 
> What is a good life to you? How do you justify that goodness and live that goodness? Do you do that by denying the world around you? Do you only believe in a specific bible or scripture? How do you know which scripture to abide by and believe? Do you believe it all?


A good life lived is a life lived for others and not yourself. I abide a live by all the Scriptures. As to universal belief. Those who belief a religion that has a starting date of their religion that was created by a man or Any church or religion who has a human founder is a false religion. Like Buddha or muhammad ect. .. Any religion that teaches all others should be killed is a false religion. The religion of a true believer has anyways been and always will be. The true biblical writings are the oldest writings of any degree in existence. The writings of the old testement are thousands of years old. The letters of the apostles are real and there for us to see. And they were spread out all over the world yet all their works align and the finding of the dead sea scrolls back them up. That's physical documents backing up scripture. If those documents were about evolution or science you would say they are truth. But since they are about God you deny them.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bono from u2 said something I'll always remember. He said we know the apostles were real. He said they all died horrible deaths for their belief and what they seen. Nobody would endure what they did unless they seen what the said they saw. Jesus had to be real. That stuck with me always.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

supernovae said:


> How do you objectively know this though?
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you say this?
> 
> 
> 
> I consider my life very rewarding and very deep. I love my increasing understanding of everything around us. Its a very good & rewarding feeling.
> 
> What kind of god would create a person such as yourself to judge others as you do? Shouldn't judgement be left to your god?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a possibility. Tricks are things humans are great at seeing and believing.
> 
> 
> 
> Dreams are cool things we humans experience. My dogs dream too and its funny when they start barking in their sleep. With that said, dreams are based on our conscious reality but play out in our subconscious mind. I've had dreams where i can fly.. i had dreams where i fell and then flipped out of bed just as i was going to hit the ground. I had dreams where I got hit by the car and ran over instead of my brother or where I had no kids or where things where drastically different then they are. Its a huge thing to lose a family member such as a parent or sibling and people cope with that in the many ways they can. A religious mind will cope with that in religious terms and that could be dreaming up something that they want to dream that re-enforces their temporal beliefs. If you had never been taught about a god, guiding light or heaven and hell i'm not sure you would have dreamed that and if you did, it would probably reflect whatever conscious beliefs you wanted to believe anyway (just as muslims dream of their god and their heaven, not yours).
> 
> When 5 of my high school friends were killed in a car accident where they burned to death or were thrown from the vehicle, i had vivid dreams of what could or couldn't have happened and i had dreams and hopes they were in something better or at a better place to seek comfort in what i had to deal with. None of it was very comforting and it seemed to be a way to lie to myself that we're not responsible for our actions. Had they not been speeding, they may be alive. Had they worn seatbelts, they wouldn't have been ejected from car. Had there not been a drunk driver involved, they may all be alive. Everything stemmed from poor actions of a temporal human being. The only real way to cope with that is to make a purposeful promise to myself to not drink and drive, to wear my seat belt and take actions that benefit my survival.


I haven't judged anyone. That's your conviction of not believing and denying God to try and paint me as a judgmental person pushing hate towards you. That's your false creation of reality to make yourself feel better how not agreeing with us or god. That's how it goes today. People paint us as mean judgmental people so they feel better about not living right, but we aint that way. Bottom line is if your right what did I lose to live this way and believe? But if I'm right, what do you lose? Eternity of happiness and joy with our friends and loved ones or an eternity of pain and misery.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> Bono from u2 said something I'll always remember. He said we know the apostles were real. He said they all died horrible deaths for their belief and what they seen. Nobody would endure what they did unless they seen what the said they saw. Jesus had to be real. That stuck with me always.


People do this today. People endure the worst of things on the belief that the worse they endure, the better they appease their god. Just look at the wars going on in the middle east.

U2 had some decent music, but lets be real, Bono grew up in a society that was absolutely pluralistic. I wouldn't expect him to have any other belief than what he was raised to believe in and what his national pride is.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

supernovae said:


> People do this today. People endure the worst of things on the belief that the worse they endure, the better they appease their god. Just look at the wars going on in the middle east.
> 
> U2 had some decent music, but lets be real, Bono grew up in a society that was absolutely pluralistic. I wouldn't expect him to have any other belief than what he was raised to believe in and what his national pride is.


Religious wars are quite different than making such a singular impact you are taking before Kings and rulers and attempted to be forced to deny God and being tortured infront of the kingdom and world for your belief and teaching. We don't see that today at all. Yes many die for God but the world does hear to much about it. Documents exist from many cultures around the world that talk about the apostles and their deaths. So they impacted the world. Even the parts of the world they never seen.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> I haven't judged anyone. That's your conviction of not believing and denying God to try and paint me as a judgmental person pushing hate towards you.


You keep using words though that are judgmental. 



> That's your false creation of reality to make yourself feel better how not agreeing with us or god. That's how it goes today. People paint us as mean judgmental people so they feel better about not living right, but we aint that way.


Are you sure about this? Just about anything related to the sciences in this community gets bashed. Go look at the global warming thread where people made fun of me for teaching "STEM" to kids at camp. Go look where others insult people because they're "liberal" or think differently. No one is doing the painting but the painter himself. There isn't much rational discourse or objective discussions going on here.

People are judging me for understanding evolution. People are judging me for saying the earth accreted from matter left over from when our sun was born and coalesced under gravity and heavy bombardment and was a molten sphere of rock before it had oceans and at atmosphere. It's considered "practical knowledge" as far as science goes, but a lot of people here are screaming "that's nuts, god did it. HOw can you say this!"



> Bottom line is if your right what did I lose to live this way and believe? But if I'm right, what do you lose? Eternity of happiness and joy with our friends and loved ones or an eternity of pain and misery.


How do you know i lose anything? Aren't you once again merely judging others? seems hypocritical to say there is an all powerful god, but apply a temporal belief system that judges others for how they believe or not believe in said god. Why can't you just leave god to decide what god wants if indeed there is a god? Isn't this what fundamentalist Muslims are doing in Iraq and Syria, judging and killing others for believing in something different?

What makes you believe in a life of eternity or a life of pain and misery?


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> Religious wars are quite different than making such a singular impact you are taking before Kings and rulers and attempted to be forced to deny God and being tortured infront of the kingdom and world for your belief and teaching. We don't see that today at all. Yes many die for God but the world does hear to much about it. Documents exist from many cultures around the world that talk about the apostles and their deaths. So they impacted the world. Even the parts of the world they never seen.


Many a scientist and scholar were tortured, burned, hanged, crucified for going against the state and the church for beliefs that they held which were ultimately found to be more true than the religion or faith they upheld in punishing those people.

If we want to go back through history, Christians once killed and silenced non believers just as extremist muslims are trying to do today. It wasn't a non judgmental and objective view of reality that led to such murderous rampages but rather an ideological and subjective view they enforced upon people. Same thing happens with people ideologically driven with power they get from the state and extreme patriotism.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

supernovae said:


> You keep using words though that are judgmental.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about this? Just about anything related to the sciences in this community gets bashed. Go look at the global warming thread where people made fun of me for teaching "STEM" to kids at camp. Go look where others insult people because they're "liberal" or think differently. No one is doing the painting but the painter himself. There isn't much rational discourse or objective discussions going on here.
> 
> People are judging me for understanding evolution. People are judging me for saying the earth accreted from matter left over from when our sun was born and coalesced under gravity and heavy bombardment and was a molten sphere of rock before it had oceans and at atmosphere. It's considered "practical knowledge" as far as science goes, but a lot of people here are screaming "that's nuts, god did it. HOw can you say this!"
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know i lose anything? Aren't you once again merely judging others? seems hypocritical to say there is an all powerful god, but apply a temporal belief system that judges others for how they believe or not believe in said god. Why can't you just leave god to decide what god wants if indeed there is a god? Isn't this what fundamentalist Muslims are doing in Iraq and Syria, judging and killing others for believing in something different?
> 
> What makes you believe in a life of eternity or a life of pain and misery?


Again. Where did I judge you? I only stated what could happen to those who don't believe. I didn't say you. Just non believers. And that's not judging. People often confuse spreading God's Word and telling the truth about his word as being judgemental. But it's only doing what we are called to do. judging is when I say your condemned to hell and have no hope. That is passing judgment and sentencing you. That's not what I have done. Add far as eternity. The Bible paints a clear picture of the two sides of the gulf and the reality of it. One is good and one is bad. That's where I draw my beliefs from.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> seems hypocritical to say there is an all powerful god, but apply a temporal belief system that judges others for how they believe or not believe in said god.


Good point.... which is why I dont get into religious discussions very often. Wanna talk to me about God... fine... as long as we can leave religion out of it.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

supernovae said:


> Many a scientist and scholar were tortured, burned, hanged, crucified for going against the state and the church for beliefs that they held which were ultimately found to be more true than the religion or faith they upheld in punishing those people.
> 
> If we want to go back through history, Christians once killed and silenced non believers just as extremist muslims are trying to do today. It wasn't a non judgmental and objective view of reality that led to such murderous rampages but rather an ideological and subjective view they enforced upon people. Same thing happens with people ideologically driven with power they get from the state and extreme patriotism.


Those weren't Christians doing that. Anyone who kills another for disbelief is not a Christian. People need to stop confusing the two. They were fake religions doing horrible things in their God's name. Not the one and true God's name.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

I got a question. Why do non believing science minded people make homesteads and prepare for hard times. If the earth will always keep going, won't science fix everything? Won't any disaster be short lived? The Bible says things are going to get bad. And it tells it in great detail. And it won't ever come back from it. That's why I prepare.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> Again. Where did I judge you? I only stated what could happen to those who don't believe. I didn't say you. Just non believers. And that's not judging.


How is that not judging? Instead of judging me personally, now you're just doing it categorically. What is a non believer to you? Is a buddhist a non believer? a jew? a mormon? a catholic? a hindu? a muslim? How do you know your god is the right god to believe in? What of the 60,000 other gods humans have believed in?



> People often confuse spreading God's Word and telling the truth about his word as being judgmental. But it's only doing what we are called to do.


So then by the same logic, it's OK that Muslims are beheading Christians in Iraq and Syria because their god and scripture say its what they're called to do?

Seems judgmental and dangerous.



> Kidding is when I say your condemned to he'll and have no hope. That is passing judgment and sentencing you. That's not what I have done. Add far as eternity. The Bible paints a clear picture of the two sides of the gulf and the reality of it. One is good and one is bad. That's where I draw my beliefs from.


So your bible that you choose to believe in builds up a way to punish and reward its believers. That's fine for you to believe in. How do you then choose which parts to uphold and which parts to throw out? Aren't you using the same tools of rational thought I use to not really buy any of it to choose which parts you try and disbelieve in or believe in? Bible is a good story and has a lot of history to it, its been a huge part of humanity in many ways so i'm not trying to bash it, but i question how people say stuff such as what you say but they don't really buy it absolutely and when they do buy it absolutely, we end up with stuff like Muslims murdering every infidel - because they believe in it fundamentally.


----------



## mnn2501

Vahomesteaders said:


> Science can't explain those things. Only God can


We see what we want to see.

I'm not saying God was not involved, but I really doubt the Supreme Ruler of the universe cares that you do not have bread and milk and doesn't care that hundreds or even thousands of people starve daily.

I also don't believe (s)he helps people find lost car keys.


----------



## mnn2501

Vahomesteaders said:


> Again. Where did I judge you? I only stated what could happen to those who don't believe. I didn't say you. Just non believers. And that's not judging. People often confuse spreading God's Word and telling the truth about his word as being judgemental. But it's only doing what we are called to do. judging is when I say your condemned to hell and have no hope. That is passing judgment and sentencing you. That's not what I have done. Add far as eternity. The Bible paints a clear picture of the two sides of the gulf and the reality of it. One is good and one is bad. That's where I draw my beliefs from.


Where in the Bible does it state that you can save someone by annoying the heck out of them.

I'd rather see you acting like a Christian than beating the unbeliever over the head with your interpretation of the Bible.


----------



## Boo8meR

Vahomesteaders said:


> I haven't judged anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> But if I'm right, what do you lose? Eternity of happiness and joy with our friends and loved ones or an eternity of pain and misery.




You literally contradicted yourself in this post. You said you haven't judged anyone and then you effectively condemned someone to hell. Is that your decision to make? How can you tell someone that they've given up heaven if you're not judging them? What about a god who forgives us for all our sins? Wouldn't not believing be considered a sin? Wouldn't it therefore be forgiven? Wouldn't that then grant access to heaven? And before anyone throws darts, my religious views won't be stated. They shouldn't matter. I could make this observation as a Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.

Don't worry, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Carry on.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> I got a question. Why do non believing science minded people make homesteads and prepare for hard times. If the earth will always keep going, won't science fix everything? Won't any disaster be short lived? The Bible says things are going to get bad. And it tells it in great detail. And it won't ever come back from it. That's why I prepare.


I'm not a "prepper", but i homestead because i like to be self sufficient, i like to live with nature, i like to work with my hands. I want to experience hand to table food, what its like to kill something, prepare and it and feed it to my family. 

I understand i have a foot print on the planet that i can either use for positive or negative impact.

I like to grow veggies, share them with friends and family. I like my kids growing up and experiencing what its like to grow their own food and have skills to make it in life.

HomesteadingToday.com says "neighborly help and friendly advice". Are you really trying to tell me homesteading and this website are particular about end of days and preppers? really?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

mnn2501 said:


> We see what we want to see.
> 
> I'm not saying God was not involved, but I really doubt the Supreme Ruler of the universe cares that you do not have bread and milk and doesn't care that hundreds or even thousands of people starve daily.
> 
> I also don't believe (s)he helps people find lost car keys.


That's my point. God says those who truly belive will recieve those kind of blessings. He does care that people starve. But very few of the places with starvation problems are of a Christian faith. The true believer is one of faith. Those believe in Jesus Christ, God the father and the Holy Spirit are true believer's. God of the Bible is the oldest god in our earths history. Jews deny jesus, Buddha was a man as was muhammad. So they aren't gods. There are many religions that try to serve the knee true god but offer different paths to him. If they don't line up with scripture, they are fake.


----------



## mnn2501

Vahomesteaders said:


> I got a question. Why do non believing science minded people make homesteads and prepare for hard times. If the earth will always keep going, won't science fix everything? Won't any disaster be short lived? The Bible says things are going to get bad. And it tells it in great detail. And it won't ever come back from it. That's why I prepare.


The newspapers and internet reports how things are bad and getting worse. Thats why I prepare.

Not sure why you religious people prepare when the Bible states that God will take care of you



> Luke 12:27"Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; but I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. 28"But if God so clothes the grass in the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, how much more will He clothe you? You men of little faith!&#8230;


 Also in Matt 6 28-29


----------



## Boo8meR

Vahomesteaders said:


> That's my point. God says those who truly belive will recieve those kind of blessings. He does care that people starve. But very few of the places with starvation problems are of a Christian faith. The true believer is one of faith. Those believe in Jesus Christ, God the father and the Holy Spirit are true believer's. God of the Bible is the oldest god in our earths history. Jews deny jesus, Buddha was a man as was muhammad. So they aren't gods. There are many religions that try to serve the knee true god but offer different paths to him. If they don't line up with scripture, they are fake.




http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/child-hunger-facts.aspx

"One nation, under god."


----------



## Vahomesteaders

We really are not one nation under God anymore. But he has still blessed this nation greatly for the prayers of the faithful. And yes there are hungry Los in America. But thanks to God's churches, the salvation army and interfaith relief, they have places to go an ran by God's people. Infact if it weren't for Christians many of our greatest Medical discoveries and Medicaid facilities as well as many places for the hungry to go, would have never happened and would have never existed and this nation would be alot worse off.


----------



## Boo8meR

Vahomesteaders said:


> We really are not one nation under God anymore. But he has still blessed this nation greatly for the prayers of the faithful. And yes there are hungry Los in America. But thanks to God's churches, the salvation army and interfaith relief, they have places to go an ran by God's people. Infact if it weren't for Christians many of our greatest Medical discoveries and Medicaid facilities as well as many places for the hungry to go, would have never happened and would have never existed and this nation would be alot worse off.




Would it? They also help non-Christians. How do you feel about that? You seem to have pretty strong words for anyone who isn't like-minded. These are your brethren, how can you support them when they are helping non-believers?

Devil's advocate, and all.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Boo8meR said:


> Would it? They also help non-Christians. How do you feel about that? You seem to have pretty strong words for anyone who isn't like-minded. These are your brethren, how can you support them when they are helping non-believers?
> 
> Devil's advocate, and all.


Not at all. We are supposed to help them the most. We are to reach out and help anybody whenever and wherever we can.


----------



## Boo8meR

Vahomesteaders said:


> Not at all. We are supposed to help them the most. We are to reach out and help anybody whenever and wherever we can.




Not stone them to death?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

See you that's you putting words and beliefs in other people's mouths. We love and help everyone equally hoping they will see God's love.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> That's my point. God says those who truly belive will recieve those kind of blessings. He does care that people starve. But very few of the places with starvation problems are of a Christian faith. The true believer is one of faith. Those believe in Jesus Christ, God the father and the Holy Spirit are true believer's. God of the Bible is the oldest god in our earths history.


There are lots of starving Christians.. and lets be honest, would a loving god starve children even if they didn't believe in him or weren't unaware of him?

I have no problems with the concept of god, if there is a god though, I hope it isn't one that says your kids will starve unless you believe in him and will even starve believers just because. Doesn't that seem.. odd?




> Jews deny jesus, Buddha was a man as was muhammad. So they aren't gods. There are many religions that try to serve the knee true god but offer different paths to him. If they don't line up with scripture, they are fake.


How do you know they are fake? Isn't that a bold assumption to make and won't the believers of those faiths find you as a heretic? How do you know these "truths" or "Facts" as you like to call them?

Did you know Muhammad was illiterate and couldn't read or write and the major sects of Islam are mostly interpretations of what they want to believe? Did you know the very same is true for the Christian bible that the stories are allegory and word of mouth and that they changed over generations and were transcribed from other languages? Did you know the Muslims didn't want to deal with transcription and simply state that Arabic is the language of god and the Koran must be read in Arabic? 

You keep asking me "how do i know science does xyz.." and i'm curious how you derive your religion does xyz..

How does the bible explain evolution? how does it explain the different periods of species on this planet? how does it explain star formation, planet formation, atoms, molecules, gravity, light, energy, sound, particles and all that cool stuff? I've read the bible and it doesn't mention any of this one bit so why do people who believe in the bible use it to not believe in the sciences? Why can't the bible stay in religion? Why do dinosaurs have to live and walk with man? What is the driving force of wanting to believe that is true?


----------



## Boo8meR

Vahomesteaders said:


> See you that's you putting words and beliefs in other people's mouths. We love and help everyone equally hoping they will see God's love.




Point made. Devil's advocate, out.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> See you that's you putting words and beliefs in other people's mouths. We love and help everyone equally hoping they will see God's love.


Is this really true?

Even if one sees god's love, why does that have to be on the basis of ignoring the world around us? Why does one have to believe not only in gods love, but the christian idea of creationism, new earth/young earth beliefs? Why does it have to contradict the massive amount of evidence for evolution? What does god gain or lose by evolution being true or false?

How is it that the bible supports slavery, but we have chosen to abolish it? What made us ignore those passages or decide that isn't what god(s) want from us? Why in the same frame of thought do some people persecute gay people in the name of the bible and yet, say "we love and help everyone equally"?


----------



## mnn2501

Vahomesteaders said:


> That's my point. God says those who truly belive will recieve those kind of blessings. He does care that people starve. But very few of the places with starvation problems are of a Christian faith. The true believer is one of faith. Those believe in Jesus Christ, God the father and the Holy Spirit are true believer's. God of the Bible is the oldest god in our earths history. Jews deny jesus, Buddha was a man as was muhammad. So they aren't gods. There are many religions that try to serve the knee true god but offer different paths to him. If they don't line up with scripture, they are fake.


So God only cares about and feeds starving Christians? and not starving people of other faiths and of no faith?
Come on, you're not actually making that claim, are you? :hair

Why would a God like that be worthy of anyone's worship?


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Not at all. Being able to confirm data is not faith. Having to believe in something without data is, ergo god(s).


How you view the data depends on your religion. You see the universe as it is and believe that at sometime something happening which you don't know nor understand and suddenly everything was made out of nothing and claim that it just happened. Others see the same thing and say it was done deliberately by something. Now what's the difference?




supernovae said:


> Nope. There isn't a single religion out there that has any idea how it got started.


Including the religion of science, right?




supernovae said:


> We've only been trying for a few years. We're talking about time frames well beyond our own existence.


Your definition of "few" must be quite different than mine. The debate and attempt to prove (in science terms) the theory has been going on for many many years. We can compress microevolution into a few generations (how long did it take to 'make' miniature horses?). If we can do that why can't we compress thousands of years of macroevolution down into a decade or so? Take a fast breeding organism and expose it to an extreme environment and something to force mutation. In a decade you should be able to have fruit flies who have fur and a different DNA or at the very least show that they are shifting/changing somehow.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Where is this evidence? What is a reasonable doubt for you? Could you not have been hallucinating?


How about the fact that the universe had to have a starting point and for that to be true everything out there had to created out of nothing at all. Can science even begin to say how this is possible?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> How about the fact that the universe had to have a starting point and for that to be true everything out there had to created out of nothing at all. Can science even begin to say how this is possible?


If it was created out of nothing at all, where did God come from? Where was she all this time? Chicken and egg.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> What evidence? Science has never refused to look at anything BTW, if there was scientific evidence for God(s) it would be accepted as such. That is the beauty of science.


If you do a little research you will find that science often fights long and hard against anything or anyone which violates the 'known' view. 

AAMOF, look at how anyone who tries to point out the flaws in the human caused global warming theory is treated. Two simple question will cause most of them to scream you are a heretic and should be burned at the stake.

One: Is the increase in CO2 level a cause or effect of the warming?
Two: Is there any computer models showing future increasing temperatures which can be ran in reverse and give accurate past temperatures?

Hit the with a third and their heads will just about explode.

Three: What did humans do to end the last ice age?


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> How about the fact that the universe had to have a starting point and for that to be true everything out there had to created out of nothing at all. Can science even begin to say how this is possible?


Just because we don't have an absolute answer for the beginning doesn't mean god did it. Science does an amazing job of showing how the universe can exist and not only how it exists in its current state but how it could have been in many states. Some cool stuff happening in this field of theoretical study.

In a trillion + years either the universe will expand into oblivion and the last stars will burn out or gravity will win and the universe will collapse back onto itself. So we have a good idea of how it will end.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> How about the fact that the universe had to have a starting point and for that to be true everything out there had to created out of nothing at all. Can science even begin to say how this is possible?


No, science has no explanation for events before the big bang. We just have to accept that we don't know enough about some things yet, and some questions may never be answered. I'm fine with that.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Science can explain those things, absolutely.


I've got one science can not explain.

Years ago I needed to go to town and buy something, I don't remember what it was but it was very important. But I could not find my debit card. I searched all my pockets, looked in all the vehicles, scoured all the tables and shelves and drawers, looked under all the furniture all with no luck. I sat down and prayed and walked into the living room and laying in the middle of the dark brown carpet (an aside NEVER buy dark brown carpet it shows everything) was my debit card laying with the white backside up.

There's no way that I could have walked through that room over and over and crawled over it while looking under the couch and chairs without seeing a 2X3 inch white rectangle laying on a dark brown background.


----------



## Boo8meR

watcher said:


> I've got one science can not explain.
> 
> Years ago I needed to go to town and buy something, I don't remember what it was but it was very important. But I could not find my debit card. I searched all my pockets, looked in all the vehicles, scoured all the tables and shelves and drawers, looked under all the furniture all with no luck. I sat down and prayed and walked into the living room and laying in the middle of the dark brown carpet (an aside NEVER buy dark brown carpet it shows everything) was my debit card laying with the white backside up.
> 
> There's no way that I could have walked through that room over and over and crawled over it while looking under the couch and chairs without seeing a 2X3 inch white rectangle laying on a dark brown background.




I've got one... There was this time that I literally started flying.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> If you do a little research you will find that science often fights long and hard against anything or anyone which violates the 'known' view.


I see this as a good thing.



> AAMOF, look at how anyone who tries to point out the flaws in the human caused global warming theory is treated. Two simple question will cause most of them to scream you are a heretic and should be burned at the stake.


like what? what are the flaws you speak of and what justifies them as flaws? Are they scientifically based or ideologically driven?



> One: Is the increase in CO2 level a cause or effect of the warming?
> Two: Is there any computer models showing future increasing temperatures which can be ran in reverse and give accurate past temperatures?


One: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is both a cause and effect of climate change. If the balance of sequestration is broken, then the seas could cease to function as a natural sequestration function and release all of their stored CO2 further accelerating the release of CO2 and the cycle of heating / energy storing... just one possibility out of many. 

Two: yes.. it's the historical trending that allows us to make predictions of future trends. That is how science works.



> Hit the with a third and their heads will just about explode.


Not really, we just get annoyed that people think they're asking something that is unanswerable when they're not. This stuff is covered fairly well.



> Three: What did humans do to end the last ice age?


Ice ages are cyclic, humans didn't do anything and we don't show any human impact or man made CO2 in those ice cores. Man made CO2 levels is purely a post industrialization problem. 

None of those made my head spin or explode.. other than a big old "Really?"

also, why bring this up in this thread? What is the purpose of claiming science is wrong? what are you trying to prove? Does your god theory only survive if global warming is proven false?


----------



## watcher

Boo8meR said:


> You literally contradicted yourself in this post. You said you haven't judged anyone and then you effectively condemned someone to hell. Is that your decision to make? How can you tell someone that they've given up heaven if you're not judging them? What about a god who forgives us for all our sins? Wouldn't not believing be considered a sin? Wouldn't it therefore be forgiven? Wouldn't that then grant access to heaven? And before anyone throws darts, my religious views won't be stated. They shouldn't matter. I could make this observation as a Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.
> 
> Don't worry, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Carry on.


First off no one can condemn someone else to Hell. That's up to the individual to do to himself.

Second, Christ told us we can judge a tree by its fruit. If someone tells you they just bought a Mercedes Benz and when you go look at it, it has a Ford emblem on the hood, steering wheel and engine and looks just like an old Pinto are you going to say they actually have a MB?


----------



## watcher

Boo8meR said:


> Not stone them to death?


Nope, if they don't like what we have to say we are told to knock the dust off our feet as we leave.


----------



## Boo8meR

watcher said:


> Nope, if they don't like what we have to say we are told to knock the dust off our feet as we leave.




I guess I thought Deuteronomy said things a little differently.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> I've got one science can not explain.
> 
> Years ago I needed to go to town and buy something, I don't remember what it was but it was very important. But I could not find my debit card. I searched all my pockets, looked in all the vehicles, scoured all the tables and shelves and drawers, looked under all the furniture all with no luck. I sat down and prayed and walked into the living room and laying in the middle of the dark brown carpet (an aside NEVER buy dark brown carpet it shows everything) was my debit card laying with the white backside up.
> 
> There's no way that I could have walked through that room over and over and crawled over it while looking under the couch and chairs without seeing a 2X3 inch white rectangle laying on a dark brown background.


What are you suggesting happened?


----------



## mnn2501

watcher said:


> I've got one science can not explain.
> 
> Years ago I needed to go to town and buy something, I don't remember what it was but it was very important. But I could not find my debit card. I searched all my pockets, looked in all the vehicles, scoured all the tables and shelves and drawers, looked under all the furniture all with no luck. I sat down and prayed and walked into the living room and laying in the middle of the dark brown carpet (an aside NEVER buy dark brown carpet it shows everything) was my debit card laying with the white backside up.
> 
> There's no way that I could have walked through that room over and over and crawled over it while looking under the couch and chairs without seeing a 2X3 inch white rectangle laying on a dark brown background.


So you're saying God found your card and transported it to where you would find it rather than that you just missed it cause you really were not looking at the carpet and you were focused on thinking about where you could have lost it.

The Supreme leader of the Universe who set the very stars and planets in motion and put life on this planet loves you so much he breaks the laws of physics and reason just to help you out. You must be a heck of a guy!


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> If it was created out of nothing at all, where did God come from? Where was she all this time? Chicken and egg.


Scientist say nothing was there. 

Most other religions believe we are created by something and therefore that something (not physical energy or matter) was out their first. Something which exist w/o physical energy or matter would most likely not exist in the same linear time as we do therefore could always exist in our view.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> First off no one can condemn someone else to Hell. That's up to the individual to do to himself.


If one doesn't believe in hell, one simply can never be condemned to it then.



> Second, Christ told us we can judge a tree by its fruit. If someone tells you they just bought a Mercedes Benz and when you go look at it, it has a Ford emblem on the hood, steering wheel and engine and looks just like an old Pinto are you going to say they actually have a MB?


The same thing could be said of gods, maybe your god isn't the real god.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Just because we don't have an absolute answer for the beginning doesn't mean god did it. Science does an amazing job of showing how the universe can exist and not only how it exists in its current state but how it could have been in many states. Some cool stuff happening in this field of theoretical study.
> 
> In a trillion + years either the universe will expand into oblivion and the last stars will burn out or gravity will win and the universe will collapse back onto itself. So we have a good idea of how it will end.


The point is that science is just as much of a religion as any other you can think of. Its based on faith. Faith that everything come out of nothing and faith that their belief is right supported by how they view the data.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> No, science has no explanation for events before the big bang. We just have to accept that we don't know enough about some things yet, and some questions may never be answered. I'm fine with that.


Therefore they just have faith that it happened and set all their believes in motion. After all w/o the creation of the universe with the bang all their other theories fall apart.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> The point is that science is just as much of a religion as any other you can think of. Its based on faith. Faith that everything come out of nothing and faith that their belief is right supported by how they view the data.


If science is a religion then I'm not a very good follower. I don't accept hypotheses at face value.


----------



## Boo8meR

watcher said:


> The point is that science is just as much of a religion as any other you can think of. Its based on faith. Faith that everything come out of nothing and faith that their belief is right supported by how they view the data.




(Insert witty scientific method reference)


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> Scientist say nothing was there.


Not at all. The "nothing" of space is still something, it just seemed nothing to us for the longest time because we didn't have the science to understand it. empty space is something after all.

This book gives an interesting insight into the studies of "nothing"..

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather-ebook/dp/B004T4KQJS



> Most other religions believe we are created by something and therefore that something (not physical energy or matter) was out their first. Something which exist w/o physical energy or matter would most likely not exist in the same linear time as we do therefore could always exist in our view.


This philosophy is only in response to science. Religion itself has no concept of energy or matter in any of its scripture in such a fashion to categorize itself as timeless or having an understanding of time. (Maybe "Scientologists" thinks this way, but then again, its a post science revolution religion where it can borrow what it wants to borrow).

Photons are timeless


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Scientist say nothing was there.


I don't think so. Scientists just don't know what happened before the big bang, but to suggest that no matter existed isn't reasonable.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Therefore they just have faith that it happened and set all their believes in motion. After all w/o the creation of the universe with the bang all their other theories fall apart.


The different between religion and science is the starting point. Religion starts with the assumption that God exists, while science starts from a blank slate. Scientific assumptions are made, but are all based on observation and experimentation.


----------



## Nate_in_IN

supernovae said:


> Not at all. The "nothing" of space is still something, it just seemed nothing to us for the longest time because we didn't have the science to understand it. empty space is something after all.
> 
> This book gives an interesting insight into the studies of "nothing"..
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather-ebook/dp/B004T4KQJS
> 
> 
> 
> This philosophy is only in response to science. Religion itself has no concept of energy or matter in any of its scripture in such a fashion to categorize itself as timeless or having an understanding of time. (Maybe "Scientologists" thinks this way, but then again, its a post science revolution religion where it can borrow what it wants to borrow).
> 
> Photons are timeless


I don't see that philosophy as only being in response to science. I think it fits very well with a lot of religious writings.

Photons are timeless? Don't they "travel" through space? Isn't light composed in part of photons and the "time" it takes them to get from one location to another is used as a scientific standard measurement of distance?


----------



## mnn2501

watcher said:


> Scientist say nothing was there.
> .


Actually that's not true and you probably know that.


----------



## supernovae

Nate_in_IN said:


> I don't see that philosophy as only being in response to science. I think it fits very well with a lot of religious writings.


Philosophically they try and merge it after the fact since the religious writings were written without any awareness of these facts.



> Photons are timeless? Don't they "travel" through space? Isn't light composed in part of photons and the "time" it takes them to get from one location to another is used as a scientific standard measurement of distance?


Time is a measurement from a reference point. Light has no reference point and no frame of rest. We can "measure" light from our frame of reference but the photon itself, doesn't experience time.


----------



## Nate_in_IN

supernovae said:


> Philosophically they try and merge it after the fact since the religious writings were written without any awareness of these facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Time is a measurement from a reference point. Light has no reference point and no frame of rest. We can "measure" light from our frame of reference but the photon itself, doesn't experience time.


Perhaps my understanding of physics is outdated. It has been a number of years since I studied it. At the time though it was believed that light consisted of many photons. A "beam of photons" if you will. Light was energy, energy which was stored in the photons. These photons where then free to travel about the universe and impart that energy when they struck things.

I remember a lot of discussion on the prediction of how this movement came about. I also remember the definition of a photon as being Mass-less. I don't understand what you mean by "time-less". Are photons not created in the chemical / nuclear reactions of the Sun? Are they not destroyed when they impact a nucleus of an atom thereby transmitting their energy to that atom?


----------



## Nevada

Nate_in_IN said:


> Perhaps my understanding of physics is outdated. It has been a number of years since I studied it. At the time though it was believed that light consisted of many photons. A "beam of photons" if you will. Light was energy, energy which was stored in the photons. These photons where then free to travel about the universe and impart that energy when they struck things.


The particle model doesn't work so well for photons, and it's not easy to describe particles with no rest mass. Quantum mechanics suggests they behave more like a wave.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Scientist say nothing was there.
> 
> *Do they now? I think you are operating on a flawed premise.*
> 
> Most other religions believe we are created by something and therefore that something (not physical energy or matter) was out their first. Something which exist w/o physical energy or matter would most likely not exist in the same linear time as we do therefore could always exist in our view.


Yes, religions needed an explanation so they made one up. When they move towards proving it I will look at it more closely.


----------



## Nevada

painterswife said:


> Yes, religions needed an explanation so they made one up. When they move towards proving it I will look at it more closely.


Short of God giving us a demonstration, I don't see much chance of proof.


----------



## supernovae

Nate_in_IN said:


> Perhaps my understanding of physics is outdated. It has been a number of years since I studied it. At the time though it was believed that light consisted of many photons. A "beam of photons" if you will. Light was energy, energy which was stored in the photons. These photons where then free to travel about the universe and impart that energy when they struck things.
> 
> I remember a lot of discussion on the prediction of how this movement came about. I also remember the definition of a photon as being Mass-less. I don't understand what you mean by "time-less". Are photons not created in the chemical / nuclear reactions of the Sun? Are they not destroyed when they impact a nucleus of an atom thereby transmitting their energy to that atom?


Good memory! Photons are released in the nuclear reaction of the sun and take a long time to bounce their way out of the the suns dense core and eventually speed out to our eyes or sensors. In our relativistic universe, this translates to an observable time.

To the photon, the distance has contracted from point a to point b to 0 and the time it takes to travel from point a to b is 0. Mind blown huh  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

i'm no pro on differential geometry and general relativity, but i do find this question fascinating and the theories explaining them are amazing.


----------



## Nate_in_IN

Nevada said:


> The particle model doesn't work so well for photons, and it's not easy to describe particles with no rest mass. Quantum mechanics suggests they behave more like a wave.


Yes I am familiar with the wave theory. It still didn't give any indication of a photon not having a time component. IIRC it had to do with the way photons traveled. By the simple fact that photons are used to describe a mechanism as how energy can get from one point (say The Sun) to another point (Say 1050 W. Addison Chicago ILL) and that movement occurs over some period I would think photons have to have a time component.

Supernovae, do you think that everything is able to have a scientific expaination? Does everything follow some set of law / rule / theory or is there something which will never be explained?


----------



## Boo8meR

Nate_in_IN said:


> Yes I am familiar with the wave theory. It still didn't give any indication of a photon not having a time component. IIRC it had to do with the way photons traveled. By the simple fact that photons are used to describe a mechanism as how energy can get from one point (say The Sun) to another point (Say 1050 W. Addison Chicago ILL) and that movement occurs over some period I would think photons have to have a time component.
> 
> Supernovae, do you think that everything is able to have a scientific expaination? Does everything follow some set of law / rule / theory or is there something which will never be explained?




I think (I know you didn't ask me) that in order for explanations to be achieved, there needs to be a reliable, relevant, and repeatable way to test things which are unknown. Furthermore, they have to be measurable and subject to the scientific method. Ergo, we need not discover everything, yet we must develop ways to test everything. I think this in itself is impossible, therefore much will remain undiscovered during any of our lifetimes. That's the beauty of it - there's always more knowledge to be gained.


----------



## supernovae

Nate_in_IN said:


> Supernovae, do you think that everything is able to have a scientific expaination? Does everything follow some set of law / rule / theory or is there something which will never be explained?


That is the million dollar question. When it comes to physics, it seems the more we learn, the more we realize just how little we know, and i see that as a good thing. Will this rabbit hole ever end? I'm not sure. We may one day know enough about the physics of the universe that we can master it to a degree such as making warp drives and hoping across the galaxy a-la star trek. Will this be a "know everything" or "law of everything"? dunno.

We humans are weird creatures and we often can't agree on what knowledge or knowing really entails as people can philosophically debate what we call reality and question everything even if we have all the answers. There are also people who will assert we can't know all the answers. I don't know if this is true or not. It seems most people assert we can't know something as a reason to make another assertion that something else is therefor true. This is usually a god hypothesis or a moral understanding view but i think it stems from more of wanting to protect an idea rather than explore it. Take morality for example, we can quantify morality as peaks and valleys much like what Sam Harris talks about in the Moral Landscape, but we often don't do this because we have given domain of morality to specific beliefs unquestionably. So by making it unquestionable, we assume the unquestionable assertion is the only answer. We often look at religious morals and cultural morals as unquestionable. We often don't question our own actions or act upon asking those questions. We smoke when its bad for us, we fight amongst each other, we make fun of one another, we don't always look out for each others well being even though it is morally imperative for us to do so because we're not asking ourselves those questions because we are ingrained with beliefs instilled into us by our culture, parents, up bringing and religious preferences that we don't question and take a sense of pride in.

Which is why I ask questions. Why is it important that God exist and specifically exist in such a way that one can't fathom Evolution as being true and have to postulate that man walked along side of dinosaurs? What is so important about this imperative that its worth devaluing scientific knowledge so much that it becomes a war of hearts and minds rather than a common understanding of the facts as we know them?

To answer these questions, i need a frame of mind to answer them. If you believe they're unanswerable because we don't have all the answers, then you are asserting that having all the answers is something you gain through whatever beliefs you believe in. I see that is completely misguided and wrong and i can't for the life of me see a loving god congratulating anyone with such a state of mind should god really exist.

Ironically even if we ultimately figure out the universe, it then becomes a moral imperative for how we use this knowledge. Are we going to finally discuss morality then or will we leave our super powers to the supernatural and destroy one another on superstitious beliefs?


----------



## Nate_in_IN

Boo8meR said:


> I think (I know you didn't ask me) that in order for explanations to be achieved, there needs to be a reliable, relevant, and repeatable way to test things which are unknown. Furthermore, they have to be measurable and subject to the scientific method. Ergo, we need not discover everything, yet we must develop ways to test everything. I think this in itself is impossible, therefore much will remain undiscovered during any of our lifetimes. That's the beauty of it - there's always more knowledge to be gained.


You are more than welcome to reply.

I was more speaking in a hypothetical manner. Not that we as human beings will ever gain such an understanding or knowledge, but that if it *could* have such an understanding.

I posted a while back that my definition of science is probably different than most. To me, being an engineer, science and mathematics simply provide a method for us to observe and predict what happens in the material world around us. For instance I think that science does not have any problems with a geocentric model of the galaxy; but the model developed by Copernicus (Sun centered) was much more useful.

Being a lover of science and math in school I felt that the entire universe could eventually be modeled as it followed different laws of physics. I still think this is true of material matter, however this thought process poses a problem when concerning life. Does life have freedom of choice? If science can explain everything then knowing the laws and the initial conditions someone could compute what you would have eaten for breakfast this morning. Somehow this doesn't fit with my observation of the world. It appears life does have freedom of choice, a freedom which is not following some physical law of nature. This freedom, or Will, is what lead me explore religion. Thus far I have found religion to be much more enlightening to the reason life does what it does than science.


----------



## supernovae

Nate_in_IN said:


> Does life have freedom of choice? If science can explain everything then knowing the laws and the initial conditions someone could compute what you would have eaten for breakfast this morning. Somehow this doesn't fit with my observation of the world. It appears life does have freedom of choice, a freedom which is not following some physical law of nature. This freedom, or Will, is what lead me explore religion. Thus far I have found religion to be much more enlightening to the reason life does what it does than science.


I don't think we have to be able to predict what people are having for breakfast to have a law of the universe.

With that being said, simply by measuring your habits, i can derive a law of "Nat_in_IN" to predict your behaviors using the tools of science as you probably have habits that one can quantify and make predictions from. We all do  Maybe those habits are a conglomeration of genetics, brain functions and mechanical impulses that we "think" are free will but are really predictable in the end.

I personally don't understand why people think religion explorers the humanities more than science does as i believe people just throw up a wall and say "you shall not pass" when reality is, if we put down this wall, we may actually like what we discover.

Is that the fear?


----------



## Boo8meR

I think it further supports a theory based in evolution, Darwinism to be exact. As it were, the stronger continued to survive. At some point, knowledge became strength and aided countless agricultural, industrial, technological, etc. advancements which have since refined the life of humankind. I'm not sure what step is next for the ever evolving human mind; but, I really wish I'd be around to see it. Undoubtedly, advancements in quantum theory and astrophysics are due wholly to the evolving human mind. The ability to challenge what is "known" has gotten us to where we are. Where does it lead? I'm not sure, but I'd love to know!


----------



## Nate_in_IN

supernovae said:


> I don't think we have to be able to predict what people are having for breakfast to have a law of the universe.
> 
> With that being said, simply by measuring your habits, i can derive a law of "Nat_in_IN" to predict your behaviors using the tools of science as you probably have habits that one can quantify and make predictions from. We all do  Maybe those habits are a conglomeration of genetics, brain functions and mechanical impulses that we "think" are free will but are really predictable in the end.
> 
> I personally don't understand why people think religion explorers the humanities more than science does as i believe people just throw up a wall and say "you shall not pass" when reality is, if we put down this wall, we may actually like what we discover.
> 
> Is that the fear?


I have done lots of statistical modelling. I have no doubt you could fairly accurately predict my habits (I have German ancestry so I really do stick to my habits). This is different however from what I am asking. What statistics will say is that, "given these circumstances there is x chance Nate will eat this for breakfast". That is different from physical laws.

The question is does life have the ability to make it's own choices or is it required to follow some formula in it's actions? I really don't know the answer to that question.

I also sense that my religious views and mannerisms are different from what you have experienced in others. I don't follow principles, morals and Doctrine without questioning. I question all the time, in fact I believe that is what God wishes. Jesus quite often invited others to speak and discuss their religion as by doing so their faith would be made stronger. Of course I have always thought of The Bible as a tool for learning rather than the information itself (much to the chagrin of many fellow church members). It is meant to introduce topics and lay foundations for gaining knowledge, but should not be taken verbatim.

Ironically it was while reading a socio - psych text and realizing the book very closely followed The Bible that I began studying The Bible more intently.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> If science is a religion then I'm not a very good follower. I don't accept hypotheses at face value.


But you accept all the canons and face excommunication if you question them in public.


----------



## Boo8meR

Nate_in_IN said:


> The question is does life have the ability to make it's own choices or is it required to follow some formula in it's actions? I really don't know the answer to that question.
> 
> I also sense that my religious views and mannerisms are different from what you have experienced in others. I don't follow principles, morals and Doctrine without questioning.


I don't think (and I think you'd agree) that anyone can answer this. Is it a divine gift or is it an evolved human mind? Call it free-will or call it free-thinking. Two very similar terms with two very different meanings. Or is there a formula of which we're all unaware. I'm not sure what it is; but, I know what I believe and it might surprise you. On top of that, I believe every man and woman is entitled to his or her own belief, without repercussion. As you can see, more educated conversation can take place when neither party is more concerned with proving the other incorrect.

As for your second statement, be careful, those thoughts and actions might blur the line between the two topics at hand.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Not at all. The "nothing" of space is still something, it just seemed nothing to us for the longest time because we didn't have the science to understand it. empty space is something after all.


Do you have scientific proof that there was even space before the bang or are you just taking that by faith (belief w/o proof) as well? The point is at some point, according to all religions I know of, there was nothing then something happened and things were suddenly there.




supernovae said:


> Photons are timeless


And your proof for this statement is. . .


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I don't think so. Scientists just don't know what happened before the big bang, but to suggest that no matter existed isn't reasonable.


So according to science everything has always existed just in different forms?


----------



## Boo8meR

watcher said:


> So according to science everything has always existed just in different forms?




Hey, you're back, I was flying. I was literally flying.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The different between religion and science is the starting point. Religion starts with the assumption that God exists, while science starts from a blank slate. Scientific assumptions are made, but are all based on observation and experimentation.


Each still thinks that everything was created out of nothing. Religion says it was something and science says they have no idea how it happened. Each must accept the start of everything with faith.


----------



## watcher

mnn2501 said:


> Actually that's not true and you probably know that.


Science says the universe was created with a huge explosion of something which at some time before that wasn't there.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Photons are timeless


So now they are timeless, before they were massless. So do they even exist? Also if they are timeless and massless how do they manage to generate the necessary energy to make solar power work?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Science says the universe was created with a huge explosion of something which at some time before that wasn't there.


No, the big bang theory only suggests that matter was launched from an explosion. It does not try to explain how that matter got there or what the universe was like before the big bang event.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> But you accept all the canons and face excommunication if you question them in public.


I openly question the existence of parallel universes, which is the basis for quantum mechanics.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> Do you have scientific proof that there was even space before the bang or are you just taking that by faith (belief w/o proof) as well? The point is at some point, according to all religions I know of, there was nothing then something happened and things were suddenly there.


Space and nothingness is just something we're exploring to broaden our knowledge of the universe. If we find out what "space" is, then we're one step closer to the ever fundamentals of what our universe is.

Your "beliefs" have absolutely no proof or understanding of space/quantum mechanics or the properties of the universe, so why are you demanding proof from science when religions have none? If you merely accept made up stuff, why isn't the "hypothetical" science right up your alley?

Seeing that space is still "inflating" and we measure the inflation of space by observing redshifts and knowing that the redshift is merely an artifact of our relativistic existence is pretty cool stuff. All of these discoveries once again build up on the foundations of what we understood before.

we have more questions, more knowledge to seek. That is a good thing. 



> And your proof for this statement is. . .


I linked it to a post above already. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon


----------



## Nate_in_IN

Nevada said:


> No, the big bang theory only suggests that matter was launched from an explosion. It does not try to explain how that matter got there or what the universe was like before the big bang event.


Actually the Big Bang Theory says that matter was created where none existed. That is what research into the Higgs-Boson (spelling) was trying to duplicate. The creation of matter using energy.

IIRC they have had some recent break-throughs in this attempt.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> So now they are timeless, before they were massless. So do they even exist? Also if they are timeless and massless how do they manage to generate the necessary energy to make solar power work?


They are both. If you have mass, you can't accelerate to the speed of light.

The energy from a photon is the photon actually hitting atoms and freeing an electron. (overly simplified here). 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/how-solar-cell-works.html

Particle physics is weird, but being weird doesn't make it wrong. 

Yes, they exist but the reality of a photon is much different than our relativistic reality.

Just wait until we're space traveling people.. then we will have to face the reality of relativity on a meaningful scale and this "weirdness" won't seem so weird anymore.


----------



## supernovae

Nate_in_IN said:


> Actually the Big Bang Theory says that matter was created where none existed. That is what research into the Higgs-Boson (spelling) was trying to duplicate. The creation of matter using energy.
> 
> IIRC they have had some recent break-throughs in this attempt.


Higgs-Boson is the particle that gives matter "mass" as it interacts with the higgs-field. It is an important discovery for our understanding of quantum mechanics since the math predicted we should find a particle that did such.

The next big question about higgs-boson is that the energy of the particle is what was supposed to swing our understanding to super symmetry or to multiverse views. I'm not sure they have hammered this out much since apparently the energy is right in the middle of both predictions 

I'm really interested in seeing what we learn from quark gluon plasma studies as that is the "soup" that the early universe is suggested to be born from that cooled and coalesced into the first atoms that soon gravitationally interacted to form early suns which then started the process of forging the heavier elements and dispersing them across the cosmos (through supernovae's yay! lol) eventually to form our sun and our planetary system.

The fact we're experimentally testing and confirming QCP in the lab is pretty awesome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark-gluon_plasma


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> But you accept all the canons and face excommunication if you question them in public.


Persistence they key to science that may revolutionize our understanding of the universe.

Nobody believed the big bang when it was first proposed.

Nobody believed General Relativity when it was first proposed. In fact, after Newton, people thought physics was dead end since they though Principia offered all the answers.

It was through persistence and perseverance that new ideas come out and challenge the old ones. Sometimes they supplant the original ideas, sometimes they refute them and quite often, they just embrace them and give them more precision. Such as Genetics with Evolution and General Relativity with Newtonian Mechanics.

Evidence, experimentation, data, peer review all build credibility and in time, you can win over the hearts and minds if you strive for such. It only took Einstein a few years and some people didn't want to believe a patent clerk could do what he did, but he did it and the world is better off for it and we grew up and accepted it. (some people didn't want a Jew creating such brilliance.. another failure of humanity.. and it was in the midst of WWII, not a brilliant time for scientists of jewish faith living in Germany..)

Again though, if we had a better understanding of our human condition and our morals in such a way that didn't grant authority to supreme beings and superstition, we probably wouldn't have to question new ideas as much as we would have other metrics that we could apply to show how falsifiable or superstitious and idea is.

Sure, it stinks Einstein wasn't believed for a while, but in the end, i hope we learned that a patent clerk can be as smart as anyone else but the smarts were once again based on sound scientific foundations and not faith in something that can never be proven. It took 10-15 years for GR to be testable by watching the deflection of light from a distant star as it was warped around the gravity of our Sun during a lunar eclipse, but it was a very successful experiment that lead to us further understanding more about the universe.

bible and scripture has no concept of any of this, so not sure how or why its applied as a solution to this.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Each still thinks that everything was created out of nothing. Religion says it was something and science says they have no idea how it happened. Each must accept the start of everything with faith.


 What does that have to do with evolution, or whether dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago? (which,by the way, all available evidence says they didn't)


----------



## Boo8meR

greg273 said:


> What does that have to do with evolution, or whether dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago? (which,by the way, all available evidence says they didn't)




You'd have to read the entire thread to come up to speed. However, someone can move boots and mailbox flags with will power, David Copperfield lives with Watcher, and I can fly.


----------



## greg273

Boo8meR said:


> You'd have to read the entire thread to come up to speed. However, someone can move boots and mailbox flags with will power, David Copperfield lives with Watcher, and I can fly.


 Good luck with that.


----------



## Nevada

Nate_in_IN said:


> Actually the Big Bang Theory says that matter was created where none existed. That is what research into the Higgs-Boson (spelling) was trying to duplicate. The creation of matter using energy.
> 
> IIRC they have had some recent break-throughs in this attempt.


As someone who still questions the existence of parallel universes, I'm not totally on board with those ideas. Inventing parallel universes to fit holes in theories is just a little too convenient. I prefer to just accept that not enough is known about it yet.

But I could be mistaken...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnEaI-Lw2j0[/ame]


----------



## mnn2501

watcher said:


> Each still thinks that everything was created out of nothing. .


Neither my religion or my science believes that.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> No, the big bang theory only suggests that matter was launched from an explosion. It does not try to explain how that matter got there or what the universe was like before the big bang event.


That's what I meant. The universe was cause by an explosion which flung out all the matter. But they don't know what was before the bang nor what caused the bang. They just take it on faith there is a 'scientific' explanation for it. As far as they know the entire known universe could be nothing more the the debris from a firecracker set off in another dimension.

Now seriously is it logical to you to think: There was nothing, no one, a complete void in space and time then BANG there was energy and matter hurling out. Or does your logical mind demand that there had to be something there to make it happen?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> The universe was cause by an explosion which flung out all the matter. But they don't know what was before the bang nor what caused the bang.


There is a hypothesis for that. The prevailing idea is that two different parallel universes collided, creating huge amounts of energy. The energy was converted to matter and exploded.

I prefer not to think about it.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Your "beliefs" have absolutely no proof or understanding of space/quantum mechanics or the properties of the universe, so why are you demanding proof from science when religions have none? If you merely accept made up stuff, why isn't the "hypothetical" science right up your alley?


Because science is demanding proof from others but readily refuses to demand such proof when it needs to take things on faith.




supernovae said:


> Seeing that space is still "inflating" and we measure the inflation of space by observing redshifts and knowing that the redshift is merely an artifact of our relativistic existence is pretty cool stuff. All of these discoveries once again build up on the foundations of what we understood before.


Prefect example. You demand proof of a creator but you need no proof that space is still inflating even though its based on your faith that light acts the same way in interstellar space as it does on the earth and intra-solar system space. Why are you not demanding proof before you step out and say things like that? 

You readily admit that there are things which effect the speed of light. But you are perfectly willing to accept the 'fact' that we know all of this. Viewed from the outside doesn't that seem a little odd?


----------



## Evons hubby

Boo8meR said:


> You'd have to read the entire thread to come up to speed. However, someone can move boots and mailbox flags with will power, David Copperfield lives with Watcher, and I can fly.


Please read what I write, not what you think I meant. I merely stated that I had moved a pair of boots, and a mailbox flag by "thinking". I never said I can do it... only that I have done them. Those are both past tense experiences I have had. I have no control over the particular state of mind involved... but when it happens, I could just as easily have tossed a school bus over the top of the empire state building as flipping up the flag on that mailbox. I have no idea where David Copperfield lives, nor whether you can fly or not..... I have not seen either.... nor care.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> There is a hypothesis for that. The prevailing idea is that two different parallel universes collided, creating huge amounts of energy. The energy was converted to matter and exploded.
> 
> *I prefer not to think about it.*


:umno: I wont go there today....


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> They are both. If you have mass, you can't accelerate to the speed of light.


And you have proof of this? 




supernovae said:


> The energy from a photon is the photon actually hitting atoms and freeing an electron. (overly simplified here).


We don't even want to get into how a atom remains stable here but if its massless then how can it have the energy to move an electron? No matter how fast I throw a massless ball at you its not going to transfer any energy to you.




supernovae said:


> Yes, they exist but the reality of a photon is much different than our relativistic reality.


Ah. . .so now you are opening another door. If photons have a different reality then what other things out there might have also? Who is to say that photons are not what whoever created our reality used to create it? After all if they don't fit in with our reality wouldn't it be logical to assume they came from a different one?


Just wait until we're space traveling people.. then we will have to face the reality of relativity on a meaningful scale and this "weirdness" won't seem so weird anymore.[/QUOTE]

I've seen too many weird things in my life to let weirdness bother me.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> What does that have to do with evolution, or whether dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago? (which,by the way, all available evidence says they didn't)


As I pointed out in another post, evolution is the last link of a chain. If you follow that chain back you will find it is not connected to anything because science, just like all other religions, must take how all the material in the universe was created on faith. They have no scientific proof, no scientific evidence, nothing to even begin to suggest what caused the big bang nor what was there before it happened.

As I have pointed out it could have been an act of a benevolent God or it could have been a brat in another dimension setting off a firecracker under an in use outhouse. Seeing as how we have no idea each is just as likely as the other.


----------



## watcher

mnn2501 said:


> Neither my religion or my science believes that.


Then what was it created from?


----------



## Boo8meR

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Please read what I write, not what you think I meant. I merely stated that I had moved a pair of boots, and a mailbox flag by "thinking". I never said I can do it... only that I have done them. Those are both past tense experiences I have had. I have no control over the particular state of mind involved... but when it happens, I could just as easily have tossed a school bus over the top of the empire state building as flipping up the flag on that mailbox. I have no idea where David Copperfield lives, nor whether you can fly or not..... I have not seen either.... nor care.




Forgive me, thinking, not willpower. Clearly I was way off.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> As I pointed out in another post, evolution is the last link of a chain. If you follow that chain back you will find it is not connected to anything because science, just like all other religions, must take how all the material in the universe was created on faith. They have no scientific proof, no scientific evidence, nothing to even begin to suggest what caused the big bang nor what was there before it happened.
> 
> As I have pointed out it could have been an act of a benevolent God or it could have been a brat in another dimension setting off a firecracker under an in use outhouse. Seeing as how we have no idea each is just as likely as the other.


 Just because you didn't see the beginning of time, does not mean you cannot open your eyes to the evidence all around you, which, as modern science has shown, is pretty clearly stacked in the favor of evolution, and the dinosaurs going extinct millions of years ago.


----------



## FourDeuce

"science, just like all other religions," Science is not a religion. It's a bit ironic to see somebody saying that using the products of science.:grin:


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> Because science is demanding proof from others but readily refuses to demand such proof when it needs to take things on faith.


Exactly, science isn't based on faith. If science took stuff on faith, it wouldn't be science. Simple as that.




> Prefect example. You demand proof of a creator but you need no proof that space is still inflating even though its based on your faith that light acts the same way in interstellar space as it does on the earth and intra-solar system space. Why are you not demanding proof before you step out and say things like that?


What are you talking about here? We know the speed of light in space. We have satellites and robots that have explored the known solar system and we have a probe that has left the solar system all together. We know the speed of light in space, we can measure how long it takes to receive communications from the satellites and it matches up exactly with what we expect. We have proof of this. There is no faith in the speed of light that resembles the faith of a god.


Speed of light has nothing to do with a creator either.



> You readily admit that there are things which effect the speed of light. But you are perfectly willing to accept the 'fact' that we know all of this. Viewed from the outside doesn't that seem a little odd?


No clue what you're talking about here.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> As I pointed out in another post, evolution is the last link of a chain. If you follow that chain back you will find it is not connected to anything because science, just like all other religions, must take how all the material in the universe was created on faith. They have no scientific proof, no scientific evidence, nothing to even begin to suggest what caused the big bang nor what was there before it happened.


What you said has nothing to do with reality or evolution.



> As I have pointed out it could have been an act of a benevolent God or it could have been a brat in another dimension setting off a firecracker under an in use outhouse. Seeing as how we have no idea each is just as likely as the other.


At least its getting funny now..


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> And you have proof of this?


Yes, we're able to test out this knowledge in our super colliders.



> We don't even want to get into how a atom remains stable here but if its massless then how can it have the energy to move an electron? No matter how fast I throw a massless ball at you its not going to transfer any energy to you.


It's calculated by Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Field theory. Photons need no mass to "excite" an electron, this isn't "baseball bat" theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory




> Ah. . .so now you are opening another door. If photons have a different reality then what other things out there might have also? Who is to say that photons are not what whoever created our reality used to create it? After all if they don't fit in with our reality wouldn't it be logical to assume they came from a different one?


The door has already been opened. The world is much stranger than you give it credit for.

Our reality is such a miniscule part of natures reality. We only perceive a very limited spectrum of it with our eyes and we need science and technology to see the universe of the really small (Quantum mechanics) and the universe of the really large (general relativity / cosmos).

No, we don't need to assume a darn thing either. 




> I've seen too many weird things in my life to let weirdness bother me.


really? seem bothered by the basic properties of matter and energy.


----------



## Boo8meR

The facts are quite simple, are they not?

The scientific approach is one in which the unknown is methodically studied and recorded in a an attempt to produce outcomes which can readily be both tested and replicated, eventually proving or disproving them.

Religion comes from a book which is usually the product of tales told in certain regions of the world deemed too important to forget, usually derived from inexplicable beginnings, warranting things such as 900 year old men and life after death.

There's really no harm in believing either, save the radical actions we've witnessed throughout the history of mankind in the name of religion.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> That's what I meant. The universe was cause by an explosion which flung out all the matter. But they don't know what was before the bang nor what caused the bang. They just take it on faith there is a 'scientific' explanation for it. As far as they know the entire known universe could be nothing more the the debris from a firecracker set off in another dimension.


No faith is needed. Just because we have questions, doesn't mean we're filling in the blanks with faith. The scientific answer is perfectly valid especially considering there has never been a valid supernatural answer for anything. Ever.



> Now seriously is it logical to you to think: There was nothing, no one, a complete void in space and time then BANG there was energy and matter hurling out. Or does your logical mind demand that there had to be something there to make it happen?


Yes, perfectly logical.

It's completely illogical to say "first there was nothing, then there was a god, then poof there was a universe" and to have no evidence for God nor the beginning of the universe. Better to have an open question than a blind assumption.


----------



## FourDeuce

"Seeing as how we have no idea each is just as likely as the other." Actually, if we have no idea, then there is no way to determine how likely any of them are, so there's no way to say whether any are "just as likely".


----------



## JJ Grandits

I love this. Everyone is playing "I know you are, but what am I?". The very fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has is proof of what we actually know.

Anyone know how water goes up a tree? Sure beats the heck out of me.


----------



## Skamp

JJ Grandits said:


> ...........Anyone know how water goes up a tree?................




LINKY


----------



## Evons hubby

Boo8meR said:


> The scientific approach is one in which the unknown is methodically studied and recorded in a an attempt to produce outcomes which can readily be both tested and replicated, eventually proving or disproving them.


Or it is merely dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic when science doesnt understand how to test or replicate it. Tis a pity that so much of what is all around us will never be understood, just because it doesnt fit in sciences neat little boxes.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Or it is merely dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic when science doesnt understand how to test or replicate it. Tis a pity that so much of what is all around us will never be understood, just because it doesnt fit in sciences neat little boxes.


Everything around us is understandable and that's the beauty of science. It's a broken record at this time, but nothing is only explained by the supernatural. Everything we have ever discovered has always been explainable through science.


----------



## mnn2501

watcher said:


> Then what was it created from?


Unorganized matter.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Everything around us is understandable and that's the beauty of science. It's a broken record at this time, but nothing is only explained by the supernatural. Everything we have ever discovered has always been explainable through science.


Cool.... so explain to me how I "thought" those boots off the shelf that day... or raised that mail box flag just by thinking about it. I would love to be able to do that sort of thing whenever I wanted to... it would sure make things handy around the farm. 

PS I said nothing about "supernatural", thats something I have never believed existed.... that word has been used a lot in this thread... and most often by those who think science has all the answers.


----------



## Boo8meR

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Cool.... so explain to me how I "thought" those boots off the shelf that day... or raised that mail box flag just by thinking about it. I would love to be able to do that sort of thing whenever I wanted to... it would sure make things handy around the farm.




Because, Neo, you can see the matrix.


----------



## Evons hubby

Boo8meR said:


> Because, Neo, you can see the matrix.


????? I have no idea what you are referring to here? Please elaborate.


----------



## supernovae

JJ Grandits said:


> I love this. Everyone is playing "I know you are, but what am I?". The very fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has is proof of what we actually know.


It amazes me how many people don't want to understand basic science and make up childish responses to to and deny what we do know. You would think in a day and age when someone is sitting on the internet, using telecommunications networks that travel at the speed of light that people would accept our good grasp of science.

It takes a lot of science to engineer that CPU that people are using here to say we don't understand or can't understand quantum mechanics or the speed of light - something that we know well enough to build these computers, networks, mobile networks, wifi hotspots and so much more.

It takes a lot of willpower to deny the speed of light through space when we have satellites and orbiters flying around the solar system and know how long it takes to communicate back and forth to it.

It takes a lot to deny this when we're debating it on the very technology that is living proof of it.

"I know you are, but what am I" has no basis in reality.. My 6 year old doesn't even do that anymore.

What she does enjoy is building lego robots with me and understanding how the world works because i challenge her to do so.

What happened here that people are choosing to be so ignorant and not just ignorant, but offended by the sciences?

Again, what purpose does it serve to deny everything around us, deny what we do know to uphold something such as the requirement for man to walk with dinosaurs?

If we want to end this discussion with more than name calling or deflecting or talking like were 5 year olds, then lets answer it.

I'm just amazed i even have to say this. Do your personal beliefs get diminished when you learn something new? Do you really have to project your lack of understanding as a sense of pride? Do people really need to be offended that we know so much and we're not afraid to ask to know more? What is going on here?


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> ????? I have no idea what you are referring to here? Please elaborate.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix

It's a movie about someone who figures out the world isn't real and can alter "Reality" around him.. sort of like your claims.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Science tells us dinosaurs lived yet nobody was there to see them so they don't have a true timeline of when. They just have a guess that it takes faith to believe in. The Bible tells us that they also lived but that some if not all did live with man. So even though we have historical documents and even cave drawings of these creatures walking with man I guess or so takes faith to believe in as well. The key is both science and the Bible, which was written long before the first Dino was discovered, both agree they existed. But evidence points more towards the Bible because of the fact it documents then long before they were discovered and science documents then after they were discovered.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> Science tells us dinosaurs lived yet nobody was there to see them so they don't have a true timeline of when.


You don't see light going by, you don't see atoms, molecules, cells. You don't see gravity, you don't see the higgs field. You don't see radio waves, you don't see hardly any of the electromagnetic radiation. 

We can measure the age through many indirect methods - we can see these. We can see the rock layers, we can see the ages of said rocks. We can compile data for this across the globe. It's not hard, its simple science and its something we do and accept because we're lucky enough to have an understanding of matter well enough to understand the decay of isotopes and what not.

Not "seeing" it with human eyes is absurd.. Do you see the packets going across the internet to send you this reply?



> They just have a guess that it takes faith to believe in.


Absolutely not. It's not a guess at all. You saying so doesn't make it one. You saying it requires faith doesn't make it so. * Just because you don't understand it and refuse to understand it, doesn't mean its not knowable.*



> The Bible tells us that they also lived but that some if not all did live with man.


Where in the bible does it say this? I've read the bible and not once do they call anything a dinosaur. Not once does the bible have any concept of age of earth (beyond metaphor) Not once does the bible have any science of atomic properties, decays, half life or any of that.



> So even though we have historical documents and even cave drawings of these creatures walking with man I guess or so takes faith to believe in as well. The key is both science and the Bible, which was written long before the first Dino was discovered, both agree they existed. But evidence points more towards the Bible because of the fact it documents then long before they were discovered and science documents then after they were discovered.


We have no cave drawings of man walking with dinosaurs. The bible has no concept of dinosaurs. This makes absolutely no sense. Some people want to say "behemoth" = "dinosaur" but that's reaching for it.. Translated by almost everyone in the world its an elephant, a crocodile or some other "modern" mammal.

So since the bible doesn't mention science or dinosaurs, why is it so important for dinosaurs to walk with man? How does knowing the reality of animal history on our planet diminish your belief in god/scripture?


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> You would think in a day and age when someone is sitting on the internet, using telecommunications networks that travel at the speed of light that people would accept our good grasp of science.
> 
> It takes a lot of science to engineer that CPU that people are using here to say we don't understand or can't understand quantum mechanics or the speed of light - something that we know well enough to build these computers, networks, mobile networks, wifi hotspots and so much more.


I like this part. You say it takes a LOT of intelligence and knowledge of science to engineer a CPU that we can use to our benefit. Yet you expect us to believe that the human brain.... a much more complex CPU, capable of learning all this science, engaging in a very wide range of emotions, an appreciation for art, and self awareness, along with all of the life support systems required to sustain and reproduce itself, just "happened" by random chance. You do see the problem here dont you?


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix
> 
> It's a movie about someone who figures out the world isn't real and can alter "Reality" around him.. sort of like your claims.


Thanks... I have heard of the movie, but it seemed a bit far fetched to me so never bothered to watch it. I prefer the real world. 

And my "claims" are a bit more than that... they were both very real, they happened, there is no doubt whatsoever about that. I dont understand how, or why they happened, but was kinda hoping one of you science guys could answer those questions for me.


----------



## Boo8meR

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks... I have heard of the movie, but it seemed a bit far fetched to me so never bothered to watch it. I prefer the real world.




Weird, me too.


----------



## mmoetc

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks... I have heard of the movie, but it seemed a bit far fetched to me so never bothered to watch it. I prefer the real world.
> 
> And my "claims" are a bit more than that... they were both very real, they happened, there is no doubt whatsoever about that. I dont understand how, or why they happened, but was kinda hoping one of you science guys could answer those questions for me.


And maybe someday they will. They absolutely won't if they just say its God's doing and stop looking.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I like this part. You say it takes a LOT of intelligence and knowledge of science to engineer a CPU that we can use to our benefit. Yet you expect us to believe that the human brain.... a much more complex CPU, capable of learning all this science, engaging in a very wide range of emotions, an appreciation for art, and self awareness, along with all of the life support systems required to sustain and reproduce itself, just "happened" by random chance. You do see the problem here dont you?


Nope, no problem. Since we see transitional brains between species, we also have fossil records of our species showing differing brain sizes. Nothing pops out and says "our brain is special and unlike any other brain"

If our brains popped up out of nowhere and were unlike anything else in the world, then maybe you would have a point. But that isn't reality. Every living (mammal) creature has a "brain" or "nervous" system that drives its biology. We evolved with such capability because it benefits our survival and because it benefits our survival we live to talk about it. We learn to use tools, we learn engineering and we have learned how brains work.

They are amazing, but we know a lot about brains, so much so we don't have to postulate a god argument for their existence. We know the lobes of the brain, how the neurons work, how synapses work, how different chemicals interact with our brains. Neuroscience is a young science, but its making huge advancements and we have similar advancements in AI and neural networks to mimic a brain in technology.

Beyond this though, what does having a brain change about the speed of light, dinosaurs living with man and everything else people deny?

Even if brains are the work of god, wouldn't it be best to use your brain to know the world around you? Wouldn't god say "I gave you a brain, why aren't you using it?" 

just doesn't make sense.

*BTW, evolution isn't just "random chance".*


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Nope, no problem.


 Sad sad sad.... all those trees seem to block the view of the forest.


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> And maybe someday they will. They absolutely won't if they just say its God's doing and stop looking.


Now why would they stop looking just because its part of Gods doing? That hasnt slowed them down so far.  The only time they seem to stop looking is when "they" think its Gods work... as in "supernatural" and isnt worthy of their efforts.


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I like this part. You say it takes a LOT of intelligence and knowledge of science to engineer a CPU that we can use to our benefit. Yet you expect us to believe that the human brain.... a much more complex CPU, capable of learning all this science, engaging in a very wide range of emotions, an appreciation for art, and self awareness, along with all of the life support systems required to sustain and reproduce itself, just "happened" by random chance. You do see the problem here dont you?


I don't see the problem, maybe you need to explain it to us. The human brain is a perfect example of evolution. It is far more than it was and maybe far less that what it will one day be.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sad sad sad.... all those trees seem to block the view of the forest.


When i look at the forest i see trees that evolved and grow. I see how they absorb nutrients from the soil and energy from the light and that their colors are directly influenced by the light making it through our nitrogen rich atmosphere.

What forest are you looking at?


----------



## mmoetc

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Now why would they stop looking just because its part of Gods doing? That hasnt slowed them down so far.  The only time they seem to stop looking is when "they" think its Gods work... as in "supernatural" and isnt worthy of their efforts.


Once you know the one true answer why look further? Any further investigation might just cast doubt on what you're sure you know. Wouldn't want that.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

supernovae said:


> You don't see light going by, you don't see atoms, molecules, cells. You don't see gravity, you don't see the higgs field. You don't see radio waves, you don't see hardly any of the electromagnetic radiation.
> 
> We can measure the age through many indirect methods - we can see these. We can see the rock layers, we can see the ages of said rocks. We can compile data for this across the globe. It's not hard, its simple science and its something we do and accept because we're lucky enough to have an understanding of matter well enough to understand the decay of isotopes and what not.
> 
> Not "seeing" it with human eyes is absurd.. Do you see the packets going across the internet to send you this reply?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. It's not a guess at all. You saying so doesn't make it one. You saying it requires faith doesn't make it so. * Just because you don't understand it and refuse to understand it, doesn't mean its not knowable.*
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the bible does it say this? I've read the bible and not once do they call anything a dinosaur. Not once does the bible have any concept of age of earth (beyond metaphor) Not once does the bible have any science of atomic properties, decays, half life or any of that.
> 
> 
> 
> We have no cave drawings of man walking with dinosaurs. The bible has no concept of dinosaurs. This makes absolutely no sense. Some people want to say "behemoth" = "dinosaur" but that's reaching for it.. Translated by almost everyone in the world its an elephant, a crocodile or some other "modern" mammal.
> 
> So since the bible doesn't mention science or dinosaurs, why is it so important for dinosaurs to walk with man? How does knowing the reality of animal history on our planet diminish your belief in god/scripture?


Better read job. It talks of the brontosaures and the stegasaur and the great sea leviathan. It's right they're. The scales on then si thick no spear can Pierce.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> Better read job. It talks of the brontosaures and the stegasaur and the great sea leviathan. It's right they're. The scales on then si thick no spear can Pierce.


where?

I just did a text search of online copies and dinosaurs don't appear at all. The Brontosaurus and Stegosaurus wasn't actually named that until the late 19th century BTW. 

Some fish were big and have big scales and fisherman love to make them seem bigger than they really are.

Some "lore" of dragons and beasts but mostly metaphor for big bad stuff.

Again, what is the reasoning for wanting dinosaurs and man to walk the earth at the same time? The planet is 4.3 billion years old and it was a molten rock at one point.. re-writing the dinosaurs doesn't change the other 3+ billion years of history.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml


----------



## Boo8meR

Vahomesteaders said:


> http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml




Site looks quite credible, thanks for the reference.


----------



## mnn2501

Vahomesteaders said:


> Science tells us dinosaurs lived yet nobody was there to see them so they don't have a true timeline of when. They just have a guess that it takes faith to believe in.


 Its actually based on the scientific principle of carbon dating




Vahomesteaders said:


> The Bible tells us that they also lived but that some if not all did live with man.


 That depends on translation and interpretation, your mileage may vary
Leviathan = whale in the Church I grew up in
Behemoth = not specifically known but thought to be a mammoth or elephant
Proving you can usually claim that the Bible says anything you want it to.




Vahomesteaders said:


> So even though we have historical documents and even cave drawings of these creatures walking with man


No we do not.



Vahomesteaders said:


> I guess or so takes faith to believe in as well. The key is both science and the Bible, which was written long before the first Dino was discovered, both agree they existed. But evidence points more towards the Bible because of the fact it documents then long before they were discovered and science documents then after they were discovered.


I suggest you read about the history of the Bible that we have today which is different than the Bibles mankind has had over the last 2000 years.


----------



## Boo8meR

No, keep going, this is entertaining.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

mnn2501 said:


> I suggest you read about the history of the Bible that we have today which is different than the Bibles mankind has had over the last 2000 years.


Yes which is why I study from both Hebrew Greek and English translation. You see unlike some here I don't deny science. I learned all about it from grade school through college. So I have a clear perspective on science. But mousy science people do not a have cleat perspective on religion. Since they did not study it everyday. Having a glimpse at the Bible once in a while doesn't count. I studied science everyday and the Bible everyday. Science does many good things and goes hand in hand with the Bible. So until you have spent years studying both how can you compare the two?


----------



## Boo8meR

Vahomesteaders said:


> Yes which is why I study from both Hebrew Greek and English translation. You see unlike some here I don't deny science. I learned all about it from grade school through college. So I have a clear perspective on science. But mousy science people do not a have cleat perspective on religion. Since they did not study it everyday. Having a glimpse at the Bible once in a while doesn't count. I studied science everyday and the Bible everyday. Science does many good things and goes hand in hand with the Bible. So until you have spent years studying both how can you compare the two?




I have. You're wrong.


----------



## mnn2501

Vahomesteaders said:


> Yes which is why I study from both Hebrew Greek and English translation.


You miss my point completely: The books we have in the Bible today are different than the books that they had in the Bibles in the past.
The Bible itself mentions 30 some verses considered scripture that are not in today's Bible. There are many books that once were in the Bible that no longer are there and I'm not just talking about the Apocrypha. 

To read Hebrew or Greek versions of the books of the Bible we have today means absolutely nothing to the point I was making.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

mnn2501 said:


> You miss my point completely: The books we have in the Bible today are different than the books that they had in the Bibles in the past.
> The Bible itself mentions 30 some verses considered scripture that are not in today's Bible. There are many books that once were in the Bible that no longer are there and I'm not just talking about the Apocrypha.
> 
> To read Hebrew or Greek versions of the books of the Bible we have today means absolutely nothing to the point I was making.


I know what you are speaking about. It's called the Apocrypha. it was actually removed because none of the writings were in Hebrew or of devine inspiration. They were peoples journal entries basically and they never claimed to be inspired by God. It's a very good read. It does support many biblical writings.


----------



## mnn2501

Vahomesteaders said:


> I know what you are speaking about. It's called the Apocrypha. it was actually removed because none of the writings were in Hebrew or of devine inspiration. They were peoples journal entries basically and they never claimed to be inspired by God. It's a very good read. It does support many biblical writings.


DO you actually read my posts? I said very clearly that I was *NOT* talking about the Apocrapha


----------



## Vahomesteaders

mnn2501 said:


> DO you actually read my posts? I said very clearly that I was *NOT* talking about the Apocrapha


Yes I did and all the books removed from the Bible are considers apocryphical writings. Not just the 15 books considered apocryphical but another 28 Protestant writings were removed. There were 58 writings removed in all. But none were claimed by the authors to be inspired by God. Before the Bible people just had the scrolls and letters to go by. When the Bible was formed only the letters directly inspired by God were used. But ask the others are there and are a good read.


----------



## Boo8meR

Vahomesteaders said:


> Yes I did and all the books removed from the Bible are considers apocryphical writings. Not just the 15 books considered apocryphical but another 28 Protestant writings were removed. There were 58 writings removed in all. But none were claimed by the authors to be inspired by God. Before the Bible people just had the scrolls and letters to go by. When the Bible was formed only the letters directly inspired by God were used. But ask the others are there and are a good read.




So the violence in the Old Testament that is so frequently discounted by people as inaccurate is, in fact, inspired by god? Now you've gone and confused me.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Boo8meR said:


> So the violence in the Old Testament that is so frequently discounted by people as inaccurate is, in fact, inspired by god? Now you've gone and confused me.


Wrong. God is a loving merciful God. But was a wrathful God against blatant sin. The world was full of sin and the seed of the devil. That's why the flood was sent to wipe out that bloodline. But even then in his mercy he allowed Noahs sons and their wives to be saved who were of that blood line which is how it continues today. Then with the new covenant of Jesus we had a better way given to us and free will to live as we choose. That choice we make will determine what the end of our life brings.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Those who claim falsehoods about God not doing those things are doing so hoping they won't be judged so harshly.


----------



## supernovae

Vahomesteaders said:


> Those who claim falsehoods about God not doing those things are doing so hoping they won't be judged so harshly.


Doing what? Putting dinosaurs with man? clearly none of that ever happened.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

supernovae said:


> Doing what? Putting dinosaurs with man? clearly none of that ever happened.


No saying that some of the violence in the old testement never happened. According to you Dinosaur weren't with man but that your opinion since nobody was there to see it is anyone's opinion as to what happened.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> No saying that some of the violence in the old testement never happened. But according to you Dinosaur weren't with man but that your opinion since nobody was there to see it is anyone's opinion as to what happened.


Well, man hadn't evolved into what he is today, but our ancestors were obviously here in one form or another. They tell is what happened through the fossil record.


----------



## mnn2501

Vahomesteaders said:


> Yes I did and all the books removed from the Bible are considers apocryphical writings. Not just the 15 books considered apocryphical but another 28 Protestant writings were removed. There were 58 writings removed in all. But none were claimed by the authors to be inspired by God. Before the Bible people just had the scrolls and letters to go by. When the Bible was formed only the letters directly inspired by God were used. But ask the others are there and are a good read.


Your statement shows you know absolutely nothing about the history of the book you apparently hold sacred. I find that to be the case with many (most?) people claiming to be Christian.

You have both a computer and the internet, why not do some HONEST research about how the Bible came to be, who put it together, who decided what books to add or subtract and all the various changes in which books are in it.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Nevada said:


> Well, man hadn't evolved into what he is today, but our ancestors were obviously here in one form or another.


The ya go then. According to science man was here in some form or another. Lol


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> When i look at the forest i see trees that evolved and grow. I see how they absorb nutrients from the soil and energy from the light and that their colors are directly influenced by the light making it through our nitrogen rich atmosphere.
> 
> What forest are you looking at?


Exactly my point.... you are so busy looking at trees you dont see the forest. There is a difference.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

So see the Bible and science go hand in hand. The Bible says man was here in his original form with the beast and science says man was also there in his original form with the beast. Either way. Some form of our ancestors were here with the dinos. It's just your form differs from mine. Lol


----------



## JJ Grandits

Skamp said:


> LINKY


It's known as diffusion pressure deficit and it does not work. atmospheric pressure can not support a column of water that high. I asked the question because it is one of the great horticultural mysteries. Nobody really knows how water moves up a tree or sap flows. Just theories.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> I don't see the problem, maybe you need to explain it to us. The human brain is a perfect example of evolution. It is far more than it was and maybe far less that what it will one day be.


Again.... there seems to be too many trees, obstructing the view of the forest. :shrug: 

Lemme put it this way... according to our science guy it required a great deal of intelligence and engineering to create a rather simple cpu... and yet he also seems to think that the life forms on this planet simply "grew" out of inanimate materials that just happened to bump into each other by random chance.


----------



## Boo8meR

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Again.... there seems to be too many trees, obstructing the view of the forest. :shrug:
> 
> Lemme put it this way... according to our science guy it required a great deal of intelligence and engineering to create a rather simple cpu... and yet he also seems to think that the life forms on this planet simply "grew" out of inanimate materials that just happened to bump into each other by random chance.


 

You sound as though you're implying these two examples contradict each other. Please elaborate, I'm all ears.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> The ya go then. According to science man was here in some form or another. Lol


The principle of common ancestry tells us that the ancestors all life we see today existed during the age of the dinosaur in one form or another. But this isn't my idea. You must have learned that in school.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Exactly my point.... you are so busy looking at trees you dont see the forest. There is a difference.


If god was such a big picture as to be so obvious, why focus on the details of trying to ram in dinosaurs, discredit science and ruin the details thereof?


----------



## FourDeuce

"and yet he also seems to think that the life forms on this planet simply "grew" out of inanimate materials that just happened to bump into each other by random chance." Unless you can read minds, you shouldn't try speaking for other people.


----------



## FourDeuce

"but that your opinion since nobody was there to see it is anyone's opinion as to what happened." Nobody was there to see any gods create this universe either.


----------



## supernovae

JJ Grandits said:


> It's known as diffusion pressure deficit and it does not work. atmospheric pressure can not support a column of water that high. I asked the question because it is one of the great horticultural mysteries. Nobody really knows how water moves up a tree or sap flows. Just theories.


Its a cool problem.. and trees had eons to evolve to be able to figure it out and the trees that evolved to have the highest canopies survived. 

I believe they have some plant experiments on board the ISS to try and work on this problem a little bit more and there was some discussion on physorg about some of the interesting findings. Obviously they're not growing a 10 + meter tree in space, but they're looking for how plants would move water in 0 gravity. 

We used to think humans couldn't operate in zero gravity  We will of course evolve very quickly if we live in low gravity systems but we seem to operate fine even though we evolved in a gravitational field.


----------



## FourDeuce

"Science does many good things and goes hand in hand with the Bible." Not quite. Science says nothing about any gods.
"So until you have spent years studying both how can you compare the two? There are many ways to compare them. One way I like is to look at the results of them being applied. Science flies man to the Moon. Religion flies man into buildings.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> If god was such a big picture as to be so obvious, why focus on the details of trying to ram in dinosaurs, discredit science and ruin the details thereof?


Oi Vey! Perhaps you should address this question to someone here who trys to ram in dinosaurs and discredit science or ruin the details thereof. Twas certainly not this large child dressed in blue! I am all good with allowing science to learn and grow its level of knowledge... Lord knows they have bunches to learn if they ever expect to understand His universe.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Its a cool problem..


This is where you say.... "and we dont know the answer". It takes a lot less bandwidth with far less confusion. We used to have a little sign over the door in our shop class building... "KISS".... Keep It Simple Stupid.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

FourDeuce said:


> "Science does many good things and goes hand in hand with the Bible." Not quite. Science says nothing about any gods.
> "So until you have spent years studying both how can you compare the two? There are many ways to compare them. One way I like is to look at the results of them being applied. Science flies man to the Moon. Religion flies man into buildings.


That's why God is against religion. Organized religion especially. Infact he condemned man dividing themselves amongst believers and denominations. Those who did those things you speak of have nothing to do with God. And people lump all religion to those fanatics and the ones who do crazy stuff. That's like lumping any race together because of a few bad apples.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> "and yet he also seems to think that the life forms on this planet simply "grew" out of inanimate materials that just happened to bump into each other by random chance." Unless you can read minds, you shouldn't try speaking for other people.


Ok, without opening the whole can of worms about my telepathic experiences... (which were also quite real, and with witnesses)... lemme explain... I read his words posted here... not his mind. I know, I should never assume anything... but when someone types it out and posts it... I assume it is what he believes.


----------



## Evons hubby

Boo8meR said:


> You sound as though you're implying these two examples contradict each other. Please elaborate, I'm all ears.


I doubt I can explain it... since you didnt grasp it right up front... but I will try. 

one post says it requires lots of intelligence and engineering and applied science to create a simple CPU.... 

the other posts indicate all that is required is a few raw materials, time and random chance to create not only a vastly superior machine, but one that is capable of emotions, reproducing itself, and sustaining itself. Some of these superior machines also play some purdy music and can draw neat stuff!


----------



## mnn2501

Vahomesteaders said:


> That's why God is against religion. Organized religion especially. Infact he condemned man dividing themselves amongst believers and denominations.


Well at least according to *YOUR* interpretation.
Funny then that Jesus Himself went to and spoke in the Synagogue and Temple if He's so all fired against it.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This is where you say.... "and we dont know the answer". It takes a lot less bandwidth with far less confusion. We used to have a little sign over the door in our shop class building... "KISS".... Keep It Simple Stupid.


Actually like the original person said, we have lots of theories, but it is a cool problem.

If plants can move water, nutrition and minerals in zero gravity just as well as within gravity, then that removes some hypothesis that exist and changes our understanding a bit. Its cool stuff, not confusing


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I doubt I can explain it... since you didnt grasp it right up front... but I will try.
> 
> one post says it requires lots of intelligence and engineering and applied science to create a simple CPU....


The CPU was in response to someone saying we can't possibly understand the properties of light and quantum mechanics. Over all, a CPU is fairly trivial. They have mods for minecraft that allow you to build a basic cpu using torches that light up (0s and 1s). It wasn't a form of complexity/design as you suggest. We know how fast a CPU can be by how long it takes for the speed of light or the flow of electrons to happen through the gates and we have a good understanding of the properties of atoms since the CPU gates now are on the scale of an atoms width these days. If we didn't understand light nor quantum mechanics we wouldn't have computers.



> the other posts indicate all that is required is a few raw materials, time and random chance to create not only a vastly superior machine, but one that is capable of emotions, reproducing itself, and sustaining itself. Some of these superior machines also play some purdy music and can draw neat stuff!


Cool huh! Its worth repeating though, that it isn't "Random chance". It's natural selection and it still happens today. We're still evolving.

Just like CPU's evolved. We didn't jump from 0 to 100, we went from 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10........


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Actually like the original person said, we have lots of theories, but it is a cool problem.
> 
> If plants can move water, nutrition and minerals in zero gravity just as well as within gravity, then that removes some hypothesis that exist and changes our understanding a bit. Its cool stuff, not confusing


Ok, thats a lot shorter... but a simple "we dont know" would have been much more clear, direct and to the point. 

When I start eating apples grown in outer space without having the affect of gravity on the trees.... we can start a whole new thread and discuss those things.


----------



## Boo8meR

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I doubt I can explain it... since you didnt grasp it right up front... but I will try.
> 
> one post says it requires lots of intelligence and engineering and applied science to create a simple CPU....
> 
> the other posts indicate all that is required is a few raw materials, time and random chance to create not only a vastly superior machine, but one that is capable of emotions, reproducing itself, and sustaining itself. Some of these superior machines also play some purdy music and can draw neat stuff!




Oh no, I know what you meant, I just wanted you to dig your hole a little deeper. Well done.


----------



## Boo8meR

supernovae said:


> The CPU was in response to someone saying we can't possibly understand the properties of light and quantum mechanics. Over all, a CPU is fairly trivial. They have mods for minecraft that allow you to build a basic cpu using torches that light up (0s and 1s). It wasn't a form of complexity/design as you suggest. We know how fast a CPU can be by how long it takes for the speed of light or the flow of electrons to happen through the gates and we have a good understanding of the properties of atoms since the CPU gates now are on the scale of an atoms width these days. If we didn't understand light nor quantum mechanics we wouldn't have computers.
> 
> 
> 
> Cool huh! Its worth repeating though, that it isn't "Random chance". It's natural selection and it still happens today. We're still evolving.
> 
> Just like CPU's evolved. We didn't jump from 0 to 100, we went from 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10........




Nope, the finches were exposed to radiation, mutated, and killed off their predecessors.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> The CPU was in response to someone saying we can't possibly understand the properties of light and quantum mechanics. Over all, a CPU is fairly trivial. They have mods for minecraft that allow you to build a basic cpu using torches that light up (0s and 1s). It wasn't a form of complexity/design as you suggest. We know how fast a CPU can be by how long it takes for the speed of light or the flow of electrons to happen through the gates and we have a good understanding of the properties of atoms since the CPU gates now are on the scale of an atoms width these days. If we didn't understand light nor quantum mechanics we wouldn't have computers.


Actually it wasnt me that suggested it required intelligent engineering to produce this simple CPU.... that was you. I merely backed you up on that. I really dont believe that if we toss all of the components into the dryer and turn it on, that we are ever going to see an assembled computer fall out the door. Not anytime soon, nor in 50 gazillion years.



supernovae said:


> Cool huh! Its worth repeating though, that it isn't "Random chance". It's natural selection and it still happens today. We're still evolving.
> 
> Just like CPU's evolved. We didn't jump from 0 to 100, we went from 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10........


Random chance... natural selection... a rose by any other name.  And I think it went from 0 to 1 then back to 0 or 1. Last I heard CPUs cant count so good past one... but they do it lotsa times really quick!


----------



## Boo8meR

Random chance and natural selection aren't the same thing. Random implies without structure, natural selection has been studied and the structure it follows has been proven. Natural selection follows patterns, randomness does not. Nice try, though!


----------



## Vahomesteaders

mnn2501 said:


> Well at least according to *YOUR* interpretation.
> Funny then that Jesus Himself went to and spoke in the Synagogue and Temple if He's so all fired against it.


There is a difference in believers gathering for church and being part of an organization that sets rules apart from jesus teachings. Any religion that can throw you out for not following IT'S rules is the type of organized religion the Bible talks about. Paul went off at Corinth for setting up different denominations. God said we are all part of his church who are following jesus and redeemed by his blood. God is for unity not division. So setting ourselves apart by title of denomination goes against scripture.


----------



## Boo8meR

Vahomesteaders said:


> There is a difference in believers gathering for church and being part of an organization that sets rules apart from jesus teachings. Any religion that can throw you out for not following IT'S rules is the type of organized religion the Bible talks about. Paul went off at Corinth for setting up different denominations. God said we are all part of his church who are following jesus and redeemed by his blood. God is for unity not division. So setting ourselves apart by title of denomination goes against scripture.


So every denomination of Christianity with a name is sinning?


----------



## Evons hubby

Boo8meR said:


> Random chance and natural selection aren't the same thing. Random implies without structure, natural selection has been studied and the structure it follows has been proven. Natural selection follows patterns, randomness does not. Nice try, though!


Where is the pattern in a pile of raw materials washing around on the sea floor? Seems pretty "random" to me.


----------



## Boo8meR

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Where is the pattern in a pile of raw materials washing around on the sea floor? Seems pretty "random" to me.




It would.


----------



## Evons hubby

Boo8meR said:


> It would.


Ok, so type really slow so maybe I can understand your explanation. Again... where is this pattern you refer to with a dukes mix of raw materials being gently rocked on the ocean floor by the waves? According to one of the laws of science, this mixing of ingredients should not produce a pattern... quite the opposite. IE if you put a thousand black balls in the bottom of a container, and a thousand white ones on top... then turn the jar over and over... once they are mixed together, no amount of turns of said jar is going to separate them... they become "randomly" mixed and stay that way.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Boo8meR said:


> So every denomination of Christianity with a name is sinning?


No I'm not saying that. But Christianity would be alot better off of we stopped focusing on our differences and focused on Jesus and the gospel. But every church today accepts that belief that makes their denomination bettet or different than the rest. Again. Division.


----------



## Boo8meR

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, so type really slow so maybe I can understand your explanation. Again... where is this pattern you refer to with a dukes mix of raw materials being gently rocked on the ocean floor by the waves? According to one of the laws of science, this mixing of ingredients should not produce a pattern... quite the opposite. IE if you put a thousand black balls in the bottom of a container, and a thousand white ones on top... then turn the jar over and over... once they are mixed together, no amount of turns of said jar is going to separate them... they become "randomly" mixed and stay that way.




No need, you've missed the point entirely and I'm out of crayons. Something about some trees and a forest.


----------



## Evons hubby

Boo8meR said:


> No need, you've missed the point entirely and I'm out of crayons. Something about some trees and a forest.


Hands you my shovel.... be patient and wait... it will evolve into a ladder soon and you can climb out of your hole.


----------



## Boo8meR

Vahomesteaders said:


> No I'm not saying that. But Christianity would be alot better off of we stopped focusing on our differences and focused on Jesus and the gospel. But every church today accepts that belief that makes their denomination bettet or different than the rest. Again. Division.




But you said "setting ourselves apart by title of denomination goes against scripture." Isn't that a sin? Isn't Christianity broken into numerous groups, referred to as denominations? Therefore...


----------



## Boo8meR

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hands you my shovel.... be patient and wait... it will evolve into a ladder soon and you can climb out of your hole.




If only I could look at the ladder and make it move towards me...


----------



## Evons hubby

Boo8meR said:


> If only I could look at the ladder and make it move towards me...


Yeppers, that would be handy... theres been a zillion times I have wished I could do that when needed!


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Boo8meR said:


> But you said "setting ourselves apart by title of denomination goes against scripture." Isn't that a sin? Isn't Christianity broken into numerous groups, referred to as denominations? Therefore...


Sin is only sin of you know to do right and don't. Many do things without knowing they are in the wrong. Many Christians never open their Bible other than Sunday and only read what the preacher tells them to. So they have no clue what's even in there. So God does show mercy on them until the truth is revealed to them.


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> Sin is only sin of you know to do right and don't. Many do things without knowing they are in the wrong. Many Christians never open their Bible other than Sunday and only read what the preacher tells them to. So they have no clue what's even in there. So God does show mercy on them until the truth is revealed to them.


Ok, at the risk of drifting this thread.... this reminds me of the heathen being witnessed to. Seems as though the heathen asked the preacher this very question... what about the people that have never heard Gods word? are they to be condemned for their sins when they didnt know? The preacher responded of course not... this is a merciful God, and has reserved a special place in heaven for those who havent heard His word. Our heathen then just looks at the preacher with a very disgusted look... "So why are you telling me about it?"

I now return you to your religious discussion.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Actually it wasnt me that suggested it required intelligent engineering to produce this simple CPU.... that was you. I merely backed you up on that. I really dont believe that if we toss all of the components into the dryer and turn it on, that we are ever going to see an assembled computer fall out the door. Not anytime soon, nor in 50 gazillion years.
> 
> Random chance... natural selection... a rose by any other name.  And I think it went from 0 to 1 then back to 0 or 1. Last I heard CPUs cant count so good past one... but they do it lotsa times really quick!


Quite frankly, you're not backing me up on anything  You're taking what I said out of context and then construing it into something it isn't. Vastly different.

Do you understand the theory of evolution? Do you understand the tree of life? Do you understand that even computers evolved from slide rulers and abacuses to tubes to transistors to silicon and off to newer and odder fabrications in the future? Do you understand that we often use "Selective pressures" to evolve "better designs" In CPU"s just as "nature" has "Selective pressures" to evolve better designs? We love to mimic nature because nature has had billions of years to show us how to do it right even with all its potential flaws.

It's rather simple, you should try and learn something about it sometime!


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, at the risk of drifting this thread.... this reminds me of the heathen being witnessed to. Seems as though the heathen asked the preacher this very question... what about the people that have never heard Gods word? are they to be condemned for their sins when they didnt know? The preacher responded of course not... this is a merciful God, and has reserved a special place in heaven for those who havent heard His word. Our heathen then just looks at the preacher with a very disgusted look... "So why are you telling me about it?"
> 
> I now return you to your religious discussion.


Lol. The only problem is the Bible says every ear will hear the truth at some point. Whether it's recieved as truth or not is a different subject.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Quite frankly, you're not backing me up on anything  You're taking what I said out of context and then construing it into something it isn't. Vastly different.
> 
> Do you understand the theory of evolution? Do you understand the tree of life? Do you understand that even computers evolved from slide rulers and abacuses to tubes to transistors to silicon and off to newer and odder fabrications in the future? Do you understand that we often use "Selective pressures" to evolve "better designs" In CPU"s just as "nature" has "Selective pressures" to evolve better designs? We love to mimic nature because nature has had billions of years to show us how to do it right even with all its potential flaws.
> 
> It's rather simple, you should try and learn something about it sometime!


Lemme see now... yes, no, yes, and yes. I am pretty sure I got those except for that tree of life thing. Is that out of the bible?


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Lemme see now... yes, no, yes, and yes. I am pretty sure I got those except for that tree of life thing. Is that out of the bible?


How can you understand evolution if you think its random?

back to topic at hand, do you believe man walked with dinosaurs and why?


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> Lol. The only problem is the Bible says every ear will hear the truth at some point. Whether it's recieved as truth or not is a different subject.


Yeppers, but somehow I think its better they hear it straight out of Gods mouth.... I would hate myself forever thinking by my potential for error I might cause someone somewhere to believe the wrong thing. I know when I talked to Him face to face that time, He made it quite clear to me. I dont have the language nor that ability. It would be pretty risky for me to even try. Since our little sitty down chat the bible makes perfect sense to me when I read it... preachers? not so much.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, but somehow I think its better they hear it straight out of Gods mouth.... I would hate myself forever thinking by my potential for error I might cause someone somewhere to believe the wrong thing. I know when I talked to Him face to face that time, He made it quite clear to me. I dont have the language nor that ability. It would be pretty risky for me to even try.


Jesus tells believers to go out in the world and preach the gospel. We are God's voice sometimes. He uses us greatly for his word being spread. Infact he said he would speak through is with the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> How can you understand evolution if you think its random?
> 
> back to topic at hand, do you believe man walked with dinosaurs and why?


Of course we do.... there are still lots of them around... ever been to Florida or Louisiana? I have seen gators.... walked right along the path beside them. Grew up playing with horned toads in the deserts out west, one of local pharmacists has one in a cage in the front of his store... nasty lookin lizard he is too! Didnt say evolution was random... cant think of the word you used now, but evolution could not happen with out the first life forms to grow on. Its my understanding that that process took place with nothing but "random" raw materials, being tossed around by "random" waves at the bottom of the sea. Then for whatever random reasons that life form evolved into all the other living creatures and plants we see today... is that about right?


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> Jesus tells believers to go out in the world and preach the gospel. We are God's voice sometimes. He uses us greatly for his word being spread. Infact he said he would speak through is with the Holy Spirit.


Well, as long as you are sure you got it right... help yourself. The soul you send to hades wont be mine. Me? about all I am willing to risk is sending them to God and let Him talk to them.  

ETA: Ok, somehow that dont read right.... I am not going to kill anyone perhaps referring them to God would be better. LOL


----------



## mnn2501

Vahomesteaders said:


> There is a difference in believers gathering for church and being part of an organization that sets rules apart from jesus teachings. Any religion that can throw you out for not following IT'S rules is the type of organized religion the Bible talks about. Paul went off at Corinth for setting up different denominations. God said we are all part of his church who are following jesus and redeemed by his blood. God is for unity not division. So setting ourselves apart by title of denomination goes against scripture.


In *YOUR *opinion based on *YOUR* Interpretation :smack


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, as long as you are sure you got it right... help yourself. The soul you send to hades wont be mine. Me? about all I am willing to risk is sending them to God and let Him talk to them.
> 
> ETA: Ok, somehow that dont read right.... I am not going to kill anyone perhaps referring them to God would be better. LOL


So then what you are saying is Christians should sit on their hands and not tell people about God or his word and let those who don't know fend for themselves? Everything that goes against God's entire teaching.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course we do.... there are still lots of them around... ever been to Florida or Louisiana? I have seen gators.... walked right along the path beside them. Grew up playing with horned toads in the deserts out west, one of local pharmacists has one in a cage in the front of his store... nasty lookin lizard he is too! Didnt say evolution was random... cant think of the word you used now, but evolution could not happen with out the first life forms to grow on. Its my understanding that that process took place with nothing but "random" raw materials, being tossed around by "random" waves at the bottom of the sea. Then for whatever random reasons that life form evolved into all the other living creatures and plants we see today... is that about right?


:hysterical:

Please feel free to join back into the discussion when you have done a little homework. ound:

I've offered it before, but would be happy to get on Skype and teach people a little bit about Evolution. Where do you learn this stuff from? getting some


----------



## FourDeuce

"The only problem is the Bible says every ear will hear the truth at some point." The bible says many things, but the problem is it doesn't prove any gods exist, so the fact that a book says something doesn't mean much until those things are proven true. :cowboy:


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Just because you didn't see the beginning of time, does not mean you cannot open your eyes to the evidence all around you, which, as modern science has shown, is pretty clearly stacked in the favor of evolution, and the dinosaurs going extinct millions of years ago.


I see microevolution every day when I go out to feed my critters. I have two mini horses which are a result of it.

But the fact you can take a small horse and breed it to another small horse and keep doing that until you get one that can almost walk under a standard horse in no way supports the theory that there is someway you can force them to grow wings and change their DNA.

As I have said before if it were true I'd think we'd know it in a couple of decades of work. Take your good old lab critter, the fruit fly, put it into a harsh environment dose it with low levels of radiation to force mutations and wait to see if any of them start to grow fur or scales and change their DNA. IIRC, it takes about 10 days for a fruit fly to reproduce giving us about 360 generations in a year. Or about 3600 in 10 years. Surely in that number of generations in that situation there'd be some kind of evidence of change.

Or we could do the same with bacteria in a decade you'd probably get billions of generations.


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> "science, just like all other religions," Science is not a religion. It's a bit ironic to see somebody saying that using the products of science.:grin:


Science is a religion to some. It has all the hall marks of one.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Science is a religion to some. It has all the hall marks of one.


 I love it! Anti science rants via the internet. Do you see the irony of that?? Study up on that scripture some more, I am sure the secret to making semi-conductors is in there somewhere. 

And apparently because you can't make a horse with wings in your lifetime, evolution must be bunk. Lol!!! 

Hey while you are re-reading the bible, perhaps you can point me to the section that says evolution is bunk. Are you one of those who believes every word in the bible is to be taken literally? So which version do you prefer to take literally?


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Exactly, science isn't based on faith. If science took stuff on faith, it wouldn't be science. Simple as that.


Ok where's your proof that light acts the same way in interstellar space as it does on earth and/or in the gravity fields of our solar system?




supernovae said:


> What are you talking about here? We know the speed of light in space. We have satellites and robots that have explored the known solar system and we have a probe that has left the solar system all together. We know the speed of light in space, we can measure how long it takes to receive communications from the satellites and it matches up exactly with what we expect. We have proof of this. There is no faith in the speed of light that resembles the faith of a god.


How do we "know" this? Its like the moon laser example. We "know" how fast light travels in space because we bounce light off the moon then using "known" the exact distance we calculate the speed. Correct? We "know" the exact distance from the earth to the moon because we bounce light off the moon and because we "know" the speed of light is ALWAYS the same we calculate the distance. Right? See any problems with that?

How do we "know" how far away voyager is? Well we "know" radio waves travel at the speed of light (even though according to everyone here nothing but light can do that) and it takes X amount of time for a signal to make the round trip. Yet we "know" no such thing, we assume that it happens that way but as far as we know the farther you get from the sun's gravity field radio waves and light might travel faster or slower. Because there is no proof one way or another the only way to accept it is by faith.





supernovae said:


> No clue what you're talking about here.


Simple, you have stated in another post that we have shown experimentally that light can be slowed down. I'm fairly sure you posted that if necessary I can read back to see. You now know, because you have scientific data showing it, that the speed of light is not always c. But you say we know all this stuff because the speed of light is constant. Doesn't that strike you as a little odd?not known?


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Science is a religion to some. It has all the hall marks of one.


 Far from it, knowledge is quite the opposite of superstition. When you want a bridge designed, do you go to an engineer who knows the science, or do you go to a preacher?


----------



## Evons hubby

Vahomesteaders said:


> So then what you are saying is Christians should sit on their hands and not tell people about God or his word and let those who don't know fend for themselves? Everything that goes against God's entire teaching.


Nope, far be it from me to tell anyone else how to deal with their religion... or any other purpose they think they have in life... I have my hands full taking care of what God wants me to take care of.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Far from it, knowledge is quite the opposite of superstition. When you want a bridge designed, do you go to an engineer who knows the science, or do you go to a preacher?


A few years back my partners and I needed a bridge, they all turned to me. (it came out good by the way, and well under budget) My qualifications for the job? I had spent a good number of nights sleeping under bridges during my "lean" years. That truck is hauling the first load (12 ton) of gravel... I wanted the picture coz I had never seen a bridge collapse before... still havent!


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> What you said has nothing to do with reality or evolution.


Evolution is based on the theory that every organism comes from a older different organism. Correct? If so at one point there was organism zero from which all others came from. Organism zero came from some type of natural event when the earth was being formed which caused inorganic materials to form organic life. That's based on the theory that the earth was formed from material ejected from the big bang. All logical and correct according to science isn't it? 

Now we have a problem. This is based on the guess that at sometime there was a big bundle of nothing which something happened to and it somehow made all the material we now have flying around the universe. But because no one has any evidence of what happened before the bang, what was there, what caused it, where all the necessary matter/energy came from we just have to assume that it was a 'natural' event. That means every thing they believe and can prove is actually based on faith. Just like all other religions.




supernovae said:


> At least its getting funny now..


Hey its true. You can't prove it wasn't a strange kid with a firecracker anymore than you can prove it was God or the universe is elastic and once it reaches its outer limits it will spring back destroying our know universe and forming a new one. Each of us must use his own faith to believe what happened.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> :hysterical:
> 
> Please feel free to join back into the discussion when you have done a little homework. ound:
> 
> I've offered it before, but would be happy to get on Skype and teach people a little bit about Evolution. Where do you learn this stuff from? getting some


Some I learned in school, the rest from you since you began posting here.  Sorry, I dont skype... I type.  I am curious though... which part was I wrong about? No need for the infinite detailed ramblings... just which part of my post is inconsistent with scientific theory?


----------



## watcher

mnn2501 said:


> Its actually based on the scientific principle of carbon dating


Carbon dating has had a black swan event which means it can no longer be trusted as an accurate way to date anything.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> I love it! Anti science rants via the internet. Do you see the irony of that?? Study up on that scripture some more, I am sure the secret to making semi-conductors is in there somewhere.


You might want to read my post a little closer. I'm no way anti science. The wife has a bachelor's degree in science field, my son as well, my daughter has her masters and I have a strong engineering background (no degree so I'm the dummy in the family). I just have a problem when science it taken as a religion.




greg273 said:


> Hey while you are re-reading the bible, perhaps you can point me to the section that says evolution is bunk. Are you one of those who believes every word in the bible is to be taken literally? So which version do you prefer to take literally?


I don't need a Bible the only religions books I need to show it are the ones scientist read and write.


----------



## mnn2501

watcher said:


> Carbon dating has had a black swan event which means it can no longer be trusted as an accurate way to date anything.


The margin of error is not off by 65 million years.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Far from it, knowledge is quite the opposite of superstition. When you want a bridge designed, do you go to an engineer who knows the science, or do you go to a preacher?


I saw a bridge that was designed by engineer's that used science collapse due to........wind!


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> I saw a bridge that was designed by engineer's that used science collapse due to........wind!


 Not all ideas are good ones!


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Far from it, knowledge is quite the opposite of superstition. When you want a bridge designed, do you go to an engineer who knows the science, or do you go to a preacher?


When you have a engineer design a bridge for you are you not taking it on faith that his design will work?

Sometimes that faith is misplaced. I suggest you goggle "Tacoma Narrows Bridge" and see.

Science can be just as much of a religion as any other belief system. Its based on faith. Faith of what you "know" is true. Look at how when you question what is "known" you are attacked. Many things we "know" are based on assumptions or on other things we "know" which are based on them.

Carbon 14 dating is an example. We "know" C14 dating works, right? We can tell something in X years old because we use C14 decay dating to show it. But C14 dating has had a black swan event. Therefore logic tells us we must not question all dates we "know" based on it. Now all the stuff we "know" we no longer "know" because it was all based on misplaced faith.

I question that we "know" how far a star is from earth because we have no data to show that the speed of light is the same outside a gravity field based on the fact experiments have shown that gravity has an effect on light.

I question a lot of the stuff we "know" about interstellar space because to make the math work correctly science had to 'discover' that there is "dark matter" and "dark energy" out there. We can't see it, we can't detect it in any way but because there's NO WAY WE COULD BE WRONG there must be something out making our numbers come out screwy. So because we aren't wrong we will just have faith that there is something out their and POOF our equations all work again. 

Reminds me of one of my first college physics experiment. I knew the answer but the data I got from my experiment didn't add up to that. So deep in section where you showed your math I simply multiplied by zero and added the correct number. The grader skimmed the write up, saw a lot of math with the proper equations at the beginning and the correct answer at the end and poof an A grade. Never did figure out how we messed up that simple experiment on harmonics. . .


----------



## watcher

mnn2501 said:


> The margin of error is not off by 65 million years.


I forget the number but even before the black swan event C14 wasn't considered accurate beyond a much smaller number of years. 100,000 years as a limit pops to mind but again I'm not sure.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Not all ideas are good ones!


It wasn't an idea, it was a design based on good scientific data.


----------



## greg273

Lol! Now we're going off on a bridge tangent because Yvonnes Hubby built a bridge over a creek, and a bridge collapsed in high winds a long time ago. None of which really bolster any of your cases disrespecting basic science and human knowledge. 
Is evolution a perfect theory? Nope, but it sure fits the observed natural world.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> I forget the number but even before the black swan event C14 wasn't considered accurate beyond a much smaller number of years. 100,000 years as a limit pops to mind but again I'm not sure.


 Yes, carbon dating has its limitations, which is why radioactive decay, among several other methods, are used for older dating. What is your problem with those methods?


----------



## Nevada

mnn2501 said:


> The margin of error is not off by 65 million years.


Actually, carbon dating isn't used for very old specimens, since it only can report ages up to about 50,000 years. But there are other methods of radiometric dating that can report much older dating.


----------



## Skamp

To Engineer is human.


----------



## FourDeuce

"Science can be just as much of a religion as any other belief system. Its based on faith." Maybe on your planet it is, but here on Earth, science is not based on faith. If the only argument FOR your beliefs is trying to claim science is "just as bad", maybe you need some better beliefs. Logically, trying to drag science down to religion's level makes no sense because it does nothing to prove religion is true.


----------



## FourDeuce

JeffreyD said:


> I saw a bridge that was designed by engineer's that used science collapse due to........wind!


The only people who are surprised that science isn't perfect are people who don't understand science. :hammer:


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Not all ideas are good ones!


It was engineering and science that resulted in an epic fail. I don't blame either for the failure, I blame the humans who designed it. They were inept at their jobs, yet they were still engineers. Humans are fallible and all the science and engineering couldn't help them. This is true in other areas of science and engineering too.


----------



## JeffreyD

FourDeuce said:


> The only people who are surprised that science isn't perfect are people who don't understand science. :hammer:


I wasn't surprised, I wasn't surprised with the shuttle accidents either! I know science isn't perfect, that was my point!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> I wasn't surprised, I wasn't surprised with the shuttle accidents either! I know science isn't perfect, that was my point!


The shuttle accidents weren't the result of bad science, they were the result of bad technology.


----------



## FourDeuce

JeffreyD said:


> I wasn't surprised, I wasn't surprised with the shuttle accidents either! I know science isn't perfect, that was my point!


Ok, you wanted to belabor the obvious. Mission accomplished. :hysterical:


----------



## Raeven

Let's just put this one to rest, ok? From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory*

Theories and laws*

See also: Scientific law
Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence.[26] However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[27] Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.[28]

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.[26][29] A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.[30]

Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. *Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.*[31][32]
(emphasis mine)

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a *body of facts* that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. *But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact*.[10]
(emphasis mine)
​If you don't understand this, then you've more studyin' to do.


----------



## FourDeuce

"It was engineering and science that resulted in an epic fail." If you want to compare the track records of science and religion, feel free, but it would seem a bit silly to do that on a computer on the internet. :cowboy:


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> The shuttle accidents weren't the result of bad science, they were the result of bad technology.


Where did the technology come from?


----------



## JeffreyD

FourDeuce said:


> "It was engineering and science that resulted in an epic fail." If you want to compare the track records of science and religion, feel free, but it would seem a bit silly to do that on a computer on the internet. :cowboy:


I wasn't! Just pointing out that science and engineering can be corrupted by humans. Your "analogy" does not apply because im not comparing them at all, your are!


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Lol! Now we're going off on a bridge tangent because Yvonnes Hubby built a bridge over a creek, and a bridge collapsed in high winds a long time ago. None of which really bolster any of your cases disrespecting basic science and human knowledge.
> Is evolution a perfect theory? Nope, but it sure fits the observed natural world.


Since you admit its not a perfect theory you have no problems with its flaws being taught and alternative ideas being brought into the mix?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The shuttle accidents weren't the result of bad science, they were the result of bad technology.


No they were a result of political pressure and bad management. Mostly political pressure.


----------



## FourDeuce

watcher said:


> Since you admit its not a perfect theory you have no problems with its flaws being taught and alternative ideas being brought into the mix?


Sure, as long as they are alternative SCIENTIFIC ideas. After all, it is SCIENCE class. :bowtie:


----------



## JJ Grandits

Hey, evolutionists. Before cells evolved enough to produce mitochondia how did they power themselves? That is a scientific question. If the mitochondia evolved first then where did the ADP produced by the cells come from? One of those chicken and the egg kind of questions.
I await an answer with baited breath.


----------



## Evons hubby

JJ Grandits said:


> Hey, evolutionists. Before cells evolved enough to produce mitochondia how did they power themselves? That is a scientific question. If the mitochondia evolved first then where did the ADP produced by the cells come from? One of those chicken and the egg kind of questions.
> I await an answer with baited breath.


I have a hunch this is where you will get a quite long winded answer, filled with all sorts of other unrelated scientific information that eventually boils down to "we dont know".


----------



## mnn2501

JJ Grandits said:


> Hey, evolutionists. Before cells evolved enough to produce mitochondia how did they power themselves? That is a scientific question. If the mitochondia evolved first then where did the ADP produced by the cells come from? One of those chicken and the egg kind of questions.
> I await an answer with baited breath.


So where did God come from?
Did God come first or the Universe?

Prove your answer please.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> So where did God come from?
> Did God come first or the Universe?
> 
> Prove your answer please.


I dont know where God came from. (didnt ask) but I am pretty sure... just a theory here... that the universe is part of Him. That theory being based upon personal observation.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have a hunch this is where you will get a quite long winded answer, filled with all sorts of other unrelated scientific information that eventually boils down to "we dont know".


Young children and immature adults can't deal with not knowing. Rational adults face it.ound:


----------



## FourDeuce

JJ Grandits said:


> Hey, evolutionists. Before cells evolved enough to produce mitochondia how did they power themselves? That is a scientific question. If the mitochondia evolved first then where did the ADP produced by the cells come from? One of those chicken and the egg kind of questions.
> I await an answer with baited breath.


Oops, I just noticed you posted that question to "evolutionists". I'll leave it for them to answer, IF there are any around.


----------



## supernovae

JJ Grandits said:


> Hey, evolutionists. Before cells evolved enough to produce mitochondia how did they power themselves? That is a scientific question. If the mitochondia evolved first then where did the ADP produced by the cells come from? One of those chicken and the egg kind of questions.
> I await an answer with baited breath.


Chicken and egg problems exist with or without science. Who/what created god if you want to postulate god? 

BTW for observers not familiar with this mitochondria and ATP "debate", its a tactic used by "Young Earth Creationists" where they try and imply complexity and then they do so by creating a bunch of non-issues into websites and then they publish such content and repeat it enough that if you search on such topics, the first sites you find are creationist sites. It's merely a tactic of manipulation and deceit to catch those who don't have the skepticism to look into it. Not only are they creationist websites, but they're called "evolutionnews.org" and made to look legit.

Deceptive and untruthful.

Reality is that there are lots of questions out there but implied complexity isn't an answer and every case of implied complexity to date is answerable by showing evolution of those traits - such as the "motors" that were too complex to be true but had evidence of intermediary / transitional phases in species. Notice how these "motors" are no longer "SEO" optimized as they once were as the phrases now lead to legitimate responses such as court cases, documents, images/data on evolutionary development of these motors and great documentaries on how Young Earth Creationists use pseudoscience to try and convince people they're actually doing science.


----------



## Evons hubby

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have a hunch this is where you will get a quite long winded answer, filled with all sorts of other unrelated scientific information that eventually boils down to "we dont know".





supernovae said:


> Chicken and egg problems exist with or without science. Who/what created god if you want to postulate god?
> 
> BTW for observers not familiar with this mitochondria and ATP "debate", its a tactic used by "Young Earth Creationists" where they try and imply complexity and then they do so by creating a bunch of non-issues into websites and then they publish such content and repeat it enough that if you search on such topics, the first sites you find are creationist sites. It's merely a tactic of manipulation and deceit to catch those who don't have the skepticism to look into it. Not only are they creationist websites, but they're called "evolutionnews.org" and made to look legit.
> 
> Deceptive and untruthful.
> 
> Reality is that there are lots of questions out there but implied complexity isn't an answer and every case of implied complexity to date is answerable by showing evolution of those traits - such as the "motors" that were too complex to be true but had evidence of intermediary / transitional phases in species. Notice how these "motors" are no longer "SEO" optimized as they once were as the phrases now lead to legitimate responses such as court cases, documents, images/data on evolutionary development of these motors and great documentaries on how Young Earth Creationists use pseudoscience to try and convince people they're actually doing science.


OOPSIE... I was wrong! not nearly as long as expected. But there is some nice "other" information, and unless I miss my guess that answer still boils down to "we dont know" but since there was no real answer... I could be wrong about that too.


----------



## copperkid3

supernovae said:


> Chicken and egg problems exist with or without science. Who/what created god if you want to postulate god?
> 
> BTW for observers not familiar with this mitochondria and ATP "debate", its a tactic used by "Young Earth Creationists" where they try and imply complexity and then they do so by creating a bunch of non-issues into websites and then they publish such content and repeat it enough that if you search on such topics, the first sites you find are creationist sites. It's merely a tactic of manipulation and deceit to catch those who don't have the skepticism to look into it. Not only are they creationist websites, but they're called "evolutionnews.org" and made to look legit.
> 
> Deceptive and untruthful.
> 
> Reality is that there are lots of questions out there but implied complexity isn't an answer and every case of implied complexity to date is answerable by showing evolution of those traits - such as the "motors" that were too complex to be true but had evidence of intermediary / transitional phases in species. Notice how these "motors" are no longer "SEO" optimized as they once were as the phrases now lead to legitimate responses such as court cases, documents, images/data on evolutionary development of these motors and great documentaries on how Young Earth Creationists use pseudoscience to try and convince people they're actually doing science.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
sounds quite like what Yvonne's hubby was predicting.......
except you avoided the exact wording of "we don't know.":hysterical:

BTW: There seems to be a bit of that yellow, scrambled hen fruit hanging off your chin.


----------



## Evons hubby

copperkid3 said:


> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> sounds quite like what Yvonne's hubby was predicting.......
> except you avoided the exact wording of "we don't know.":hysterical:
> 
> P.S. There is still a bit of that yellow, scrambled hen fruit hanging off your chin.


Thanks for noticing... I wonder if this counts as "peer review confirmation"? I hear thats a big thing in the scientific world.


----------



## supernovae

copperkid3 said:


> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> sounds quite like what Yvonne's hubby was predicting.......
> except you avoided the exact wording of "we don't know.":hysterical:
> 
> P.S. There is still a bit of that yellow, scrambled hen fruit hanging off your chin.


I don't know is the perfectly valid answer. It's the people i'm replying to who say "I know, god did it" and they do so by pretending to know that the answer is "Complexity"

Huge difference and it amazes me you would reply as such to insinuate the egg is on my face.

We do know that there is evolutionary evidence of these "motors" which is evidence enough that they're not "magically there" because they're "too complex" but you're right, we don't ultimately know the process that created them but not knowing that process simply creates another research project using the sciences that we have used to discover everything else. We're not stopping and saying "its creationism" since that isn't science.

again, HUGE difference.

I really enjoy how people choose to attack me vs actually answer the facts of the matter. It doesn't phase me 

The greeks "thought" about atoms just in their head without any ability to see or experiment or know about them otherwise. Hundreds of years later, we use their "thought" as the basis for our understanding of the universe around us (mostly in name only, but it was the thought/philosophy that lead us to explore it through science) A few hundred years from now we will look back at this and think "they thought THAT was complex?"


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks for noticing... I wonder if this counts as "peer review confirmation"? I hear thats a big thing in the scientific world.


Blind leading the blind constitutes still being blind :runforhills: Peer review isn't "hey, i like his ideology, so uh, we agree we don't believe you". Did you look at the evolutionary interim species? did you validate your observations? did you ask for peer review to confirm you're not interjecting biases.. can you accept you may be wrong? i don't think you're doing any of those.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> I don't know is the perfectly valid answer.


Thank you  Now see how easy that can be?


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Blind leading the blind constitutes still being blind :runforhills: Peer review isn't "hey, i like his ideology, so uh, we agree we don't believe you".  Did you look at the evolutionary interim species? did you validate your observations? did you ask for peer review to confirm you're not interjecting biases.. can you accept you may be wrong? i don't think you're doing any of those.


Yep, I validated my observations... I moved the flag up on the mail box several years after I moved the boots off the shelf. It worked just as slick and easy as it did the first time! And yes... my second wife was in the car with me... she confirmed my observations. I am pretty sure I even stated in my previous post "OOPSIE, I was wrong" so my answer has to be yes, on all three counts. Apparently I do know what I know... and its good to see you are able to form the words "I dont know" when you dont know.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, I validated my observations... I moved the flag up on the mail box several years after I moved the boots off the shelf. It worked just as slick and easy as it did the first time! And yes... my second wife was in the car with me... she confirmed my observations. I am pretty sure I even stated in my previous post "OOPSIE, I was wrong" so my answer has to be yes, on all three counts. Apparently I do know what I know... and its good to see you are able to form the words "I dont know" when you dont know.


:umno:


----------



## JJ Grandits

mnn2501 said:


> So where did God come from?
> Did God come first or the Universe?
> 
> Prove your answer please.


That's easy!!!!!

God always was. It's part of the Omnipresence He displays. He made the universe remember?

"Let there be light", and BANG, there was light. Its the preamble to the Big Bang theory.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thank you  Now see how easy that can be?


It is easy  I'm using the tools of science to figure it out too!

Bible doesn't mention these micro motors and proteins either. So please humor me, how are you looking to answer these questions? :thumb:


----------



## copperkid3

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thank you  Now see how easy that can be?


+++++++++++++++
that one has to be shamed into that simple admission.....

Oh wait.....that's right, it hasn't been proven that 'science' has any shame.


----------



## supernovae

JJ Grandits said:


> That's easy!!!!!
> 
> God always was. It's part of the Omnipresence He displays. He made the universe remember?
> 
> "Let there be light", and BANG, there was light. Its the preamble to the Big Bang theory.


Actually if you studied the big bang, there wasn't light at first. The post big bang & inflationary universe was dark before there was light (no photons). Light didn't happen until early hydrogen atoms formed from the quark-gluon mix (which took a while) and gravity started coalescing these atoms into super massive round objects we call stars that were short lived because they were too energetic and when they blew up they synthesized heavier elements and seeded the cosmos with stuff we call "matter" and eventually 5-6 billion years after this happened quite a few times, our solar system evolved when our sun accreted enough matter to start nuclear fusion and our star was born and through a period of "heavy bombardment" our planets eventually won out and cleared the path for our planet to evolve from molten rock to the blue planet it is today.

Curiously, What makes you so certain anything always was? We used to believe "always was" was a fact of life back when the prevalent belief was in "Steady state" universe. We have since realized that space is expanding and the universe is getting bigger and galaxies are getting further apart but for reasons that probably hurt most peoples minds - not that the galaxies are traveling apart from one other absolutely but that space itself is growing. (inflating) and yes, we can measure this with great precision and we see its relativistic effects on light through Doppler/redshifts.

All of this stuff is amazingly beautiful to think about and it amazes me how much people who presume to know so much about the world through their faith, don't actually know much as they proclaim while those of us humble enough to admit we don't know it all, can be enthusiastic about what we do know. (And still be made fun of as if that changes anything)

But instead of talking about this cool stuff, you fire off witty nonsensical comments that are about as far from the truth as possible as if they're facts.

I have no problems with people believing in their gods, i just reply to these threads because those beliefs should be based on an understanding of the world around us, not against it. It's the same "rationality" that lets you not believe in Zeus, Ra, Jupiter, Saturnella and so many other "gods".

Will this always be a never ending argument? can anyone answer why their belief in their gods have to justify their disbelief in specific facts and observations? Is that a rational view to hold?


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> So please humor me, how are you looking to answer these questions? :thumb:


I am not looking for any answers... God already told me what I need to know. After that little chat, a lot of things make perfect sense to me... even the bible!


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> A few hundred years from now we will look back at this and think "they thought THAT was complex?"


Ok, two things here.... first.... I doubt that WE will be looking back at very much that happens here during OUR lifetimes. 

Secondly.... Or they might just look back and say "wow! can you believe what those guys actually thought?!", although with how slow we actually figure things out that will be most likely 10 or 20 thousand years from now!


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> :umno:


Ok, whats wrong with that post? 



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, I validated my observations... I moved the flag up on the mail box several years after I moved the boots off the shelf. It worked just as slick and easy as it did the first time! And yes... my second wife was in the car with me... she confirmed my observations. I am pretty sure I even stated in my previous post "OOPSIE, I was wrong" so my answer has to be yes, on all three counts. Apparently I do know what I know... and its good to see you are able to form the words "I dont know" when you dont know.



I really tried very hard to answer your specific questions honestly, to the very best of my ability without hogging up a page and a half of typing useless irrelative information. What I get back is just "NO". (credit where its due, that beats a couple pages of irrelative useless information) Do you have any information that causes you to doubt my experiences? If so I am all ears, coz I dont recall you being there at the time. I was. :shrug:


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not looking for any answers... God already told me what I need to know. After that little chat, a lot of things make perfect sense to me... even the bible!


Really?


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Really?


Yes really, I dont just make this stuff up as I go along.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, whats wrong with that post?


It has nothing to do with topic at hand. Peer review isn't someone standing by and actually witnessing what you did. It's someone who is going to replicate the entire experiment and validate that what you did provides the same outcomes / predictions. Drastically different than what you said. 



> I really tried very hard to answer your specific questions honestly, to the very best of my ability without hogging up a page and a half of typing useless irrelative information.


I'm not sure how actually providing an answer to the questions i ask is considered useless.



> What I get back is just "NO". (credit where its due, that beats a couple pages of irrelative useless information) Do you have any information that causes you to doubt my experiences? If so I am all ears, coz I dont recall you being there at the time. I was. :shrug:


See top response above. Peer review isn't witness..


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes really, I dont just make this stuff up as I go along.


I find that hard to believe


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> It has nothing to do with topic at hand. Peer review isn't someone standing by and actually witnessing what you did. It's someone who is going to replicate the entire experiment and validate that what you did provides the same outcomes / predictions. Drastically different than what you said.
> 
> *so if I have a discussion with others who have indeed had these type experiences... and they all confirm they had the same or very similar results, would that count? *
> 
> I'm not sure how actually providing an answer to the questions i ask is considered useless.
> 
> * neither did I, but it just got an across the board flat "no". *


I am terribly sorry if my experiences dont always play by your rules. It doesnt make them any less valid or real.


----------



## Evons hubby

copperkid3 said:


> +++++++++++++++
> that one has to be shamed into that simple admission.....
> 
> Oh wait.....that's right, it hasn't been proven that 'science' has any shame.


aww, hes fine, and you gotta admit some of his responses are a bit shorter now.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am terribly sorry if my experiences dont always play by your rules. It doesnt make them any less valid or real.


I don't make up reality, I just learn as much about it as I can. I do love how people are even snarky when they appear to be apologetic.

Yes, there are views, ideas, thoughts and philosophies that are less valid and less real.

Do you still believe in Sun God Ra? Thunder God Zeus? Or are you going to say someone made those up and they're less valid/real to you?


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> I find that hard to believe


I have to wonder why? Is it because my experience happen to involve natural phenomena that you dont understand? Or is it that you havent had any similar experiences yourself to compare them to? Would you feel better if you had read about them in the science digest weekly? Seriously, I dont make this stuff up... its all very real, a bit tricky sometimes to reproduce at will, but still every bit as natural and real as lightning striking or birds flying. Would you doubt me if I told you that I heard a dog bark? Or that I saw a fish swim?


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> I don't make up reality, I just learn as much about it as I can. I do love how people are even snarky when they appear to be apologetic.
> 
> Yes, there are views, ideas, thoughts and philosophies that are less valid and less real.
> 
> Do you still believe in Sun God Ra? Thunder God Zeus? Or are you going to say someone made those up and they're less valid/real to you?


I cannot say one way or the other about anyone elses gods or their beliefs. I dont even discount your ideas and theories... I can only tell you about my experiences. Ra, and Zeus may very well be the same God I talked to... ok, not really talking, more like telepathy, but still thats not quite right either... lets just say we "understood" one another. I honestly dont have the required vocabulary to describe it. It really is quite an experience... one I hope everyone gets to have at some point in their lives.


----------



## Boo8meR

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I cannot say one way or the other about anyone elses gods or their beliefs. I dont even discount your ideas and theories... I can only tell you about my experiences. Ra, and Zeus may very well be the same God I talked to... ok, not really talking, more like telepathy, but still thats not quite right either... lets just say we "understood" one another. I honestly dont have the required vocabulary to describe it. It really is quite an experience... one I hope everyone gets to have at some point in their lives.




So let me get this straight - You can move things with your mind, you've spoken to god through telepathy, and you're not sure which god it was, yet you're a devout Christian?




JERRY! JERRY! JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> aww, hes fine, and you gotta admit some of his responses are a bit shorter now.


Really nothing worth responding to. You have no interest in learning, no interest in being challenged and you're so invested in your beliefs that anything that challenges them deserves to be mocked and made fun of.

Is there much fun in that? I'm curious as to what you're trying to accomplish. Just get last word in?


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, two things here.... first.... I doubt that WE will be looking back at very much that happens here during OUR lifetimes.


I wouldn't be so sure of that. My grandmother lived through horse and carriage to people walking on the moon.



> Secondly.... Or they might just look back and say "wow! can you believe what those guys actually thought?!", although with how slow we actually figure things out that will be most likely 10 or 20 thousand years from now!


What makes you say that? It wasn't until Mr Hubble that we even know the universe was larger than our own galaxy and that was less than 100 years ago we discovered that.

Now we have a "Hubble" that can see the universe as it was nearly 11billion years ago in deep field observations. 

We're building the JWT to see back even further in infrared light and that's just a few years away.

150 years ago Darwin theorized evolution on observation, he had no clue genetics would come along and not only provide a mechanism for his theory but support it.

PC is only what, 35 years old, and now we have phones that are more capable than the computers that put man on the moon and cost people only a few hundred dollars... what used to be a huge box with limited functionality now sits in everyone's pocket ready to post cat pics to facebook.

I could go on and on, but i digress, is any of this convincing you of anything?


----------



## Evons hubby

Boo8meR said:


> So let me get this straight - You can move things with your mind, you've spoken to god through telepathy, and you're not sure which god it was, yet you're a devout Christian?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JERRY! JERRY! JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!


Nope. You are again reading things that I did not state. I said I "have" moved objects by thinking about it. I said I had a sitty down chat with God... (both past tense) not using speech as we know it, nor really telepathy either, that was different, my telepathic experience with another person was in common ordinary english... with God it was simply understanding one another... no language or speech at all. I cannot, nor have I ever said I can do either of these things whenever I want to... just that I have in the past. If you have read very many of my posts on this board, and this thread in particular you would know that I am not a "devout" anything... I have no use for any religion. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> I wouldn't be so sure of that. My grandmother lived through horse and carriage to people walking on the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you say that? It wasn't until Mr Hubble that we even know the universe was larger than our own galaxy and that was less than 100 years ago we discovered that.
> 
> Now we have a "Hubble" that can see the universe as it was nearly 11billion years ago in deep field observations.
> 
> We're building the JWT to see back even further in infrared light and that's just a few years away.
> 
> 150 years ago Darwin theorized evolution on observation, he had no clue genetics would come along and not only provide a mechanism for his theory but support it.
> 
> PC is only what, 35 years old, and now we have phones that are more capable than the computers that put man on the moon and cost people only a few hundred dollars... what used to be a huge box with limited functionality now sits in everyone's pocket ready to post cat pics to facebook.
> 
> *I could go on and on, but i digress, is any of this convincing you of anything?*


Well, it isnt really convincing me of anything I hadnt already suspected... but it does pretty much make it plain that you arent interested in learning as you are expounding upon the things you think you already know. You seem to be quite excited about everything science has already "learned", but tend to shun those things that are yet to be learned. (like God, or anything you regard as being "supernatural") 10 or 20 thousand years from now, I suspect most scientists will be absolutely laughing out loud at todays "theories".


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Really nothing worth responding to. You have no interest in learning, no interest in being challenged and you're so invested in your beliefs that anything that challenges them deserves to be mocked and made fun of.
> 
> Is there much fun in that? I'm curious as to what you're trying to accomplish. Just get last word in?


Wow! I hadnt read this when I made my last post.... notice how much we think alike! You mock God, and show no interest in learning about Him while I think scientists have a lot to learn! You might just be surprised at how much I have learned already in this thread, not counting all the other delightful threads and parts of this forum.


----------



## mnn2501

JJ Grandits said:


> That's easy!!!!!
> 
> God always was. It's part of the Omnipresence He displays. He made the universe remember?
> 
> "Let there be light", and BANG, there was light. Its the preamble to the Big Bang theory.



<<shakes head>>
and your proof for that is.......?

God always was (the answer I knew someone would give), then where was he before he created the universe?


----------



## Boo8meR

mnn2501 said:


> <<shakes head>>
> and your proof for that is.......?
> 
> God always was (the answer I knew someone would give), then where was he before he created the universe?




Cancun for Spring Break. I heard it's nice.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> I wouldn't be so sure of that. My grandmother lived through horse and carriage to people walking on the moon.


Yep, so did my grandparents. That however only took about 80 years, not the several hundred you mentioned. Do you really want to be a hundred years old? for a couple more hundred years?!?!? I am only 63 and if the next 37 do to me what the last ten have done.... naw... its going to be checkout time long before I see 100, much less 300!


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, it isnt really convincing me of anything I hadnt already suspected...


Like?



> but it does pretty much make it plain that you arent interested in learning as you are expounding upon the things you think you already know. You seem to be quite excited about everything science has already "learned", but tend to shun those things that are yet to be learned. (like God, or anything you regard as being "supernatural")


Because there is no evidence for anything supernatural. 



> 10 or 20 thousand years from now, I suspect most scientists will be absolutely laughing out loud at todays "theories".


You say that as if that's a bad thing. It would be absurd to claim we know everything and we're always right, which is why i have a problem with people claiming that about the bible 

And there you go using "Theories" in quotes. Should i always say "bible" ?


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, so did my grandparents. That however only took about 80 years, not the several hundred you mentioned. Do you really want to be a hundred years old? for a couple more hundred years?!?!? I am only 63 and if the next 37 do to me what the last ten have done.... naw... its going to be checkout time long before I see 100, much less 300!


I think you misunderstood me. In reality it took 10 years to get from blowing things up to get get to the moon. I was merely pointing out how my grandmother witnessed a generation of horses, the first cars, the first airplanes to man landing on the moon in just her life time and not just that but a universe going from one galaxy to 500 million galaxies. Huge changes.

But Yes, i don't mind living to be 100+. There is a lot in this world left to see, hear, read, watch, listen, observe, love, cherish and enjoy.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Because there is no evidence for anything supernatural.
> 
> *true, there is no evidence because there is nothing supernatural... its all perfectly natural. But there are those among us who deem a very large part of what is natural as being supernatural, I think mostly because they have not learned how to poke and prod it yet. when that happens science will finally begin to learn.*
> 
> You say that as if that's a bad thing. It would be absurd to claim we know everything and we're always right, which is why i have a problem with people claiming that about the bible


Again, we seem to be in agreement. The bible is a very difficult thing to understand. Kinda like describing color to a person born blind... they have nothing in their world of darkness to compare it to.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Again, we seem to be in agreement. The bible is a very difficult thing to understand. Kinda like describing color to a person born blind... they have nothing in their world of darkness to compare it to.


No we're not in agreement. The bible is metaphor designed for interpretation. Color itself, isn't metaphor. Color is how elements react to photons and what part of the spectrum is absorbed or reflected and how our eyes interpret that.

Using color in art to convey emotions is a subjective view such as trying to convey the words of the bible.

But that isn't what you're trying to do. You're trying to tell me the bible is objectively the word of god, objectively the way of life and our objective reality.

Which way do you want it? Or do you not notice that you're even doing this?

If the bible is so interpretative then god isn't our objective reality but a subjective view thereof and if this is indeed how you see the bible, why can't you accept objective scientific facts about our world? Why would they conflict?


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> But Yes, i don't mind living to be 100+. There is a lot in this world left to see, hear, read, watch, listen, observe, love, cherish and enjoy.


Interesting.... have you ever been 100+ years old? I havent, my daddy went blind 10 years before he passed at 90... was not able to walk after about 75, had nobody to love... his wife passed several years prior to him. he had extremely little to observe and enjoy. His last words before he left us was "ok, please come and get me out of here now" with his arms stretched out toward whoever it was that he was "looking" at that nobody else in the room could see. That was his last moment in this realm. Wish you the best of luck retaining your health and abilitys till well past a hundred... but I wouldnt count on it.


----------



## watcher

mnn2501 said:


> So where did God come from?
> Did God come first or the Universe?
> 
> Prove your answer please.


Where did the universe come from? Prove your answer please.

As you well know we do know were it came from therefore you can not prove anything. As I have stated before for all we know the big bang was nothing but an other dimension firecracker going off. We might be nothing more than the residue of someone Independence Day celebration.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> No we're not in agreement. The bible is metaphor designed for interpretation. Color itself, isn't metaphor. Color is how elements react to photons and what part of the spectrum is absorbed or reflected and how our eyes interpret that.
> 
> Using color in art to convey emotions is a subjective view such as trying to convey the words of the bible.
> 
> But that isn't what you're trying to do. You're trying to tell me the bible is objectively the word of god, objectively the way of life and our objective reality.
> 
> Which way do you want it? Or do you not notice that you're even doing this?
> 
> If the bible is so interpretative then god isn't our objective reality but a subjective view thereof and if this is indeed how you see the bible, why can't you accept objective scientific facts about our world? Why would they conflict?


WOW! just wow! I had to go back and check to make sure you were responding to me! You seem to have me terribly confused with some one else! I have never ever, not in this thread or any other, tryed to tell you nor anyone else about the bible being... how did you put that... "objectively the word of god, objectively the way of life and our objective reality." At most I may have said its much easier to understand since some of my experiences... but I most certainly did not try to convince anyone that its contents were "the word of God" or any kind of "way of life" or our "objective reality! To the best of my knowledge the bible is a collection of writings written by men... regular guys like you and myself not God. Ok, some of the authors seemed to be pretty bright and some were pretty wise... but they were all just men... and maybe some women too. not sure who authored Ruth. 

Oh, and I dont have any problem at all with accepting facts. There are some ideas and theories floating around out there that do give me cause for question... but facts are all good with me.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Yes, carbon dating has its limitations, which is why radioactive decay, among several other methods, are used for older dating. What is your problem with those methods?


Are they not based on the same theories as C14 dating?


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> "Science can be just as much of a religion as any other belief system. Its based on faith." Maybe on your planet it is, but here on Earth, science is not based on faith. If the only argument FOR your beliefs is trying to claim science is "just as bad", maybe you need some better beliefs. Logically, trying to drag science down to religion's level makes no sense because it does nothing to prove religion is true.


Read what I have posted specifically about what we "know" about the interstellar universe. Most if it is base on scientist having faith in what they believe not on anything they have proof of. 

Dark matter is a very good example. The only 'proof' they have is their theories and equations don't fit the real universe they can see and measure. Because what they saw didn't fit their theories and equations they didn't question their theories or equations they just decided there must be something out that they can't see which is making the universe act 'wrong'. So to keep their theories and equations 'correct' the made up the 'fact' that there is some "dark matter" out there which distorts things in such a way that NOW their theories and equations work out fine. Wheew that was close wasn't it? Good thing we 'found' that dark matter other wise we'd have to say almost everything we "know" about interstellar space was WRONG.

So they believe in something which they have no proof of which is the definition of faith and of course faith is the base of all religions.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting.... have you ever been 100+ years old? I havent, my daddy went blind 10 years before he passed at 90... was not able to walk after about 75, had nobody to love... his wife passed several years prior to him. he had extremely little to observe and enjoy. His last words before he left us was "ok, please come and get me out of here now" with his arms stretched out toward whoever it was that he was "looking" at that nobody else in the room could see. That was his last moment in this realm. Wish you the best of luck retaining your health and abilitys till well past a hundred... but I wouldnt count on it.


For as many people who have suffered, there are those who succeed. There is a 100+ year old man still running a few miles a day and recently finishing a marathon.

Life is full of choices. I know if i want to live to a healthy ripe old age, I have to make choices that support that. I have to eat healthy, watch my weight, take care of myself, stay fit and strive to do what it is i enjoy to do.

I'm sorry anyone has to suffer and want to die. I don't expect it to be easy to have my friends and peers dying all around me, but i can accept that is just the reality of life and i can either choose to continue to live the life i enjoy living or i can give up. I won't pretend it will be easy.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> Read what I have posted specifically about what we "know" about the interstellar universe. Most if it is base on scientist having faith in what they believe not on anything they have proof of.


Absolutely not and just because you think this is so doesn't make it true.



> Dark matter is a very good example. The only 'proof' they have is their theories and equations don't fit the real universe they can see and measure.


Once again, not true. We can observe the impact of "dark matter" by our observations of "gravitational lensing". Once we caculate the amount of mass needed to cause such gravitational warping of space then we see that there has to be some other "matter" that we haven't yet found. It's a problem that is the result of not just mathematical theory but observation.



> Because what they saw didn't fit their theories and equations they didn't question their theories or equations they just decided there must be something out that they can't see which is making the universe act 'wrong'.


Hogwash once again. There are still many scientists trying to experiment or show other alternatives and no scientist will say they "like" dark matter as they would rather know what it is. But there is still *something* there that we just don't understand but we can calculate the mass/energy disbursement needed for that "matter" to explain our observations.




> So to keep their theories and equations 'correct' the made up the 'fact' that there is some "dark matter" out there which distorts things in such a way that NOW their theories and equations work out fine. Wheew that was close wasn't it? Good thing we 'found' that dark matter other wise we'd have to say almost everything we "know" about interstellar space was WRONG.


Wrong again.



> So they believe in something which they have no proof of which is the definition of faith and of course faith is the base of all religions.


We have observations and proof for dark matter / dark energy. Its just left such a boring name because we don't yet know what it is. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Why are you still ignoring the fact we have deep space measurements and experimental evidence for the speed of light in a vacuum? why are you trying to say you know better than all of the scientists and experimentalists who have data that suggests otherwise? What is the point of what you're trying to convey?

While i went through all this explanation to describe how we know it is what we know, in the end, it doesn't matter what we find because what we find will be proven through evidence, observation and experimentation. 

Some background on dark energy/matter..

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> WOW! just wow! I had to go back and check to make sure you were responding to me! You seem to have me terribly confused with some one else! I have never ever, not in this thread or any other, tryed to tell you nor anyone else about the bible being... how did you put that... "objectively the word of god, objectively the way of life and our objective reality." At most I may have said its much easier to understand since some of my experiences... but I most certainly did not try to convince anyone that its contents were "the word of God" or any kind of "way of life" or our "objective reality! To the best of my knowledge the bible is a collection of writings written by men... regular guys like you and myself not God. Ok, some of the authors seemed to be pretty bright and some were pretty wise... but they were all just men... and maybe some women too. not sure who authored Ruth.


If this is true, why are you trying to convince me otherwise?



> Oh, and I dont have any problem at all with accepting facts. There are some ideas and theories floating around out there that do give me cause for question... but facts are all good with me.


Then why hold a grudge against the sciences? What is causing you to not understand evolution, cosmology and such? Are you here just having fun being snarky and not really meaning the replies you say?

I don't understand why you keep posting to this thread and yet, clarifying exactly opposite to what you post.

You throw around a god and reality and bible as if they're objective comparisons to objective science and that by only accepting science i'm missing the objective reality of your god and bible.

If you really believe that your god and bible is subjective, it surely doesn't match the comments where you claim otherwise.

Yes, i you may not be choosing to say "objective" or "subjective" in how you choose to say something, i'm only using those words to try and make sense of whatever it is you're trying to imply.

If god/bible/religion is subjective then it obviously can't be hurt by objective sciences and shouldn't be taught as if it was an objective science and it would not need to have man walking with dinosaurs for it to be true as it is entirely subjective in the end.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> we have deep space measurements and experimental evidence for the speed of light in a vacuum


Ok, I find this tidbit rather interesting. A few pages back it seems like I read that there is no real such thing as a vacuum... not even in deep outer space... something about space itself being filled with something or another. If that is the case, then it would be a tad tricky to measure the speed of light in a vacuum. Perhaps you know about this and could bring me up to speed. 



supernovae said:


> it doesn't matter what we find because what we find will be proven through evidence, observation and experimentation.


cool! This sounds a lot like Columbus's plea to Isabella... we dont really know where we are going, wont know where we are when we get there, and will have no idea of where we were when we get back... could ya spare a few hunks of gold so we can go?


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I find this tidbit rather interesting. A few pages back it seems like I read that there is no real such thing as a vacuum... not even in deep outer space... something about space itself being filled with something or another. If that is the case, then it would be a tad tricky to measure the speed of light in a vacuum. Perhaps you know about this and could bring me up to speed.


Space is a vacuum but it is still something. Even when we build a vacuum chamber here in earth, its devoid of anything we consider "matter" (as much as we can do so) but it still is part of our "space". That vacuum has an energy to it, has particles popping in and out of existence and is still part of our "fabric" of space-time. 

I honestly don't know much about it other than the book i've referenced a few time and even then, its impossibly hard for our minds to wrap around something we don't deal with on a daily basis. We evolved to handle survival on our relatively dangerous blue planet - not on the scales of billions of light years of "Space".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy



> cool! This sounds a lot like Columbus's plea to Isabella... we dont really know where we are going, wont know where we are when we get there, and will have no idea of where we were when we get back... could ya spare a few hunks of gold so we can go?


It is an adventure! and that why i hope to live to a 100 to absorb as much of it as i can :thumb:


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> If this is true, why are you trying to convince me otherwise?
> * I am not. but you do seem to be somewhat confused. perhaps you have me mixed up with some of the religious posters?*
> 
> 
> Then why hold a grudge against the sciences? What is causing you to not understand evolution, cosmology and such? Are you here just having fun being snarky and not really meaning the replies you say?
> *I have no "grudge" against the sciences. Just dont think they know quite as much as they think they do sometimes. *
> 
> I don't understand why you keep posting to this thread and yet, clarifying exactly opposite to what you post.
> *I cant help it if you infer things that I do not type. Perhaps if you read closely the words that I post, without trying to find hidden meanings it would help. *
> You throw around a god and reality and bible as if they're objective comparisons to objective science and that by only accepting science i'm missing the objective reality of your god and bible.
> 
> *Again, your perception of my posts seem to be somewhat different than what I write... I do NOT throw around any God, or reality, nor bible. I have related to you some of MY PERSONAL experiences, which you say you doubt, and yes, I have mentioned that by overlooking a vast area of knowledge that could be learned, that you are missing out on that. I dont use the bible or any God to convince you of a thing. I fail to understand why you think I have done so. *
> 
> If you really believe that your god and bible is subjective, it surely doesn't match the comments where you claim otherwise.
> 
> Yes, i you may not be choosing to say "objective" or "subjective" in how you choose to say something, i'm only using those words to try and make sense of whatever it is you're trying to imply.
> *I do hope you can make sense of it, coz you lost me!  *
> If god/bible/religion is subjective then it obviously can't be hurt by objective sciences and shouldn't be taught as if it was an objective science and it would not need to have man walking with dinosaurs for it to be true as it is entirely subjective in the end.


well, one theory is as good as another.... particularly when some openly admit to not really knowing. Me? I am pretty sure I mentioned earlier that we still have dinosaurs with us today... maybe not some of the ones we had a while back... but a gator gets hold of you, pretty sure you will think hes a nasty critter just the same. Now those lil horny toads we played with as kids are not so bad... but even though they are small, they still bite purty good. Gar aint bad eating... if ya like fish.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> Space is a vacuum but it is still something. Even when we build a vacuum chamber here in earth, its devoid of anything we consider "matter" (as much as we can do so) but it still is part of our "space". That vacuum has an energy to it, has particles popping in and out of existence and is still part of our "fabric" of space-time.
> 
> I honestly don't know much about it other than the book i've referenced a few time and even then,* its impossibly hard for our minds to wrap around something we don't deal with on a daily basis.* We evolved to handle survival on our relatively dangerous blue planet - not on the scales of billions of light years of "Space".
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy


Thanks for the link... I especially like that part about "vacuum catastrophe". 

As to dealing with things we dont see on a daily basis... I have wrapped my mind around a bunch of stuff that most people will probably never see. Its really not that difficult if one opens their minds to the possibilities.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> well, one theory is as good as another.... particularly when some openly admit to not really knowing.


lets take the Newtonian mechanics. It's good enough for us to get somewhere sure, we used the ideas to get to the moon and send robots across the solar system but it didn't describe well enough observations we were making and we knew we needed more. Then comes Einstein and relativity. Both of these are "Valid" in that they "work", but one has more precision and more predictions and one explains the quirks of where the other failed. BUT, both are founded on the same ideas, proofs, concepts and theory through sound scientific research and observation.

Saying god did it, isn't "one theory is as good as another..." is it?



> Me? I am pretty sure I mentioned earlier that we still have dinosaurs with us today... maybe not some of the ones we had a while back... but a gator gets hold of you, pretty sure you will think hes a nasty critter just the same. Now those lil horny toads we played with as kids are not so bad... but even though they are small, they still bite purty good. Gar aint bad eating... if ya like fish.


Mammals started showing up with the dinosaurs and lots of ancestors of dinosaurs are around today, however, crocodiles and alligators are crocodiles and alligators  

i love fish.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> lets take the Newtonian mechanics. It's good enough for us to get somewhere sure, we used the ideas to get to the moon and send robots across the solar system but it didn't describe well enough observations we were making and we knew we needed more. Then comes Einstein and relativity. Both of these are "Valid" in that they "work", but one has more precision and more predictions and one explains the quirks of where the other failed. BUT, both are founded on the same ideas, proofs, concepts and theory through sound scientific research and observation.
> 
> Saying god did it, isn't "one theory is as good as another..." is it?
> 
> 
> 
> Mammals started showing up with the dinosaurs and lots of ancestors of dinosaurs are around today, however, crocodiles and alligators are crocodiles and alligators
> 
> i love fish.


According to my history teacher... and its been a while so please forgive me if I am wrong.... uncle al brought forward his theory of relativity some years before we ever went to the moon... or even had developed the rockets that would someday enable us to do so. 

now, saying "God did it" is every bit as valid a statement as anything else. I have yet to see a shred of evidence by any scientist that proves otherwise. Before you reply... do me a favor and look very very closely at what I said.... "God did it".... that is all, dont add anything to that theory. Dont apply any religion to it, dont pull up any scriptures out of the bible or anywhere else... just look at those three words and think about their meaning. If you can do that maybe just maybe you will get my point.


----------



## mnn2501

watcher said:


> Where did the universe come from? Prove your answer please.
> .


That's the exact question I was responding to.


----------



## copperkid3

Nevada said:


> The shuttle accidents weren't the result of bad science, they were the result of bad technology.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the lowest bid got the contract? :tmi:


Perhaps more of a combination of both.....


----------



## JJ Grandits

supernovae said:


> Actually if you studied the big bang, there wasn't light at first. The post big bang & inflationary universe was dark before there was light (no photons). Light didn't happen until early hydrogen atoms formed from the quark-gluon mix (which took a while) and gravity started coalescing these atoms into super massive round objects we call stars that were short lived because they were too energetic and when they blew up they synthesized heavier elements and seeded the cosmos with stuff we call "matter" and eventually 5-6 billion years after this happened quite a few times, our solar system evolved when our sun accreted enough matter to start nuclear fusion and our star was born and through a period of "heavy bombardment" our planets eventually won out and cleared the path for our planet to evolve from molten rock to the blue planet it is today.
> 
> Curiously, What makes you so certain anything always was? We used to believe "always was" was a fact of life back when the prevalent belief was in "Steady state" universe. We have since realized that space is expanding and the universe is getting bigger and galaxies are getting further apart but for reasons that probably hurt most peoples minds - not that the galaxies are traveling apart from one other absolutely but that space itself is growing. (inflating) and yes, we can measure this with great precision and we see its relativistic effects on light through Doppler/redshifts.
> 
> All of this stuff is amazingly beautiful to think about and it amazes me how much people who presume to know so much about the world through their faith, don't actually know much as they proclaim while those of us humble enough to admit we don't know it all, can be enthusiastic about what we do know. (And still be made fun of as if that changes anything)
> 
> But instead of talking about this cool stuff, you fire off witty nonsensical comments that are about as far from the truth as possible as if they're facts.
> 
> I have no problems with people believing in their gods, i just reply to these threads because those beliefs should be based on an understanding of the world around us, not against it. It's the same "rationality" that lets you not believe in Zeus, Ra, Jupiter, Saturnella and so many other "gods".
> 
> Will this always be a never ending argument? can anyone answer why their belief in their gods have to justify their disbelief in specific facts and observations? Is that a rational view to hold?


 
Wow, you ought to be a real blast at a party.

I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. Faith is an incredible power. Thank you for having no problem with it. 
As far as facts and observations and their disbelief is a matter of opinion. I could seriously ask you the same question.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Absolutely not and just because you think this is so doesn't make it true.


Ah, so you have the standard 'proof' required by science that the speed of light is the same in interstellar space? That is peer review and repeatable experiments showing it to be true? Or is it just assumed that the gravity fields have no effect on light at all?




supernovae said:


> Once again, not true. We can observe the impact of "dark matter" by our observations of "gravitational lensing". Once we caculate the amount of mass needed to cause such gravitational warping of space then we see that there has to be some other "matter" that we haven't yet found. It's a problem that is the result of not just mathematical theory but observation.


IOW, because what you did have faith in happening wasn't happening you decided the you couldn't be wrong there must be something out there causing the problem. Even though you have no real idea of what that was you came up with "dark matter".




supernovae said:


> Hogwash once again. There are still many scientists trying to experiment or show other alternatives and no scientist will say they "like" dark matter as they would rather know what it is. But there is still *something* there that we just don't understand but we can calculate the mass/energy disbursement needed for that "matter" to explain our observations.


No, you just have FAITH that there is something there because your religion says that it must be that way. What if the problem is that light in interstellar space doesn't follow the same rules as within a solar system? To keep the faith in science the fact that your numbers and what you see don't "add up" must be explained away.




supernovae said:


> We have observations and proof for dark matter / dark energy. Its just left such a boring name because we don't yet know what it is. Why is this so hard to grasp?


You have observations and proof that what you expected to happen isn't happening. You then decided that to make your current rules apply you must bring in something to make the work. You, like other religious followers, refuse to believe that the basic tennets of your belief system could be wrong.




supernovae said:


> Why are you still ignoring the fact we have deep space measurements


And we got these measurements how? By using the old d=s*t using the light and radio wave and assuming the speed is c. Remember how we know the speed of light in space because we bounce light off the moon, right?




supernovae said:


> and experimental evidence for the speed of light in a vacuum?


Big HONK. I have said NOTHING about the speed of light in a vacuum. I am talking about the effect of gravity on light. There is NO way, currently, to study what effect a gravity void or a huge gravity field might have on light. You will admit that gravity has an effect on light will you not?




supernovae said:


> why are you trying to say you know better than all of the scientists and experimentalists who have data that suggests otherwise? What is the point of what you're trying to convey?


My point is very simple. You are talking about all the stuff we know about interstellar space (e.g. how far a star is from earth and which way it is moving) like there is absolutely no question about it. My point is all if it is built on faith. The faith that the speed of light is constant through out the known universe. It is based on faith because you have and can not get proof of this. And because all of this is taken on faith any questioning of it is howled at.

Think about it. Say someone said that they knew all pigs were brown, have proof that all pigs are brown and they showed you a bunch of pictures of brown pigs. Then a black pig runs by and you pointed it out to them and they said well its actually brown pig it just looks black because there's something in the air between us and the pig which makes it look black. They can't see what it is, they can't measure what it is but because they KNOW all pigs are brown then it must be there. You'd think they were crazy would you not?

You are so wrapped up in your belief that all of this is fact you refuse to even look at how its built on something which scientist claim to hate, unproven and unprovable assumptions.


----------



## watcher

mnn2501 said:


> That's the exact question I was responding to.


Don't you mean deflected? 

Come on, surely you know where all the matter/energy in the universe came from. Science has to have an answer doesn't it?

Tell us what it was and provide proof. 

If you can't then I guess the guy who thinks we are all nothing but debris from some other dimensional firecracker has just as much validity as a scientist with PhDs in six fields. Because NEITHER can provide any more proof than the other.

Which is my point. Science can be just as much as a religion as any other faith based system.


----------



## mnn2501

watcher said:


> Don't you mean deflected?
> 
> Come on, surely you know where all the matter/energy in the universe came from. Science has to have an answer doesn't it?
> 
> Tell us what it was and provide proof.


Science is about learning new things from observation and experimentation thus will never have "All the answers" at any point in time, but will be continually growing.

Religion CLAIMS to have all the answers yet offers only faith as proof.


----------



## supernovae

JJ Grandits said:


> Wow, you ought to be a real blast at a party.


And this means what? They teach this simple logic exercise in school and you can take logic courses at coursera and edx for free from a bunch of ivy league and top notch schools. 



> As far as facts and observations and their disbelief is a matter of opinion. I could seriously ask you the same question.


Ask me any question then. I'm not afraid to give answers. 

I absolutely disagree that disbelief of facts is matter of opinion. I find that not only deceitful but immoral. I can't accept people lying to themselves and their peers as being reasonable or ethical.

Now, being skeptical of claims that require skepticism (until evidence supports them) - that is perfectly valid and moral.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> Come on, surely you know where all the matter/energy in the universe came from. Science has to have an answer doesn't it?


Science doesn't have to answer anything. It only describes what you want it to describe. 



> Tell us what it was and provide proof.


Do you ask this of your own god?



> If you can't then I guess the guy who thinks we are all nothing but debris from some other dimensional firecracker has just as much validity as a scientist with PhDs in six fields. Because NEITHER can provide any more proof than the other.


This is where you jump into nonsense. Just because we don't know what was there prior to the big bang, doesn't mean we can't predict what it could have been using our understanding of the big bang and all of the matter that exists afterwards.

After all, nothing in any of our models predicts a supernatural power that did it.

So we keep using the tools of science to increase our knowledge. Something we don't speak of in terms of absolutes but in terms of curiosity.



> Which is my point. Science can be just as much as a religion as any other faith based system.


You have no point. You have an agenda, you have a bias and you have an argument.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> Ah, so you have the standard 'proof' required by science that the speed of light is the same in interstellar space? That is peer review and repeatable experiments showing it to be true? Or is it just assumed that the gravity fields have no effect on light at all?


Yes, there is mountains of proof of the speed of light and yes, gravity will warp space time thus altering the path that a photon travels through. It's relativity 101. Why are you even asking this? Gravity warps space-time, photons "travel" through space-time relative to us and thus gravity has an impact. 

Just what kind of effect do you think gravity has on light? You seem to believe it does something it doesn't.




> You are so wrapped up in your belief that all of this is fact you refuse to even look at how its built on something which scientist claim to hate, unproven and unprovable assumptions.


You have no clue what you're talking and its blatantly obvious as such. 

I must ask, what is your point? Seriously. What is your point in digging such a deep hole to hate something you obviously have no basic understanding of? What are you trying to accomplish in misleading others who seem to naively agree with you?

Why do you blame me for this hole you have dug? Why do you project your fears and uncertainties upon me? Why do you hold your faith in something unknowable as an absolute truth and then question my honesty and integrity in saying "i don't know" as if that is absolute and wrong?

You have the world backwards and you want me to apologize for it, i won't. You need to do your own soul searching as what you're trying to do is not only insulting to anyone with a fleeting interest in basic knowledge and rational debate but very unbecoming as well. 

You project your agenda, you project your biases and hardly anyone here calls it out. In fact, a few seem to like it. Others have asked why i even bother responding to your nonsense and its for this very reason. Someone needs to stand up and call nonsense for what it is.

You read this forum and day in, day out people complain the world is getting dumber and worse off. Is it because a lot of people are so deep in it that they take a sense of pride in it? Is that all it comes down to? 

We have answers right in front of us and it seems people are more invested in the deceit than they are the truth, yet they run around claiming to know the truth and that truth is their religion or their god. You don't see that as being a problem? science isn't faith, it isn't a religion. Even if you project it is, the only thing you are still doing is lying to yourself.

If you want to continue this discussion, lets teach you about physics, electromagnetism, general relativity, chemistry and biology. Any other reference for the world outside of science is using ones "Faith" to project how they want it to be.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> If you want to continue this discussion, lets teach you about physics, electromagnetism, general relativity, chemistry and biology. Any other reference for the world outside of science is using ones "Faith" to project how they want it to be.


I can teach him a little about physics.... they are designed to flush the system... dont take too much or you will spend the day runnin to the outhouse. 

General relativity? Its been my experience that relatives are generally a pain in the backside... always wanting to borrow money, or expecting you to pay it back! 

Biology is a lot more fun when you learn it in the barn loft with that neighbor girl. 

Chemistry? see above 

electomagnetism.... I like that one... lets talk about what magnetism is first, then we can get into electrifying it.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I can teach him a little about physics.... they are designed to flush the system... dont take too much or you will spend the day runnin to the outhouse.
> 
> General relativity? Its been my experience that relatives are generally a pain in the backside... always wanting to borrow money, or expecting you to pay it back!
> 
> Biology is a lot more fun when you learn it in the barn loft with that neighbor girl.
> 
> Chemistry? see above
> 
> electomagnetism.... I like that one... lets talk about what magnetism is first, then we can get into electrifying it.


Science isn't taken seriously by a lot of Americans. I suppose that the TV show Big Bang Theory plays a part in that. That show makes it easier to be tongue-in-cheek about science and technology.

Science education can give us an advantage on the world stage. It has a huge influence on our economy, and that's not to mention the public safety benefits.

I think the USA is unique in their favoring religion over science. I was astounded to learn that a poll showed that 2/3rds of Americans would reject a scientific principle that conflicted with their religion. That's a huge number. It's as if we're voluntarily stunting our own future.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Science isn't taken seriously by a lot of Americans. I suppose that the TV show Big Bang Theory plays a part in that. That show makes it easier to be tongue-in-cheek about science and technology.
> 
> Science education can give us an advantage on the world stage. It has a huge influence on our economy, and that's not to mention the public safety benefits.
> 
> I think the USA is unique in their favoring religion over science. I was astounded to learn that a poll showed that 2/3rds of Americans would reject a scientific principle that conflicted with their religion. That's a huge number. It's as if we're voluntarily stunting our own future.


I take science quite seriously, wish the science guys would. 
Just think how much further advanced we could be if scientists would quit refusing to look in that box over in the corner that has the really neat answers!  

How advantageous would it be to be able to get from point a to point c without going through point b? just leave point a and be at point c! how advantageous would it be if we didnt need machines to do our lifting, fetching and toting for us? Thats just a couple of examples of things our science guys refuse to even look into. There are forces in nature that have yet to be identified, explored and understood.... we didnt always know about electricity, still dont know much about gravity or magnetism... beyond how they behave... it all pretty much a mystery.


----------



## watcher

mnn2501 said:


> Science is about learning new things from observation and experimentation thus will never have "All the answers" at any point in time, but will be continually growing.
> 
> Religion CLAIMS to have all the answers yet offers only faith as proof.


Funny I have met just as many science folk who thought science could explain everything as I have members of other religions.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Do you ask this of your own god?


So you are admitting that science is your god?




supernovae said:


> This is where you jump into nonsense. Just because we don't know what was there prior to the big bang, doesn't mean we can't predict what it could have been using our understanding of the big bang and all of the matter that exists afterwards.


You might need to work on your reading comprehension. I never said what you are suggesting I said. What I said was because there is no proof nor any way to prove it all theories about what caused the big bang must be considered equally valid. Its easily proven that a firecracker could expel matter and energy in a pattern similar to what we see in space. Therefore there is 'proof' that it could have happened. 




supernovae said:


> After all, nothing in any of our models predicts a supernatural power that did it.


There's nothing which says a supernatural power didn't do it either, correct?




supernovae said:


> You have no point. You have an agenda, you have a bias and you have an argument.


I don't have an agenda I have several. One is to show the closed mindedness of many scientist. A 'discussion' between two scientist with different views can become just as heated as one between any different religious believers. Another is to show people that many scientist follow science as though it was their religion. Another is to point out that most of what scientist say they know is based on nothing more than faith. The last is to make people question what scientist spout as fact. The last is the most important because that is what actually keeps science advancing.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> Yes, there is mountains of proof of the speed of light and yes, gravity will warp space time thus altering the path that a photon travels through. It's relativity 101. Why are you even asking this? Gravity warps space-time, photons "travel" through space-time relative to us and thus gravity has an impact.
> 
> Just what kind of effect do you think gravity has on light? You seem to believe it does something it doesn't.


The point is we know that gravity has some effect on light. But we have no real idea everything gravity does to light. Put another way we have no idea how the absents of gravity might affect it. Therefore you can not state as a 'fact' or as 'proven' many of the things you are about the universe. 




supernovae said:


> If you want to continue this discussion, lets teach you about physics, electromagnetism, general relativity, chemistry and biology. Any other reference for the world outside of science is using ones "Faith" to project how they want it to be.


I know plenty about all those. I did take the minimum bio classes due to the fact you need to be able to spell. The others rely much more on number crunching.

I know that they all have many things we must currently take on faith. We have no concrete idea about something as simple as what keeps an atom from flying apart. We think we know how chemical bonds/reactions work but because we can't really 'see' what's happening its still more or less guessing. 

I love learning, don't have as much time as I did decades ago, and the very basic thing about learning is questioning everything and demanding proof when something is given as known or fact. When you say we "know" how far a star is from the earth I demand proof and demand you show that each part of you proof is itself proven.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I take science quite seriously, wish the science guys would.
> Just think how much further advanced we could be if scientists would quit refusing to look in that box over in the corner that has the really neat answers!


I'm guessing the box in the corner contains the Bible.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I'm guessing the box in the corner contains the Bible.


Naw, thats where they toss everything they deem to be "supernatural". It really isnt, its as natural as birds flying and fish swimming... but the science guys toss anything they dont see everyday in the box and forget about it. Theres some pretty neat stuff in that box. 

The bible is some pretty good reading though, I was always rather fond of the book of Job myself.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> The point is we know that gravity has some effect on light. But we have no real idea everything gravity does to light. Put another way we have no idea how the absents of gravity might affect it. Therefore you can not state as a 'fact' or as 'proven' many of the things you are about the universe.


We absolutely do know this. That is exactly my point. We know how light behaves with and without gravity.

We know it so well we can measure the impact of gravity on light and its part of the way by which we understand the universe is expanding. 

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961102.html
*
Snippet from article:*

_"Now, being scientists, we do not just accept theories like general relativity or conclusions like photons have no mass. We constantly test them, trying to definitively prove or disprove. So far, general relativity has withstood every test. And try as we might, we can measure no mass for the photon. We can just put upper limits on what mass it can have. These upper limits are determined by the sensitivity of the experiment we are using to try to "weigh the photon". The last number I saw was that a photon, if it has any mass at all, must be less than 4 x 10-48 grams. For comparison, the electron has a mass of 9 x 10-28 grams. "_

This is exactly why we trust the data because we have tested it so well we haven't found anything that contradicts it.

What is going through your mind that you think everyone is missing or hasn't been tested?



> I know plenty about all those. I did take the minimum bio classes due to the fact you need to be able to spell. The others rely much more on number crunching.


Biology class doesn't cover electromagnetism, photons and general relativity or spelling.



> I know that they all have many things we must currently take on faith. We have no concrete idea about something as simple as what keeps an atom from flying apart. We think we know how chemical bonds/reactions work but because we can't really 'see' what's happening its still more or less guessing.


It's far from guessing, its studying it and describing it in such a way that we know it to be true as much as we can test it. If it was based on faith, it wouldn't be science as there would be no evidence to support the theory and nothing would be testable. I'm not sure why this is so hard to comprehend.



> I love learning, don't have as much time as I did decades ago, and the very basic thing about learning is questioning everything and demanding proof when something is given as known or fact. When you say we "know" how far a star is from the earth I demand proof and demand you show that each part of you proof is itself proven.


I have given this to you several times and the fact of the matter is that you don't demand proof at all and when given proof, you don't accept it. You demand that people capitulate to your own personal theory that science is faith all the meanwhile ignoring the fact that science is absolutely not "Faith" in the same regard you make it out to be. You never debate or dispute the data, you just spin the argument to be about semantics and relativism where there is none.

That is why i started talking about objective reality and subjective reality and basic logic, to show how science is based on objectivity and faith is deeply subjective to try and steer it back to facts.

science is falsifiable, we don't look at it as faith in absolute truths and arguing this as a disadvantage seems to suggest you know something better but won't share it, so please share.


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Naw, thats where they toss everything they deem to be "supernatural". It really isnt, its as natural as birds flying and fish swimming... but the science guys toss anything they dont see everyday in the box and forget about it. Theres some pretty neat stuff in that box.


What is in that box? I'm curious as to how you compare your supernatural box to the curiosity of that which we can explain through science?




> The bible is some pretty good reading though, I was always rather fond of the book of Job myself.


I found it contradictory and obtuse. Then again, I was subject to Mormon philosophy when i read it.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> What is in that box? I'm curious as to how you compare your supernatural box to the curiosity of that which we can explain through science?
> 
> 
> *"I" dont have a supernatural box... the science guys do... to me its all natural, just like I mentioned to Nevada. I have no idea what all they have in their box, but I have peeked and saw a couple things. I have shared those with you several times already, and you have simply tossed them back in the box, scoffing at the idea that they may even be real. Pretty much the same reaction everyone else gets when trying to present them to science. *
> 
> I found it contradictory and obtuse. Then again, I was subject to Mormon philosophy when i read it.


Which are you referring to? the bible or the book of Job?

ETA: and yes, being subjected to religion of any variety would have a tendency to keep a feller confused about God.


----------



## supernovae

watcher said:


> So you are admitting that science is your god?


Not at all, i'm just trying to figure out what your point is.



> You might need to work on your reading comprehension. I never said what you are suggesting I said. What I said was because there is no proof nor any way to prove it all theories about what caused the big bang must be considered equally valid. Its easily proven that a firecracker could expel matter and energy in a pattern similar to what we see in space. Therefore there is 'proof' that it could have happened.


You're making a subjective assertion without evidence, by which i can subjectively dismiss without evidence. You're playing an easy philosophical game here. You're not actually showing how our experiments are wrong or our data is wrong or our observations are wrong or that the theories have issues in them, you're subjectively dismissing them without any insight into the utility and validity of them.



> There's nothing which says a supernatural power didn't do it either, correct?


Again, with no evidence of supernatural power, i don't need to presume a supernatural power. Especially considering that for everything we know in the universe, there is no evidence for supernatural power and for what we used to explain through the supernatural, we have found natural causes - thus we don't believe in the 10s of thousands of other gods that used to cause our sun to rise, the thunder to strike and plagues to plague us.



> I don't have an agenda I have several. One is to show the closed mindedness of many scientist.


The truth comes out! Fight your perceived closed mindedness of scientists with ABSOLUTE CLOSED MINDEDNESS! Is that really your objective? Can you cite your example of open mindedness? There are many christians who are scientists who absolutely understand photons, gravity and evolution and wouldn't say man walked with dinosaurs. Are those people closed minded too?

BTW, Please do enlighten me on how scientists are closed minded.



> A 'discussion' between two scientist with different views can become just as heated as one between any different religious believers.


This is a cool thing, its by design. It helps alleviate "group think" which is a cognitive bias that we know through scientific study of the human mind.



> Another is to show people that many scientist follow science as though it was their religion.


You keep saying this, but a) it doesn't really matter b) it isn't even fundamentally true if you try and make it matter. It changes nothing about reality to say a scientist is religious or not religious or that they treat science like a religion. Some people may do all of the above but it doesn't matter.




> Another is to point out that most of what scientist say they know is based on nothing more than faith. The last is to make people question what scientist spout as fact. The last is the most important because that is what actually keeps science advancing.


Again, you and that word of faith. You're applying it in the wrong context and you're not understanding that. Science is about objectivity - the objective world around us. It is NOT based on personal preference or the logic of "subjectivity". You're implying the faith of religiosity but using "Faith" in terms of trust and i say this because your vehemently saying science is a religion and not talking about it as a trust relationship built on validation and observation. Validation and observation don't need faith for the validation and observations means you can confirm its very existence - something you can't do with supernatural.

Dp you understand this now?


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> BTW, Please do enlighten me on how scientists are closed minded.


Hint... go look in the box.


----------



## mnn2501

watcher said:


> Funny I have met just as many science folk who thought science could explain everything


No you have not. Scientists know there is a limit to their knowledge at this time, science continues to grow and learn new things


----------



## supernovae

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hint... go look in the box.


I did, when i opened it up, there was an amazing telescope with a nice camera on it by which i was able to observe the universe and be amazed that we can know what we know to describe it as we do. Oh, and it had a box of oreos in it that i chowed down.

The reason the camera is needed is because our eyes don't act as collectors to capture photons for high resolution imaging of distant objects. Using a specialized camera cooled down to increase sensitivity i can open the shutter for 10 exposures of 1 hour each and then process these to create a high fidelity image of what i'm sampling - something we "Can't see" but "Can see" when we use our science and technology to extend and embrace our capabilities. I was also able to run a spectrogram on the light and actually see what the chemical composition of the emission was. Pretty cool.


----------



## JJ Grandits

supernovae said:


> And this means what? They teach this simple logic exercise in school and you can take logic courses at coursera and edx for free from a bunch of ivy league and top notch schools.
> 
> 
> 
> Ask me any question then. I'm not afraid to give answers.
> 
> I absolutely disagree that disbelief of facts is matter of opinion. I find that not only deceitful but immoral. I can't accept people lying to themselves and their peers as being reasonable or ethical.
> 
> Now, being skeptical of claims that require skepticism (until evidence supports them) - that is perfectly valid and moral.


What it means is that you appear to have a sleep inducing quality about you.

As far as the disbelief of facts being deceitful and immoral, Friend, you've just gone off the deep end. 
There are no facts, none, nada, zip. Only well thought out guesses. I learned this from a man who probably does not have your educational background. He only had two PhD's (geology and Biology).
He also said that taking something interesting and making it boring is a sign of limited intelligence. You might want to think about that.


----------



## supernovae

JJ Grandits said:


> What it means is that you appear to have a sleep inducing quality about you.


Ok.. whatever that means. If it was really sleep inducing this thread wouldn't be 70 pages would it? It wouldn't have tons of responses would it?



> As far as the disbief of facts being deceitful and immoral, Freind, you've just gone off the deep end.


How so?



> There are no facts, none, nada, zip. Only well thought out guesses. I learned this from a man who probably does not have your educational background. He only had two PhD's (geology and Biology).
> He also said that taking something interesting and making it boring is a sign of limited intelligence. You might want to think about that.


Facts are boring.. lol. Thanks for the laugh.

There are facts, once again, you're just playing a semantic view with a philosophical view and playing a word game to try and change the subject because you can't really deny anything i've been saying, only say its "boring" or "religious" or "faith"..

You know what is boring.. replying to these anymore. They're not even challenging. They're baseless, they're trollish, they're futile.

I get it, there are a bunch of people who think its moral to be deceitful and spread fear and uncertainty where there is none because it casts doubts on their personal beliefs.

boring.. i'm still chuckling.

I'm off to go have some fun doing my "boring" science.. ound:


----------



## supernovae

Thanks all for the discussions. I'm done in this thread. It's not about science, its not about facts, its not about evolution, its not about dinosaurs, its not about people, its not about anything we can discuss.

It's about preserving ones beliefs at all costs and proving everyone else wrong. People can't accept being wrong and challenge me that i may be wrong but they can't realize i'm fine with being wrong - prove me wrong. That is my point in all of this.

But insulting me.. calling me boring.. not answering anything i ask and then changing words and meanings.. that's just all petty trivial stuff that's officially gotten old.

Debate amongst yourselves i guess.. lol. I'll probably hop back in for a read every once in a while just to chuckle but at least the "google" and "bing" gods will forever remember someone tried to knock some rationality back into this.

i'll be excitedly waiting for the evidence of telekinesis 

long live bias and irrationality huh


----------



## Nevada

supernovae said:


> Thanks all for the discussions. I'm done in this thread. It's not about science, its not about facts, its not about evolution, its not about dinosaurs, its not about people, its not about anything we can discuss.
> 
> It's about preserving ones beliefs at all costs and proving everyone else wrong. People can't accept being wrong and challenge me that i may be wrong but they can't realize i'm fine with being wrong - prove me wrong. That is my point in all of this.
> 
> But insulting me.. calling me boring.. not answering anything i ask and then changing words and meanings.. that's just all petty trivial stuff that's officially gotten old.
> 
> Debate amongst yourselves i guess.. lol. I'll probably hop back in for a read every once in a while just to chuckle but at least the "google" and "bing" gods will forever remember someone tried to knock some rationality back into this.
> 
> i'll be excitedly waiting for the evidence of telekinesis
> 
> long live bias and irrationality huh


I've pretty much dropped out of this thread also. The problem with that is that they've been successful in wearing us down, so they've won. So once again superstition & ignorance will prevail over science, and that's exactly the way they want it to be.


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> i'll be excitedly waiting for the evidence of telekinesis


Just a thought here... instead of "excitedly waiting" for someone else to present the evidence of telekinesis... which I already did but you chose not to accept.... how about you dig into it yourself, do a bit of exploring on your own.... you know like other scientists have done with lots of other knowledge that they have dug up over the years. Or are you content to sit back and wait for the answers to be found and then you can read all about it in some published paper and "learn" from everyone elses hard work while patting yourself on the back about how well educated you are?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> So once again superstition & ignorance will prevail over science, and that's exactly the way they want it to be.


That may be the case for some... but for me I think it would be better if science would look in their little box where they throw away all the stuff they cant figure out real easy.... and figure it out!


----------



## Evons hubby

supernovae said:


> I did, when i opened it up, there was an amazing telescope with a nice camera on it by which i was able to observe the universe and be amazed that we can know what we know to describe it as we do. Oh, and it had a box of oreos in it that i chowed down.


I think you looked in the wrong box... that sounds a lot like the box where they keep the stuff they know and understand already. The box I was referring to is over there in the corner.... its marked "supernatural junk". its just loaded with really neat all natural stuff that has yet to be explored and understood.


----------



## Nevada

supernovae said:


> i'll be excitedly waiting for the evidence of telekinesis


What? The film Carrie wasn't enough for you?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> What? The film Carrie wasn't enough for you?


I dont think I have heard of that one... is it on netflix by chance?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Ah. Love listening to the ones who are indoctrinating or kids speak. Makes me feel so much better about homeschooling. Lol


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont think I have heard of that one... is it on netflix by chance?


Two films, based on a Stephen King novel. I like the 1976 version with Sissy Spacek & John Travolta. There is also a 2013 film version.


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> Ah. Love listening to the ones who are indoctrinating or kids speak. Makes me feel so much better about homeschooling. Lol


Isn't teaching creationism also indoctrination?

So is this a question of indoctrination being bad, or just a question of which indoctrination kids should be exposed to?


----------



## JJ Grandits

supernovae said:


> Thanks all for the discussions. I'm done in this thread. It's not about science, its not about facts, its not about evolution, its not about dinosaurs, its not about people, its not about anything we can discuss.
> 
> It's about preserving ones beliefs at all costs and proving everyone else wrong. People can't accept being wrong and challenge me that i may be wrong but they can't realize i'm fine with being wrong - prove me wrong. That is my point in all of this.
> 
> But insulting me.. calling me boring.. not answering anything i ask and then changing words and meanings.. that's just all petty trivial stuff that's officially gotten old.
> 
> Debate amongst yourselves i guess.. lol. I'll probably hop back in for a read every once in a while just to chuckle but at least the "google" and "bing" gods will forever remember someone tried to knock some rationality back into this.
> 
> i'll be excitedly waiting for the evidence of telekinesis
> 
> long live bias and irrationality huh


Look, I can't help it, Your boring. Don't feel bad. You'll probably outgrow it. 
Im sorry I don't accept everything that your religion (science) teaches. I've lived long enough to know that todays scientific fact is tomorrows gross miscalculation.
As far as preserving ones beliefs, proving everyone else wrong, bias, and irrationality you pretty much painted a portrait of yourself too.

As I posted before, this all started with someone coming up with an idea that challenged the scientific status quo. A real scientist would have been fascinated with the prospect. But an unimaginative hack would go into attack mode. The rest is self explanatory.


----------



## JJ Grandits

almost had the double post.


----------



## Nevada

JJ Grandits said:


> I've lived long enough to know that todays scientific fact is tomorrows gross miscalculation.


Got any examples of scientific theories you've seen go by the wayside during your days?


----------



## JJ Grandits

Eggs are now good for you
Butter is now better the margarine
Aspirin is bad for young children
Eight out of ten Dr.'s smoke Tarytons
Disease is carried on the wind
Blood letting removes evil humours from the body


----------



## Boo8meR

JJ Grandits said:


> I've lived long enough to know that todays scientific fact is tomorrows gross miscalculation.
> 
> 
> But an unimaginative hack would go into attack mode.




Sentence #1 - I'm sure there are plenty of people out there willing to pay you insane amounts of money for your proof, since you 'know.'

Sentence #2 - You guys have been doing that for days. However, rather than pointing out that there is still plenty of stuff unknown and efforts are being made to discover it, when the finger is pointed at you, you divert back to us. You've done absolutely nothing to prove your side of the coin. You spend more time trying to prove something (that isn't) wrong than taking a look at what it is you're supporting. Someone on this forum is telling us that he's literally had a face to face conversation with god and can move stuff with his mind and you'd rather take your time fighting against stuff that some of the greatest minds in the history of mankind have PROVEN. It says a lot about your character.



I told myself I wouldn't open this thread back up; but, I needed a good laugh this afternoon. This is doomed to be a vicious cycle that continues ad nauseam, one in which I'll have no further part. With that, I'm out. You gents take care. I'm going flying, there's a spaghetti monster up there I'm trying to catch.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Isn't teaching creationism also indoctrination?
> 
> So is this a question of indoctrination being bad, or just a question of which indoctrination kids should be exposed to?


It's not indoctrination, it's equality! Isn't that what liberals are supposed to be all about?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Got any examples of scientific theories you've seen go by the wayside during your days?


Cold fusion! Start there!


----------



## mmoetc

supernovae said:


> Thanks all for the discussions. I'm done in this thread. It's not about science, its not about facts, its not about evolution, its not about dinosaurs, its not about people, its not about anything we can discuss.
> 
> It's about preserving ones beliefs at all costs and proving everyone else wrong. People can't accept being wrong and challenge me that i may be wrong but they can't realize i'm fine with being wrong - prove me wrong. That is my point in all of this.
> 
> But insulting me.. calling me boring.. not answering anything i ask and then changing words and meanings.. that's just all petty trivial stuff that's officially gotten old.
> 
> Debate amongst yourselves i guess.. lol. I'll probably hop back in for a read every once in a while just to chuckle but at least the "google" and "bing" gods will forever remember someone tried to knock some rationality back into this.
> 
> i'll be excitedly waiting for the evidence of telekinesis
> 
> long live bias and irrationality huh


Thanks for hanging in as long as you did. You've learned the biggest tactic of many here for debate, refuse to answer direct questions but continue to demand answers of others. Find some kids to take on a nature hike and enjoy minds that want to learn.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> We absolutely do know this. That is exactly my point. We know how light behaves with and without gravity.


Please tell me how we "absolutely do know this". I thought 1) science didn't have any absolute facts and 2) for anything to be taken as 'known' it had to be tested.

How was this tested? Is there an anti-gravity machine I haven't heard of? Or maybe we have sent a lab into interstellar space (of course the lab would have gravity itself so. . .)? Both of which I doubt because I'm sure the first would have made huge headlines and we are just NOW getting a small probe out of our solar system. 

BTW, do you know at what distance the gravity field of our solar system is zero? I don't and I'd hate to try to do the math to find out with all the mass in the system in constant motion and the assumptions you'd have to make about the mass of the planets I bet there's have to be a huge range.





supernovae said:


> Biology class doesn't cover electromagnetism, photons and general relativity or spelling.


Spelling is VERY important in biology. Look at names of the different parts of a mammal (nerves, muscles, etc) and you will see if one letter out of place can give you a completely different part. And spelling and grammar, unlike math, has no real hard set rules. All of them seem to have exceptions. Think about trying to do math if the rule was 2+3=5 unless the equation before it had a 9 in it then 2+3=6.

Its ALMOST as bad as organic chemistry.




supernovae said:


> It's far from guessing, its studying it and describing it in such a way that we know it to be true as much as we can test it. If it was based on faith, it wouldn't be science as there would be no evidence to support the theory and nothing would be testable. I'm not sure why this is so hard to comprehend.


I again bring up dark matter. The only 'evidence' that is out there is the fact that the equations don't work correctly unless its out there. Because it CLEARLY can not be the fact that the assumptions the equations are based on are incorrect therefore there must be another reason. Hum. . .what could it be. I got if we ASSUME that there's something (which we can't see nor measure) out there and it has a huge amount of mass our equations now work. Therefore we now have PROOF that there is dark matter because its what makes our equations work. Sound just a bit illogical to you?




supernovae said:


> That is why i started talking about objective reality and subjective reality and basic logic, to show how science is based on objectivity and faith is deeply subjective to try and steer it back to facts.


Give me some facts. Let's stick with light. How do we know the speed of light is the same in space as on earth? Give me some links to the experiments which show this or describe them (briefly). Note we are talking about light traveling through open space outside the earth's atmosphere and as far outside its gravity field as possible, not light in a vacuum here on earth.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> What is in that box? I'm curious as to how you compare your supernatural box to the curiosity of that which we can explain through science?


Schrodinger's cat. Sorry that was too much of a hanging curve ball not to swing at.


----------



## Evons hubby

Boo8meR said:


> Someone on this forum is telling us that he's literally had a face to face conversation with god and can move stuff with his mind and you'd rather take your time fighting against stuff that some of the greatest minds in the history of mankind have PROVEN.


Just a quick question here.... who do you think has the greater mind... those who claim to have "proven" that no one can move an object with their mind.... or the guy who has done it... not just once, but twice? I aint sayin.... I'm just askin.


----------



## watcher

supernovae said:


> You're making a subjective assertion without evidence, by which i can subjectively dismiss without evidence. You're playing an easy philosophical game here. You're not actually showing how our experiments are wrong or our data is wrong or our observations are wrong or that the theories have issues in them, you're subjectively dismissing them without any insight into the utility and validity of them.


Really? You have evidence of what caused the bang? Please I'd love to see it.




supernovae said:


> The truth comes out! Fight your perceived closed mindedness of scientists with ABSOLUTE CLOSED MINDEDNESS! Is that really your objective?


I'm not closed minded. I'm perfectly willing to admit I have no idea what caused the big bang, what keeps an atom from being torn to pieces nor just how gravity works. I am pig headed about people assuming they know things which can not be proven. 




supernovae said:


> There are many christians who are scientists who absolutely understand photons, gravity and evolution and wouldn't say man walked with dinosaurs. Are those people closed minded too?


It may shock you but I'm one of those Christians. Although I'd have to say that no one truly understands either of them which why I question people who say they know all about them.




supernovae said:


> BTW, Please do enlighten me on how scientists are closed minded.


How about your close mindedness about the speed of light. You absolutely refuse to even consider the lack of gravity may have an affect on it even though you freely admit that gravity is known to have an affect on light.




supernovae said:


> You keep saying this, but a) it doesn't really matter b) it isn't even fundamentally true if you try and make it matter. It changes nothing about reality to say a scientist is religious or not religious or that they treat science like a religion. Some people may do all of the above but it doesn't matter.


It is true and it does matter. It matters because you can almost never get someone who holds a religious belief to change that belief. Pick two opposing theories and get some true believers from each side and put them in a room and bring up the subject of their theories. Its just like putting people from different religious denominations together and bring up the differences in their doctrines.


----------



## watcher

mnn2501 said:


> No you have not. Scientists know there is a limit to their knowledge at this time, science continues to grow and learn new things


They have faith that at some point science will have the answers to all the questions.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I've pretty much dropped out of this thread also. The problem with that is that they've been successful in wearing us down, so they've won. So once again superstition & ignorance will prevail over science, and that's exactly the way they want it to be.


Care to show me where I have used superstition to question what has been stated here as known/fact/proven/etc?


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> Care to show me where I have used superstition to question what has been stated here as known/fact/proven/etc?


Or myself for that matter. 

as a matter of fact I dont recall having questioned any of the claimed "known facts". I merely wonder why they refuse to look into more areas of "the great unknown".


----------



## JeffreyD

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Or myself for that matter.
> 
> as a matter of fact I dont recall having questioned any of the claimed "known facts". I merely wonder why they refuse to look into more areas of "the great unknown".


It's scary to them...the unknown! They're interested in areas that they think they already understand, that's not so scary. Being proved wrong is terrifying to some.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Or myself for that matter.
> 
> as a matter of fact I dont recall having questioned any of the claimed "known facts". I merely wonder why they refuse to look into more areas of "the great unknown".


 Instead of delving into 'the great unknown', I'd like to bring the topic back to the great known, which is that the Age of Dinosaurs was MILLIONS of years ago, not 'a few thousand' like ONE misinformed creationist postulated. All the talk of trickster deities testing peoples faith is just another attempt to make the world fit some vague scriptural interpretation.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Instead of delving into 'the great unknown', I'd like to bring the topic back to the great known, which is that the Age of Dinosaurs was MILLIONS of years ago, not 'a few thousand' like ONE misinformed creationist postulated. All the talk of trickster deities testing peoples faith is just another attempt to make the world fit some vague scriptural interpretation.


"Trickster deities"? More of that liberal intolerance again! Just can't stop eh?


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> "Trickster deities"? More of that liberal intolerance again! Just can't stop eh?


 I don't know about 'liberal intolerance',but yep I am pretty intolerant for people who refuse to acknowledge the vast preponderance of evidence that says those fossils were once living creatures many millions of years ago.
And yes, one of our posters indeed gave 'trickster deity' as an explanation for the fossil record. 
Do you have a better explanation than that? Or are you going to admit they were once living creatures? Go ahead JefferyD, you won't violate any religious beliefs by admitting that, will you?


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> I don't know about 'liberal intolerance',but yep I am pretty intolerant for people who refuse to acknowledge the vast preponderance of evidence that says those fossils were once living creatures many millions of years ago.
> And yes, one of our posters indeed gave 'trickster deity' as an explanation for the fossil record.
> Do you have a better explanation than that? Or are you going to admit they were once living creatures? Go ahead JefferyD, you won't violate any religious beliefs by admitting that, will you?


I know you don't know about liberal intolerance, liberals never see their own faults...but they sure are there.

Your confused. I never said I believe that the earth is thousands of years old, you keep insisting that I believe that....i don't! 

The fact that you have to insult those who believe in something that you don't, is typically liberal...you know...rules for radicals! It also shows a lack of compassion and tolerance.


----------



## Raeven

Those who keep saying that science enthusiasts are seeking certainty demonstrate only a gross misunderstanding of science. There is nothing more uncertain than science. EVERYTHING is subject to questioning, further rigorous testing, scrutiny and endless review. But to think or say that what we know through employing the scientific method is fully rendered invalid because our understanding may be incomplete, misses the entire point. It doesnât. If you want certainty, stick to religion. If you want to know how things really work, pursue science â and accept that we donât know everything. Every scientist understands this. Evolution, gravity, time-space, these are all accepted scientific fact. Will our understanding of these things grow? Of course. Does the certainty that we will learn more invalidate what we already know? Not to scientists, it doesnât. If you think something is going to come along that turns our factual acceptance of evolution on its head, then you are really good at magical thinking. It is proved, even if the record is incomplete.

Science is not the enemy of belief; rather, it appears that belief is the enemy of science. Nothing in science says there is no creator or god. Science simply says there is no evidence for one. If evidence for a god could be shown or demonstrated in a repeatable, testable way, then science would embrace it. To date, no such evidence exists. Doesnât mean it wonât one day. But a truly open-minded person would say, itâs possible we will never find such evidence. If someone has some â meaning actual, reproducible, repeatable, testable evidence, then by all means share it. Thatâs all supernovae was asking for. And if you can, then those teachings would be welcomed into science classes. Until you do, they are not. Teach them in theology classes, churches and at home. They are not science.

Watcher, you claim a science background, yet you didnât understand even the fundamental difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. You subscribe to the common misunderstanding that scientific theory can somehow graduate to a law. Thatâs not how the scientific community defines these things. You throw in a lot of scientific terms, but most of what you say translates into pure balderdash. You keep asking for absolute proof of things for which no one has claimed a complete understanding â which again, shows only that you donât get even the basics. All the same, supernovae attempted repeatedly and patiently to explain those basics to you. He did not resort to jeering, name-calling, obfuscation, scorn, or any of the other boringly predictable tactics employed by you and others in this thread. The posts speak for themselves about who said and did what. Ironically, they are the proof of who you all are.

As for him being boring, JJ Grandits, well, thatâs pretty chuckleworthy, too, given that supernovae held your attention for more than 70 pages.

JeffreyD, you keep trying to introduce politics into this thread with your repeated references to "liberals," but science benefits us all, liberals and conservatives alike. Science is not political, though you keep trying to make it so. Nevada made some excellent points about how we as a nation are falling behind because a certain faction of our country wishes to cling to mythical beliefs above all else. It is hurting us all. We have lost -- and continue to lose -- our competitive edge because of our national suspicion of science. What a dreadful shame.

Mathematics IS the universal language of science. No matter what your spiritual beliefs, two plus two equals four, the whole world over. THAT is a perfect language. Too bad we wish to silence it here in the USA.

Well done, supernovae.


----------



## mnn2501

watcher said:


> They have faith that at some point science will have the answers to all the questions.


NO, they don't. We will continue to learn as long as there are things to learn and humans to learn it.


----------



## mnn2501

JeffreyD said:


> "Trickster deities"? More of that liberal intolerance again! Just can't stop eh?


What would you call someone that plants evidence showing something is millions of years old if the Earth is really only ~6000 years old?


----------



## JeffreyD

Raeven said:


> Those who keep saying that science enthusiasts are seeking certainty demonstrate only a gross misunderstanding of science. There is nothing more uncertain than science. EVERYTHING is subject to questioning, further rigorous testing, scrutiny and endless review. But to think or say that what we know through employing the scientific method is fully rendered invalid because our understanding may be incomplete, misses the entire point. It doesnât. If you want certainty, stick to religion. If you want to know how things really work, pursue science â and accept that we donât know everything. Every scientist understands this. Evolution, gravity, time-space, these are all accepted scientific fact. Will our understanding of these things grow? Of course. Does the certainty that we will learn more invalidate what we already know? Not to scientists, it doesnât. If you think something is going to come along that turns our factual acceptance of evolution on its head, then you are really good at magical thinking. It is proved, even if the record is incomplete.
> 
> Science is not the enemy of belief; rather, it appears that belief is the enemy of science. Nothing in science says there is no creator or god. Science simply says there is no evidence for one. If evidence for a god could be shown or demonstrated in a repeatable, testable way, then science would embrace it. To date, no such evidence exists. Doesnât mean it wonât one day. But a truly open-minded person would say, itâs possible we will never find such evidence. If someone has some â meaning actual, reproducible, repeatable, testable evidence, then by all means share it. Thatâs all supernovae was asking for. And if you can, then those teachings would be welcomed into science classes. Until you do, they are not. Teach them in theology classes, churches and at home. They are not science.
> 
> Watcher, you claim a science background, yet you didnât understand even the fundamental difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. You subscribe to the common misunderstanding that scientific theory can somehow graduate to a law. Thatâs not how the scientific community defines these things. You throw in a lot of scientific terms, but most of what you say translates into pure balderdash. You keep asking for absolute proof of things for which no one has claimed a complete understanding â which again, shows only that you donât get even the basics. All the same, supernovae attempted repeatedly and patiently to explain those basics to you. He did not resort to jeering, name-calling, obfuscation, scorn, or any of the other boringly predictable tactics employed by you and others in this thread. The posts speak for themselves about who said and did what. Ironically, they are the proof of who you all are.
> 
> As for him being boring, JJ Grandits, well, thatâs pretty chuckleworthy, too, given that supernovae held your attention for more than 70 pages.
> 
> JeffreyD, you keep trying to introduce politics into this thread with your repeated references to "liberals," but science benefits us all, liberals and conservatives alike. Science is not political, though you keep trying to make it so. Nevada made some excellent points about how we as a nation are falling behind because a certain faction of our country wishes to cling to mythical beliefs above all else. It is hurting us all. We have lost -- and continue to lose -- our competitive edge because of our national suspicion of science. What a dreadful shame.
> 
> Mathematics IS the universal language of science. No matter what your spiritual beliefs, two plus two equals four, the whole world over. THAT is a perfect language. Too bad we wish to silence it here in the USA.
> 
> Well done, supernovae.


I have no problem with science. .As long as it's not a "theory" that's being perpetrated as the only truth.

I bring politics into this to show the hypocrisy of liberals. Is using the term "Trickster deities" ok in your book? The problem I have had with some posters here is that even when presented with concrete data...provided by numerous reputable sources, they insist on being ignorant about them or constantly asking "where are those facts" when I've posted them numerous times. 

And as far as 2+2=4..that's true. ..unless you use the common core math!!!!:shocked:


----------



## JeffreyD

mnn2501 said:


> What would you call someone that plants evidence showing something is millions of years old if the Earth is really only ~6000 years old?


Who's done this? Do you believe the earth is only 6000 years old? If you do...good for you! To each his own!


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> I don't know about 'liberal intolerance',but yep I am pretty intolerant for people who refuse to acknowledge the vast preponderance of evidence that says those fossils were once living creatures many millions of years ago.
> * And yes, one of our posters indeed gave 'trickster deity' as an explanation for the fossil record. *
> Do you have a better explanation than that? Or are you going to admit they were once living creatures? Go ahead JefferyD, you won't violate any religious beliefs by admitting that, will you?


Why hound JefferyD... twas I who offered that possibility, and I am still not sure that its really all that very far off base. Perhaps you could splain it to me in simple terms how that could not be possible. Super whatever couldnt... he just shrugged the concept off as "couldnt have happened, that would involve the supernatural" and gave no answer... typical science guy type attitude. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby

Raeven said:


> Those who keep saying that science enthusiasts are seeking certainty demonstrate only a gross misunderstanding of science. There is nothing more uncertain than science. EVERYTHING is subject to questioning, further rigorous testing, scrutiny and endless review. But to think or say that what we know through employing the scientific method is fully rendered invalid because our understanding may be incomplete, misses the entire point. It doesn&#8217;t. If you want certainty, stick to religion. * If you want to know how things really work, pursue science &#8211; and accept that we don&#8217;t know everything. * Every scientist understands this. Evolution, gravity, time-space, these are all accepted scientific fact. Will our understanding of these things grow? Of course. *Does the certainty that we will learn more invalidate what we already know? Not to scientists, it doesn&#8217;t.* If you think something is going to come along that turns our factual acceptance of evolution on its head, then you are really good at magical thinking. It is proved, even if the record is incomplete.


I have no problem accepting that science does not know everything... some however seemed to have a terrible time spitting out those very words... "We dont know". 

Tis a pity that science cant seem to hold an open mind... we all know from experience that new knowledge always has the potential to invalidate what we previously thought we knew. "the world is flat", "eggs will kill us", "Obama will save us". 



Raeven said:


> Science is not the enemy of belief; rather, it appears that belief is the enemy of science. Nothing in science says there is no creator or god. Science simply says there is no evidence for one. If evidence for a god could be shown or demonstrated in a repeatable, testable way, then science would embrace it. To date, no such evidence exists. Doesn&#8217;t mean it won&#8217;t one day. But a truly open-minded person would say, it&#8217;s possible we will never find such evidence. If someone has some &#8211; meaning actual, reproducible, repeatable, testable evidence, then by all means share it. That&#8217;s all supernovae was asking for. And if you can, then those teachings would be welcomed into science classes. Until you do, they are not. Teach them in theology classes, churches and at home. They are not science.


Again, as I attempted several times to explain to supernovae... tis a pity that some of our perfectly natural phenomena doesnt happen to fit the current requirements of "science" rules. either from being beyond our scope of understanding, or simply because sciences rules are not designed to fit larger pictures. This does not mean they dont exist, or are invalid, simply because they dont happen to fit in the parameters that scientists feel they should. 



Raeven said:


> Watcher, you claim a science background, yet you didn&#8217;t understand even the fundamental difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. You subscribe to the common misunderstanding that scientific theory can somehow graduate to a law. That&#8217;s not how the scientific community defines these things. You throw in a lot of scientific terms, but most of what you say translates into pure balderdash. You keep asking for absolute proof of things for which no one has claimed a complete understanding &#8211; which again, shows only that you don&#8217;t get even the basics. All the same, supernovae attempted repeatedly and patiently to explain those basics to you. He did not resort to jeering, name-calling, obfuscation, scorn, or any of the other boringly predictable tactics employed by you and others in this thread. The posts speak for themselves about who said and did what. Ironically, they are the proof of who you all are.


I think if you look closely at the posts you will find supernovae did his share of disrespecting some of our posters thoughts and opinions. mostly I found it interesting that he would simply wave off most things as being "unscientific poppycock" not in those exact words, but the meaning was quite clear. If it didnt agree with his notion of science... it was nonsense not worthy of a respectful answer. 



Raeven said:


> As for him being boring, JJ Grandits, well, that&#8217;s pretty chuckleworthy, too, given that supernovae held your attention for more than 70 pages.


Ok, boring? not really, but a lot of his posts did ramble on and on about this that and some other irrelative "facts" without really have the guts to go ahead and say..."we dont know". I myself pointed that out to him a couple times. personally? I like the guy, dont agree with him on a lot of points but he's ok. would love to have him over sometime and toss back a few cold ones. 



Raeven said:


> JeffreyD, you keep trying to introduce politics into this thread with your repeated references to "liberals," but science benefits us all, liberals and conservatives alike. Science is not political, though you keep trying to make it so. Nevada made some excellent points about how we as a nation are falling behind because a certain faction of our country wishes to cling to mythical beliefs above all else. It is hurting us all. We have lost -- and continue to lose -- our competitive edge because of our national suspicion of science. What a dreadful shame.


Perhaps if science would broaden its horizons, and seek more answers we wouldnt have that problem? 



Raeven said:


> Mathematics IS the universal language of science. No matter what your spiritual beliefs, two plus two equals four, the whole world over. THAT is a perfect language. Too bad we wish to silence it here in the USA.
> 
> Well done, supernovae.


ahhh yes, that wonderful world of mathematics... the imperfect system we base most of our scientific knowledge upon. I agree, 2+2=4... but let me ask you.... what does 24 divided by 0=? and can you tell me the exact circumference of a circle that is 3 ft in diameter? No rounding off.... I want the exact answer.


----------



## copperkid3

Nevada said:


> Got any examples of scientific theories you've seen go by the wayside during your days?


******************************
However, I'm going to qualify that promise, with this precursor -
that I'll only reveal it when and/or if, this thread breaks 100 pages......

(Gotta save the best for last, dontchaknow?):trollface

P.S. Be sure and drop a P.M. and remind me about it,
as it's possible I may not get back around this way again.


----------



## Paumon

********** never mind


----------



## JJ Grandits

We are drifting too much people. The thread is about a scientist who discovered soft tissue from a Dinosaur and published his findings. Because of this he got fired. Should that have happened? Any REAL scientist would be up in arms. Whats interesting is this has turned into a religion vs science debate and the scientist mavens have taken on the same role that the Catholic Church had with Galileo. 

For the record: Im not religious, Im Christian
I do not believe that the world is only 6,000 years old
I love science, always have
God does not do card tricks


----------



## mmoetc

JJ Grandits said:


> We are drifting too much people. The thread is about a scientist who discovered soft tissue from a Dinosaur and published his findings. Because of this he got fired. Should that have happened? Any REAL scientist would be up in arms. Whats interesting is this has turned into a religion vs science debate and the scientist mavens have taken on the same role that the Catholic Church had with Galileo.
> 
> For the record: Im not religious, Im Christian
> I do not believe that the world is only 6,000 years old
> I love science, always have
> God does not do card tricks


The lawsuit will decide whether he was fired for proper cause or not. Real scientists will continue to look for reasons this could happen naturally. Real scientists will find plausible answers and be able to offer proof other than it exists so God must have done it. Real scientists like these: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4349214


----------



## FourDeuce

Putting responses in proper place. :happy2:


----------



## FourDeuce

JJ Grandits said:


> We are drifting too much people. The thread is about a scientist who discovered soft tissue from a Dinosaur and published his findings. Because of this he got fired. Should that have happened? Any REAL scientist would be up in arms. Whats interesting is this has turned into a religion vs science debate and the scientist mavens have taken on the same role that the Catholic Church had with Galileo.
> 
> For the record: Im not religious, Im Christian
> I do not believe that the world is only 6,000 years old
> I love science, always have
> God does not do card tricks


"For the record: Im not religious, Im Christian" That's odd. The dictionaries I have say your religion is a religion.

Before you say what your gods do or don't do, you should first prove any gods exist. Until you do that, any statements about their actions are irrelevant.:teehee:


----------



## FourDeuce

"Perhaps if science would broaden its horizons, and seek more answers we wouldnt have that problem?" If more people understood what science was, they wouldn't have this problem.:hobbyhors


----------



## mnn2501

JeffreyD said:


> Who's done this? Do you believe the earth is only 6000 years old? If you do...good for you! To each his own!


Many Christians do, I certainly do not.


----------



## Evons hubby

JJ Grandits said:


> God does not do card tricks


Maybe not, but according to the bible He has been known to pull some pretty good stunts. That little thing with Moses and the Red sea was pretty slick... and letting all that manna fall out of the sky over the desert... now that was cool! Wonder if that was GMO? In my younger days if we ran out of beer at a party, we had to take up a collection and make a liquor store run.... how handy would it have been to just turn the water into more beer? Safer too... nobody would have had to drive to the Lshop.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> "Perhaps if science would broaden its horizons, and seek more answers we wouldnt have that problem?" If more people understood what science was, they wouldn't have this problem.:hobbyhors


I think most people have a fair grasp of the basics.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> Before you say what your gods do or don't do, you should first prove any gods exist. Until you do that, any statements about their actions are irrelevant.:teehee:


And the flipside of this would be... "before you expound upon how life evolved you should be able to prove how it started... Until you do that any statements about how it may have evolved are irrelevant." :teehee:


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Instead of delving into 'the great unknown', I'd like to bring the topic back to the great known, which is that the Age of Dinosaurs was MILLIONS of years ago, not 'a few thousand' like ONE misinformed creationist postulated. All the talk of trickster deities testing peoples faith is just another attempt to make the world fit some vague scriptural interpretation.


Well, considering right up front that we still have some of these creatures living among us.... 

ah yes, that ever so "vague" scriptural interpretation again. It actually flows quite well with sciences theories to date... I think the birds were probably after the fish but other than that... it pretty well fits. As to the thousands instead of millions thing... According to that "vague" scripture "a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day". I think that pretty well covers the time span issue. The concept of time is pretty much just that... a manmade concept. I have seen nothing in the way of proof or evidence to contradict this.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> What would you call someone that plants evidence showing something is millions of years old if the Earth is really only ~6000 years old?


Ummmm God with a sense of humor? 

Or how about this... maybe He just created everything, with no regard as to how old some people might think it was? According to some, a lot of folks come up with some pretty weird notions about a lot of things. How was God supposed to know what scientists "might" think and what conclusions they might draw from His handiwork? You have to remember... in Gods realm time as we understand the concept doesnt even exist!


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> "For the record: Im not religious, Im Christian" That's odd. The dictionaries I have say your religion is a religion.
> 
> Before you say what your gods do or don't do, you should first prove any gods exist. Until you do that, any statements about their actions are irrelevant.:teehee:


My dictionary says a Christian is someone who follows Christ. Now Christ has been the center of many religions, but Christ is not of himself a religion. Christianity is a relationship. Being a Catholic, or a lutheran, or a druid is a religion.

I do not have gods. I have a God. My proof of his existence is all life. My proof is my youngest daughter.
Science said she would not live. God said she would.

Please, prove he does not exist.


----------



## FourDeuce

JJ Grandits said:


> My dictionary says a Christian is someone who follows Christ. Now Christ has been the center of many religions, but Christ is not of himself a religion. Christianity is a relationship.
> 
> According to the dictionary here on my desk, it's a religion.
> 
> "Being a Catholic, or a lutheran, or a druid is a religion."
> 
> 
> 
> "I do not have gods. I have a God."
> 
> You didn't prove that yet. Were you planning to?
> 
> "My proof of his existence is all life."
> 
> Life is proof of life. You weren't asked for proof of life.
> 
> "My proof is my youngest daughter."
> 
> Nope, still not proof of any gods.
> 
> 
> "Science said she would not live."
> 
> Doubtful. Before you try to quote science, you should learn how to listen to it.
> 
> "God said she would." You didn't prove any gods exist yet. You need to do that before you claim your gods said anything.
> 
> Please, prove he does not exist.


 Please learn how logic works before you try to use it. Asking other people to disprove your claims is a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof. Nobody needs to disprove your claims until you prove them.:bash:


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ummmm God with a sense of humor?
> 
> Or how about this... maybe He just created everything, with no regard as to how old some people might think it was? According to some, a lot of folks come up with some pretty weird notions about a lot of things. How was God supposed to know what scientists "might" think and what conclusions they might draw from His handiwork? You have to remember... in Gods realm time as we understand the concept doesnt even exist!


We can't remember that until somebody proves it. :stars:


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> Please learn how logic works before you try to use it. Asking other people to disprove your claims is a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof. Nobody needs to disprove your claims until you prove them.:bash:


Wow! What an infantile response. What's your next plan, "I know you are but what am I?".
using the word logic then playing the intellectual denial game is such a close minded play.

"Life is the proof of life. You weren't asked for the proof of life".

Give me a break. I made a statement, you shifted the burden of proof.

So please mister all knowing intellectual giant, inform this lowly sub human superstitious being with the answer to the question I asked before.

Before cell evolved enough to produce mitochondria how did they power themselves? If mitochondia evolved first then where did the ADP produced by the cells come from?

Im pretty sure that is a logical scientific question.

I await your detailed answer with all annotated forms of proof.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

FourDeuce said:


> "For the record: Im not religious, Im Christian" That's odd. The dictionaries I have say your religion is a religion.
> 
> Before you say what your gods do or don't do, you should first prove any gods exist. Until you do that, any statements about their actions are irrelevant.:teehee:


Both are based on faith you can't prove your views either so how can we really knock either belief?


----------



## FourDeuce

Vahomesteaders said:


> Both are based on faith you can't prove your views either so how can we really knock either belief?


Both what? If you're saying that science is based on faith, you have a fundamental confusion about what science is. Aside from that, my views(whatever they may be) have nothing to do with another person's views. Distracting attention from the point being discussed works well for illusionists, but when it comes to rational discussion, it fails because it does not address the subject.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> Please learn how logic works before you try to use it. Asking other people to disprove your claims is a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof. Nobody needs to disprove your claims until you prove them.:bash:


Ok, this is as good a place as any to interject something I have been thinking about. I may be wrong here but its my understanding that according to sciences "rule book" one first formulates a hypothesis, then fiddles around with it, presenting "evidence" until enough scientists buy into it... then it becomes a "theory" and stands as accepted until someone else comes along with more evidence or proof that proves the original theory wrong. Lets look at JJ's hypothesis.. "I think there is a God". Then JJ tinkers with that idea and comes up with some evidence to support his hypothesis... "there is life abundant upon our planet". About a zillion other people on the planet also accept this line of thinking so now its a theory.... and it would naturally fall to the nonbeliever to provide evidence or proof to the contrary.... according to sciences own rules. This is NOT shifting the burden of proof.... If you wish to disprove JJ's widely accepted theory... help yourself, or else said theory stands.  

I also believe in JJ's hypothesis, and have offered other proof and evidence of Gods existence. Of course my evidence was simply swept aside, scoffed at when not just ignored... but rest assured, my evidence is just as real as any evidence presented by any scientists.


----------



## mnn2501

Yvonne's hubby said:


> and have offered other proof and evidence of Gods existence. Of course my evidence was simply swept aside, scoffed at when not just ignored... but rest assured, my evidence is just as real as any evidence presented by any scientists.


Its not duplicatable, that's why its swept aside


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> We can't remember that until somebody proves it. :stars:


I have yet to see any proof that time exists either.


----------



## Evons hubby

mnn2501 said:


> Its not duplicatable, that's why its swept aside


while it may not be duplicatable on demand... it has most certainly been duplicated many thousands of times. Not being able to do something when you want to... doesnt mean you cant do it under the proper conditions. Can you sprout, grow and harvest ripe luscious tomatoes if there is no water or sunlight available? Does that mean tomatoes cannot be grown?


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have yet to see any proof that time exists either.


That's nice, but it has nothing to do with whether any gods exist. Try to focus.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, this is as good a place as any to interject something I have been thinking about. I may be wrong here but its my understanding that according to sciences "rule book" one first formulates a hypothesis,"
> 
> Yes, that is wrong. A scientific hypothesis is based on observed data, so one first makes observations.
> 
> "then fiddles around with it,"
> 
> No "fiddling" is involved in science.
> 
> "presenting "evidence" until enough scientists buy into it..."
> 
> The Scientific Method has nothing to do with "buying into" anything.
> 
> "then it becomes a "theory" and stands as accepted until someone else comes along with more evidence or proof that proves the original theory wrong."
> 
> 
> "Lets look at JJ's hypothesis.. "I think there is a God"."
> 
> That is NOT a scientific hypothesis, since it's not based on any observed data.
> 
> "Then JJ tinkers with that idea and comes up with some evidence to support his hypothesis..."
> 
> Such as?
> 
> "there is life abundant upon our planet"."
> 
> If JJ wants to use that as evidence that gods exist, JJ would first need to show some connection between those two ideas(life and gods). Until that is done, life is only evidence for life.
> 
> "About a zillion other people on the planet also accept this line of thinking"
> 
> The Bandwagon Fallacy.
> 
> "so now its a theory...."
> 
> Not a SCIENTIFIC theory.
> 
> "and it would naturally fall to the nonbeliever to provide evidence or proof to the contrary...."
> 
> Nope. The burden of proof never changes. Something is either proven true or not accepted as true.
> 
> "according to sciences own rules."
> 
> Nope. Those are not "science's own rules".
> 
> "This is NOT shifting the burden of proof.... If you wish to disprove JJ's widely accepted theory... help yourself, or else said theory stands.
> 
> Saying it isn't an attempt to shift the burden of proof doesn't change the fact that it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. If I say Hobbits exist and you deny it, do you have the responsibility of proving they don't exist?
> 
> "I also believe in JJ's hypothesis, and have offered other proof and evidence of Gods existence."
> 
> No, you have offered what you believe is evidence of gods.
> 
> Of course my evidence was simply swept aside, scoffed at when not just ignored... but rest assured, my evidence is just as real as any evidence presented by any scientists.


 I will rest assured of that when you prove it.:nana:


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> Both what? If you're saying that science is based on faith, you have a fundamental confusion about what science is. Aside from that, my views(whatever they may be) have nothing to do with another person's views. Distracting attention from the point being discussed works well for illusionists, but when it comes to rational discussion, it fails because it does not address the subject.


I think the only confusion is on your part. Unless you have physically run every experiment of every scientific theory to verify if it is correct you accept them on faith.

Now, speaking of distractions and rational discussions lets address a scientific subject.

Answer my question on mitochondria.
Prove to me that your science has the answers.


----------



## Evons hubby

Originally Posted by Yvonne's hubby 
Ok, this is as good a place as any to interject something I have been thinking about. I may be wrong here but its my understanding that according to sciences "rule book" one first formulates a hypothesis,"

Yes, that is wrong. A scientific hypothesis is based on observed data, so one first makes observations.

*Ok, JJ and myself have made observations... upon which we base our hypothesis.* 

"then fiddles around with it,"

No "fiddling" is involved in science.

*You are kidding right? fiddling around in laboratorys doing all sorts of experimentations.... that isnt "fiddling around"? *

"presenting "evidence" until enough scientists buy into it..." 

The Scientific Method has nothing to do with "buying into" anything.

*I think they call it "peer review". When enough scientist have reviewed.. and agree... it becomes accepted theory.* 

"then it becomes a "theory" and stands as accepted until someone else comes along with more evidence or proof that proves the original theory wrong."


"Lets look at JJ's hypothesis.. "I think there is a God"." 

That is NOT a scientific hypothesis, since it's not based on any observed data.

*Of course its based upon observed data! In JJ's case the data observed was life... and more specifically the life of a daughter.... who science claimed should be dead... but she is very much alive... In my case... I observed God. (along with some other pretty neat tricks that science claims does not exist. So my good friend.... this hypothesis is indeed based upon "observed data". Shame you didnt happen to be there and observe it as well. *

"Then JJ tinkers with that idea and comes up with some evidence to support his hypothesis..." 

Such as?

"there is life abundant upon our planet"." 

If JJ wants to use that as evidence that gods exist, JJ would first need to show some connection between those two ideas(life and gods). Until that is done, life is only evidence for life.

*And my seeing, and having a one on one conversation with God? Is there no direct connection there? *

"About a zillion other people on the planet also accept this line of thinking" 

The Bandwagon Fallacy.

"so now its a theory...." 

Not a SCIENTIFIC theory.

*A theory is a theory. what makes our theory any less valid than any one elses? *

"and it would naturally fall to the nonbeliever to provide evidence or proof to the contrary...." 

Nope. The burden of proof never changes. Something is either proven true or not accepted as true.

*Ok then... I have proven it true.... now you have the option of accepting its truth... or not. Your failure to accept it however will not change its truth. *

"according to sciences own rules."

Nope. Those are not "science's own rules". 

*Ok, I believe I started out stating I wasnt sure, but that I had been led to believe that was science rules... please enlighten me where I am in error because several of your science partners have told me thats the basic formula. * 

"This is NOT shifting the burden of proof.... If you wish to disprove JJ's widely accepted theory... help yourself, or else said theory stands. 

Saying it isn't an attempt to shift the burden of proof doesn't change the fact that it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. If I say Hobbits exist and you deny it, do you have the responsibility of proving they don't exist?

*Well first of all, I would never deny that you saw hobbits if you tell me you have. Just because I have never seen one, certainly doesnt mean that others havent. *

"I also believe in JJ's hypothesis, and have offered other proof and evidence of Gods existence."

No, you have offered what you believe is evidence of gods.

*Talking with Him is pretty convincing evidence... plenty good enough for me, and I have the distinct feeling that if you were to ever have that experience that you would be convinces too.* 

Of course my evidence was simply swept aside, scoffed at when not just ignored... but rest assured, my evidence is just as real as any evidence presented by any scientists.



FourDeuce said:


> I will rest assured of that when you prove it.:nana:


I have proven it.... several times. Nice to know that you are now "assured".


----------



## FourDeuce

The only thing you proved was that you don't understand HOW to prove your belief in the existence of any gods. Not surprising, since nobody else does. You can rest assured that if anybody ever does prove any gods exist, it won't take long for the whole world to know about it.:cowboy:


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> The only thing you proved was that you don't understand HOW to prove your belief in the existence of any gods. Not surprising, since nobody else does. You can rest assured that if anybody ever does prove any gods exist, it won't take long for the whole world to know about it.:cowboy:


Oddly enough MOST of the world already knows.


----------



## FourDeuce

JJ Grandits said:


> I think the only confusion is on your part. Unless you have physically run every experiment of every scientific theory to verify if it is correct you accept them on faith.
> 
> Unless you can read my mind, you have no way of knowing what(if anything) I accept on faith. It's dishonest of you to try to tell me what goes on inside my own brain.
> 
> "Now, speaking of distractions and rational discussions lets address a scientific subject."
> 
> That would be a nice change from the Straw Man "science" we've been addressing.
> 
> Answer my question on mitochondria.
> Prove to me that your science has the answers.


 Since I never claimed that science(not MY science) has ALL the answers, you are once again asking me to prove something I never claimed. That's known as a Straw Man Fallacy, another type of logical failure.:yawn:


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oddly enough MOST of the world already knows.


What people believe they know doesn't count unless they can prove it. The Bandwagon Fallacy still fails, as always. :bandwagon:


----------



## FourDeuce

"*And my seeing, and having a one on one conversation with God? Is there no direct connection there?" *

Not until you PROVE you conversed with any gods. Since you are trying to use your claim as proof gods exist, your argument is circular, another logical failure.

"*Well first of all, I would never deny that you saw hobbits if you tell me you have. Just because I have never seen one, certainly doesnt mean that others haven't."*

I would say "Nice dodge", but it isn't. You answered two questions I didn't ask, then didn't answer the question I did ask. Does that question make you uncomfortable? It does make many people uncomfortable, probably because it causes them to question the "arguments" they are trying.


----------



## Evons hubby

Actually I thought it was a pretty good question. As well as being a very logical question... one does have to wonder how that could have happened.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> What people believe they know doesn't count unless they can prove it. The Bandwagon Fallacy still fails, as always. :bandwagon:


And yet the scientific community seems to adore the bandwagon fallacy... Peer review and such.  Odd how when "uneducated" people compare notes and come to conclusions its a fallacy... but when the elite club does exactly the same thing its logic.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> "*Well first of all, I would never deny that you saw hobbits if you tell me you have. Just because I have never seen one, certainly doesnt mean that others haven't."*
> 
> I would say "Nice dodge", but it isn't. You answered two questions I didn't ask, then didn't answer the question I did ask. Does that question make you uncomfortable? It does make many people uncomfortable, probably because it causes them to question the "arguments" they are trying.


Wasnt dodging.... I thought I made myself pretty clear.... but to answer your question directly... If (hypothetically speaking since I would not deny it) if I were the one denying your claim.... YES I would be obligated to prove that either you were lying about having seen them or that hobbits have never existed nor do they currently exist.

If I said the sun rises in the east every morning..... and MOST of the people in the world agree with me.... and you opt to deny that fact.... its the same deal... you need to prove to us that the sun rises in the west.


----------



## FourDeuce

Nope, the burden of proof for YOUR claims never changes. Either you prove it or you fail to prove it. Nothing anybody else says can change that. Logic works pretty well.

"but to answer your question directly" And you failed to answer the question again. It must make you REALLY uncomfortable.

"And yet the scientific community seems to adore the bandwagon fallacy... Peer review and such." If you can't understand the difference between the Bandwagon Fallacy and Peer review, I can't teach it to you. I can explain things for you, but I can't understand them for you.:stars:

"If I said the sun rises in the east every morning....." Then it would be your responsibility to prove that claim.

"and MOST of the people in the world agree with me...." Irrelevant how many people agree with you. If you are wrong, you are wrong, no matter how many people agree with you.

"and you opt to deny that fact.... its the same deal... you need to prove to us that the sun rises in the west." Logic says otherwise. If I have to choose between logic and people who don't understand logic, I'll stick with logic.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> "but to answer your question directly" And you failed to answer the question again. It must make you REALLY uncomfortable.


I answered your question "If I say Hobbits exist and you deny it, do you have the responsibility of proving they don't exist?" with "YES I would be obligated to prove that either you were lying about having seen them or that hobbits have never existed nor do they currently exist." I am not at all uncomfortable answering any questions you may want to pose. Bear in mind... I did put the disclaimer in that I would not be denying your claim to begin with... so your question become a hypothetical situation... not one based on reality. Therefor you got the best answer I can give to that hypothetical situation.... if its not the answer you like... or wanted to hear... thats not my fault.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> "If I said the sun rises in the east every morning....." Then it would be your responsibility to prove that claim.
> 
> "and MOST of the people in the world agree with me...." Irrelevant how many people agree with you. If you are wrong, you are wrong, no matter how many people agree with you.
> 
> "and you opt to deny that fact.... its the same deal... you need to prove to us that the sun rises in the west." *Logic says otherwise.* If I have to choose between logic and people who don't understand logic, I'll stick with logic.


So your logic says the sun rises in the west and I need to prove to you that it rises in the east? I think that just about says it all. There are only two places on the surface of our planet that the sun does NOT rise in the east, and has done so for as far back as recorded history goes, but nobody lives in either of those places so its really not an issue. When it comes to logic.... I will stick with my brand.... and you can feel free to watch the sunrise in the west all you want.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So your logic says the sun rises in the west and I need to prove to you that it rises in the east? I think that just about says it all. There are only two places on the surface of our planet that the sun does NOT rise in the east, and has done so for as far back as recorded history goes, but nobody lives in either of those places so its really not an issue. When it comes to logic.... I will stick with my brand.... and you can feel free to watch the sunrise in the west all you want.


There is no "your logic". There is logic and there is everything else. Logic says anybody who makes a claim has the responsibility of proving it. I made no claims about the sun rising anywhere. The fact that the only argument you can come up with is to try to put words in my mouth says it all for me. You can feel free to keep building your Straw Man arguments if it makes you feel better, but you will lose all credibility if you continue using logical fallacies like that.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So your logic says the sun rises in the west and I need to prove to you that it rises in the east?


 Or you could just walk outside at sunrise. Kind of like those fossils, you can hypothesize they were put there by a deity to trick people, or you can hypothesize the far more likelier prospect that they used to be living creatures. I don't know which one you think is more likely, but I am going with the second one.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I answered your question "If I say Hobbits exist and you deny it, do you have the responsibility of proving they don't exist?" with "YES I would be obligated to prove that either you were lying about having seen them or that hobbits have never existed nor do they currently exist."


The relevant point to this thread is that a popular vote about the existence of Hobbits won't change whether Hobbits exist. Likewise, a popular vote about the origin of life won't change how life originated. You can believe what you like, and you can even convince the rest of the world that you are correct, but it won't change the facts. It would still be possible that you and the rest of the world are wrong.


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> Both what? If you're saying that science is based on faith, you have a fundamental confusion about what science is. Aside from that, my views(whatever they may be) have nothing to do with another person's views. Distracting attention from the point being discussed works well for illusionists, but when it comes to rational discussion, it fails because it does not address the subject.


Faith is the belief in things unknown. Do we know the speed of light in interstellar space is the same as with in a gravity field? Do we know that there is dark matter out there? Do we know that there was a big bang? Do we know that a snake can grow wings if for generations tries to jump?

Seeing as we dang sure don't know the first two and the second are in question I'd have to say there's a large hunk of faith in science.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> The relevant point to this thread is that a popular vote about the existence of Hobbits won't change whether Hobbits exist. Likewise, a popular vote about the origin of life won't change how life originated. You can believe what you like, and you can even convince the rest of the world that you are correct, but it won't change the facts. It would still be possible that you and the rest of the world are wrong.


And upon this we are in total agreement! Since science openly admits to having no knowledge as to the origins of life on this planet.... I will have to go with the facts that I do know. Here is but a few things.

Life begets more life, background radiation alters dna, there are some cases where this has proven out to be a positive affect, (although rare) and subsequent offspring may have better abilities to survive than their predecessors, life feeds upon life, there is an order to the universe, (science has sorted out a tiny fraction of that order), God exists, telepathy exists, telekinesis exists, 2+3=5, and bourbon is one of mans greatest inventions to date. Those are pretty easy. The tricky part comes in when we try to discuss things that science doesnt know, such as the origin of life... and the multitude of life forms we see today, the exact circumference of a circle 3ft in diameter and the existence of God.

There is still a multitude of knowledge yet to be obtained, we have but scratched the pimple on the backside of the flee crawling on the rump of the critter (at least an elephant in size) known as knowledge. When science ever opts to learn about God, and all of those other things beyond their current capacity to learn... its going to make learning a whoooooole lot easier!


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Since science openly admits to having no knowledge as to the origins of life on this planet.... I will have to go with the facts that I do know.


That's not exactly true, since there are hypotheses to explain both the creation of both matter and life. I'm not totally sold, but the hypotheses exist.

Here is a UofA clip that presents the concepts. It's an hour long, but I've taken the time to watch it.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRhVcTTMlrM[/ame]


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> There is no "your logic". There is logic and there is everything else. *Logic says anybody who makes a claim has the responsibility of proving it.*


Thank you for clarifying that point. According to "logic", in order to claim that God did not create life on this planet... or that He doesnt exist, the burden of proof lies entirely in your lap.


----------



## FourDeuce

watcher said:


> Faith is the belief in things unknown. Do we know the speed of light in interstellar space is the same as with in a gravity field? Do we know that there is dark matter out there? Do we know that there was a big bang? Do we know that a snake can grow wings if for generations tries to jump?
> 
> Seeing as we dang sure don't know the first two and the second are in question I'd have to say there's a large hunk of faith in science.


That's just because you don't understand science. When something is not known, rational adults just accept the fact that it is not known. No faith is needed. Science, being based on reason, does the same thing.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thank you for clarifying that point. According to "logic", in order to claim that God did not create life on this planet... or that He doesnt exist, the burden of proof lies entirely in your lap.


Yeah, it does IF I make that claim. Since I didn't make that claim, the burden of your Straw Man still sits in your lap. Of course, that has nothing to do with the burden of proof for the people who have been claiming gods exist for the last few thousand years without proving it. That burden of proof is still exactly where it's been sitting for all those centuries.:Bawling:
For more than 40 years I've been watching while religious apologists keep trying to shift that burden of proof and when they get caught doing that, they often try to distract attention by building Straw Man arguments, like asking people to prove claims they didn't make. Yes, those are lame and dishonest tactics, but that's what many people do when they can't prove their claims.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> That's not exactly true, since there are hypotheses to explain both the creation of both matter and life. I'm not totally sold, but the hypotheses exist.
> 
> Here is a UofA clip that presents the concepts. It's an hour long, but I've taken the time to watch it.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRhVcTTMlrM


and what exactly is a hypothesis???? isnt that the original "idea"? unsupported by evidence beyond maybe coulda? not yet accepted by the scientific community itself? How about this "hypothesis" that wont steal an hour that someone can never get back.... "God created the heavens, and the earth, and the life upon it."


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> Since I never claimed that science(not MY science) has ALL the answers, you are once again asking me to prove something I never claimed. That's known as a Straw Man Fallacy, another type of logical failure.:yawn:


Sorry friend, go back and read your own posts. The only logical failure is in your close minded assumption that you are the final determination of what is and is not fact. And yes it is "Your" science as it is tainted by "your" ego.

So now again, answer the mitochondia question.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> Yeah, it does IF I make that claim. Since I didn't make that claim, the burden of your Straw Man still sits in your lap. Of course, that has nothing to do with the burden of proof for the people who have been claiming gods exist for the last few thousand years without proving it. That burden of proof is still exactly where it's been sitting for all those centuries.:Bawling:
> For more than 40 years I've been watching while religious apologists keep trying to shift that burden of proof and when they get caught doing that, they often try to distract attention by building Straw Man arguments, like asking people to prove claims they didn't make. Yes, those are lame and dishonest tactics, but that's what many people do when they can't prove their claims.


aha.... now you bring in the true culprit! Religion and those who would confound and confuse things for personal gain! I know that God exists due to an upfront one on one meeting with Him. (along with several other experiences that although cannot be duplicated at will, were quite real and as natural as a granola bar) This has nothing to do with preachers, shaman or other religious entities. I do wish that science would look further into these types events instead of just writing them off as superstition and nonsense. These not understood "phenomenon" are quite real, and quite within the natural events of our universe. In my own lifetime I recall Buck Rogers two way wrist watch with video as well as sound.... which was considered fantasy at the time... but how many people today carry a cellphone with those very features? I foresee a future when science not only understands that God exists.... but embraces Him completely! Not anytime soon of course due to their faith in their own capabilities and their monumental egos... but give it 20 maybe 50 thousand years... after they explore those possibilities.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> and what exactly is a hypothesis???? isnt that the original "idea"? unsupported by evidence beyond maybe coulda? not yet accepted by the scientific community itself? How about this "hypothesis" that wont steal an hour that someone can never get back.... "God created the heavens, and the earth, and the life upon it."


A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for something that hasn't passed the scientific method. But don't be too quick to discredit scientific hypotheses. After all, creationism is a hypothesis.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> That's just because you don't understand science. When something is not known, rational adults just accept the fact that it is not known. No faith is needed. Science, being based on reason, does the same thing.


If only that were true!


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Or you could just walk outside at sunrise. Kind of like those fossils, you can hypothesize they were put there by a deity to trick people, or you can hypothesize the far more likelier prospect that they used to be living creatures. I don't know which one you think is more likely, but I am going with the second one.


I have no problem with fossils.. but I cant honestly say they were once living breathing creatures either... lack of evidence and like that. I do not discount that possibility of course.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If only that were true!


It is true, but many confused people don't understand the difference between science and what scientists say. Not everything scientists say is science, and the "mistakes" confused people make when trying to describe science are not science either.


----------



## FourDeuce

JJ Grandits said:


> Sorry friend, go back and read your own posts."
> 
> No need to. I know what I say.
> 
> "The only logical failure is in your close minded assumption that you are the final determination of what is and is not fact."
> 
> Please post where I said I assume that. I know I didn't say it, but you're welcome to post a quote of me saying that if you can find one(so you won't be accused of making things up).
> 
> "And yes it is "Your" science as it is tainted by "your" ego.
> 
> So now again, answer the mitochondia question.


I already did. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't change it. That's another thing rational adults learn to deal with. Reality doesn't care whether you like something or not.:Bawling:


----------



## FourDeuce

Nevada said:


> A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for something that hasn't passed the scientific method. But don't be too quick to discredit scientific hypotheses. After all, creationism is a hypothesis.


Creationism may be a hypothesis in the informal sense, but it is not even close to a scientific hypothesis. It is based on old stories in a book.


----------



## FourDeuce

"I foresee a future when science not only understands that God exists.... but embraces Him completely! Not anytime soon of course due to their faith in their own capabilities and their monumental egos... but give it 20 maybe 50 thousand years... after they explore those possibilities." 
That's a good illustration of what I just said. Many people don't understand the difference between science and what some scientists say. Science has no faith or ego.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> There is no "your logic". There is logic and there is everything else. Logic says anybody who makes a claim has the responsibility of proving it. I made no claims about the sun rising anywhere. The fact that the only argument you can come up with is to try to put words in my mouth says it all for me. You can feel free to keep building your Straw Man arguments if it makes you feel better, but you will lose all credibility if you continue using logical fallacies like that.


It took me a while to sort this nonsense "logic" of yours out, but heres the deal.... You attempted to put words in my mouth about hobbits and such... no real difference there between that and the "sun coming up in the west". They were both "hypothetical situations. No you didnt claim the sun came up in the west, anymore than I denied hobbits exist... but when I posed the question to you "hypothetically"... "If I said the sun rises in the east every morning..... and MOST of the people in the world agree with me.... and *you opt to deny that fact*..." is when you responded that my logic was faulty. It would appear that my logic is just as sound as yours... but then I have had a few... so maybe thats stretching things a tad, but if my sun coming up in the east is a strawman... I would have to say so is your hobbits.


----------



## JeffreyD

FourDeuce said:


> Creationism may be a hypothesis in the informal sense, but it is not even close to a scientific hypothesis. It is based on old stories in a book.


To hundreds of millions, it makes more sense than evolution! Discount that!


----------



## JeffreyD

FourDeuce said:


> "I foresee a future when science not only understands that God exists.... but embraces Him completely! Not anytime soon of course due to their faith in their own capabilities and their monumental egos... but give it 20 maybe 50 thousand years... after they explore those possibilities."
> That's a good illustration of what I just said. Many people don't understand the difference between science and what some scientists say. Science has no faith or ego.


No ego? Really? .........cold fusion comes to mind to start with! Flieshman and Ponds! Look them up.


----------



## Nevada

FourDeuce said:


> Creationism may be a hypothesis in the informal sense, but it is not even close to a scientific hypothesis. It is based on old stories in a book.


Most anything can be a hypothesis. It's applying the scientific method to elevate it to a theory or law that separates the men from the boys. That's where the creationism argument runs off the rails; when they promote creationism as a scientific theory.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> Science has no faith or ego.


:bouncy::hysterical::bouncy::hysterical:


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have no problem with fossils.. but I cant honestly say they were once living breathing creatures either... lack of evidence and like that. I do not discount that possibility of course.


Of course dinosaurs existed. Your questioning of that is absurd. There's obvious fossil evidence of the existence of dinosaurs.

But I have a question for you. What is the educational basis for the teaching of ID or creationism? I mean, what facts can we give students to support that contention, and where do we point them as the origin for that knowledge?


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> I already did. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't change it. That's another thing rational adults learn to deal with. Reality doesn't care whether you like something or not.:Bawling:


Sorry buddy, you are oh so very wrong. I went back in the thread to where I first asked the question and then suffered though your nonsensical responses, and you never even acknowledged the question much less answer it.

I did however, in further review of your twist thinking discover that you did not answer because you do not understand the question. Your attempt to portray yourself as a person well versed in the scientific method is on kin to a young boy with a Harry Potter book practicing magic.

The words you use do not in any way show that you know what they mean. 

I'd like to think of a BS artist, but your level of execution is more in line with BS fingerpainting.

You have successfully defeated your own argument.

Well done uber scientist!!

You've proved your lack of knowledge is a fact.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Of course dinosaurs existed. Your questioning of that is absurd. There's obvious fossil evidence of the existence of dinosaurs.
> 
> *:umno: what there is for sure, is fossil evidence of fossils... nothing more nothing less. What one perceives from viewing that evidence is up to the individual. *
> But I have a question for you. What is the educational basis for the teaching of ID or creationism? I mean, what facts can we give students to support thew contention, and where do we point them as the origin for that knowledge?


I would safely say their is far better basis for teaching ID than any particular version of the various religious beliefs... but wont sit here and attempt to disprove any of those either. At this point.... its anybodys guess. The book of genesis very closely parallels that of science's theories, ID brings a lot more evidence to the table than either current science or religions. They have science and God.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would safely say their is far better basis for teaching ID than any particular version of the various religious beliefs... but wont sit here and attempt to disprove any of those either. At this point.... its anybodys guess. The book of genesis very closely parallels that of science's theories, ID brings a lot more evidence to the table than either current science or religions. They have science and God.


So you would point students to the book of Genesis as a reference for ID or "creation theory?"


----------



## Evons hubby

JJ Grandits said:


> Sorry buddy, you are oh so very wrong. I went back in the thread to where I first asked the question and then suffered though your nonsensical responses, and you never even acknowledged the question much less answer it.
> 
> I did however, in further review of your twist thinking discover that you did not answer because you do not understand the question. Your attempt to portray yourself as a person well versed in the scientific method is on kin to a young boy with a Harry Potter book practicing magic.
> 
> The words you use do not in any way show that you know what they mean.
> 
> I'd like to think of a BS artist, but your level of execution is more in line with BS fingerpainting.
> 
> You have successfully defeated your own argument.
> 
> Well done uber scientist!!
> 
> You've proved your lack of knowledge is a fact.


I wasnt going to say it quite that way... but had thought the same about another poster in this thread.  A lotta big words and quick with wiki answers, but lacking a bit when it came to personal ideas and thoughts.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> So you would point students to the book of Genesis as a reference for ID or "creation theory?"


Not for ID of course... thats a whole nuther can of worms... but for religious creationism... yeah... that would be a good starting point... of course other religions than those based on the bible have their holy books as well. Most do seem to have some common ground though... and most all point to a creator... that intelligent designer if they havent named Him as something else.


----------



## FourDeuce

JeffreyD said:


> To hundreds of millions, it makes more sense than evolution! Discount that!


 No need to. The Bandwagon Fallacy fails all by itself with no help from me.


----------



## FourDeuce

JeffreyD said:


> No ego? Really?
> 
> Yeah, really. Maybe you don't understand what I posted. SCIENCE has no ego. Since science is not a person, it can't have an ego.
> 
> .........cold fusion comes to mind to start with! Flieshman and Ponds! Look them up.


No need to. I understand the difference between science and scientists. Look that up if you need to.:nono:


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not for ID of course... thats a whole nuther can of worms... but for religious creationism... yeah... that would be a good starting point... of course other religions than those based on the bible have their holy books as well. Most do seem to have some common ground though... and most all point to a creator... that intelligent designer if they havent named Him as something else.


What is the point of teaching ID? How does that guide scientists to an understanding of our surroundings that might help them or society? Should graduate students be devoting their resources to proving or disproving the existence of a creator? Are you sure that's what you want? After all, they might disprove something that you don't want disproved.


----------



## Buckhuntr

JeffreyD said:


> To hundreds of millions, it makes more sense than evolution! Discount that!


If hundreds of millions have the same misguided delusions, does that make them less delusional? :whistlin:


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> No need to. The Bandwagon Fallacy fails all by itself with no help from me.


See what I mean?


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> No need to. I understand the difference between science and scientists. Look that up if you need to.:nono:


Let me put it this way... if there were no scientists... the ones with their monumental egos... who will go to great lengths to "prove" their point... even to committing blatant fraud... There would be no "science"... they are one in the same! Now, that being said, I will agree with you that there are concrete facts in this world.... and a lot of good well intentioned people have put forth a lot of effort in order to learn those facts... but they are not all scientists, and not all scientist are what they claim to be.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Let me put it this way... if there were no scientists... the ones with their monumental egos... who will go to great lengths to "prove" their point... even to committing blatant fraud... There would be no "science"... they are one in the same! Now, that being said, I will agree with you that there are concrete facts in this world.... and a lot of good well intentioned people have put forth a lot of effort in order to learn those facts... but they are not all scientists, and not all scientist are what they claim to be.


This all becomes really hard to believe. I think you know that science is the real thing.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> What is the point of teaching ID?
> *It opens up new ways of thinking... which may someday lead to finding out truths that would never be explored.*
> 
> How does that guide scientists to an understanding of our surroundings that might help them or society?
> 
> *Oh man!!! The possibilities are virtually endless! How might it benefit our society if the secrets of telekinesis were unravelled? our dependence upon known energy sources... fossil fuels, solar, wind, hydro... could be virtually eliminated! Think of being able to travel great distance just by leaving point A, and arriving at point Z without having to pass thru points b,c,d,e,f etc! This is just to mention a couple of ways we could benefit by young minds, searching for answers in places no scientist dare look in todays world.*
> Should graduate students be devoting their resources to proving or disproving the existence of a creator? Are you sure that's what you want? After all, they might disprove something that you don't want disproved.


Yes! by all means thats exactly what they should be looking for! And the knowledge that He possesses! There is no way that if they seek truth, they will "disprove" his existence... that would be like disproving that the rocky mountains do not exist.. or that life doesnt exist.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> This all becomes really hard to believe. I think you know that science is the real thing.


I have no doubt whatsoever that science, and a good many scientists have come a long way since they began a few hundred years ago to explore our world, and universe. However I also know they have barely scratched the surface of what can be learned. If you have doubts about their ego's overloading their backsides... do a quick search for fraudulent scientific studies, papers, and "accepted theories" going the wayside. This is particularly true in the area of evolution.


----------



## Evons hubby

Buckhuntr said:


> If hundreds of millions have the same misguided delusions, does that make them less delusional? :whistlin:


Good question! but how do you tell the insane from the doctors in a mental institution? Its easy.... the doctors have name tags!


----------



## FourDeuce

Nevada said:


> This all becomes really hard to believe. I think you know that science is the real thing.


He's posting it on the internet using a computer, rather than praying it online using faith.:whistlin:


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> He's posting it on the internet using a computer, rather than praying it online using faith.:whistlin:


Thats only because the science guys refuse to look deeper into telepathy... If I knew how to bring about the necessary conditions to use telepathy at will I would certainly be using that method... Its a heckuva lot handier than typing out all of this stuff, not to mention a lot cheaper... doesnt cost a dime! no computers, no internet required.

There was a time when everyone stared at a horse or mules backside to get to town... until the science guys looked at ways to build and make automobiles available for our use.


----------



## FourDeuce

"If you have doubts about their ego's overloading their backsides" 
I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim that SCIENCE has ego and faith problems. :bored:


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thats only because the science guys refuse to look deeper into telepathy... If I knew how to bring about the necessary conditions to use telepathy at will I would certainly be using that method... Its a heckuva lot handier than typing out all of this stuff, not to mention a lot cheaper... doesnt cost a dime! no computers, no internet required.
> 
> There was a time when everyone stared at a horse or mules backside to get to town... until the science guys looked at ways to build and make automobiles available for our use.


Yeah, science has a way of getting results.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> Yeah, science has a way of getting results.


Right... thats why they refuse to explore the wonderful world of telepathy or telekinesis and arent teaching our children how to use it anytime they so desire. No problem teaching our kiddies that we all came from the black lagoon... thats some practical stuff right there!


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> "If you have doubts about their ego's overloading their backsides"
> I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim that SCIENCE has ego and faith problems. :bored:


How many cases of fraud would you like me to bring forward? Remember... there is no "science" without scientists. We must not confuse science with facts... they are all too often very dissimilar.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How many cases of fraud would you like me to bring forward?
> 
> One would do it if you could find one. Of course, first you need to learn the difference between science and scientists.
> 
> "Remember... there is no "science" without scientists."
> 
> That's easy to remember, but it has nothing to do with your claim.
> 
> "We must not confuse science with facts... they are all too often very dissimilar.


 You should also not confuse your opinions with facts.:bash:


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> You should also not confuse your opinions with facts.:bash:


So far you have posted nothing but opinion.

So how about the mitochondria question? You can give me your opinion on that.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> One would do it if you could find one.


How does 103,000,000 hits in .26 seconds sound to you? just type in "scientific fraud" and see what you get. here is a good article, (second hit) that has quite a few cases of fraud that seems to be plaguing science.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.list/tagNo/2642/tags/scientific-fraud/

Your argument that science isnt the same as scientists is poppy cock.... thats quite similar to saying a government is somehow different than its politicians. Crooked politicians = crooked government just the same as fraudulent scientists = fraudulent science.


----------



## Evons hubby

JJ Grandits said:


> So far you have posted nothing but opinion.


We all do that.... we all form out opinions based upon our observations... a good example is that in my opinion the sun rises in the east, unless of course you are standing precisely on the north pole where every direction you look is south, or the south pole where every direction you look is north. There seems to be at least one here, whose opinion may vary about that, and insists that if his opinion is different than mine, the burden of proof remains on me... not him. In my opinion it would be up to him to prove his claim... as my opinion has already been pretty well proven and accepted by not only the intelligent populace of the world, but the scientific community as well.


----------



## FourDeuce

JJ Grandits said:


> So far you have posted nothing but opinion.
> 
> So how about the mitochondria question? You can give me your opinion on that.


I already did.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How does 103,000,000 hits in .26 seconds sound to you? just type in "scientific fraud" and see what you get. here is a good article, (second hit) that has quite a few cases of fraud that seems to be plaguing science.
> http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.list/tagNo/2642/tags/scientific-fraud/
> 
> Your argument that science isnt the same as scientists is poppy cock.... thats quite similar to saying a government is somehow different than its politicians. Crooked politicians = crooked government just the same as fraudulent scientists = fraudulent science.


I guess you missed the multiple times I already posted about that thing called the burden of proof. YOU made the claim so YOU are expected to prove it.
"Your argument that science isn't the same as scientists is poppy cock...." There's your problem, then. If you can't understand the difference between science and scientists, the subject is way too complicated for you.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> I guess you missed the multiple times I already posted about that thing called the burden of proof. *YOU made the claim so YOU are expected to prove it.*


Which I did. Would you care to make a claim other than just guessing that I missed your multiple posts about the burden of proof?


----------



## Evons hubby

Now this question posed by JJ "So how about the mitochondria question? You can give me your opinion on that."



FourDeuce said:


> I already did.


I guess I missed your post in answer to that one. I am fairly certain he has posed that question to you, and others, several times now, but I cant find where anyone has given him a straight answer.


----------



## FourDeuce

Posted yesterday at 5:16 p.m.

Since I never claimed that science(not MY science) has ALL the answers, you are once again asking me to prove something I never claimed. That's known as a Straw Man Fallacy, another type of logical failure.:yawn: 

Straight answer. If you don't like it and can't deal with it, that's your problem. You should learn to follow a thread.:yawn:


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> Posted yesterday at 5:16 p.m.
> 
> Since I never claimed that science(not MY science) has ALL the answers, you are once again asking me to prove something I never claimed. That's known as a Straw Man Fallacy, another type of logical failure.:yawn:
> 
> Straight answer. If you don't like it and can't deal with it, that's your problem. You should learn to follow a thread.:yawn:


Ok, I recall reading this.... but noticed that you didnt really answer his question... you simply dodged it.... referring to straw men. He did not make a claim, he simply asked a question... and has yet to get an answer. I see a couple of options here.... you could give your opinion of how that situation could happen... or simply say "I dont know" and neither do the scientists, therefor it does sorta toss a monkey wrench into the overall theory of how life was formed at the bottom of the black lagoon.


----------



## FourDeuce

Maybe I typed it too fast or used to many big words, but I did say "I don't know". Like I said, I can explain things for people, but I can't understand things for them.

"therefor it does sorta toss a monkey wrench into the overall theory of how life was formed at the bottom of the black lagoon." 
Nope, it doesn't do that at all, but if you can't understand the difference between science and scientists I can see how you'd be confused about how science works.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which I did. Would you care to make a claim other than just guessing that I missed your multiple posts about the burden of proof?


There was no guessing involved. From your posts it is clear that you have no idea how the burden of proof works.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> *There was no guessing involved.* From your posts it is clear that you have no idea how the burden of proof works.





FourDeuce said:


> *I guess you missed the multiple times* I already posted about that thing called the burden of proof. YOU made the claim so YOU are expected to prove it.


Sorry, but that looks like "guessing" to me. But since you finally stated an opinion on something... perhaps the burden of proof does lay on you. Care to "prove" that I do not understand your concept of the burden of proof?



FourDeuce said:


> Maybe I typed it too fast or used to many big words, but *I did say "I don't know"*.





FourDeuce said:


> Posted yesterday at 5:16 p.m.
> 
> *Since I never claimed that science(not MY science) has ALL the answers,* you are once again asking me to prove something I never claimed. That's known as a Straw Man Fallacy, another type of logical failure.:yawn:
> 
> Straight answer. If you don't like it and can't deal with it, that's your problem. You should learn to follow a thread.:yawn:


Again, I am having trouble, all I seem to be able to find here is where you said science doesnt have all the answers.... with a handy disclaimer that it isnt "your science". I cannot find the words "I dont know" anywhere in the post you brought forward from yesterday. Or anywhere in any other of your posts since that time up until post #1518 where you claimed that you had said "I dont know". 

Again, I lay the burden of proof for your claim to have answered his question with "I dont know" at your doorstep. 

I think I have a fair grasp of your concept of burden of proof.... other folks are required to back up their claims with very specific evidence, while they are expected to just take your word for something and go on with life, is that about right?


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> That's just because you don't understand science. When something is not known, rational adults just accept the fact that it is not known. No faith is needed. Science, being based on reason, does the same thing.


Step back. Look at the science and apply simple logic. 

It is stated that we "know" how far a star is from the earth and if it is moving from us or toward us. That is put out as scientific "fact". Is that incorrect?

That "fact" is based the "fact" that we "know" the speed of light. Is that incorrect?

Now if there were ANY question about the speed of light just about EVERYTHING we "know" about interstellar space, the big bang, how old the universe is and many other things must be questioned if not thrown out entirely because they are based on the speed of light. After all you can't base a fact on unknowns. Correct?

All of the things listed above are based on the belief of something which is not and can not be (at this time) known, i.e. the speed of light in interstellar/gravity free space. Again believing in something which is not and can not be known is the very definition of faith, is it not.

Therefore how can you say that science is not based on faith?


----------



## FourDeuce

"Care to "prove" that I do not understand your concept of the burden of proof?" 
Of course not. If you have no burden of proof for your claims, it's hypocritical of you to ask other people to prove theirs.:hrm:

"Again, I lay the burden of proof for your claim to have answered his question with "I dont know" at your doorstep." 
Again, you ignore YOUR burden of proof. BTW, YOU can't lay the burden of proof anywhere. Logic takes care of that. Another demonstration that you don't understand how the burden of proof works.

"I think I have a fair grasp of your concept of burden of proof"
Yeah, confused people often believe they have a "fair grasp" of things, even when they don't have a clue. You keep trying to talk about science, even though you don't understand what science is. It's like somebody trying to discuss math after starting out saying 2+2=3.


----------



## FourDeuce

"Therefore how can you say that science is not based on faith?" 
By having a basic understanding of what science is.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> All of the things listed above are based on the belief of something which is not and can not be (at this time) known, i.e. the speed of light in interstellar/gravity free space. Again believing in something which is not and can not be known is the very definition of faith, is it not.


The fact that we use light years to express large distances indicates a universal acceptance that the speed of light is constant. What reason does anyone have to doubt that?


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> "Therefore how can you say that science is not based on faith?"
> By having a basic understanding of what science is.


I laid out a step by step logical 'proof' that science is based on faith and your response is ignore the facts put before you and claim you 'know' its wrong because you just 'know' it. Is that how you view scientific procedure works? When faced with 'facts' which show the other side has a strong argument you just ignore them and cover your ears and chant "I know it because I know it!" over and over again.

Come on step up mister I know all about science. Answer my questions and show me where the flaws are in my logic. I'll make it easy for you and post them again.

_It is stated that we "know" how far a star is from the earth and if it is moving from us or toward us. That is put out as scientific "fact". Is that incorrect?

That "fact" is based the "fact" that we "know" the speed of light. Is that incorrect?

Now if there were ANY question about the speed of light just about EVERYTHING we "know" about interstellar space, the big bang, how old the universe is and many other things must be questioned if not thrown out entirely because they are based on the speed of light. After all you can't base a fact on unknowns. Correct? _


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> I already did.


Nope, you didn't


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The fact that we use light years to express large distances indicates a universal acceptance that the speed of light is constant. What reason does anyone have to doubt that?


Because it is a 'known fact' that gravity has an effect on light and it has been proven in repeatable experiments that light can be slowed down. Google Lene Hau and the speed of light and you will discover the latest c is about 17 m/sec not 300,000,000 m/s.

Knowing this what reason does anyone have for assuming what the speed of light in interstellar space is? Is it 300,000,000 m/s? Is it 17 m/s? Is it 124,567,901 m/s? Other than if it isn't all the "facts" we "know" about the universe are placed into doubt.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> The fact that we use light years to express large distances indicates a universal acceptance that the speed of light is constant. What reason does anyone have to doubt that?


Gravity! 

Eta: Watcher beat me too it!


----------



## FourDeuce

"I laid out a step by step logical 'proof' that science is based on faith"
No, you laid out a step-by-step demonstration that you don't understand science. Before you can argue against science, you have to learn what it is.


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> "I laid out a step by step logical 'proof' that science is based on faith"
> No, you laid out a step-by-step demonstration that you don't understand science. Before you can argue against science, you have to learn what it is.


Maybe our disagreement is in the defination of the word science. Just to clear things up could you tell us what you think science is?


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> "I laid out a step by step logical 'proof' that science is based on faith"
> No, you laid out a step-by-step demonstration that you don't understand science. Before you can argue against science, you have to learn what it is.


You know you remind me of some characters in a movie "Run away, run away."

Come on, stand up and PROVE I'm wrong. Show me the faults in my logic. Show me where we have scientific experiments and data, after all isn't that what science is all about, to prove that the speed of light in interstellar space is the same as it is on earth. 

You won't. You'll continue to run away, deflect and call names because you know you can not provide the proof. At that point you'd have to admit you are believing things which you have no proof of. IOW, you just have FAITH that they are true.

Do you know what a black swan event is? If not look it up. Then do the google search in the post to Nevada. At that point you will see that the great wonderful known fact that the speed of light is constant has been slapped down because we have found a black swan. Once that black swan has been found EVERYTHING which based on all swans being white must be, at the very least, questioned and quite possibly thrown out.


----------



## Evons hubby

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sorry, but that looks like "guessing" to me. But since you finally stated an opinion on something... perhaps the burden of proof does lay on you. Care to "prove" that I do not understand your concept of the burden of proof?





FourDeuce said:


> "Care to "prove" that I do not understand your concept of the burden of proof?"
> Of course not. If you have no burden of proof for your claims, it's hypocritical of you to ask other people to prove theirs.:hrm:


But since I did provide the evidence (your own words) to back up my claims... or shall we say "prove" them... how is it hypocritical of me to ask you to prove your claims? You have been dancing around avoiding answering questions posed to you and attempting to discredit myself and others as well with your play on words and deceptions for the last several pages.... I would prefer an honest, straight up explanation of the mitochondria conundrum. (along with answers to that speed of light issue) Logic says we must have those answers prior to forming any conclusions about life forming in the black lagoon.


----------



## greg273

This thread has pretty much jumped off the rails. Watcher, your premise seems to be since 'science' doesn't know everything, then it must all be bogus, and therefore everything must have a supernatural causation. Can't really argue with someone who'd rather believe in talking snakes and an instantly-formed, unchanging universe, complete with fake dinosaur fossils to mess with the heads of the inhabitants of the Earth. I just don't believe that is how it all came to be...


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> This thread has pretty much jumped off the rails. Watcher, your premise seems to be since 'science' doesn't know everything, then it must all be bogus, and therefore everything must have a supernatural causation. Can't really argue with someone who'd rather believe in talking snakes and an instantly-formed, unchanging universe, complete with fake dinosaur fossils to mess with the heads of the inhabitants of the Earth. I just don't believe that is how it all came to be...


The way I see it, you are welcome to believe anything you wish to believe, and so is everyone else. Why? because there is not one shred of evidence to prove that life formed at the bottom of the black lagoon. There is precious little evidence to back up that marvelous theory of evolution either. You know the one, where one celled organisms turned into fish and plants, then sprouted legs lungs and grew wings and feathers... eventually becoming every life form we see today. Yes, there is a wonderful fossil record of many creatures we dont see today... but when one tries to find those critters that link them together in any continuous "string".... that record suddenly becomes more than a bit lacking.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The way I see it, you are welcome to believe anything you wish to believe, and so is everyone else. Why? because there is not one shred of evidence to prove that life formed at the bottom of the black lagoon. There is precious little evidence to back up that marvelous theory of evolution either.


 You see a lack of evidence, I see abundant evidence. But you have to look first.


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> You see a lack of evidence, I see abundant evidence. But you have to look first.


I have looked.... it isnt there. Bits and pieces of critters, here and there... but nothing to make any real links, and those links would need to be there in order to "prove" anything beyond "we have some fossils", fossils are cool, no doubt about it, but they lack what is needed to show that slow gradual progression from a one celled critter to the abundant life forms we see today. Have some of our life forms changed over the years? sure, and there is evidence of that... but it certainly doesnt mean what our science guys would have us believe. Last May, I visited a fossil museum in Idaho... our guide (an "authority" on the subject complete with a book in print he kept trying to peddle) told us several times about the fossils of zebras found there in the area... when push came to shove.... something about fossils with stripes... he admitted they were most likely horses... but "could have been zebra like animals". Hello!!! Horses are indeed "zebra like" animals!


----------



## Evons hubby

77 pages and 1537 posts later, no one has answered the question orginally posted.... whats even more amazing is that it really makes NO DIFFERENCE what the answer is! The earth is here, man is here, women are here, dinos arent here. seriously.... what difference does it really make if they were here millions of years ago or thousands? they arent stomping around in anyones gardens today.


----------



## FourDeuce

"it really makes NO DIFFERENCE what the answer is!" 
It does to people who care about the truth.:nana:


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> "it really makes NO DIFFERENCE what the answer is!"
> It does to people who care about the truth.:nana:


Let us know when you find it.


----------



## Oggie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> 77 pages and 1537 posts later, no one has answered the question orginally posted.... whats even more amazing is that it really makes NO DIFFERENCE what the answer is! The earth is here, man is here, women are here, dinos arent here. seriously.... what difference does it really make if they were here millions of years ago or thousands? they arent stomping around in anyones gardens today.


The claim that period of time in which dinosaurs populated the Earth is less than 10,000 years ago has not been proven as a viable theory by scientific evidence. That was an old theory, proven extremely unlikely by evidence that has been gathered and examined during the last century.

Unless something is found that outweighs the current evidence, the agreement in the scientific community is that the era of dinosaurs is millions of years ago.


----------



## Evons hubby

Oggie said:


> The claim that period of time in which dinosaurs populated the Earth is less than 10,000 years ago has not been proven as a viable theory by scientific evidence. That was an old theory, proven extremely unlikely by evidence that has been gathered and examined during the last century.
> 
> Unless something is found that outweighs the current evidence, the agreement in the scientific community is that the era of dinosaurs is millions of years ago.


I understand all of this.... and I also understand that answer is only believed to be true by a minority of the worlds population. Now could you please tell me what difference it makes to us who are alive and living on the planet today? Seriously, what difference can it possibly make in our lives whether dinos roamed 4 thousand years ago, or 50 billion years ago, as long as they arent roaming around trampling our roses and pumpkins today? :shrug:


----------



## Oggie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I understand all of this.... and I also understand that answer is only believed to be true by a minority of the worlds population. Now could you please tell me what difference it makes to us who are alive and living on the planet today? Seriously, what difference can it possibly make in our lives whether dinos roamed 4 thousand years ago, or 50 billion years ago, as long as they arent roaming around trampling our roses and pumpkins today? :shrug:


That is the Buddhist approach to the issue.

But, determining the era when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth is a product of understanding geologic stratification, and that is important to many things, including energy exploration.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Let us know when you find it.


 Even if I never find it, I'll never stop looking. That's why I couldn't settle for religion.


----------



## FourDeuce

"Now could you please tell me what difference it makes to us who are alive and living on the planet today?" As I've explained to religious people many times, honest people care about the truth, even if that truth makes no difference in their lives. :cowboy:


----------



## JeffreyD

FourDeuce said:


> "Now could you please tell me what difference it makes to us who are alive and living on the planet today?" As I've explained to religious people many times, honest people care about the truth, even if that truth makes no difference in their lives. :cowboy:


So y our saying that religious people aren't honest? Really? :smack


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> "Now could you please tell me what difference it makes to us who are alive and living on the planet today?" As I've explained to religious people many times, honest people care about the truth, even if that truth makes no difference in their lives. :cowboy:


I am honest, am not religious, care about the truth, and yet can find nothing relevant to my life regarding when dinos roamed the earth.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> Even if I never find it, I'll never stop looking. That's why I couldn't settle for religion.


I predict a very long search if you refuse to look for God as you undertake finding truth. He is very much a part of the truth.


----------



## Evons hubby

Oggie said:


> That is the Buddhist approach to the issue.
> 
> But, determining the era when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth is a product of understanding geologic stratification, and that is important to many things, including energy exploration.


wonderful! I still dont see the connection between geological research that brings oil and gas to the top of the ground and why its so all fired important as to when the dinos roamed?


----------



## Oggie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> wonderful! I still dont see the connection between geological research that brings oil and gas to the top of the ground and why its so all fired important as to when the dinos roamed?



And, you never will.


----------



## Evons hubby

Oggie said:


> And, you never will.


I think you just might be right.... most likely because its very difficult to see something that isnt there.


----------



## FourDeuce

JeffreyD said:


> So y our saying that religious people aren't honest? Really? :smack


When a person asks why other people value the truth, it reveals how little they value the truth. An honest person wouldn't need to ask that question.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I predict a very long search if you refuse to look for God as you undertake finding truth.
> 
> I don't refuse to look for anything. I just refuse to believe in something with no evidence. As far as a long search, I'm patient.
> 
> He is very much a part of the truth.


The only thing you accomplish by making claims you can't prove is to destroy your credibility.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am honest, am not religious, care about the truth, and yet can find nothing relevant to my life regarding when dinos roamed the earth.


If you go around making up your own definitions for words, every time you say something you will be failing to communicate. :smack IF you cared about the truth, it wouldn't matter whether it was "relevant to your life".


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> If you go around making up your own definitions for words, every time you say something you will be failing to communicate. :smack IF you cared about the truth, it wouldn't matter whether it was "relevant to your life".


Which is why I dont go round making up my own definitions for words. I prefer websters definitions.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> When a person asks why other people value the truth, it reveals how little they value the truth. An honest person wouldn't need to ask that question.


I dunno... the way you worded the statement he responded to was a bit..... questionable.... for lack of better vocabulary, I think it needed a bit of clarification myself... and I my friend am as honest as the day is long.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> The only thing you accomplish by making claims you can't prove is to destroy your credibility.


Ok, first of all my credibility is not in question here... and if it does happen to be in question by certain members here I am reminded of my exwifes mothers little saying.... "You should never worry about what other people think.... they very seldom do." Somehow that wise old woman seemed to have had a pretty good grip on this conversation.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dunno... the way you worded the statement he responded to was a bit..... questionable.... for lack of better vocabulary, I think it needed a bit of clarification myself... and I my friend am as honest as the day is long.


In my experience, the people who go around telling other people how honest they are are generally the last people I'd trust.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> In my experience, the people who go around telling other people how honest they are are generally the last people I'd trust.


So, it seems you do have a wee bit of common sense after all! I was genuinely beginning to worry about you.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So, it seems you do have a wee bit of common sense after all! I was genuinely beginning to worry about you.


I quit worrying about you when you started telling me how honest you are.:hysterical:


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> I quit worrying about you when you started telling me how honest you are.:hysterical:


Hope you didnt lose a lot of sleep worrying about me before then.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> This thread has pretty much jumped off the rails. Watcher, your premise seems to be since 'science' doesn't know everything, then it must all be bogus, and therefore everything must have a supernatural causation. Can't really argue with someone who'd rather believe in talking snakes and an instantly-formed, unchanging universe, complete with fake dinosaur fossils to mess with the heads of the inhabitants of the Earth. I just don't believe that is how it all came to be...


Not at all. My point is a large part of science is based on things it doesn't "know" and can't "prove". You still haven't told me how we have proven that the speed of light in interstellar space is the same as within a gravity field.

W/o proof how can you say its science instead of faith?


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> You see a lack of evidence, I see abundant evidence. But you have to look first.


Where did you look to find evidence of the speed of light being 300,000,000 m/s in interstellar space?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Not at all. My point is a large part of science is based on things it doesn't "know" and can't "prove". You still haven't told me how we have proven that the speed of light in interstellar space is the same as within a gravity field.
> 
> W/o proof how can you say its science instead of faith?


Science offers a plausible explanation, within bounds of known limitations for physics, chemistry, and biology. Your explanation requires the existence of a supernatural being, which you can't establish. Without a supernatural being your explanation simply isn't plausible.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Science offers a plausible explanation, within bounds of known limitations for physics, chemistry, and biology. Your explanation requires the existence of a supernatural being, which you can't establish. Without a supernatural being your explanation simply isn't plausible.


Why must God be "supernatural"? He is as natural as a granola bar in a nature freaks backpack! As to sciences "plausible" explanation... its very plausible, as long as you have a tremendous imagination to fill in all the blanks.


----------



## watcher

I have posted links to facts and scientific data which show that the theory that the speed of light is constant at 300,000,000 m/s. One link shows that light can actually travel as slow as 17 m/s.

Can anyone out there dispute this? If not read on.

This is a *Black Swan* event and the facts about the distance to the stars, the age of the universe, the size of the universe and all the other 'facts' which are based on the fact/knowledge that the speed of light is ALWAYS 300,000,000 m/s must now be toss out. (or taken on faith) 

A light year maybe 9.5 X 10^15 meters or it maybe 5.4 X 10^8 meters or anywhere in between. Heck, as far as we know it could be even longer than 9.5 X 10^15 meters.

This is a classic example of what I'm talking about. Science has a base of things built on things we just assume to be true, IOW we have faith in them being true.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why must God be "supernatural"? He is as natural as a granola bar in a nature freaks backpack! As to sciences "plausible" explanation... its very plausible, as long as you have a tremendous imagination to fill in all the blanks.


suÂ·perÂ·natÂ·uÂ·ral
&#716;so&#862;op&#601;r&#712;naCH(&#601r&#601;l/
_adjective_
adjective: *supernatural*
*1*. 
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
"a supernatural being"


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> suÂ·perÂ·natÂ·uÂ·ral
> &#716;so&#862;op&#601;r&#712;naCH(&#601r&#601;l/
> _adjective_
> adjective: *supernatural*
> *1*.
> (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
> "a supernatural being"


Oh fer pitys sake.... He designed the laws of nature! He is not beyond them. Its not his fault scientists dont understand that.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Science has a base of things built on things we just assume to be true, IOW we have faith in them being true.


I'm reminded of the Grand Canyon gag that the Flintstones writers used during a vacation episode. Wilma pointed out that the Grand Canyon was only a small unimpressive stream, but Fred reminded them that "they" expected it to really be something someday. The clip makes an obvious poke at scientific predictions, but it's all in fun.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf4pUZPaz5k[/ame]


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I'm reminded of the Grand Canyon gag that the Flintstones writers used during a vacation episode. Wilma pointed out that it was just a small unimpressive stream, but Fred reminded them that "they" expected it to really be something someday.


I have yet to see any one here offer scientific proof to support the 'fact' that light travels at 300,000,000 m/s in interstellar space. Seeing as how I have offered a link to show that the theory that the speed of light is constant, i.e. is ALWAYS 300,000,000 m/s, is false I'd think someone would come up with something to disprove it.

BTW, further research on my part has discovered *a second* scientist which has discovered a way to slow light down; George Welch of Texas A&M. But poor old George could only slow his light down to 90 m/s.

So we now have found *TWO* black swans out there.


----------



## Evons hubby

watcher said:


> I have yet to see any one here offer scientific proof to support the 'fact' that light travels at 300,000,000 m/s in interstellar space. Seeing as how I have offered a link to show that the theory that the speed of light is constant, i.e. is ALWAYS 300,000,000 m/s, is false I'd think someone would come up with something to disprove it.
> 
> BTW, further research on my part has discovered *a second* scientist which has discovered a way to slow light down; George Welch of Texas A&M. But poor old George could only slow his light down to 90 m/s.
> 
> So we now have found *TWO* black swans out there.


Which of course will be answered by the same answer they always have tucked in there back pockets.... "we dont have all of the answers". How convenient!! makes one wonder just how many answers they do have? maybe everything is "supernatural" ie, beyond their ability to poke, prod and test.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which of course will be answered by the same answer they always have tucked in there back pockets.... "we dont have all of the answers". How convenient!! makes one wonder just how many answers they do have? maybe everything is "supernatural" ie, beyond their ability to poke, prod and test.


We've already had this discussion. Bogus results happen sometimes, but you can't call a contaminated sample or a poor analytical reading a black swan event.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> We've already had this discussion. Bogus results happen sometimes, but you can't call a contaminated sample or a poor analytical reading a black swan event.


Maybe, maybe not.... but I can call huge, grand canyon sized gaps in a bridge across a small stream exactly what the are.... too big to make sense. As to bogus results... all too often they are the result of bogus ego's trying to make names for themselves.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> We've already had this discussion. Bogus results happen sometimes, but you can't call a contaminated sample or a poor analytical reading a black swan event.


No, we haven't. We are talking about the speed of light. For all the 'facts' about the distance to the stars, the size of the universe and such to be true the speed of light MUST always be 3X10^8 m/s. 

Right now there are scientifically PROVEN examples that this is not true. IOW, we have discovered there are black swans out there. Because of this all the 'facts' which are based on the 'fact' the speed of light is constant must now be questioned if not tossed out completely. Science demands it.

Here's a couple of link. Just be ready to deal with some higher math and physics.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6720/full/397594a0.html 

http://www.polymtl.ca/phys/rensgen/journal/num1/art_1_4.pdf

Care to try to discredit the facts from those links and show how we still "know" all about how far stars are from us and how fast the universe is expanding and how old the universe is?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> No, we haven't. We are talking about the speed of light. For all the 'facts' about the distance to the stars, the size of the universe and such to be true the speed of light MUST always be 3X10^8 m/s.
> 
> Right now there are scientifically PROVEN examples that this is not true. IOW, we have discovered there are black swans out there. Because of this all the 'facts' which are based on the 'fact' the speed of light is constant must now be questioned if not tossed out completely. Science demands it.
> 
> Here's a couple of link. Just be ready to deal with some higher math and physics.
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6720/full/397594a0.html
> 
> http://www.polymtl.ca/phys/rensgen/journal/num1/art_1_4.pdf
> 
> Care to try to discredit the facts from those links and show how we still "know" all about how far stars are from us and how fast the universe is expanding and how old the universe is?


I don't doubt that light can be interfered with. Why is this such a big deal to you? Light can also be bent. blocked, and refracted. That doesn't change the speed of light in open space, which is what we see with far-away suns and galaxies.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I don't doubt that light can be interfered with. Why is this such a big deal to you? Light can also be bent. blocked, and refracted. That doesn't change the speed of light in open space, which is what we see with far-away suns and galaxies.


Right... thats why dark matter has to exist... to explain those variations that shouldnt be there. Of course NOBODY has a shred of evidence as to its actual existence. It just makes the math work to support their other theories. Could it be that dark matter really doesnt exist? Of course not.... that would blow all of their established theories out the window!!


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Not at all. My point is a large part of science is based on things it doesn't "know" and can't "prove". You still haven't told me how we have proven that the speed of light in interstellar space is the same as within a gravity field.
> 
> W/o proof how can you say its science instead of faith?


 Simply, because the values given for the speed of light are testable, and repeatable. You don't have to take it on 'faith', it can be accurately measured. 
Still not sure what that has to do with the fallacy that dinosaurs roamed the earth a few thousand years ago.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Right... thats why dark matter has to exist... to explain those variations that shouldnt be there. Of course NOBODY has a shred of evidence as to its actual existence. It just makes the math work to support their other theories. Could it be that dark matter really doesnt exist? Of course not.... that would blow all of their established theories out the window!!


The fact that the math works is evidence that something is making that happen, so it's not really a complete absence of evidence.

But absence of evidence can tell us a lot. If a doctor doesn't find evidence cancer in a patient then that's strong evidence of something; that the patient doesn't have cancer. In science, making deductions from absence of evidence is a powerful tool.

But you can't use absence of evidence as evidence of absence unless you reasonably believe that evidence should be found. For example, the doctor would expect to find evidence of cancer if cancer was present, so deducing that a negative result means there is no cancer is reasonable. But if police look for a gun but don't find one that doesn't prove that there is no gun, particularly when they're investigating a shooting. It's possible that there is a gun but that it's somewhere else.

In the example you gave, evidence that something is going on but no evidence of anything making it happen is strong evidence that something we don't understand is there. You don't have to call it dark matter, but you can't deny that something is there.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> In science, making deductions from absence of evidence is a powerful tool.
> 
> In the example you gave, evidence that something is going on but no evidence of anything making it happen is strong evidence that *something we don't understand is there.* You don't have to call it dark matter, but you can't deny that something is there.


I find this interesting.... If science dont understand something I thought you would insist it was "supernatural", by the definition you posted above. How about we call that supernatural dark matter "God", and see if you wont deny His existence?


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I find this interesting.... If science dont understand something I thought you would insist it was "supernatural", by the definition you posted above. How about we call that supernatural dark matter "God", and see if you wont deny His existence?


Because we haven't established that a deity exists.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I find this interesting.... If science dont understand something I thought you would insist it was "supernatural", by the definition you posted above. How about we call that supernatural dark matter "God", and see if you wont deny His existence?


The logical fallacy you commit, Argument from Ignorance, is a recognized fallacy. It can take two forms.

1. If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
2. If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

Interestingly, you use both forms in your arguments. You use the first case to establish that the existence of God must be true, and the second case to establish that evolution must be false. Finally, you obtusely insist that your arguments are reasonable and that you believe them. I'm skeptical.

All I can tell you is that if a lawyer argues a recognized logical fallacy in court that he can be disbarred.

Read more about your fallacy here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Because we haven't established that a deity exists.


But you said we had! His current name happens to be "Dark Matter".


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> All I can tell you is that if a lawyer argues a recognized logical fallacy in court that he can be disbarred.


Right up front I am not using either of those "fallacies", sorry, but you apparently havent been paying attention to my comments very closely. I do not discount evolution... I only claim that the entire theory (as taught to our children in school) has some pretty major gaps... like grand canyon sized ones so therefore is not a valid theory at this point. 

I have evidence that is sufficient enough for me to know that God does exist. Its not my fault that you opt to not believe said evidence exists. 

Lastly, I have been tossed out of bars before.... It really not a big deal.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But you said we had! His current name happens to be "Dark Matter".


The problem with calling dark matter a deity is that we're beginning to understand its physical properties, and we can show that it behaves a certain way consistently & predictably. That makes it a thing, even if we can't see it.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> The problem with calling dark matter a deity is that we're beginning to understand its physical properties, and we can show that it behaves a certain way consistently & predictably. That makes it a thing, even if we can't see it.


Very good, maybe you science guys are finally going to admit that God does exist, because He behaves in certain ways, and is consistent... even though you cant quite see Him. You may have a ways to go though... because as I understand it, most scientists wont touch dark matter (aka God) with a ten foot pole... I think they understand the consequences if they were to actually admit He does exist.


----------



## greg273

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Very good, maybe you science guys are finally going to admit that God does exist, because He behaves in certain ways, and is consistent... even though you cant quite see Him. You may have a ways to go though... because as I understand it, most scientists wont touch dark matter (aka God) with a ten foot pole... I think they understand the consequences if they were to actually admit He does exist.


Plenty of 'science guys' believe in both God and evolution. It doesn't have to be one or the other. I still can't fathom why you seem to think the two can never be reconciled. 



> Evolution is nothing more than a fairly simple way of understanding what is unquestionably happening. *You don't believe in it â you either understand it or you don't. But pretending evolution is a matter of faith can be a clever way to hijack the conversation, and pit it in a false duality against religion.* And that's how we end up with people decrying evolution, even as they eat their strawberries and pet their dogs, because they've been led to believe faith can only be held in one or the other.


 http://theweek.com/article/index/265653/why-you-should-stop-believing-in-evolution


----------



## Evons hubby

greg273 said:


> Plenty of 'science guys' believe in both God and evolution. It doesn't have to be one or the other. I still can't fathom why you seem to think the two can never be reconciled.


I am thinking you must have me confused with some of the other posters here. I have NEVER denied that evolution does occur... and I have no problem whatsoever with the concept that evolution may be a part of Gods engineering. The only part I complain about is when the "theory of evolution" as its taught to our children in schools somehow conveniently forgets that the only evidence we have of evolution comes in very small and limited "packages" and has huge gaps when it comes to the overall question of how all of our life forms have come into being. Scientists themselves admit to serious flaws in that overall theory, they have no evidence to prove life formed initially at the bottom of the black lagoon, they have no proof whatsoever of the "big bang", and there are tremendous gaps in the flow of one celled organisms evolving into all of the various life forms we have today. There are tremendous gaps in the fossil records. Some critters once existed, and now they dont... ok, I get that... but where are all those gradual evolutionary critters, the ones that show the gradual change from one species to the next? Yet our kiddies are taught the universe began with a big bang, and life eventually formed at the bottom of some "primordial ooze" then slowly evolved into what we see today.... as a FACT.. not even a theory.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Which takes us right back to the mitochondia question.


----------



## Evons hubby

JJ Grandits said:


> Which takes us right back to the mitochondia question.


While a very valid question, it is but one of a great many unanswered questions. These science guys are constructing a theory with information close kin to the following: We know that the great masters of music used very specific notes to compose their work... its my understanding that there are only seven notes in any given key, lets assume someone challenged an evolutionist to identify which piece of music it was and gave them three notes(nearly half of the possible number) out of the song. Any rational human being would tell you right up front that those three notes appear in ANY of the classics, and therefor it could be any of them.... our evolutionist would insist the song was written on such and such date and composed by so and so... based upon their personal interpretation of the "evidence" at hand. To me, thats ok, they are perfectly free to believe anything they want to, as long as they do not go round preaching such nonsense to our kids as being the absolute indisputable truth.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I don't doubt that light can be interfered with. Why is this such a big deal to you? Light can also be bent. blocked, and refracted. That doesn't change the speed of light in open space, which is what we see with far-away suns and galaxies.


We are talking about science here aren't we? If so then assumptions, faith and unsupported statements are not allowed, correct? The only things accepted as 'fact' are those which can be proven by repeated scientific experiments and/or shown that there are no known exceptions (black swans). Does that sum things up?

Yet you are assuming that the speed of light in open space is "c" even though there are no experiments showing this is true. And we KNOW, because it has been proven by scientific experimentation, that light does not travel at "c" all the time. This means it is goes against scientific 'rules' to say we know the speed of light in interstellar space. 

Because we can't 'know' the speed of light in interstellar space we can't 'know' how far away anything is nor how fast it is moving. Which means our 'knowledge' about the age of the universe, which is based on how long it has taken stuff to move from where the bang happened, must be doubted.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Simply, because the values given for the speed of light are testable, and repeatable. You don't have to take it on 'faith', it can be accurately measured.


As I told Nevada.

We are talking about science here aren't we? If so then assumptions, faith and unsupported statements are not allowed, correct? The only things accepted as 'fact' are those which can be proven by repeated scientific experiments and/or shown that there are no known exceptions (black swans). Does that sum things up?

Can you post links to the experiments which have shown the speed of light in interstellar space? Or the speed of light outside a gravity field? If not then it fails the 'proven by repeated experiments' rule.

I have posted two links to show that the speed of light has been shown to be much slower than "c", in one case it was slowed to 17 m/s. This meets the 'known exceptions' or black swan 

Therefore there is no scientific 'proof' or reason to say that the speed of light in interstellar space is "c". So your view that it does is based on what? Assumptions? Faith?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The fact that the math works is evidence that something is making that happen, so it's not really a complete absence of evidence.
> 
> In the example you gave, evidence that something is going on but no evidence of anything making it happen is strong evidence that something we don't understand is there. You don't have to call it dark matter, but you can't deny that something is there.


What? The theory of dark matter came from the fact the math DIDN'T work. Its like saying you "know" that you weigh 175# but every scale you get on says 210# so you state that your clothing weights 35# which proves you weigh 175#.


----------



## FourDeuce

"I still can't fathom why you seem to think the two can never be reconciled." 
They haven't been reconciled so far, but then, they've only been trying for a few thousands years. Maybe it'll happen some day.:hysterical:


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh fer pitys sake.... He designed the laws of nature! He is not beyond them. Its not his fault scientists dont understand that.


There you go making claims for your gods without first proving any gods exist. Logic doesn't allow you to skip steps like that.:yawn:


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> There you go making claims for your gods without first proving any gods exist. Logic doesn't allow you to skip steps like that.:yawn:


How much proof do you want? just look around you, look up at night... there is a universe full of evidence... logic would also dictate you not ignore the evidence in front of you.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How much proof do you want? just look around you, look up at night... there is a universe full of evidence... logic would also dictate you not ignore the evidence in front of you.


I don't ignore the evidence in front of me. I see lots of evidence that a universe exists. I've seen no evidence that any gods exist. Just because you believe the universe is evidence of gods doesn't make it so. Logic says that, too. If you're gonna use logic, you don't get to ignore the other things logic says.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> I don't ignore the evidence in front of me. I see lots of evidence that a universe exists. I've seen no evidence that any gods exist. Just because you believe the universe is evidence of gods doesn't make it so. Logic says that, too. If you're gonna use logic, you don't get to ignore the other things logic says.


Lets try again.... God = energy. According to the science guys when you break down all forms of matter to their tiniest particle you will find its no more than energy. Therefor, just like the various holy books claim.... including but not limited to the bible... the universe and everything in it is God. now go outside and look up at the universe... and understand that you are looking at God. Then come back and attempt to tell me there is no "evidence" of His existence! 
fer what its worth, I have no problem with science... it all fits perfectly into the big picture, the problem only comes in when science starts making claims there is no God. It really isnt His fault they are too ignorant to recognize Him when they are staring him in the face! Forest trees and like that.


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> There you go making claims for your gods without first proving any gods exist. Logic doesn't allow you to skip steps like that.:yawn:


There you go, denying the existance of God without proving that He does not exist. Logic does not allow you to skip a step like that. God however does. He will probably mention it to you sometime in the future.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> I have posted two links to show that the speed of light has been shown to be much slower than "c", in one case it was slowed to 17 m/s. This meets the 'known exceptions' or black swan


 Your link showed light being slowed in a high density, supercold bath of sodium atoms. Hardly interstellar space. Speed of light in a vacuum is 'c'... which absolutely has been measured. 

Now who knows, light can do some funny things, but it also does very many things that have been accurately measured and quantified. 

If youre trying to say mankind doesn't know it all, then I would agree. But I think we know enough to say with a high degree of certainty the universe we can measure is in the billions of years old... Its the best guess based on observations and, indeed, SPECULATION. Guessing it all just magically appeared 6000 years ago, now that is based on PURE SPECULATION, with ZERO observational data to back that up. In fact, the data pretty much rules it out. Is it 100% certain? Nope, but I trust the science geeks. They're smart enough to split atoms and land on Mars, so I trust they've done their due diligence. Not so the preacher man who rails against science, based on vague and subjective scripture.


----------



## FourDeuce

JJ Grandits said:


> There you go, denying the existance of God without proving that He does not exist.
> 
> Got a quote?
> 
> "Logic does not allow you to skip a step like that." It also doesn't allow you to claim I said something I didn't say. That's a logical fallacy known as a Straw Man.
> 
> "God however does."
> 
> Got proof? Still waiting for some. For somebody who keeps trying to use logic, you keep making basic logical mistakes.
> 
> He will probably mention it to you sometime in the future.


When(and IF) he does, I'll talk with him about it. Until then, I'll just continue questioning the people who I can see.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Lets try again.... God = energy.
> 
> Not according to the dictionary.
> 
> "According to the science guys" WHICH science guys? There are many of them.
> 
> "when you break down all forms of matter to their tiniest particle you will find its no more than energy."
> 
> Those "science guys" are the only ones who have to defend their ideas. I'm not responsible for what they say. That's another logical rule to keep in mind.
> 
> "Therefor, just like the various holy books claim.... including but not limited to the bible... the universe and everything in it is God."
> 
> Not according to the dictionary. Persuasive Definition Fallacy still fails.
> 
> "now go outside and look up at the universe... and understand that you are looking at God."
> 
> I can't "understand" that until somebody proves it.
> 
> "Then come back and attempt to tell me there is no "evidence" of His existence!"
> 
> No need to attempt it. Nobody has EVER produced any evidence of the existence of any gods.
> 
> "fer what its worth, I have no problem with science..."
> 
> I noticed that. You don't understand how science works.
> 
> "it all fits perfectly into the big picture, the problem only comes in when science starts making claims there is no God."
> 
> Science made that claim? Got a quote?
> 
> "It really isnt His fault they are too ignorant to recognize Him when they are staring him in the face! Forest trees and like that.


 Right, just like my posts on the internet prove that I'm an alien from Tau Ceti. That's the type of non-sequitur you are trying to use here.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Your link showed light being slowed in a high density, supercold bath of sodium atoms. Hardly interstellar space. Speed of light in a vacuum is 'c'... which absolutely has been measured.
> 
> Now who knows, light can do some funny things, but it also does very many things that have been accurately measured and quantified.
> 
> If youre trying to say mankind doesn't know it all, then I would agree. But I think we know enough to say with a high degree of certainty the universe we can measure is in the billions of years old... Its the best guess based on observations and, indeed, SPECULATION. Guessing it all just magically appeared 6000 years ago, now that is based on PURE SPECULATION, with ZERO observational data to back that up. In fact, the data pretty much rules it out. Is it 100% certain? Nope, but I trust the science geeks. They're smart enough to split atoms and land on Mars, so I trust they've done their due diligence. Not so the preacher man who rails against science, based on vague and subjective scripture.


Not sure why your so hung up on this 6000 year old earth thing other than its all you have, I get that, but I'm pretty sure that not many here believe that's true, but keep going because it really is amusing to see you struggle with it!! :hysterical:


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> Right, just like my posts on the internet prove that I'm an alien from Tau Ceti. That's the type of non-sequitur you are trying to use here.


I am not "using" anything here... just a few words in an attempt to get you to at least look at the evidence in front of you. But you aint having any, you would far rather play word games and try to insult me. I am good with all that... feel free to wallow in your ignorance if you have no desire to learn.


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> When(and IF) he does, I'll talk with him about it. Until then, I'll just continue questioning the people who I can see.


I thought about you last Sunday in Church and prayed for you.
Seriously. A relationship with God is a wonderful thing. It totally opens the mind.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not "using" anything here... just a few words in an attempt to get you to at least look at the evidence in front of you.
> 
> You are claiming the universe is evidence of gods. You can't use a claim you never proved as evidence of another claim. Logic again.
> 
> But you aint having any, you would far rather play word games and try to insult me. I am good with all that... feel free to wallow in your ignorance if you have no desire to learn.


 I'm willing to learn from any rational person.:goodjob:


----------



## FourDeuce

"A relationship with God is a wonderful thing."
A relationship with reality is a better thing.

"It totally opens the mind."
I prefer a mind open to reason.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Your link showed light being slowed in a high density, supercold bath of sodium atoms. Hardly interstellar space. Speed of light in a vacuum is 'c'... which absolutely has been measured.


Its been measured on earth in a gravity field. But we have NEVER measured in in interstellar space nor outside a gravity field. Therefore the only way you can say its the same there as other places is to take it on faith.




greg273 said:


> If youre trying to say mankind doesn't know it all, then I would agree. But I think we know enough to say with a high degree of certainty the universe we can measure is in the billions of years old... Its the best guess based on observations and, indeed, SPECULATION. Guessing it all just magically appeared 6000 years ago, now that is based on PURE SPECULATION, with ZERO observational data to back that up. In fact, the data pretty much rules it out. Is it 100% certain? Nope, but I trust the science geeks. They're smart enough to split atoms and land on Mars, so I trust they've done their due diligence. Not so the preacher man who rails against science, based on vague and subjective scripture.


Again your speculation on the age of the universe is based on your faith that light travels at c in interstellar space. Well that and your faith that there is something out there causing light to not act the way our equations says it should. Its faith because as I have pointed out that 'fact' has not been scientifically proven.


----------



## copperkid3

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> I'm willing to learn from any rational person.:goodjob:


That is quite obvious from your posts here... "rational" people seem to be only those who agree with you. Quite a few others besides myself however seem to be very irrational... at least thats what I gather from what I have read in your posts. mostly personal attacks on them, dodging their questions, refusing to entertain their quite "rational" thoughts and opinions, insisting that "YOUR" logic is vastly superior to ours. The list goes on and on... a quick read of the last few pages will provide quite sufficient evidence to prove my claim on this.


----------



## FourDeuce

""rational" people seem to be only those who agree with you." 
Not quite, but you'd have to be rational to understand what's wrong with that statement.

"Quite a few others besides myself however seem to be very irrational" 
Yes, there are many irrational people in the world.

"a quick read of the last few pages will provide quite sufficient evidence to prove my claim on this." 
Another logical fallacy won't help prove your claims. This one is known as the Bandwagon Fallacy. If you want to try to be rational, you should learn to avoid using logical fallacies. They are a dead giveaway for poor logic.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> ""rational" people seem to be only those who agree with you."
> Not quite, but you'd have to be rational to understand what's wrong with that statement.
> 
> "Quite a few others besides myself however seem to be very irrational"
> Yes, there are many irrational people in the world.
> 
> "a quick read of the last few pages will provide quite sufficient evidence to prove my claim on this."
> Another logical fallacy won't help prove your claims. This one is known as the Bandwagon Fallacy. If you want to try to be rational, you should learn to avoid using logical fallacies. They are a dead giveaway for poor logic.


Well there you have it.. we dont even have to go back and read several pages of your posts, you have managed to verify my statement quite well with this post... you began with a personal attack on me... something about my being irrational because I dont understand what is wrong with my statement. Obviously there is nothing wrong with my statement, or you would have pointed out my error, but instead you opt to ridicule me, followed up by gloating about your "superior" form of logic. Well done! very well done indeed.


----------



## FourDeuce

"we dont even have to go back and read several pages of your posts"

No, YOU don't have to go back and read several pages of my posts because you keep failing to address what I say. Instead, you keep making things up and knocking down your own Straw Men.

"followed up by gloating about your "superior" form of logic."

As I told you before, there is no "superior" form of logic. There is logic and there is everything else. If you don't understand that much about logic, there's no point in you trying to discuss logic.:spinsmiley:


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> "we dont even have to go back and read several pages of your posts"
> 
> No, YOU don't have to go back and read several pages of my posts because you keep failing to address what I say. Instead, you keep making things up and knocking down your own Straw Men.
> 
> "followed up by gloating about your "superior" form of logic."
> 
> As I told you before, there is no "superior" form of logic. There is logic and there is everything else. If you don't understand that much about logic, there's no point in you trying to discuss logic.:spinsmiley:


I have always enjoyed logic problems, and used to be pretty good at solving them. As a matter of fact this conversation caused me to think of an old one, so I posted it for everyone to play with. its a new thread here in GC titled "Betty is not married to Joe and Bill does not live in a green house".


----------



## watcher

Again I ask all the 100% pure scientist here to show where it has been proven that light does indeed travel at 'c' in interstellar space where the is no gravity but there is, supposedly, dark matter (which by the way effects light to the point the scientific equations must be altered to make them work).

I thought it was one of the main commandments of science that before something was accepted it must be proven through repeatable experiments following correct scientific methods or shown that there is nothing to show otherwise. I though w/o this an idea could not be accepted or listed as a hypnosis only.

AFAIK, there have never been any experiments of any kind done in interstellar space. And we know that gravity effects light and we know that light does not always travel at c (both proven by accepted scientific methods). Therefore the idea of the speed of light in interstellar space must be, at best, listed as a hypnosis. You can't base theories and/or 'facts' on hypnosis can you? Heck, I don't think you can even base a hypnosis on another hypnosis.


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> "A relationship with God is a wonderful thing."
> A relationship with reality is a better thing.
> 
> "It totally opens the mind."
> I prefer a mind open to reason.


Isaac neton believed in God. Are you saying you are more reasonable then him? I guess you think you are smarter too. Obviously Newton does not process your incredible level of logic.

You are such an amazing person. Your picture should be on a stamp or something. What have you written? I'd love to delve into the mind of such genius. All the famous thinkers and scientists who formed our very society that believed in God stand in your shadow. 

How do you keep from choking on your ego?

"Because when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were they thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their hearts were darkened.
Professing them to be wise, they became fools."

Bet you never thought you'd be described in the Bible, did ya?


----------



## FourDeuce

JJ Grandits said:


> Isaac neton believed in God. Are you saying you are more reasonable then him?"
> 
> That's known as the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. If you don't know what that means, look it up.
> 
> "I guess you think you are smarter too. Obviously Newton does not process your incredible level of logic."
> 
> Newton had to deal with religious people who might imprison him or kill him if he said he didn't believe in their stories. Aside from that, Newton knew no more about imaginary gods than anybody else, so he was no expert on that subject. His opinion is no more valuable than anybody else's(to rational people). I don't claim to have an "incredible level of logic". That looks very much like a Straw Man to me.
> 
> 
> "You are such an amazing person."
> Not really. It just seems that way to people who don't understand critical thinking skills. Being rational may seem like a superpower to people who aren't, but it isn't really that special. Anybody can learn it.
> 
> "Your picture should be on a stamp or something. What have you written? I'd love to delve into the mind of such genius."
> 
> Before you can delve into anything, you should learn critical thinking skills. Without them, your delving will be futile.
> 
> "All the famous thinkers and scientists who formed our very society that believed in God stand in your shadow."
> 
> Just remember those are YOUR words, and not mine. I've had a LOT of religious apologists say things like that, then turn around and claim I said it. Try to keep it straight.
> 
> "How do you keep from choking on your ego?"
> 
> Coming from a person who believes the whole universe was created for them, that's very ironic.:bow:
> 
> "Because when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were they thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their hearts were darkened.
> Professing them to be wise, they became fools."
> 
> Bet you never thought you'd be described in the Bible, did ya?


Unless you can show where my name is in your bible, your claim is as worthless to me as your claim that gods exist. I only concern myself with claims which have evidence. BTW, if you're calling me a fool, your bible also says you can be sent to hell for calling somebody a fool.:croc:


----------



## JJ Grandits

Shutting your mind is not reasonable or logical, and yet you shut your mind. Interesting.

Prove yourself right and please create life. Publish a paper with all the facts and procedures and I will believe you. Otherwise all your beliefs are nothing more then your ego stroking itself.

As far as the quote from the Bible, it does not pertain to you in particular. You just fit into that description.

By the way, the universe was not created for me. But you are partially right. It was created.

Other than that your argument is doing nothing but going in circles. Throwing around words like logic and reason do not make anything you say logical or reasonable.

Im starting to feel like Im in a butt kicking contest with a one legged man.


----------



## FourDeuce

JJ Grandits said:


> Shutting your mind is not reasonable or logical, and yet you shut your mind. Interesting."
> 
> Not as interesting as you being able to tell me what is going on inside my own mind. I'm sure you'll understand if I'm a bit skeptical about your psychic abilities. Can you prove you have them by telling me the 10-digits I'm thinking of? That way I can know your psychic abilities really exist.
> 
> "Prove yourself right and please create life."
> 
> Can you quote where I claimed I could create life? The only way I would need to "prove myself right" by doing that was if I claimed I could do it. I never claimed I could do that.
> 
> "Publish a paper with all the facts and procedures and I will believe you. Otherwise all your beliefs are nothing more then your ego stroking itself."
> 
> Which beliefs? I didn't post any beliefs. YOUR Straw Man claims are not my beliefs unless I say I believe them.
> 
> "As far as the quote from the Bible, it does not pertain to you in particular. You just fit into that description."
> 
> So it wasn't about ME. That's what I figured.
> 
> "By the way, the universe was not created for me. But you are partially right. It was created."
> 
> I can't be right with that since I never said that. If you want to keep trying to put words in my mouth, I can leave and let you have the whole imaginary conversation by yourself.
> 
> "Other than that your argument is doing nothing but going in circles. Throwing around words like logic and reason do not make anything you say logical or reasonable."
> 
> Did anybody say it did? Quote please? I know you're enjoying the Straw Man fun, but you aren't accomplishing anything with it.:duel:
> 
> "Im starting to feel like Im in a butt kicking contest with a one legged man."


Maybe you are. All those Straw Men you keep knocking down probably don't have one leg between them. Sure makes them easy to knock down, though, doesn't it?:clap:


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Its been measured on earth in a gravity field. But we have NEVER measured in in interstellar space nor outside a gravity field. Therefore the only way you can say its the same there as other places is to take it on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again your speculation on the age of the universe is based on your faith that light travels at c in interstellar space. Well that and your faith that there is something out there causing light to not act the way our equations says it should. Its faith because as I have pointed out that 'fact' has not been scientifically proven.


 There is more to deducing the age of the universe than just the speed of light... All you need to do is look around, see stars in various stages of their life cycles, from birth to death, and deduce, based on well-established mathematical and scientific principles, that the universe has been around for BILLIONS of years. And searching for knowledge sure beats just throwing your hands up in the air and saying 'well I guess God (or Zeus, or Thor, or Odin, etc etc) made it all so there is no point in looking any further'.

At this point of the debate, I am not even sure what your point is anymore, other than we are supposed to question all science because you don't believe the speed of light has been accurately measured.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> There is more to deducing the age of the universe than just the speed of light... All you need to do is look around, see stars in various stages of their life cycles, from birth to death, and deduce, based on well-established mathematical and scientific principles, that the universe has been around for BILLIONS of years. And searching for knowledge sure beats just throwing your hands up in the air and saying 'well I guess God (or Zeus, or Thor, or Odin, etc etc) made it all so there is no point in looking any further'.
> 
> At this point of the debate, I am not even sure what your point is anymore, other than we are supposed to question all science because you don't believe the speed of light has been accurately measured.


The point is very simple and the speed of light in space is just a good example. A lot of the things science takes as truth is based on nothing more than assumptions. I have never questioned all science because there is a lot is based on good hard science where everything in the 'chain' either has been shown 'true' based on repeatable experiments or through repeated observation without any 'black swans'.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> I prefer a mind open to reason.


I too like an open mind... I appreciate a mind that is open to reason, open to possibilities, open to the idea that someone else may know something they dont.


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> Maybe you are. All those Straw Men you keep knocking down probably don't have one leg between them. Sure makes them easy to knock down, though, doesn't it?:clap:


Seriously, You got nothing. There is nothing logical or reasonable about your argument. Im describing color to a blind man. I do appologise about not mentioning your other favorite term "straw man". Did you hear that on the radio or MSNBC?

Life only comes from life. Life was created by a living God. I feel sorry for you. That is why I mentioned that I was praying for you.

There is a book by Annie Dillard called "Pilgrim At Tinker Creek". It desribes observations on nature and life. You actually might enjoy it.


----------



## FourDeuce

JJ Grandits said:


> Seriously, You got nothing."
> 
> Yeah, I know, many religious apologists consider a mind which can use reason "nothing", but I consider it something valuable. That's why Pascal's Wager fails.
> 
> "There is nothing logical or reasonable about your argument."
> 
> WHICH argument is that? Is it the argument I posted or the arguments other people tried to claim I posted?
> 
> "Im describing color to a blind man."
> 
> No, you're describing imaginary color to a man who can see.
> 
> "I do appologise about not mentioning your other favorite term "straw man". Did you hear that on the radio or MSNBC?"
> 
> I used to keep a list of logical fallacies handy every time I talked to religious apologists. I referred to it so many times that I basically memorized it. There are about a dozen or so favorite fallacies that are constantly used to try to justify religion.
> 
> "Life only comes from life."
> 
> You've been around forever and have seen everything that ever happened? That's what it would take to be qualified to make that claim.
> 
> "Life was created by a living God."
> 
> You didn't prove any gods exist yet.
> 
> "I feel sorry for you. That is why I mentioned that I was praying for you."
> 
> That's nice, but it doesn't do anything for me.:nana:
> 
> There is a book by Annie Dillard called "Pilgrim At Tinker Creek". It desribes observations on nature and life. You actually might enjoy it.


 I actually have it on my bookshelves, along with several thousand other books. I enjoy many books, but I can tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction.


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> I actually have it on my bookshelves, along with several thousand other books. I enjoy many books, but I can tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction.


Several thousand? Really? I think you have a very difficult time understanding the difference between fact and fiction.


----------



## Nevada

The thing about the creationism topic is that there's a proper route to take to have some form of ID accepted by science. But creationism advocates don't even try to submit ID for peer review, since they know it can't pass muster. Alternatively, they could appeal directly to scientists for acceptance, but they don't go that route either.

Instead they try to make an end-run around the scientific method through politics. The purpose behind the political pressure is to present their ideas to young people in school before they have a firm foundation of science. They do that because those young people are impressionable and a few will accept ID.

The end result is stunting the science educations of many young people. But that's what they want. I'm not sure why they want it, but they do. It doesn't matter that it compromises their education, or even that it isn't good for society as a whole. The important thing is to mislead as many science students as they can.

My suspicion that creationism advocates see getting young people to buy into ID as satisfying some evangelistic agenda.


----------



## FourDeuce

JJ Grandits said:


> Several thousand? Really?
> 
> Yeah, really. Last time I tried to organize my books and store them on a computer database, I got up to just over 5000 when I ran out of room on the program. That was about half my books. That was before I got my Kindles, too. Got about 3500 books on them. Books have been my addiction ever since I learned to read.
> 
> "I think you have a very difficult time understanding the difference between fact and fiction.


 That's nice, but since you know nothing about me, your opinion of my mental abilities doesn't mean much to me. I prefer informed opinions over uninformed opinions.:gaptooth:


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> That's nice, but since you know nothing about me, your opinion of my mental abilities doesn't mean much to me. I prefer informed opinions over uninformed opinions.:gaptooth:


Actually, you've painted a pretty accurate portrait of yourself. Im pretty sure that your own opinion of your mental abilities far out distances the opinion that anyone else has of them.

Please explain how you determine an informed opinion from an uninformed opinion. 
Let me guess, an informed opinion is one you have and an uninformed opinion is one you don't have. 

Between the thousand and thousands of books in your house there must also be quite a number of mirrors. That way you can be surrounded by genius.


----------



## greg273

Nevada said:


> My suspicion that creationism advocates see getting young people to buy into ID as satisfying some evangelistic agenda.


 Possibly... funny how some want 'all viewpoints represented' in the schools, lol lets see how they react when their kids homework assignment involves 'Koranic Studies'. Oh man we'd never hear the end of it!
And we still haven't seen one shred of credible evidence dinosaurs roamed the earth a few thousand years ago. Although who knows, a few holdouts could have been hiding out in the deepest darkest recesses of Amazonia or the Congo, but as far as widespread T-Rexes roaming the continents concurrent with mankind, NOPE.


----------



## FourDeuce

JJ Grandits said:


> Actually, you've painted a pretty accurate portrait of yourself. Im pretty sure that your own opinion of your mental abilities far out distances the opinion that anyone else has of them."
> 
> Yeah, confused people are often "pretty sure" about things, even when they are wrong.
> 
> "Please explain how you determine an informed opinion from an uninformed opinion."
> 
> It's often easy. When a person speaks on a subject they have no knowledge of, they often demonstrate a lack of knowledge. Here's a good example for you: "Im pretty sure that your own opinion of your mental abilities far out distances the opinion that anyone else has of them."
> 
> "Let me guess, an informed opinion is one you have and an uninformed opinion is one you don't have.'
> 
> That's what happens when confused people guess. It's another word for assumption.
> 
> Between the thousand and thousands of books in your house there must also be quite a number of mirrors. That way you can be surrounded by genius.


Your skills as a psychiatrist leave much to be desired. I'd suggest you should stick to things you know something about, if there are any.:nono: You keep trying to insinuate that I consider myself a genius, all the while offering no proof for that claim. Looks like you got nothing.:lookout:


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Dear Mr Atheist allow me to destroy evolutioâ¦: http://youtu.be/FxBASNmg4AY


----------



## FourDeuce

Yeah, that guy is rapidly becoming the laughingstock of the internet. If they ever open up the position of Global Village Idiot, he's looking like a front-runner for the job.


----------



## JeffreyD

Vahomesteaders said:


> Dear Mr Atheist allow me to destroy evolutioâ¦: http://youtu.be/FxBASNmg4AY


He's right! !!! Evolution is not science!


----------



## Vahomesteaders

FourDeuce said:


> Yeah, that guy is rapidly becoming the laughingstock of the internet. If they ever open up the position of Global Village Idiot, he's looking like a front-runner for the job.


Argue is points. Chaos cannot create order and evolution has never been witnessed.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> Argue is points. Chaos cannot create order and evolution has never been witnessed.


 Order comes from chaos all the time. And all signs point to evolution as how life progressed on this planet. Please get some non-scriptural education on this.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> Order comes from chaos all the time. And all signs point to evolution as how life progressed on this planet. Please get some non-scriptural education on this.


Signs are not proof if not able to be reproduced or witnessed. This is elementary school stuff.


----------



## FourDeuce

Vahomesteaders said:


> Argue is points. Chaos cannot create order and evolution has never been witnessed.


I only argue valid points. Correction: I WILL only argue valid points. People who make up rules need to prove those rules are true. He never has and neither has anybody else.
"Chaos cannot create order" Prove it if you can. Good luck.
"and evolution has never been witnessed." Just plain wrong. Aside from that, have you ever witnessed any gods? People who have never witnessed gods keep claiming that other things have never been witnessed. If you believe in one thing that has never been witnessed, it's disingenuous of you to ask for evidence of other things.


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> Yeah, that guy is rapidly becoming the laughingstock of the internet. If they ever open up the position of Global Village Idiot, he's looking like a front-runner for the job.


Planning on retiring?


----------



## JJ Grandits

greg273 said:


> Order comes from chaos all the time. And all signs point to evolution as how life progressed on this planet. Please get some non-scriptural education on this.


 
Please give examples where order came from chaos.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

And when you do give an example of order coming from chaos without outside influence.


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> I only argue valid points. Correction: I WILL only argue valid points. People who make up rules need to prove those rules are true.


Ok. Lets set the rules. Science demands proof before something is accepted. That proof comes from either 1) Repeatable experiments following the proper scientific method or 2) repeated observation with no exceptions. 

Anything which has not met one of those proofs is either rejected or can only be listed as a hypnosis.

Agreed?

Now I ask you to give the scientific proof of the speed of light in interstellar space. I ask because a lot of other 'knowns' are based on this.


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> I prefer informed opinions over uninformed opinions.:gaptooth:


After reading quite a few of your posts here in this thread I would think just the opposite. You seem to be fine with the opinions of scientists who openly admit to having never ever seen God, and yet you appear to reject the opinions of those who have. I may be wrong but it would appear to me that someone who has seen God would be better informed than someone who has not. :shrug:


----------



## doingitmyself

Did i mention that my great, great , great, great, great, great, great, great, great grampa Fred and uncle Barney ate Brontosaurus ribs on Sundays after church? They used stone points on wooden shafts to kill these mega ton Dinos. Boy Grandpa and Barney sure loved to hunt. They also had a dog called Deno, barked a lot, mostly used him to hunt-Tyre dactyls-and Stegosaurs. We have a stone picture of one of Freds big kills. I think it was a big female T-Rex. He tracked it and shot it with 239 arrows before it finally bleed out. Dressed out at 3798 pounds! Big sucker!! He made tooth necklaces out of the teeth. I had one but lost it. Grampa was one bad dude.


----------



## doingitmyself

Yvonne's hubby said:


> After reading quite a few of your posts here in this thread I would think just the opposite. You seem to be fine with the opinions of scientists who openly admit to having never ever seen God, and yet you appear to reject the opinions of those who have. I may be wrong but it would appear to me that someone who has seen God would be better informed than someone who has not. :shrug:


Thank you for saying what i have been thinking for a while now.


----------



## FourDeuce

watcher said:


> Ok. Lets set the rules. Science demands proof before something is accepted. That proof comes from either 1) Repeatable experiments following the proper scientific method or 2) repeated observation with no exceptions.
> 
> Anything which has not met one of those proofs is either rejected or can only be listed as a hypnosis.
> 
> Agreed?
> 
> Now I ask you to give the scientific proof of the speed of light in interstellar space. I ask because a lot of other 'knowns' are based on this.


If you want to set the rules, maybe you should set logical rules. One important logical rule is that a person does not have to defend a claim they never made. I made no claims about the speed of light in interstellar space. I think you're asking because you can't come up with any good arguments for religion, so you hope to validate religion by dragging down science. What you fail to understand is that even IF you could destroy science, that would not help you prove religion is true. The ONLY way to prove religion is true is to prove religion is true. Your whole attempt at "shaking the foundations of science" is futile.:cowboy:


----------



## FourDeuce

JJ Grandits said:


> Please give examples where order came from chaos.


Please look up the Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy. YOU claimed something can never happen, so it's up to you to prove it. Asking other people to do it for you doesn't help you.


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> After reading quite a few of your posts here in this thread I would think just the opposite.
> 
> That's why it's important to ask other people what they think instead of assuming you know what they think. Many adults(especially those who have been in the Army) learn how foolish it is to assume things
> 
> "You seem to be fine with the opinions of scientists who openly admit to having never ever seen God,"
> 
> Most of the theists I've known openly admit to having never ever seen any gods too. Did you see any gods?
> 
> 
> "and yet you appear to reject the opinions of those who have."
> 
> 
> No, I reject the claims of those who CLAIM to have seen gods. You didn't prove anybody ever saw any gods yet, so your statement is incorrect.:stars:
> 
> "I may be wrong but it would appear to me that someone who has seen God would be better informed than someone who has not. :shrug:



Before you can practice critical thinking, you should learn the difference between a person who CLAIMS they have seen gods and a person who PROVES they have seen gods. Once you learn that important difference, you will understand why you are wrong on that point too. If I CLAIM to have a million dollars, do you automatically accept my word? How about if I show you a million dollars? Do you understand the difference between the two examples? That difference is very important(to rational people).


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> If you want to set the rules, maybe you should set logical rules.


You are saying the rules I set were not logical? Please point out to me what rules science uses for proof.




FourDeuce said:


> One important logical rule is that a person does not have to defend a claim they never made. I made no claims about the speed of light in interstellar space. I think you're asking because you can't come up with any good arguments for religion, so you hope to validate religion by dragging down science. What you fail to understand is that even IF you could destroy science, that would not help you prove religion is true. The ONLY way to prove religion is true is to prove religion is true. Your whole attempt at "shaking the foundations of science" is futile.:cowboy:


If you check you will find very few, if any, of my post here have said anything about religion. I don't give an airborne rodent's rectal opening about what your religion is. What I do expect is for science to hold itself to its own rules. 

What's the difference in you believing without any provable evidence in one thing and someone else doing the same. You can not provide any more scientifically acceptable proof for the speed of light in interstellar space than you can that the universe was created by the detonation of another denominational firecracker. Yet you have no problem accepting one but not the other. Why is that? Could it be that one supports your faith in science, i.e. religion, and the other doesn't?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

FourDeuce said:


> Please look up the Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy. YOU claimed something can never happen, so it's up to you to prove it. Asking other people to do it for you doesn't help you.


Your just like dems. Blame Bush instead of answering the question. You have made the statements. Now prove them. Just because you can't you say "is your burden to prove". Wrong. You have a theory. Prove it. If you can't then it's just that. s Theory and not fact.


----------



## FourDeuce

watcher said:


> You are saying the rules I set were not logical? Please point out to me what rules science uses for proof.
> 
> If you want to study science, there are plenty of places to do that. You should do that BEFORE you try to discuss it.
> 
> 
> 
> "If you check you will find very few, if any, of my post here have said anything about religion. I don't give an airborne rodent's rectal opening about what your religion is. What I do expect is for science to hold itself to its own rules."
> 
> Right, you're just here "standing up for truth". You just happen to be attacking science the same way religious apologists have been doing for centuries, right?
> 
> "What's the difference in you believing without any provable evidence in one thing and someone else doing the same."
> 
> There would be none if I did that. Since I don't do that, the question is worthless.
> 
> "You can not provide any more scientifically acceptable proof for the speed of light in interstellar space than you can that the universe was created by the detonation of another denominational firecracker. Yet you have no problem accepting one but not the other."
> 
> I don't? You can read my mind? Great. Tell me that 10-digit number I'm thinking of so I can be sure you are reading my mind correctly. Since I don't see the same thing in my own mind, I will need some strong evidence before I accept that you know what's in my mind better than I do.
> 
> "Why is that? Could it be that one supports your faith in science, i.e. religion, and the other doesn't?


Nope, it couldn't. I have no faith in anything, so your whole line of questioning fails.:spinsmiley:


----------



## FourDeuce

Vahomesteaders said:


> Your just like dems. Blame Bush instead of answering the question. You have made the statements. Now prove them. Just because you can't you say "is your burden to prove". Wrong. You have a theory. Prove it. If you can't then it's just that. s Theory and not fact.


I have a theory? Great. Tell me what my theory is, then prove you can read minds.


----------



## watcher

FourDeuce said:


> If you want to study science, there are plenty of places to do that. You should do that BEFORE you try to discuss it.


_ 
*IOW you either have no idea what is required for something to be considered proven by science or you know my statement of it is true. Seems to me you are the one who have no concept of science nor logic..* 




FourDeuce said:



Right, you're just here "standing up for truth". You just happen to be attacking science the same way religious apologists have been doing for centuries, right?

Click to expand...

*Yep and if you read my post you will see that. I demand that science and scientist provide the same proof they demand of others. *




FourDeuce said:



There would be none if I did that. Since I don't do that, the question is worthless.

Click to expand...

*So you do not believe that the universe is expanding and that Alpha Centauri is 4.367 light years from earth?*




FourDeuce said:



I don't? You can read my mind? Great. Tell me that 10-digit number I'm thinking of so I can be sure you are reading my mind correctly. Since I don't see the same thing in my own mind, I will need some strong evidence before I accept that you know what's in my mind better than I do.

Click to expand...

*I can infer and make statements on you words.*




FourDeuce said:



Nope, it couldn't. I have no faith in anything, so your whole line of questioning fails.:spinsmiley:

Click to expand...

_
So you don't drive across bridges or sit in chairs until you have tested them? After all if you have no faith in anything how can you be sure that either won't collapse when you try to use them?


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> Your skills as a psychiatrist leave much to be desired. I'd suggest you should stick to things you know something about, if there are any.:nono: You keep trying to insinuate that I consider myself a genius, all the while offering no proof for that claim. Looks like you got nothing.:lookout:


Your skills as a debater leaves much to be desired too. Your constant use of sophmoric denial is pretty embarassing. 
Heres one thing I do know, you posted having 5,000 books and that it was only half of your collection. You also posted that was before you got 3,500 books on Kindle. 

Now I know I probably don't have your incredible mathematical skills but I believe that you claim a total possessing of around 13,500 books.

That's a lot of books. 

Im going to assume that you can read a book in two days. I know "The Cat In The Hat" should not take long, but "War and Peace" is another matter.

So here is my theory. Your vast library would require you about 27,000 days for you to digest. That is almost 74 years of reading seven days a week. 

My theory would then lead me to believe that this impossible task is far beyond your ability. I will therefore place your claim into the Beta Sector or as it is also known as BS. 
I will also place all the rest of your posts in the same area.


----------



## painterswife

JJ Grandits said:


> Your skills as a debater leaves much to be desired too. Your constant use of sophmoric denial is pretty embarassing.
> Heres one thing I do know, you posted having 5,000 books and that it was only half of your collection. You also posted that was before you got 3,500 books on Kindle.
> 
> Now I know I probably don't have your incredible mathematical skills but I believe that you claim a total possessing of around 13,500 books.
> 
> That's a lot of books.
> 
> Im going to assume that you can read a book in two days. I know "The Cat In The Hat" should not take long, but "War and Peace" is another matter.
> 
> So here is my theory. Your vast library would require you about 27,000 days for you to digest. That is almost 74 years of reading seven days a week.
> 
> My theory would then lead me to believe that this impossible task is far beyond your ability. I will therefore place your claim into the Beta Sector or as it is also known as BS.
> I will also place all the rest of your posts in the same area.


Point of interest. He never said he read all the books he owns. Reading comprehension is a skill of it's own.


----------



## FourDeuce

JJ Grandits said:


> Your skills as a debater leaves much to be desired too. Your constant use of sophmoric denial is pretty embarassing.
> Heres one thing I do know, you posted having 5,000 books and that it was only half of your collection.
> 
> Actually I said it was ABOUT half of my collection. I never finished the first inventory.
> 
> "You also posted that was before you got 3,500 books on Kindle."
> 
> Yes, on KindleS. I have 3.
> 
> "Now I know I probably don't have your incredible mathematical skills but I believe that you claim a total possessing of around 13,500 books."
> 
> That's a lot of books."
> 
> So? Is there some law against owning too many books?
> 
> "Im going to assume that you can read a book in two days. I know "The Cat In The Hat" should not take long, but "War and Peace" is another matter."
> 
> It's ironic that you should mention War and Peace. That's one of the first books I got on my Kindle. I read it. It did take more than two days.
> 
> "So here is my theory. Your vast library would require you about 27,000 days for you to digest. That is almost 74 years of reading seven days a week."
> 
> You call THAT a theory? The fact that I have too many books means I can't have that many books? I'll let you slide calling that a theory, as long as you don't try to call it a scientific theory. That's only a theory in the slang sense.
> 
> "My theory would then lead me to believe that this impossible task is far beyond your ability."
> 
> Ah, yes, an amazing leap there. Since I have too many books, I can never read them all. Therefore, I can't have them. Well that should free up all that space in my bedroom and living room. :icecream:
> 
> "I will therefore place your claim into the Beta Sector or as it is also known as BS."
> 
> And I will place your reasoning ability into the same place.
> 
> I will also place all the rest of your posts in the same area.


As someone else just pointed out, I never claimed I'd read all my books. That's why I still have so many. After I read a book, I usually bring it to the local thrift store.
I will probably not finish these books in my lifetime, but I can enjoy reading them as long as I can.
So you find it unbelievable that a person could have that many books? I find it unbelievable all those people out there who don't enjoy reading so much.:bowtie:


----------



## JJ Grandits

And bragging about the vast number of books you own, but have not read is the sign of a phony intellectual.
3,500 books on a Kindle? 
Wow! I am so impressed!
They are probably read logically to his strawman with an informed opinion.


----------



## painterswife

JJ Grandits said:


> And bragging about the vast number of books you own, but have not read is the sign of a phony intellectual.
> 3,500 books on a Kindle?
> Wow! I am so impressed!
> They are probably read logically to his strawman with an informed opinion.


That statement makes no sense what so ever. You keep accusing him of Strawman arguments while throwing yours out there continually.


----------



## FourDeuce

JJ Grandits said:


> And bragging about the vast number of books you own, but have not read is the sign of a phony intellectual.
> 
> Can you quote where I bragged about the vast number of books I own, but have not read? I don't recall doing that, but maybe I posted something without knowing it.
> 
> 3,500 books on a Kindle?
> Wow! I am so impressed!
> 
> 
> They are probably read logically to his strawman with an informed opinion.


Can you translate that last sentence into English? 
All this time you spend building Straw Man could also be spent on dealing with what people actually say.:nono:


----------



## greg273

JJ Grandits said:


> Please give examples where order came from chaos.


 Order comes from chaos constantly. Some examples would be the solar system condensing out of a cloud of interstellar gas, pretty much anything built by humans, your body, mineral crystals, photosynthesis and plant growth. The examples are all around you. We would not exist if chaos was not continually transformed into order, and vice versa.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> Order comes from chaos constantly. Some examples would be the solar system condensing out of a cloud of interstellar gas, pretty much anything built by humans, your body, mineral crystals, photosynthesis and plant growth. The examples are all around you. We would not exist if chaos was not continually transformed into order, and vice versa.


How did they come to order in perfect time? How did the earth get put right were it needs to be? Few miles closer to the sun and we burn. Few miles farther and we freeze. Ever ask yourself this? How is it our moon is hit with an average of 19 million meteors a year causing craters the size of some of our cities and mars is hit with billions of meteors a year that would wipe out many of our cities yet we come away unscathed year after year? What's stopping that from happening to us. A devine protector perhaps?


----------



## FourDeuce

"How did the earth get put right were it needs to be?" If the Earth wasn't "right where it needs to be", who would be asking the question? Nobody.

"yet we come away unscathed year after year?" After that comment, even astronomers that aren't dead are spinning in their graves.:hair

"What's stopping that from happening to us."
Nothing

"A devine protector perhaps?"
An invisible pink unicorn perhaps? If you're just going to make up beings and claim they're protecting the planet, you might as well use some imagination. :nanner:


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> How did they come to order in perfect time? How did the earth get put right were it needs to be? Few miles closer to the sun and we burn. Few miles farther and we freeze.]
> 
> Evolution! The earth allowed life to evolve because of where it was.


----------



## JJ Grandits

painterswife said:


> That statement makes no sense what so ever. You keep accusing him of Strawman arguments while throwing yours out there continually.


Actually it does make sense. I sarcastically used words that appear in almost all of his posts to illustrate how pointless and misdirected his arguments are. They are nothing more then buzzwords. 

Lets face it, mosts of his responses boil down to something being illogical, or an uninformed opinion or not having his degree of proof, while offering no counter arguments. It's like having a discussion with a seven year old who puts his fingers in his ears while screaming "I know you are but what am I?". I suggest a book and he claims he already has it and then makes a claim to an incredible library. Again, like a seven year old saying, "Oh yeah!, Well my dad makes a bazzilion dollars a week!".
These are all the hallmarks of a fairly insecure personality.

As far as strawman arguments, I have stated some very specific questions as have others which never generated an answer.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

FourDeuce said:


> "How did the earth get put right were it needs to be?" If the Earth wasn't "right where it needs to be", who would be asking the question? Nobody.
> 
> "yet we come away unscathed year after year?" After that comment, even astronomers that aren't dead are spinning in their graves.:hair
> 
> "What's stopping that from happening to us."
> Nothing
> 
> "A devine protector perhaps?"
> An invisible pink unicorn perhaps? If you're just going to make up beings and claim they're protecting the planet, you might as well use some imagination. :nanner:


Gotta love ignorant answers that offer no substance from those who spew out nonsense because they have no answer or clue.lol :simpleminded:


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> If you want to set the rules, maybe you should set logical rules. One important logical rule is that a person does not have to defend a claim they never made. I made no claims about the speed of light in interstellar space. I think you're asking because you can't come up with any good arguments for religion, so you hope to validate religion by dragging down science. What you fail to understand is that even IF you could destroy science, that would not help you prove religion is true. The ONLY way to prove religion is true is to prove religion is true. Your whole attempt at "shaking the foundations of science" is futile.:cowboy:


Ok, so in your usual style, while you appear to be supportive of science who have made claims about the speed of light in interstellar space, you really dont come out and say anything. How about a straight up answer here to a straight up question.... Do you or do you not believe that the science guys are correct with their assessment of the the speed of light? A simple yes or no will suffice. 


FourDeuce said:


> Please look up the Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy. YOU claimed something can never happen, so it's up to you to prove it. Asking other people to do it for you doesn't help you.


As with the above... you seem to be opposed to the notion that God exists.... without really ever making a clear statement... so again, how about clarifying with a simple yes, God exists, or no, God does not exist? 



FourDeuce said:


> Before you can practice critical thinking, you should learn the difference between a person who CLAIMS they have seen gods and a person who PROVES they have seen gods. Once you learn that important difference, you will understand why you are wrong on that point too. If I CLAIM to have a million dollars, do you automatically accept my word? How about if I show you a million dollars? Do you understand the difference between the two examples? That difference is very important(to rational people).


I do not claim to have seen God... I have seen God, Therefor I know He exists, and there is no reason I should need to "prove" His existence to you, nor anyone else. I also dont care if you have a million bucks or not... feel free to spend it on anything you wish, or stuff it under your mattress if you like.


----------



## FourDeuce

"not having his degree of proof," 
That is a common mistake among people who don't understand logic. Logic doesn't depend on MY degree of proof. It has its own standards which don't depend on anyone's individual standards. That's one of the things that makes it work so well.:hammer:


----------



## FourDeuce

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, so in your usual style, while you appear to be supportive of science who have made claims about the speed of light in interstellar space, you really dont come out and say anything. How about a straight up answer here to a straight up question.... Do you or do you not believe that the science guys are correct with their assessment of the the speed of light? A simple yes or no will suffice.
> 
> And of course you will continue to build Straw Man arguments from whichever answer I give. Here's your answer. No
> 
> 
> "As with the above... you seem to be opposed to the notion that God exists...."
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> "without really ever making a clear statement..."
> 
> Just because a statement is clear to YOU doesn't mean it isn't a clear statement.
> 
> "so again, how about clarifying with a simple yes, God exists, or no, God does not exist?"
> 
> That's called the False Dichotomy Fallacy. You should look it up so you don't use it again. I have no idea whether any gods exist(and neither does anybody else).
> 
> "I do not claim to have seen God... I have seen God,"
> 
> 
> That is a claim. Got any proof?
> 
> "Therefor I know He exists, and there is no reason I should need to "prove" His existence to you, nor anyone else. I also dont care if you have a million bucks or not... feel free to spend it on anything you wish, or stuff it under your mattress if you like.


 The only thing you accomplish by posting claims which you can't prove is to destroy your credibility. You're right about one thing, though. You don't need to prove your claims, if you don't mind destroying your credibility. The ironic thing is, once you destroy your credibility, there's no point in making any comments, since destroying your credibility means rational people won't pay attention to your claims.


----------



## FourDeuce

Vahomesteaders said:


> Gotta love ignorant answers that offer no substance from those who spew out nonsense because they have no answer or clue.lol :simpleminded:


No, I don't have to love them. :hand:


----------



## Vahomesteaders

FourDeuce said:


> No, I don't have to love them. :hand:


Then stop giving them as if you do.


----------



## FourDeuce

I can explain things for you, but I can't understand them for you.:buds:


----------



## Evons hubby

FourDeuce said:


> I can explain things for you, but I can't understand them for you.:buds:


Now how is anyone supposed to explain anything when they "cant understand them". But hey, thanks for answering my questions... you arent having any of sciences "interstellar speed of light" either, and you say you dont know if God exists. Cool, at least now we know where you stand on those two points. 

"Do you or do you not believe that the science guys are correct with their assessment of the the speed of light? A simple yes or no will suffice."

* Here's your answer. No.*

* I have no idea whether any gods exist(and neither does anybody else). *

Ahhhh but thats where you are wrong.... I know He exists. I have a hunch I am not the only one either.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> How did they come to order in perfect time? How did the earth get put right were it needs to be? Few miles closer to the sun and we burn. Few miles farther and we freeze. Ever ask yourself this? How is it our moon is hit with an average of 19 million meteors a year causing craters the size of some of our cities and mars is hit with billions of meteors a year that would wipe out many of our cities yet we come away unscathed year after year? What's stopping that from happening to us. A devine protector perhaps?


 You are wildly overestimating the size and number of meteorites to hit mars and the moon. Also, wildly underestimating the habitable zone around the earth. Its not 'a few miles' in either direction...think millions of miles. 
The best estimates for lunar impacts are something like 1 ton of material hits the moon per day. Meanwhile,Earth gets hit with 33 tons per day, however most of it burns up in the atmosphere. Which, of course you know, or maybe not, the moon lacks. 
And large meteorites do hit the earth on a regular basis... its just that 'regular basis' is generally longer than anyones lifetime. Big meteor impacts do happen on Earth, and they've happened many many times.


----------



## JJ Grandits

FourDeuce said:


> "not having his degree of proof,"
> That is a common mistake among people who don't understand logic. Logic doesn't depend on MY degree of proof. It has its own standards which don't depend on anyone's individual standards. That's one of the things that makes it work so well.:hammer:


Thank you for proving the assessment I made in my last post as correct.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> You are wildly overestimating the size and number of meteorites to hit mars and the moon. Also, wildly underestimating the habitable zone around the earth. Its not 'a few miles' in either direction...think millions of miles.
> The best estimates for lunar impacts are something like 1 ton of material hits the moon per day. Meanwhile,Earth gets hit with 33 tons per day, however most of it burns up in the atmosphere. Which, of course you know, or maybe not, the moon lacks.
> And large meteorites do hit the earth on a regular basis... its just that 'regular basis' is generally longer than anyones lifetime. Big meteor impacts do happen on Earth, and they've happened many many times.


I know about the atmosphere. That dont cut it. Nasa recorded over 1500 strikes on the moon in 2013 by meteors of 150 killograms or larger. Which would not burn up in our atmosphere. They would clear the atmosphere and do some serious damage.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> I know about the atmosphere. That dont cut it. Nasa recorded over 1500 strikes on the moon in 2013 by meteors of 150 killograms or larger. Which would not burn up in our atmosphere. They would clear the atmosphere and do some serious damage.


 Where are you getting this info?? According to the NASA website,the earth and its atmosphere is hit by far more meteors than the moon, about 33 times as much! 



> *March 1, 2011:* *Every day about 100 tons of meteoroids -- fragments of dust and gravel and sometimes even big rocks â enter the Earth's atmosphere.* Stand out under the stars for more than a half an hour on a clear night and you'll likely see a few of the meteors produced by the onslaught


http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/01mar_meteornetwork/


----------



## Vahomesteaders

greg273 said:


> Where are you getting this info?? According to the NASA website,the earth and its atmosphere is hit by far more meteors than the moon, about 33 times as much!
> 
> 
> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/01mar_meteornetwork/


I'm talking about actual meteors capable of damage. Not ones that burn up and dust and rocks.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> I'm talking about actual meteors capable of damage. Not ones that burn up and dust and rocks.


 Yeah, me too. The earth is still hit with far more than the moon.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Yeah, me too. The earth is still hit with far more than the moon.


Another one is coming up soon!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Another one is coming up soon!


Interesting. How do you know that?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Interesting. How do you know that?


The news!!!!!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> The news!!!!!


It's not going to hit the earth.


----------



## greg273

This one didn't miss...

http://news.yahoo.com/meteorite-smashes-nicaraguan-capital-230034550.html


Nor did these thousands of meteorites... (warning, this link has interactive graphics, so might not be friendly to slow internet or limited bandwidth...) 

http://bolid.es/


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> It's not going to hit the earth.


Yep, thats what the dinosaurs thought too. They just continued on with their munching and evolving, then one day.... SCHMOP!!! Ask them now if they still think it wont hit the earth!


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, thats what the dinosaurs thought too. They just continued on with their munching and evolving, then one day.... SCHMOP!!! Ask them now if they still think it wont hit the earth!


Maybe part of it did.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/08/tech/innovation/nicaragua-meteorite/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> It's not going to hit the earth.


Maybe not this one! But one will eventually! They always do! !!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Maybe not this one! But one will eventually! They always do! !!


Similar to tornadoes and mobile home parks, I suppose.

But it's possible that scientists could find a defense against large meteorite strikes. I know that you don't believe or trust scientists, but they have been known to solve difficult problems in the past.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Similar to tornadoes and mobile home parks, I suppose.
> 
> But it's possible that scientists could find a defense against large meteorite strikes. I know that you don't believe or trust scientists, but they have been known to solve difficult problems in the past.


I trust some, not all!


----------

