Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is not science is wrong, it is evolution is not science.
Why do you always bring religion into this discussion? The subject is science, not religion.
Why don't you start by providing the scientific evidence for "natural selection."
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Christianity should not even come up in this discussion. It is about what real science can prove and can't prove.
First, statements like that are why the moderators put science discussions off limits on the religion forums.
Second, your denial of evolution is based on your religious beliefs. Not because of evidence or lack of evidence. It isn't just evolution that you deny. In the now closed thread //www.city-data.com/forum/chris...lution-19.html over in the Christianity forum the discussion turned to the so called big bang theory of the origin of the Universe. In post #60 of that thread you stated that there is no evidence for the big bang. I therefore provided two pieces of evidence in post #73 which support the big bang, with the two biggest pieces of evidence being the expansion of the Universe and the cosmic microwave background. To which you replied in post #78 ''Unless you can see the outer edge of the universe you don' know if it is expanding.'' And then you tried to turn the subject back to evolution. I then explained the doppler effect to you in posts #80, 98, and 111, which you simply dismissed, and in your last post to me before the thread was closed, post #175, you said, ''Talk is cheap, Why not post some of this best evidence? Include the evidence for the source of the matter that wet bang and the energy that made it go bang. Then explain how you know the universe is expanding when you have never seen the outer edge. Whoever wrote Genesis wrote what God told him to write and He created all of the processes we know of today.''
I had already posted the two biggest pieces of evidence for the big bang and had already explained how astronomers know that the Universe is expanding and you simply ignored and dismissed it because of what you think the Bible says about creation, not understanding that the creation account was never intended to be a scientific explanation for the creation of the Universe but was for the most part a polemic against the creation accounts of the other Ancient Near Eastern religions. The purpose of the Genesis creation account was to assert that it was Yahweh who created the heavens and the earth rather than the gods of the other religions.
My point is that you dismiss any evidence which goes against your religious beliefs. Now, I am a Christian and I believe that the evidence for evolution is pretty clear. I believe in an old earth which I also provided evidence for in post # 156 of the same thread, and I accept the evidence which supports the so called big bang theory.
You on the other hand felt it necessary to go to the trouble of finding and resurrecting a ten year old thread in order to make your usual arguments against evolution.
Last edited by Michael Way; 10-02-2017 at 07:53 AM..
No, Transponder, Great Britain got beat because the U.S. knew when to pick a revolution--when your opponent is roughly 4000 miles away by sailing ship and he's involved in a war with a great European power! Spread them thin, and then introduce them to "guerilla warfare!"
I'm huge fan of Sharpe and I just finished the first two of James Mace's books on the Zulu war.
And even in Mace's book on the Defense at Rorke's Drift, I learned that I had been wrong in my ideas about Henry Hook, portrayed in the 1966 (?) movie Zulu. The movie portrayed him as under arrest and indicated he was a drunkard. Not so, Mace gave historical accounts of all the VC winners and Hook was really a religious guy. He indicated that either Hook's daughters (or granddaughters?) went to an early release of ZULU and walked out when they saw how it was portraying him.
The point is there really is no such thing as absolute "factual" history. Everyone who is a "historian" writes with a certain historiographical bias. In the Zulu war alone there is reason to blame Lt. Col. Dunford or Lord Chelmsford, GOC. And there are all sorts of opinions out there all based on "history."
Just as I see a certain bias in biblical writing, it's also possible to note it in "straight history" books. The events may be the same but the spin is an attempt to sway.
The Bible is the same way, attempts to tell events, like the resurrection story. The overall event may not be in contention for everyone, even if the details most certainly are.
With regard to macroevolution the "evidence" points toward it even if some of the science guys themselves differ about it. I think it is illogical to think one can accept microevolution without accepting that at some point there was a "macroevolution" from one kind of animal or fish into a closely related relative---such as men and chimps.
It also fascinates me that most fundamentalists will not question a commercial company telling them that 10% of their DNA is from Scotland or Germany, but when one points out that we share an extraordinary amount of DNA with chimpanzees, they go "ape," so to speak!
The debates about history go on, and that's good, because we all learn. And History buffs is excellent because it notes changes made to make a film, but also when the film is not biased and lying. Zulu is not (1) The patriot is, even though both have excellent costumes and props and look good.
The LoR film made a lot of changes, but were honest to the book and the changes improved it. Arwen matters. Nobody cares about Glorfindel.
There are a lot of factors in the American revolution. Colonies starting to find their own identity, disputes with the parent country. The S American countries all fought wars of liberation from Spain. The french revolution gave them a mindset that was different from anything that had existed before. Athens had hinted at it. The Parliament of the UK had laid the bedrock and the French revolution had tried it. The US made it work.
America probably can't imagine how much the rest of world looks to America. They may resent or carp and find fault, but it, and nobody else, is the basis for world culture.
I can hear you laughing "Culture!" But America is where pop and rock started and it is played everywhere, except those with an Indo -arabic musical tradition.
Still this is about Macroevolution, not the American revolution.
The problem with the US at the moment is this religion -based anomaly that puts it of all the advanced nations down with Iran and the Congo. The denial of science is a symptom of the cult that has come close to ruling the US. I don't know what part that played in electing trump, but I'm still hoping that it was like the flurry of Creationist propaganda, it is a last frantic defence against collapse. Perhaps surprisingly soon the same in the Islam world.
Maybe ISIS like Trump is the shock that will wake people up and see that right -wing religion is not the answer.
(1) I hear a lot of differing views about Isandlwana and Rourke's drift. It is all useful debate.
It is not science is wrong, it is evolution is not science.
Why do you always bring religion into this discussion? The subject is science, not religion.
Why don't you start by providing the scientific evidence for "natural selection."
Why don't you check out a science book about natural selection and find the evidence yourself?
Why do you insist upon getting your information from non-scientist forum posters?
Do you REALLY think that if a non-scientist forum poster can't readily answer the question -- or WON'T answer it for various reasons, you've won?
Oh right, YOU'RE the guy who I've admonished before about thinking that Bronze Age creation myths are proven by default -- merely because uhm ... "the Bible says it" ... and entire libraries filled with books on evolution and natural selection are wrong. Because ... duh ... "the Bible says it."
I find the audacity somewhat amusing that you still demand that anyone who doesn't take the Bible as literal truth must sit here and type out long scientific posts just so you can supply a one-line answer that pretty much just says "nuh huh."
And who are YOU to sit here and say that "evolution isn't science"?
What body, panel, committee, caucus, or tribunal gave you the power to decide for everyone -- including actual scientists -- what is science and what isn't?
It's really unfortunate that we even must have these debates ... now ... in the 21st Century ... with the fruits of scientific discovery all around us ... debates about whether or not the scientific principles of evolution are true ... or whether humanity was created supernaturally with, perhaps, a magic wand or a series of incantations ... that an all-powerful god needed to use Adam's rib to form Evn .. and that we're all being eternally punished for the actions of one person, Eve, who didn't even exist yet when God handed out the rule not to eat from that tree.
Really, the creation account in Genesis is an etiology -- a story or rhyme that seeks to explain something when either a scientific explanation is unavailable or the person wanting to know are too young or too dim to understand the scientific explanation. Like telling children that thunder is really just angels bowling in Heaven; every time an angel gets a strike, a flash of lightning occurs. That sort of thing.
The Genesis account tries to explain everything from how the earth got here, why there is pain and sufferig in this world, why giving birth hurts so much, why we have to grow our food ... even why snakes slither instead of walking on feet like most other creatures.
Taking it literally, taking it as historical fact, is patently absurd. What's more, seeing the Bible this way only sets yourself up for failure -- because science WILL ultimately figure out things like where life came from and how it rose from chemical reactions. When that happens, should it happen in your lifetime, you'll be left standing there with nothing but silly, irrational denials and a Bible that can't be trusted to tell the truth.
Most Christians see those stories as allegories, metaphors, morality plays, and the like and do NOT see them as literal truth. No one is going to Hell if they don't believe Noah really crammed tens of thousands, if not tens of millions, of animals onto a relatively small wooden boat -- or that Jonah really did spend 3 days sitting inside of a whale's stomach -- or any of those other Sunday school stories.
Anyhow, believe what you want ... and truth be damned.
It is not science is wrong, it is evolution is not science.
Why do you always bring religion into this discussion? The subject is science, not religion.
Why don't you start by providing the scientific evidence for "natural selection."
Why don't you try checking the Creationist sites to find that they accept 'change' through natural selection though genetic random mutations. If they accept it why don't you?
If you accept 'change' through natural selection, then why don't you give some scientific reason why 'change' can't become 'speciation'?
And religion comes into it as that is the only reason to deny the evidence of evolution. If not for those who insist that Genesis must be true, there would be no real debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
If science is what it is, post the scientific process that causes a leg to become a fin and a nose to become a blowhole. Genetics will not allow that to happen.
A leg becomes a flipper - still with clear leg and paw -bones in. Not a fin. Though there is fossil evidence of fins turning into feet.
The fossil sequence shows the gradual evolutionary change from the nose to to the op of the head. The evidence of the evolution of land animal to whale is available. And genetics is no battier to that. If it allows evolutionary 'change', then it is allows profound evolutionary change.
Now you provide the scientific evidence that shows this cannot happen?
Now this guy is not too brilliant and is an Authority on nothing, but he does illustrate the Creationist view - they accept natural selection and presumably the genetic mechanism as what else?
But what they try to do is argue that there is some kind of barrier to this change going so far it becomes a different critter. Instead of the 'interbreeding nonsense with is NO part of evolution -theory, it is claimed (in the prepared script this fellow is reading) that natural selection can only rearrange information, not add to it. But the classic example is bacteria that evolved to digest plastics. Now, whether you say what was there before was rearranged or accept the evidence - that some genetic information that was not there before has appeared to allow this new feature - then the objection 'no new information' does not work. New enough information appears to allow change, with no practical limitation.
Now bugs are still bugs, but the objections to "macro" change or rejection of the mechanism fail. Objections to it happening is the past fail as you cannot credibly debunk the cetan sequence, and Ring species provided not only the debunk of the 'kinds' claim (Biblical "kinds" makes no sense even in rational terms, let alone scientific) but debunk the 'cannot interbreed' objection.
That's three bits of in your face evidence for evolution, aside from all the backup in genetics.
It should be evident that this is no more than trying to find some awkward questions about evolution, rather than calling it into question, but even those niggles about details fail miserably.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-02-2017 at 05:03 PM..
First, statements like that are why the moderators put science discussions off limits on the religion forums.
Second, your denial of evolution is based on your religious beliefs.
Not true. My rejection of evolution is based purely on science, especially the laws of genetics. I NEVER bring up religion in any discussion of evolution. I do occasionally mention "after their kind," because that is what is proven thousands of times every day and it can't be falsified and it rejects the TOE.
Quote:
Not because of evidence or lack of evidence. It isn't just evolution that you deny. In the now closed thread //www.city-data.com/forum/chris...lution-19.html over in the Christianity forum the discussion turned to the so called big bang theory of the origin of the Universe. In post #60 of that thread you stated that there is no evidence for the big bang. I therefore provided two pieces of evidence in post #73 which support the big bang, with the two biggest pieces of evidence being the expansion of the Universe and the cosmic microwave background. To which you replied in post #78 ''Unless you can see the outer edge of the universe you don' know if it is expanding.'' And then you tried to turn the subject back to evolution. I then explained the doppler effect to you in posts #80, 98, and 111, which you simply dismissed, and in your last post to me before the thread was closed, post #175, you said, ''Talk is cheap, Why not post some of this best evidence? Include the evidence for the source of the matter that wet bang and the energy that made it go bang. Then explain how you know the universe is expanding when you have never seen the outer edge. Whoever wrote Genesis wrote what God told him to write and He created all of the processes we know of today.''
I did not dismiss you explanation, I ask a legitimate question. One anyone who accepts the BB should You don't ask because you want it to be an explanation. So I will ask again. How do you know the universe is expanding when you have never seen its outer limits. How big was it 10,000 years ago? How big is it now?
That isn't even your major problem. What is the origin of the matter that went boom. What is the origin of the energy that caused it to go boom. How did life originated from lifeless elements? Notice I have not mentioned religion.
Quote:
I had already posted the two biggest pieces of evidence for the big bang and had already explained how astronomers know that the Universe is expanding and you simply ignored and dismissed it because of what you think the Bible says about creation, not understanding that the creation account was never intended to be a scientific explanation for the creation of the Universe but was for the most part a polemic against the creation accounts of the other Ancient Near Eastern religions. The purpose of the Genesis creation account was to assert that it was Yahweh who created the heavens and the earth rather than the gods of the other religions.
You explanation was inadequate. You have not see the outer edges of the universe, therefore you can't say it is expanding. That is a no bainer.
Quote:
My point is that you dismiss any evidence which goes against your religious beliefs. Now, I am a Christian and I believe that the evidence for evolution is pretty clear. I believe in an old earth which I also provided evidence for in post # 156 of the same thread, and I accept the evidence which supports the so called big bang theory.
Answer this one question; has the outer edge of the universe eve been seen?
Quote:
You on the other hand felt it necessary to go to the trouble of finding and resurrecting a ten year old thread in order to make your usual arguments against evolution.
First of all I didn't resurrect it, someone else did. Second it doesn't change any of the known facts. Matter moving in the universe does not prove the universe is expanding.What you accept , you accept by faith alone, not based on evidence, but because you need to.
Is this how you think evolution works? One animal just goes full Pikachu into Raichu? Of course that is ridiculous. We aren't talking about butterflies being a different species from caterpillars here.
I know how evolution is said to work. I know pakicetus has been put in the linage of whale evolution. That in itself is absurd and scientifically impossible, but to claim a land animal doing very well on land would enter a more hostile environment and become a whale is laughable.
It is amusing that 2 of your fossils experts, Gold and Mayr say that is what happens.
Here is a statement from Mayr - "Wherever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelming frequent...the discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."
What is Evolution, p. 189
First of all I didn't resurrect it, someone else did. Second it doesn't change any of the known facts. Matter moving in the universe does not prove the universe is expanding.What you accept , you accept by faith alone, not based on evidence, but because you need to.
Post #13 was made at 11-16-2007, 01:05 PM.
Post #14 was made at 09-29-2017, 07:57 AM by omega2xx.
So, yes you did resurrect the thread.
Astronomers know beyond a shadow of a doubt that stars and galaxies are getting further apart and the stars in our own Milky Way galaxy are moving away from each other. So, yeah, we know the Universe is expanding without seeing the edge of it. That's just a ridiculous argument.
Why don't you check out a science book about natural selection and find the evidence yourself?
You don't know science well enough to know that is not evidence to support natural selection. Prove me wrong.
Quote:
Why do you insist upon getting your information from non-scientist forum posters?
I don't. I get my information from well qualified scientrists. Mainly othe ICR
Do you REALLY think that if a non-scientist forum poster can't readily answer the question -- or WON'T answer it for various reasons, you've won?
Quote:
Oh right, YOU'RE the guy who I've admonished before about thinking that Bronze Age creation myths are proven by default -- merely because uhm ... "the Bible says it" ... and entire libraries filled with books on evolution and natural selection are wrong. Because ... duh ... "the Bible says it."
It is really amusing that all of you evos want to bring religion into a science discussion. Stick to the subject.
Quote:
I find the audacity somewhat amusing that you still demand that anyone who doesn't take the Bible as literal truth must sit here and type out long scientific posts just so you can supply a one-line answer that pretty much just says "nuh huh."
What is more audacious and more than amusing is that I don't demand anything. I don't mention the Bible. I stick to science, Why don't you? Are you that ignorant of real science?
Quote:
And who are YOU to sit here and say that "evolution isn't science"?
Real science proves things, not one single thing in the TOE has ever been proven. That's why.
[quote]What body, panel, committee, caucus, or tribunal gave you the power to decide for everyone -- including actual scientists -- what is science and what isn't?
Why the rant. I have not decided anything for anyone. I have posted my beliefs, just like you have. If you can't defend your position, consider not posting in a thread you are ignorant of the subject.
Quote:
It's really unfortunate that we even must have these debates ... now ... in the 21st Century ... with the fruits of scientific discovery all around us ... debates about whether or not the scientific principles of evolution are true ... or whether humanity was created supernaturally with, perhaps, a magic wand or a series of incantations ... that an all-powerful god needed to use Adam's rib to form Evn .. and that we're all being eternally punished for the actions of one person, Eve, who didn't even exist yet when God handed out the rule not to eat from that tree.
Stick to the subject. Let me remind you again, It is science, not the Bible.
Quote:
Really, the creation account in Genesis is an etiology -- a story or rhyme that seeks to explain something when either a scientific explanation is unavailable or the person wanting to know are too young or too dim to understand the scientific explanation. Like telling children that thunder is really just angels bowling in Heaven; every time an angel gets a strike, a flash of lightning occurs. That sort of thing.
The Genesis account tries to explain everything from how the earth got here, why there is pain and sufferig in this world, why giving birth hurts so much, why we have to grow our food ... even why snakes slither instead of walking on feet like most other creatures.
Taking it literally, taking it as historical fact, is patently absurd. What's more, seeing the Bible this way only sets yourself up for failure -- because science WILL ultimately figure out things like where life came from and how it rose from chemical reactions. When that happens, should it happen in your lifetime, you'll be left standing there with nothing but silly, irrational denials and a Bible that can't be trusted to tell the truth.
Most Christians see those stories as allegories, metaphors, morality plays, and the like and do NOT see them as literal truth. No one is going to Hell if they don't believe Noah really crammed tens of thousands, if not tens of millions, of animals onto a relatively small wooden boat -- or that Jonah really did spend 3 days sitting inside of a whale's stomach -- or any of those other Sunday school stories.
Anyhow, believe what you want ... and truth be damned.
Stick to the subject. If you want to discuss the Bible start a thread on it.
Not true. My rejection of evolution is based purely on science, especially the laws of genetics. I NEVER bring up religion in any discussion of evolution. I do occasionally mention "after their kind," because that is what is proven thousands of times every day and it can't be falsified and it rejects the TOE.
Your rejection of evolution is based on the Biblical 'after their kind' which you claim rejects evolution.
''Where does the Bible lock science out. The only science in the Bible is "after their kind," and that is proved thousands of times every day, ans nothing in the TO'' [Post #76]
Evolution occurs over a period of successive generations and therefore, 'after their kind' is not proven ''thousands of times every day.''
Quote:
I did not dismiss you explanation, I ask a legitimate question. One anyone who accepts the BB should You don't ask because you want it to be an explanation. So I will ask again. How do you know the universe is expanding when you have never seen its outer limits. How big was it 10,000 years ago? How big is it now?
That isn't even your major problem. What is the origin of the matter that went boom. What is the origin of the energy that caused it to go boom. How did life originated from lifeless elements? Notice I have not mentioned religion.
You explanation was inadequate. You have not see the outer edges of the universe, therefore you can't say it is expanding. That is a no bainer.
Answer this one question; has the outer edge of the universe eve been seen?
No, my explanation was not inadequate.
You were given the explanation on how we know the Universe is expanding in posts #80, 98, and 111 in that thread - //www.city-data.com/forum/chris...olution-8.html, and you dismissed it. Again, in your very last post to me before the thread was closed [Post #175] you asked me to post evidence for the big bang after that evidence had already been given to you in posts #80, 98, and 111. The two best pieces of evidence for the 'big bang' are (1.) the expansion of the Universe which simply means that every non-gravitationlly bound galaxy is moving further apart from every other non-gravitationally bound galaxy. Our Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are gravitationally bound and are moving toward each other. We know this because the light from the Andromeda galaxy is shifted to the blue part of the visible light spectrum. And (2.) the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation which is the left over remnant of the big bang.
The Universe is larger than the part of the Universe which we can see. We can see to the limits of our observable Universe and as already explained, we know from the doppler effect that all non-gravatationally bound galaxies are moving away from each other. Not so much because the galaxies themselves are moving though space, but because space itself is constantly being created and it is this expansion of space which is pushing the galaxies further apart. In other words, the Universe is expanding.
Because light from galaxies which are moving away from us is coming through expanding space, the light waves are stretched out which causes the light to be shifted to the red end of the visible light spectrum. This is how astronomers know that the Universe is expanding.
How big is the Universe you ask? We really don't know, but we do know that it is expanding and getting bigger. The radius of the 'observable' Universe however is about 45.7 billion light years. For details read the following article which I assume you won't since you have stated that you don't read links.
It is so easy to educate yourself on these matters if you would just avail yourself of the information which is readily available.
Quote:
First of all I didn't resurrect it, someone else did. Second it doesn't change any of the known facts. Matter moving in the universe does not prove the universe is expanding.What you accept , you accept by faith alone, not based on evidence, but because you need to.
You resurrected this thread. The last post on this thread before it went dormant was post #13 on 11-16-2007. You dug up the thread and posted post #14 on 09-29-2017.
And no, the expansion of the Universe is not a matter of faith. Again, the observed fact that all non-gravationally bound galaxies are moving away from each other IS the expansion of the Universe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Culture!" But America is where pop and rock started and it is played everywhere, except those with an Indo -arabic musical tradition. 
