Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 106 of 323 (525027)
09-21-2009 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Archangel
09-21-2009 7:58 AM


quote:
I can see that this is a waste of time since you evo proponents are more interested in going after me and insulting me rather than objectively considering the truth of my arguments.
Of course, this isn't true. You have admitted to using an argument that you consider false - and pointing that out shows a concern with the truth of your arguments, and should not be taken as an insult.
You have also admitted that you feel "certain" that your accusations are true even in the absence of evidence. These facts show that you are not interested in the objective truth of your arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 7:58 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 107 of 323 (525029)
09-21-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Archangel
09-21-2009 7:58 AM


Archangel,
you are a good reasoner and for that reason I really hope you stick around in this forum.
But I disagree entirely with what you say here. I don't know why you think evolution is a fraud and evolutionists are not interested in the truth - that's what they are generally interested in most of all.
Scientific theories really are tentative, ie held as being the best answer we have but subject to change in future. This is certainly true of quantum mechanics, which underlies all the clever technology in an Apple.
That doesn't mean there aren't scientific facts as well - ie the well-confirmed outcomes of repeated observations. But the fundamental theories are undoubtedly held provisionally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 7:58 AM Archangel has not replied

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 108 of 323 (525030)
09-21-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Archangel
09-21-2009 7:58 AM


Archangel, evolutionists have been accused of being dogmatists. This is in part because Darwin said a lot about evolution when he first proposed his theory in The Origin of Species, but almost nothing in the book has changed. It seems like everything in the book has been accepted as part of the current theory, despite all of the advances made in genetics, paleontology, embryology, and so on. I don't know about you, but that really does strike me as suspicious. I would have more confidence if Darwin's original theory contained more proven falsehoods, like what happens with every other scientific pioneer. That is why it seems a little strange to see you say, "Only in evolution science must they revamp the current thinking and redefine it constantly based on new and undeniable observations which completely negate prior beliefs." From my perspective, the problem is more in the reverse. The popular media reports do tend to overblow the significance of every new find, and that seems to mislead people about how conservative the ToE seems to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 7:58 AM Archangel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Peepul, posted 09-21-2009 10:56 AM ApostateAbe has not replied
 Message 112 by Modulous, posted 09-21-2009 11:05 AM ApostateAbe has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 109 of 323 (525031)
09-21-2009 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Archangel
09-21-2009 8:07 AM


Hi Archangel,
Thanks for the comic - that was pretty good!
Archangel writes:
This doesn't mean that what we learn in the future wont add to that knowledge, but what we learn in the future shouldn't nullify the science of the past.
Well, this is our fondest hope, that we don't learn that a scientific theory is false and must be replaced, but it does occasionally happen. Up through the first third of the 20th century geologists believed that continents were static and did not move, that it was impossible that continents should move through the crust of the sea floor. Only in that last part were they correct, but the theory of motionless continents had to be discarded as evidence gradually accumulated that they did indeed move, on the order of a few inches per year. Static continent theory was tossed out and replaced with plate tectonic theory.
But I don't think theories are discarded very often. More commonly it is as you say, that theories are instead refined, modified or improved. Newton's laws were not wrong but simply incomplete because they couldn't properly model relatively high velocities. I believe the paths of most space craft are still calculated using only Newton's Laws, relativity only being a necessary consideration on close approaches to the Sun or one of the Jovian planets, or for extremely high accuracy, such as is required with the GPS satellites.
But scientists must always be prepared for the possibility that a beloved theory may one day have to be modified or discarded. It isn't easy to give up on a hypothesis or theory in which one has invested much time and made great sacrifices. When Einstein was asked what he would have thought if Sir Author Eddington's eclipse measurements had not confirmed relativity, Einstein replied to the effect that the experiment would have to considered suspect because the theory was too beautiful to be wrong. Even the greatest scientists can fall prey to falling in love with their theories.
So theories can never be considered proven. Theories never arrive at absolute conclusions, because absolute conclusions cannot be changed. The possibility that a theory might change derives from the tentative nature of science, because we know that neither our senses nor our intellect is perfect. Scientific knowledge is a growing and ever changing fabric. Knowledge once gained is not immutable because it is ever vulnerable to new evidence or improved insight. At one time we thought the continents stationary, and how could we have ever changed that view if it were an absolute conclusion rather than a tentative theory.
Theories are developed through the empirical examination of evidence, and if you wish to discuss the relationship between evolutionary frauds and the public acceptance of science then you have to be willing to discuss the evidence. In this thread all you've done so far is express your initial premise over and over again, consisting primarily of unsupported accusations of lies and fraud that you will repeat but apparently won't discuss. It's almost as if you don't know what a discussion is, as if you think that stating what you believe is all that is required, and that supporting it with actual evidence and argument is unnecessary.
By the way, though it isn't an important point in this thread, while engineering and science have a lot in common, they are not the same thing. Apple did not create a MacBook theory, only an engineering specification, and they didn't prove their specification. MacBooks crash just like all other computers. There is no theory of internal combustion engines, but their operation is based upon fundamental scientific (not engineering) theories of thermodynamics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 8:07 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 323 (525033)
09-21-2009 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Archangel
09-21-2009 7:58 AM


God complex
I can see that this is a waste of time since you evo proponents are more interested in going after me and insulting me rather than objectively considering the truth of my arguments. You people are so dishonest
At worst the people in opposition to your claims would be misinformed, not liars, as lying is making willful and deliberate claims that are false.
At best the people in opposition to your claims are right and you are simply too pigheaded to take the time to investigate it for your self.
Real science which is founded upon a foundation of proven and tested conclusions
Precisely, which is why it is a mystery that you hold on to a failed belief that employs vague and brief bible verses as a credible source, especially when they don't stand up to scrutiny.
The whole creationist doctrine is suspect from the start because it uses the bible as its foundation, rather than just compiling the data and making a determination after. Creationists glean their answers before, and should anything circumvent Genesis, they throw it out as inadmissible. That's NOT science, Arch. That's manipulating science.
You people will consider we christians to be backward thinking believers in myths
No, there are plenty of Christians who aren't given to creationist nonsense. Creationists are the problem, not Christians.
Just think, you are proposing that around 3.5 billion years ago, life spontaneously appeared on earth from non-life. And you will insist that I am the ignorant one who clings to fairy tales.
The reality is that NO ONE knows definitively what happened before planck's time, including you. It may be philosophically easier to insist that a God must have created it all, but then we then rely on a series of infinite regressions. For if God is eternal, then why couldn't our universe have been spawned by another universe with a totally different set of physics?
One question simply begats another, on both sides of the argument. The chicken/egg problem does not automatically default to God, as that just introduces new variables.
All we know is that the data we do know and understand points to the cosmological fact that the universe did in fact come in to existence billions of years ago. That is based on observations. The Hubble telescope has done more to refute creationist claims than almost anything else, aside from Darwin. How is that nearly ALL of science is at odds with your belief, yet somehow everyone else is wrong? Ponder that deeply.
I have no aversion towards believing in God. I simply have no good reason to assume that the god described in the bible is an accurate portrait of that God.
All of you claims are reliant upon the fact that some evolutionary frauds have been foisted on the general public, as if that somehow undermines the entirety of the study. That's ridiculous, especially since these people acted independently.
This also denies the mountain of legitimate evidence that either totally refutes or at least seriously questions the whole of creationism.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 7:58 AM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 2:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 111 of 323 (525042)
09-21-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by ApostateAbe
09-21-2009 9:00 AM


AA,
It seems like everything in the book has been accepted as part of the current theory, despite all of the advances made in genetics, paleontology, embryology, and so on. I don't know about you, but that really does strike me as suspicious. I would have more confidence if Darwin's original theory contained more proven falsehoods, like what happens with every other scientific pioneer.
that's an interesting approach and not one I've heard before.
But I think it's wrong - the reason being that recent evidence genuinely does support evolution. I think the admiration that people feel for Darwin is that he got so much right. However, if the evidence proved him wrong, that would be that.
Your viewpoint is, like Archangel's, based on a fundamental assumption that there is something fishy about scientists supporting evolution. But there isn't. No one has ever managed to present evidence of this - ie that there is a widespread conspiracy to prop up a false doctrine that scientists themselves know to be false.
Can you prove it? Can you even present any evidence of it? Why do you believe it?
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-21-2009 9:00 AM ApostateAbe has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 112 of 323 (525046)
09-21-2009 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by ApostateAbe
09-21-2009 9:00 AM


This is in part because Darwin said a lot about evolution when he first proposed his theory in The Origin of Species, but almost nothing in the book has changed. It seems like everything in the book has been accepted as part of the current theory, despite all of the advances made in genetics, paleontology, embryology, and so on
You really think so? There were several editions of the book, and later editions were not made because the author of the work had the tenacity to die.
Anyway here is something Darwin wrote in that book,
quote:
there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them; and that such modifications are inherited
There are a number of things Darwin said that were wrong. He was a man who clearly paid attention to detail - and managed to hit the nail very close to the head with many of his ideas. Darwin's key area of blindness was the mechanics of inheritance which he got quite wrong (though it wasn't an inherently bad idea given the information he had in front of him).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-21-2009 9:00 AM ApostateAbe has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 113 of 323 (525063)
09-21-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Archangel
09-21-2009 7:58 AM


Hi, Archangel.
You've already got a lot to sort through, but I feel as if you missed the entire gist of my last post, so let me re-emphasize the parts I think you missed.
I do not know a lot about the history of computers or thermodynamics, so let me focus on gunpowder, which is easier for me to read as a layman.
Inventing a practical application for something is not the same as explaining how that something works. Gunpowder was invented and technology using it was created hundreds of years before anybody had any idea why it blew up when exposed to fire. The knowledge about why saltpeter and sulfur explode when ignited didn't come until later.
If your idea of "real science" is learning how to make practical use of something you do not understand, then you are correct that evolution is not "real science." But, this is not the intended meaning of the word "science": the word "science" is derived from the Latin word scientia, which means "knowledge," not "practical application."
To me, your insistence that engineering is "real science" is a bit like my former roommate insisting that poker is a "sport": it's just an attempt to usurp somebody else's legitimacy by usurping a word that you mistakenly believe to be a title of respect.
-----
The power of science comes from its ability to predict future applications. Studying evolution gives us the ability to predict how animals will behave in nature (game theory and foraging theory), how to make vaccines and stop diseases, and how to understand some of our own behaviors. It also gives us the ability to predict new fossil finds (see Tiktaalik as an example), and to expose frauds like Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man (whose locations and dates were not consistent with the model that ToE was producing).

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 7:58 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 114 of 323 (525079)
09-21-2009 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Hyroglyphx
09-21-2009 9:25 AM


Re: God complex
This is an interesting post and raises provoking questions which haven't been dealt with yet so it is worth responding to. I am just so sick of the repeated party line which continues to get repeated in every response.
Archangel writes:
Real science which is founded upon a foundation of proven and tested conclusions
Hyroglyphx writes:
Precisely, which is why it is a mystery that you hold on to a failed belief that employs vague and brief bible verses as a credible source, especially when they don't stand up to scrutiny.
The whole creationist doctrine is suspect from the start because it uses the bible as its foundation, rather than just compiling the data and making a determination after. Creationists glean their answers before, and should anything circumvent Genesis, they throw it out as inadmissible. That's NOT science, Arch. That's manipulating science.
The reason why this is a worthy point is because it digs into what motivates intelligent people like me to reject what appears on the surface to be valid science in favor of what the bible says occurred. And here is my answer to you:
The fact is that neither theory can be proven to be absolutely true. It takes in my opinion, more faith to accept evolution than it does to accept intelligent design as the more rational answer for how we came to be. But the most obvious reason that the Genesis account is more rational than evolution is simply because the question isn't a scientific one. The answer to the question of how and why humanity exists is a solely spiritual question which is why you are spinning your wheels perpetually, in your attempt to answer it scientifically. I have the brains to properly compartmentalize the question and make this distinction where as evolutionists obviously don't.
No, there are plenty of Christians who aren't given to creationist nonsense. Creationists are the problem, not Christians.
Technically I am not a creationist. What I am is a fundamentalist born again believer who readily admits that there are many questions raised in the bible which it doesn't clarify or give the back story to, so there are many important questions I am fully prepared to wait until I get to the other side for answers to. It is well known that the Genesis account is what happened account of creation, not a how it happened other than to make clear that my heavenly father "spoke creation" into being. Only MAN whom He made in His image was He personally hands on so to speak in creating us from existing matter.
So it isn't important to me to attempt to prove how God created everything other than to say that He did because His word says He did and since no matter what you believe, you must believe it on faith, then place your faith in God rather than Man who's false religion of evolution forces you to make MAN the center of the universe rather than the God of all creation who is worthy of all praise and worship and glory. Amen...
Archangel writes:
Just think, you are proposing that around 3.5 billion years ago, life spontaneously appeared on earth from non-life. And you will insist that I am the ignorant one who clings to fairy tales.
Hyroglyphx writes:
The reality is that NO ONE knows definitively what happened before planck's time, including you. It may be philosophically easier to insist that a God must have created it all, but then we then rely on a series of infinite regressions.
To be specific, Planck's time was prior to this alleged big bang some theorized occurred 14.5 billion years ago according to cosmological estimates, which actually place it somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years ago. That's quite a margin of error range for such a precise science, don't you think? And then it is estimated that the earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago and after 1 billion years of cooling time, finally and only then did life allegedly spontaneously appear from the primordial ooze. Unless it was planted here by hitching a ride on a comet or asteroid from some alien world which was cosmically transported here.
Of course that theory doesn't explain how the genetic matter/proteins/enzymes survived the massive cataclysm which ejected them from their original planet, or how they survived the millions of years, or longer during their journey through space, or how they survived the violent cataclysm when the Comet or asteroid they were riding on hit the earth that many billions of years ago. And I'm the guy who's just innorant enough to ask these questions to the derision and great despair of people like you who really don't want to consider them valid or necessary before accepting your myths whole cloth.
For if God is eternal, then why couldn't our universe have been spawned by another universe with a totally different set of physics?
There very well might be other universes with different laws of physics guiding them. And I will have you know that I firmly believe that there are as many universes beyond ours as there are suspected galaxies within our universe, and that is suspected to be millions. And I know this because the bible speaks of eternity as never ending, forever and a day. Our 1 universe doesn't define eternity, since in some finite amount of time its end could be reached. So I believe that just as there are untold numbers of solar systems in our galaxy, and untold numbers of galaxies in our universe, there are also untold numbers of universes which make up all of eternities time and space. So accuse me of rejecting evolution if you like. But never accuse me of not appreciating the expanse of the time and space we inhabit. And nothing I believe means that the universe must be billions of years old because I realize that my God could have spoken another new universe into existence yesterday.
All we know is that the data we do know and understand points to the cosmological fact that the universe did in fact come in to existence billions of years ago. That is based on observations.
With all due respect my friend, balderdash and poppycock!! You are again speaking of the calculations of mathematical theorems which are based on the the accuracy of our interpretation of observing cosmological THEORIES like "red shift", the "speed of light" and "gravitational forces" in space. we have based our conclusions on estimating the impact "dark matter" has on all of these forces when dark matter itself, as well as "black holes" which is also a theoretical force which has never been actually seen or specifically identified are applied to calculating the age of the universe. But with all of these theoretical and unknown variables, we have estimated the age of this universe we inhabit as if anything we have concluded is accurate in any way. So tell me again? On what foundation of fact do you claim that we know for certain that the age of the universe is billions of years old?
Are you getting my point here? In one paragraph I have listed five theoretical applications which contribute to our beliefs in what you assert to be factual contributors to how we date the universe, yet you must admit that if we have any aspect of even one of those theoretical observations in error, then the complete results derived from their combined use could be off by incalculable degrees of error. Yet you claim it to be a fact.
The Hubble telescope has done more to refute creationist claims than almost anything else, aside from Darwin. How is that nearly ALL of science is at odds with your belief, yet somehow everyone else is wrong? Ponder that deeply.
I chuckle at this because when the government announced around 2004 that it was going to abandon the Hubble due to its age and not go back up to upgrade and repair it, I was involved in petitioning them to save the Hubble. You still don't get that just because humanity thinks and see's in the linear, likened to a time line, that doesn't mean that is how or when God created it. Just because we can measure the distance light travels in a specific amount of time, that doesn't mean that is the only way to measure or observe light.
Edited by Archangel, : to correct terminology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2009 9:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Coragyps, posted 09-21-2009 2:34 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 116 by Coyote, posted 09-21-2009 3:12 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 09-21-2009 4:57 PM Archangel has replied
 Message 118 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2009 5:12 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 119 by Percy, posted 09-21-2009 6:55 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 120 by Granny Magda, posted 09-21-2009 7:09 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 121 by Tanndarr, posted 09-21-2009 7:24 PM Archangel has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 115 of 323 (525088)
09-21-2009 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Archangel
09-21-2009 2:07 PM


Re: God complex
I have the brains to properly compartmentalize the question and make this distinction where as evolutionists obviously don't.
FSTDT, d'yall think?
The answer to the question of how and why humanity exists is a solely spiritual question....
And is the answer to the question of how and why Cephalopodia exists "purely spiritual" too? Or is that one all physical?
What are you smoking there, Arch?
Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 2:07 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 116 of 323 (525097)
09-21-2009 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Archangel
09-21-2009 2:07 PM


Re: God complex
Are you getting my point here? In one paragraph I have listed five theoretical applications which contribute to our beliefs in what you assert to be factual contributors to how we date the universe, yet you must admit that if we have any aspect of even one of those theoretical observations is in error, then the complete results derived from their combined use could be off by incalculable degrees of error. Yet you claim it to be a fact.
I think I see one problem in your approach to science: you think that "theory" means "mere guess" or even "wild-ass guess."
That is incorrect. A group of related hypotheses doesn't become a scientific theory until they have successfully explained a body of evidence, withstood multiple tests, and successfully made predictions.
If your religious beliefs were subjected to the same types of tests and requirements as scientific theories they would not fare nearly as well. Look at the young earth and global flood beliefs as two examples. Both have been disproved by the scientific method.
Of course you won't accept that, as your belief is not based on science.
So, since your beliefs are not based on science, and you won't accept either the scientific method or scientific evidence, why should we pay any attention to any of your posts concerning science?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 2:07 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 117 of 323 (525107)
09-21-2009 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Archangel
09-21-2009 2:07 PM


Re: God complex
Archangel writes:
To be specific, Planck's time was prior to this alleged big bang some theorized occurred 14.5 billion years ago according to cosmological estimates, which actually place it somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years ago.
I know this is off topic here, but this is just plain wrong Archy. Planck time wasn't before the big bang, it was between T=0 (the actual "big bang", which occurred to current understanding about 14.5 billion years ago) and T=10-43.
That's quite a margin of error range for such a precise science, don't you think?
It would be if it were true.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 2:07 PM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 7:54 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 118 of 323 (525109)
09-21-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Archangel
09-21-2009 2:07 PM


Re: God complex
Hi, Archangel.
Archangel, message 103, writes:
Real science is absolute and comes to absolute conclusions based on what we know at the time.
Archangel, message 114, writes:
The fact is that neither theory can be proven to be absolutely true.
This is getting painful to read, Archangel.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 2:07 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 119 of 323 (525115)
09-21-2009 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Archangel
09-21-2009 2:07 PM


Re: God complex
Archangel writes:
But the most obvious reason that the Genesis account is more rational than evolution is simply because the question isn't a scientific one. The answer to the question of how and why humanity exists is a solely spiritual question...
"How?" is not a spiritual question. Providing answers to "How?" by gathering, analyzing and interpreting evidence, as well as formulating theory, are scientific activities. Studying evidence from the natural world is how science is done, and biology looks at the evidence of life from the natural world, like existing life's structure, genetic makeup and geographic distribution as well as fossils.
So it isn't important to me to attempt to prove how God created everything other than to say that He did because His word says He did and since no matter what you believe, you must believe it on faith, then place your faith in God rather than Man who's false religion of evolution forces you to make MAN the center of the universe...
The exact opposite is true. It is religion that has placed man at the center of God's attention, while science has continuously uncovered evidence removing man further and further from the center. We're not the center of the solar system, the galaxy or the universe. Science minded folk understand that we're just Carl Sagan's "tiny blue dot," a mere unimportant and insignificant speck amidst the immensity of the universe.
To be specific, Planck's time was prior to this alleged big bang some theorized occurred 14.5 billion years ago...
Planck time is 10-43 seconds. What Hyroglyphx meant by "Planck's time" is the period from the Big Bang (the beginning of the universe) until it was 10-43 seconds old. By definition this period did not occur before the Big Bang.
...which actually place it somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years ago. That's quite a margin of error range for such a precise science...
If the available evidence does not allow us to nail something down any more closely than a factor of 2 then there's nothing we can do but continue to research the question, but that's not the current state of research on this particular question. The age of the universe has been intensely researched for nearly a century and much progress has been made. Currently available evidence indicates an age for the universe of about 13.7 billion years, and the Wikipedia article on the age of the universe suggests a range from 13.5 to 14 billion years.
And then it is estimated that the earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago and after 1 billion years of cooling time...
Currently available evidence indicates that life might have begun surprisingly close to the Earth's formation, perhaps as long as 3.8 billion years ago.
So tell me again? On what foundation of fact do you claim that we know for certain that the age of the universe is billions of years old?
Gladly! Why don't you propose a thread for the Big Bang and Cosmology forum.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 2:07 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 120 of 323 (525116)
09-21-2009 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Archangel
09-21-2009 2:07 PM


Re: God complex
Hi Angel,
Technically I am not a creationist.
You're not a creationist. Right. But you believe that God created the world, life and specifically, "big monkeys".
You also reject the Theory of Evolution, believing instead that God created everything. But you're not a creationist.
You cite links to "creationist.org". But you're not a creationist.
Also, you say things like this;
Archangel writes:
And then to add insult to injury, it is you very deceived and gullible victims of this pseudo scientific lie who condescendingly and sanctimoniously talk down to we creationists as if we are morons.
Heaven forbid!
And you say this;
Archangel writes:
What we creationists are waiting for
and this;
Archangel writes:
Also, you know that creationists interpret the same evidence you observe differently because we don't accept the old earth standard of life evolving over millions or hundreds of millions of years as evolutionists do.
But you're not a creationist, no sir. Not technically...
Bullshit.
It amazes me that you have the temerity to complain about others accusing you of dishonesty and inconsistency when you come out with crap like this. To do this whilst simultaneously avoiding your own topic, belittling others and bragging about your giant brain is shockingly poor, even for a creationist. Are you thirteen years old or something Angel? Please quit it.
Of course, if you want to have a proper grown-up discussion, you could try and address the question that you have repeatedly been asked; what evidence do you have that Orce Man (the hominin/donkey that you haven't mentioned since message 1) is cited as evidence for the Theory of Evolution?
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 2:07 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024