Evolutionary superiority

I'm getting pig sick of your constant harping on about your "tiny little mind".If you are going to presage everything you write with: or the like then there is no point in debating with you.Debate is supposed to be an exchange in ideas. Your point seems to be to feed the enormous chip on you shoulder.Goodbye Hill Billy, your method of debate claimss another sad victim.

We are talking of General Relativity, a mathematical model of the Universe that just so happens to be one of the two most successfully experimentally tested theories ever discovered in all of science (measuring success in terms of number of decimal places of prediction confirmed by experiment) The amazing accuarcy of this same model is what permits GPS systems to work.What is the basis of this theory? It is called Special Relativity. This is the theory that teaches us of the basic nature of space-time, and hints at the possibility that space-time can indeed bend and curve and give rise to what we call 'expansion'. This possibility is made real by the mathematics of General Relativity.Can we trust Special Relativity? Well, every particle accelerator in the world would simply not work if SR were not correct to a staggering degree of accuracy. Special Relativity also forms the basis of another theory: Quantum Field Theory. Remember when I mentioned that GR is one of the two most successful theories ever discovered in all of science? Guess which is the second? Yes, QFT. The principles of QFT are not only utilised in experimental particle physics but also in the development of modern ultra-dense silicon, your Pentiums, Athlons, etc, and other chips likely found in your TIVO box...Special Relativity is thus one of the most solid bedrocks of science, confirmed by evidence every second of every day, by particle physicists, astrophysicists, GPS travellers, computer users, and TV watchers. If you understand SR, then the idea that space can expand is trivial. If GR then tells you that in a cosmological setting, space does indeed expand... well, you better have a pretty good reason to disbelieve it. If we then observe untold evidence for said expansion, then to dispute it is to start to venture towards what can only be described as willful ignorance...Edited by cavediver, : typos and tidying

Yes and no! If you mean that anyone can join, that's theoretically true. But it's actually anyone who can believe who can join, and become part of the superior club who are more "valued" in the eyes of the God. It's the same with all other "true" religions, Islam for example, so that both you and I are automatically being condemned to a number of hells, and being denied entry to a number of heavens/paradises, regardless of what we believe.Certainly, Christians want all the world to join up, as do the Muslims and others, but because, in each case, the majority of the world hasn't joined them, they are at present the enlightened elites in their own minds. This can be said, by definition, of all followers of religions that claim exclusive truth and special privileges/rewards for themselves in an afterlife.Now, we can't believe in them all at the same time. We could say that they're all welcoming, but, as I point out, you have to believe, and how easy is it to make yourself believe that a U.S. science fiction writer of the last century knew the secrets of the universe, and become a scientologist? Try and do it.Then, if you're genuinely successful, you have to remember that your belief means that you'll end up in the Christian hell, the Muslim hell, and many other hells, all at the same time, as well as getting reincarnated as the poorest of all untouchable hillbillies according to the Hindus, and a lowly worm or insect according to the Jains, etc.The confidence of creationist Christians in their blind faith based monopoly on truth can be seen all over these threads. You regularly see people attacking areas of science which they know or understand virtually nothing about merely on the basis that I've been describing. They don't feel that they have to understand what they are attacking, because they are special, follow the "true" religion and are privileged in the eyes of the Lord.So, in your O.P., you talk about the "evolutionists" feeling superior. And I think that that's often true in terms of the scientific side of the discussions held here, simply because we tend to know at least a bit about what we're talking about. But as a group, all "evolutionists" means is people who think that the theory of evolution is a strong scientific theory (that it's well backed by evidence). We certainly do not, as a group, have any reason to believe that we have higher "value" in the eyes of God, or in any other way.We're just people who happen to be right on one subject, evolutionary biology, that's all. Hardly important in the great scheme of things, as it won't stop us being reincarnated as worms, will it?

Hi bluegenes, bluegenes if they don't feel superior, Why are they always telling me the Bible does not say this or it says that. When I have 45 years study in the Bible and they don't even believe it?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

It is not a matter of superiority to simply not take at your word that your interpretation of the bible is infallible. In fact, it is nothing more than arrogance on your part to describe it as such.

Hi PMOC, You just proved the point of this thread.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Not yet. Not yet. Not yet. Obviously it “came” from something as in it had some causal mechanism, we just don’t know what that causal mechanism was, yet. See above. There we have a major problem. I do not “believe” these facts based upon some science-flavored “faith” akin to the religious faith in things that have no evidence. And, unlike a religionist, I do not take what I have been “told” as gospel without adequate evidence to substantiate the claim. No comment. No, ICANT, I am not trying to make you believe anything.The data, the facts, the evidence is out there for anyone who cares to look. From Hubble’s observations, the Microwave Background and its source, the red shift data, Type-Ia supernova data and the list goes on, it is all there.I do not want you to believe it just because I said it. That is religion. That is stupid. If you care to, I invite you to see it all for yourself.I am not your priest. This is true . but then you make it so easy. I am not a believer, ICANT, but I do appreciate the sentiment. Thank you.And may the force of intellect be with you.

I said that they often do feel superior about the science. The point about Christian creationism is that the creationists try and bring the Bible into science, and make it a scientific tract. So, that answers your question, really. You could memorise the Bible, but in order to show that Genesis has scientific validity, one year of studying science would be worth more than 45 years spent on the Bible.Lots of Muslims memorise the Koran. Does that, in your opinion, help them in understanding whether it's true or not? Because Christ is not God in Islam, you, as a Christian, by definition believe the claim that the Koran is the word of God to be false. Have you spent 45 years studying it?Also, you must know that there are many Christian "evolutionists". So why do you say that evolutionists do not believe in the Bible, when some of them obviously do?And finally, if you have studied the Bible in such detail, and have such a profound understanding of it, why are you still a Christian?Try reading it critically just once, for a change.May the Gods of the Bible (there's more than one) bless you too, if they exist.

You give me far too much credit.My observation is that there is only one party beseeching us to take everything at their word. The better evolution champions on this board don't appeal to authority. They don't ask you to take it for granted. They simply offer and explain the overwhelming mountains of evidence supporting their position. They present the evidence and you are perfectly free to attempt to examine and refute it if possible.When, on the other hand, some "non-believer" has the gall to actually rely on their reading comprehension skills and interpret the bible, the very FIRST thing you do is appeal to your 45 years of study and understanding, as if this was obviously some kind of consensus interpretation of the bible and not merely your own personal understanding.

Ah, a moment of insight.Yes, the problem is that you have no idea what they are teaching.But you can learn. It's not an elite, anyone can join.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

evolutionist feel they are superior to creationists because most creationist cite the bible as truth and evolutionists site observations of science.but also, evolutionists and creationists both ignore evidence to suite their agenda's and and many an evolutionist will feel that any creationist is already blind for being a creationist, and many Christians feel that evolutionists are blind for not observing God.so there are dogmatism's on both side's and both sides are guilty of feeling their side is "superior".what is the truth?what you choose to believe. there is enough evidence now to prove God IS by science, but because of dogmatism's the evidence has not been fully scrutinized by science.equally, there is enough evidence to show creationist Christians their God is alive in a real sense, and first , in a real sense, by the laws of science, but because they have decided on interpretations in the bible to their way of interpretation, they believe it not.so who now, is really to blame for action's and words of being "superior" in their beliefs?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Cool. This stuff does bend my mind, but I think I can grab it. Let me try.If the universe is expanding, as it seems it is, is space time also expanding? No thanks, got lots. Seriously, If the universe is expanding then why wouldn't space time expand? If space time is expanding then in the past time moved at a faster rate. Or slower? I think likely faster but....This isn't typical conversation in my neck of the woods and you don't read much about it in the local paper, I think I understand why. I can pretty much garntee the local music teacher that happens to teach the science class would have that deer in the head lites look about now.Time, motion, distance, space, energy, mass, love.Dig it.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Dude! I'm so proud of you!Only one flowery word in that whole post.Pre...like before rite? sage...hmmm ..say? Umm, presage = opening words ?Try the decaf.This is the coffee house.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Maybe it bends more, or straightens.

No, space-time is a static entity. It contains time, and so cannot 'expand' as expansion as we understand it is something that occurs with respect to time. Take a cone. If we imagine time as along the cone, with T=0 at the apex, then the circular cross-sections of the cone can be said to expand as we move through time, away from the apex. The cross-sections are like 'space': the Universe at a particular time. The entire cone is what we call space-time. It just is. The apex can be regarded as a 'beginning' for anything inside this space-time, as that is where T=0, but from the perspective of the cone itself (i.e. space-time itself) the apex is just one end, not much more important than any other point on its surface.To ask 'did the cone come from the apex?' is rather bizarre.
To ask 'so where did the apex come from?' is equally bizarre.
But it is perfectly valid to ask 'why is there a cone here?'To ask 'did the Universe come from the singularity?' is rather bizarre.
To ask 'so where did the singularity come from?' is equally bizarre.
But it is perfectly valid to ask 'why is there a Universe?'
Just don't expect a scientifc answer too soon.Given that this is totally off-topic, I'll stop there...