the source of life

I appreciate the aid with the qs= bit. HTML is a tricky one. and the indicators were more for my own gratification, but yes they are unnecessary. No, my friend. My belief in god and it's proceedings is not a certainty, but based on a, not entirely blind, faith. There is no such correlation or even subject facility.

Creation is not a theory; it is a religious belief.I have posted the definitions for theory for you, as the term is used in science, but you obviously think that you can just make up definitions to suit yourself. That's sophistry, not science.One of the key requirements for a scientific theory is testing of evidence and successful predictions. This is the opposite of religious belief.In fact, testing and evidence are the last things that religious belief wants to see. Religious belief relies on faith in divine revelation. Revelation, when traced back, always comes down to some human saying, "Trust me!" (I picture Harrison Ford and his crooked Indiana Jones grin whenever I think of "Trust me!")Science defines terms in very specific ways to avoid confusion, and requires that claims by scientists be able to be replicated or in some way verified by other scientists.Yet you are redefining these scientific terms to produce the maximum amount of confusion! And you are making claims without producing any evidence to support those claims.I suggest that it is due to the lack of evidence and successful predictions--those ingredients of a theory. And I suggest that since science won't accommodate and confirm your beliefs, you are doing your best to change or degrade science, to produce a faux science that will. That is what I think is behind your re-definitions.Sorry--already been done: creation "science" was devised for that exact purpose. And it might even have fooled someone. Somewhere. Once.

---

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

Hi Huntard,

quote:

---

The problem is not the mentioning of god, the problem is that some of the ones mentioning god want everybody else to live like they do too.

---

Wow, tangent? This would be an interesting topic for a new thread sure. But I don't believe it's applicable here. I'm partially surprised the incorrigible members here have not murdered you for this.To the point, Don't think this is applicable. Nor do I believe that "some of the ones mentioning god want everybody else to live like they do too" is even a tangible argument. No doubt some people are like this, like in every culture, but I'm not like this and haven't led on to have anyone believe this. this vague insert doesn't really have a place.

Yes, this is what you're making up. As I already explained, Lyell was never able to reconcile his religious beliefs with evolution, and so he was never able to accept it. He was conflicted about evolution right up until his death.Lyell was a close friend, and a supporter of Darwin, but not of evolution.But you're off-topic again. I responded about Lyell because I wanted to correct your error, not to start a geological discussion. Your geological imaginings do not belong in this thread. Please find a thread where they are on-topic, and when you do, be sure to support your assertions with evidence.--Percy

As you correctly pointed out Lyell's 'Principles of Geology' were completed in 1833 (the first volume of three having come out in 1830). How then was Lyell's findings influenced by Evolution when Darwin hadn't returned from his voyage on the Beagle until 1836, let alone made public his theory until 1858?
But this is something you can answer when you find an appropriate thread on geology.

Hi Coyote, Actually I thought creation was an accepted fact.Are you saying that Einstein was right as he believed in a steady state, ageless Universe?I personally believe it has been here in some form forever.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."

I think you'll have to provide evidence for that claim. As far as I am aware creation is a religious belief unsupported by scientific fact or theory. I am making no statements about what Einstein believed. Not my field. That is a belief. What have you in the form of evidence--scientific evidence that can stand peer review?

---

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

Dear lord! A creationist! (I assume that because of your reference to the bible and saying creation was a fact). How exciting. I've been looking for some support on here.

Hi Coyote, Either the universe has always existed or it was created.The universe was born, came into being.Created definition 1: to bring into existence. SourceLast Updated ( Tuesday, 12 February 2008 20:20 ) SourceStephen Hawking believes it had a beginning. SourceCambridge Cosmology teaches the universe had a beginning.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."

Hi homunculus, A creationist around here is someone who believes God created the universe about 6000 years ago. I don't fit in there.Just about everyone believes in creation.If you don't believe in creation you have to believe as I do that the universe has always existed in some form.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."

No, that is a false dichotomy.You've been here long enough to know this, surely.

quote:

---

As you correctly pointed out Lyell's 'Principles of Geology' were completed in 1833 (the first volume of three having come out in 1830). How then was Lyell's findings influenced by Evolution when Darwin hadn't returned from his voyage on the Beagle until 1836, let alone made public his theory until 1858?
But this is something you can answer when you find an appropriate thread on geology.

---

Ideas about biological evolution long predate Darwin, though. Lamarck first started publicising his evolutionary theories in 1800, for example, so there's no reason Lyell couldn't have been influenced by it.

Lyell not only could have been influenced by the possibility of evolution, he most certainly was.He opposed the idea.It's clearly expressed here at The Victorian Web's article on Charles Lyell: This is not the thread for a discussion of Charles Lyell and his conflicted views on evolution. I only replied to Homunculus to correct his error. Lyell's position on evolution is a matter of record. Those wanting to dispute the record of history should propose a new thread.--Percy

An additional source of confusion, though not for you I don't think, is that ICANT is playing games by using the word "creation" in the sense that the universe had a beginning, rather than in the sense that the universe was supernaturally created by God, which is what many are probably assuming.It was games like this that caused ICANT to lose his privileges in the [forum=-2] forum, which is why he's constantly chomping at the bit to raise cosmological issues in threads where they are off topic.To everyone: this thread is not about geology, evolution or cosmology. There are other forums for those topics.--Percy

This is, as far as I can tell, a non sequitur? I was talking about life on Earth. Exactly. Now, wasn't it you who with a little touch of hyperbole claimed '1 mile closer to the sun we would burn up, 1 mile further away we would freeze'? Wrong in point of fact, but true in broad principle. The Earth is the only planet we know of that is suitable for the kind of life we know. The reason we don't see life on the other planets in the solar system is because conditions on those planets were not conducive to the development of advanced life.I suspect, although do not know, that we will eventually discover that microscopic life exists on other bodies in our solar system, but we have no current way of knowing.