[_ Old Earth _] The fallacy of evolution

[Barbarian]

I'm beginning to think that Heidi is an athiest, posing as a Christian to make Christians look ignorant.

 

[dad]

You are right, dad. They do claim we descended from apes. So why do they lie about it? Who knows? :o

The point is, yes, they do claim it, but not directly, but over long imagined time frames, so no sex was involved, that produced man from a chimp. Of course it is a lie, but we might as well try to know the enemy, and the actual arguements they use. Otherwise, it makes it very difficult to know where to strike the mortal blows, and we stab in the dark.

 

[Loren Michael]

I'm beginning to think that Heidi is an athiest, posing as a Christian to make Christians look ignorant.

that would explain a lot. if that's true heidi, it's funny in a cartoony way, but you really do no one any real service. trolling just brings everyone down. please stop.

 

[Heidi]

I'm beginning to think that Heidi is an athiest, posing as a Christian to make Christians look ignorant.

And what have I said that isn't true? :o Can you not tell the difference between a human and a an animal? If you can, then why do you say they're in the same family? Simply because scientists say so? If they told you people were turnips would you believe them? If not, then why do you believe them when they say we are in the animal family when there is clearly a difference between humans and animals?

Is it not true that evolutionists say we are the offspring of primates? How does this not contradict what animals breed today? Therefore, why should I believe evolutionists when it contradicts reality since the beginning of recorded history and they claim this all happened before there were any witnesses? :o Would you believe things that contradict reality? if so, then how are you not showing your ignorance? :o

 

[Guest]

And what have I said that isn't true? :o Can you not tell the difference between a human and a an animal? If you can, then why do you say they're in the same family? Simply because scientists say so? If they told you people were turnips would you believe them? If not, then why do you believe them when they say we are in the animal family when there is clearly a difference between humans and animals?

Is it not true that evolutionists say we are the offspring of primates? How does this not contradict what animals breed today? Therefore, why should I believe evolutionists when it contradicts reality since the beginning of recorded history and they claim this all happened before there were any witnesses? :o Would you believe things that contradict reality? if so, then how are you not showing your ignorance?

The majority of what you have said about evolution is not true.

Have you even bothered to read any of my posts or anyone else's who have corrected you time and time again? Because it is you who continue to show ignorance.

Humans are animals because that is the kingdom we are classified in following basic taxonomy.

Animals:

In general they are multicellular, capable of locomotion and responsive to their environment, and feed by consuming other organisms. Their body plan becomes fixed as they develop, usually early on in their development as embryos, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on.

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

Do you think humans should be classified as plants or fungi?

Humans are classified in the primate order because we have primate physical characteristics.

Below is a list of the scientific classifications for humans, which follows taxonomy.

Kingdom - Animalia
Phylum - Chordata
Class - Mammalia
Order - Primates
Superfamily - Hominoidea
Family - Hominidae
Subfamily - Homininae
Tribe - Hominini
Genus - Homo
Species - H. sapiens

 

[Heidi]

And what have I said that isn't true? :o Can you not tell the difference between a human and a an animal? If you can, then why do you say they're in the same family? Simply because scientists say so? If they told you people were turnips would you believe them? If not, then why do you believe them when they say we are in the animal family when there is clearly a difference between humans and animals?

Is it not true that evolutionists say we are the offspring of primates? How does this not contradict what animals breed today? Therefore, why should I believe evolutionists when it contradicts reality since the beginning of recorded history and they claim this all happened before there were any witnesses? :o Would you believe things that contradict reality? if so, then how are you not showing your ignorance?

The majority of what you have said about evolution is not true.

Have you even bothered to read any of my posts or anyone else's who have corrected you time and time again? Because it is you who continue to show ignorance.

Humans are animals because that is the kingdom we are classified in following basic taxonomy.

Animals:

In general they are multicellular, capable of locomotion and responsive to their environment, and feed by consuming other organisms. Their body plan becomes fixed as they develop, usually early on in their development as embryos, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on.

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

Do you think humans should be classified as plants or fungi?

Humans are classified in the primate order because we have primate physical characteristics.

Below is a list of the scientific classifications for humans, which follows taxonomy.

Kingdom - Animalia
Phylum - Chordata
Class - Mammalia
Order - Primates
Superfamily - Hominoidea
Family - Hominidae
Subfamily - Homininae
Tribe - Hominini
Genus - Homo
Species - H. sapiens

And you missed my point entirely, that who classified them? Again, if scientists called human beings turnips, you would believe them. You seem to think that when a scientist says something that makes it true. And when scientists come out some day and say that humans are not animals, what are you going to believe then? :o Because they used to say that Neanderthals were the forerunners of man and now they have changed their minds.

We also have characteristics like dogs do; 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, and a mouth. So why don't scientists call us dogs? :o Sorry, but animals are so different than humans that the wild ones are in the zoos and the tame ones are our pets. Your attempt to say that they had offspring that turned into human beings is not only impossible, but ludicrous.

Are you now claiming that humans did not descend from apes or primates? Because that's what I've been saying all along yet you claim I'm lying. I've also been saying that apes or primates bred offspring that turned into human beings. Are you claiming that's untrue as well? :o If so, then how do evolutionists claim man got here? :o

The only way I'd be showing ignorance is believing this claptrap. :wink:

 

[Guest]

And you missed my point entirely, that who classified them? Again, if scientists called human beings turnips, you would believe them. You seem to think that when a scientist says something that makes it true. And when scientists come out some day and say that humans are not animals, what are you going to believe then? :o Because they used to say that Neanderthals were the forerunners of man and now they have changed their minds.

I posted this link above:

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

Here are a few more that might help:

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

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

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

It was Linnaeus who did much of the work that taxonomy is based on. I don't believe something because someone says so, I believe it is because it is the best guide at classifying life.

Humans have structures and other characteristics that all animals do, so they are in the animal kingdom. Turnips are in the plant kingdom because they share structures and other characteristics with all plants.

If someone comes up with a better version of life classification then I will accept that. The view of Neanderthal changed because scientists got better information, which upgraded the view of human evolution. You see science welcomes new and better information.

We also have characteristics like dogs do; 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, and a mouth. So why don't scientists call us dogs? :o Sorry, but animals are so different than humans that the wild ones are in the zoos and the tame ones are our pets. Your attempt to say that they had offspring that turned into human beings is not only impossible, but ludicrous.

We share some similarities with dogs because we are both animals and mammals. However, of course, that does not mean we are dogs.

So you are saying behavior and intelligence should determine how life is classified? And we should ignore the morphology? Maybe you can come up with a better way to classify life. But until you or some one else does humans will be considered in the animal kingdom.

Saying that a population of ancient apes split into different directions and their descendants would split many more times over the next five million years and one of the population splits produced humans, is not ludicrous. After all that is what the evidence says.

Are you now claiming that humans did not descend from apes or primates? Because that's what I've been saying all along yet you claim I'm lying. I've also been saying that apes or primates bred offspring that turned into human beings. Are you claiming that's untrue as well? :o If so, then how do evolutionists claim man got here? :o

The only way I'd be showing ignorance is believing this claptrap.

I have never claimed you are lying. The information you have presented is false and you may have gotten from people who are deceiving you, but I have never said you are lying.

I have said humans did not evolve from an individual ape or primate because individuals don't evolve, populations do.

You show your ignorance by continuing to post straw men and apparently not understanding what you are arguing against.

 

[Wertbag]

Sorry, but animals are so different than humans

Think of any large land based animal (bird, horse, elephant, monkey, human etc) you find the internals are all basically the same (all have hearts, lungs, muscles, bones, brains etc), the outsides are basically the same (eyes, ears, skin, hair etc). We also know that non-human animals experience pain, fear, love, anger, can communicate, can use basic tools, can solve problems, can learn... what feature is it that humans have that animals don't? We have complex brain functions, but these are taught not natural (if you leave a human without schooling and human interaction you find them becoming more animalistic, such as so called wolf boys).
So all that we have is the ability to learn to a higher level, animals do learn just not such complex ideas, so we don't have something they don't we just simply do it better.

Would you believe things that contradict reality?

Like talking animals, fire from the sky, talking bushes, walking on water, healing by touch, raising from the dead, living 600 years, flooding the entire planet, all humans coming from 2 people, Noahs Ark etc?
All of these and many more defy reality yet you can accept these fantastical claims without batting an eyelid...

 

[dad]

Think of any large land based animal (bird, horse, elephant, monkey, human etc) you find the internals are all basically the same (all have hearts, lungs, muscles, bones, brains etc), the outsides are basically the same (eyes, ears, skin, hair etc).

But fish have eyes as well, and bones, and I think brains, and muscles, and hearts. So are men fish? Looking at similarities in creations, even if in some cases a lot of adapting may or may not have occurred, is merely an exercise in imagination.

We also know that non-human animals experience pain, fear, love, anger, can communicate, can use basic tools, can solve problems, can learn...

Are they made in the image of God? No, only we are! Do they have full free will as we do? I don't think so. But since they were designed and built by the same Designer, similarities are a mark of creation, and a trait of the Almighty.

what feature is it that humans have that animals don't? We have complex brain functions, but these are taught not natural (if you leave a human without schooling and human interaction you find them becoming more animalistic, such as so called wolf boys).

Germany was the peak of education in it's day, and the world saw that it was no lack of education that brings out animal behavior! Quite the contrary. Some poor child that is a freak, and has a lot of hair is not the animal some fiend using weapons of mass destruction on whole populations is, by any stretch! The modern baby eliminators may be well educated, but their sterile methods destroy millions of young. No, you are way off the mark here.

So all that we have is the ability to learn to a higher level, animals do learn just not such complex ideas, so we don't have something they don't we just simply do it better.

And this is no accident, as you believe.

Like talking animals, fire from the sky, talking bushes, walking on water, healing by touch, raising from the dead, living 600 years, flooding the entire planet, all humans coming from 2 people, Noahs Ark etc?
All of these and many more defy reality yet you can accept these fantastical claims without batting an eyelid...

None of these things defy reality in the slightest! They are reality, and part of it, as is heaven that is coming. It is the soon to pass away present universe that is out of wac with eternal realities, and cannot be used as a basis for things that happened in the past, or will happen in the future.

 

[Loren Michael]

And this is no accident, as you believe.

when you say "accident", i have a mental image of god spilling something accidentally- it implies that there was original intent, and that the "accident" is an unintended externality.

in evolution, there aren't really "accidents" because there is no intent to stray away from.

humans aren't an "oops, here we are" race. we're an "eons of natural selection has made us the most intelligent, most wise, most adaptable, most resilliant creature on the planet" race. anyone who thinks of us as anyhting less is likely a jaded PETA nutjob.

similarities in species aren't an "accident" either. they're inevitable, what with our shared genetic history and all.

sorry if this post is a little off the cuff. i'm a little scatterbrained today.

 

[cubedbee]

humans aren't an "oops, here we are" race. we're an "eons of natural selection has made us the most intelligent, most wise, most adaptable, most resilliant creature on the planet" race. anyone who thinks of us as anyhting less is likely a jaded PETA nutjob.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree, and I'm no nutjob. Humans are certainly the most intelligent and wise creatures on the planet. But adaptable and resilient? Have you ever heard of bacteria? Bacteria have been comfortably living in extreme nooks and crannies that humans have only recently been able to barely explore for billions of year. Bacteria literally swap DNA with one another and and evolve at a furious rate, adapting to any and all methods this wisest and most intelligent creature comes up with to kill them. I too have a very high opinion of humanity, but you were just sloppily throwing out adjectives that really don't apply.

 

[Loren Michael]

humans aren't an "oops, here we are" race. we're an "eons of natural selection has made us the most intelligent, most wise, most adaptable, most resilliant creature on the planet" race. anyone who thinks of us as anyhting less is likely a jaded PETA nutjob.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree, and I'm no nutjob. Humans are certainly the most intelligent and wise creatures on the planet. But adaptable and resilient? Have you ever heard of bacteria? Bacteria have been comfortably living in extreme nooks and crannies that humans have only recently been able to barely explore for billions of year. Bacteria literally swap DNA with one another and and evolve at a furious rate, adapting to any and all methods this wisest and most intelligent creature comes up with to kill them. I too have a very high opinion of humanity, but you were just sloppily throwing out adjectives that really don't apply.

ah, forgive me. you're right. i left that more open-ended than i had intended. i was referring to our cognative ability. in comparing humans to bacteria, though, considering our largely disparate natures and abilities (our use of tools, learning from others, what have you), i think we are a very tough contender in most fields of adaptability and resilliance.

it's somewhat relative, i guess is what i'm getting at.

 

[dad]

And this is no accident, as you believe.

when you say "accident", i have a mental image of god spilling something accidentally- it implies that there was original intent, and that the "accident" is an unintended externality.

in evolution, there aren't really "accidents" because there is no intent to stray away from.

humans aren't an "oops, here we are" race. we're an "eons of natural selection has made us the most intelligent, most wise, most adaptable, most resilliant creature on the planet" race. anyone who thinks of us as anyhting less is likely a jaded PETA nutjob.

similarities in species aren't an "accident" either. they're inevitable, what with our shared genetic history and all.

By accident, I mean we didn't jus find ourselves here for no apparent reason, as old age philosphy teaches. You know, they can't say how, but the universe just found itself in a little speck, less than dust sized, that could easily have fit on the head of a pin! Trillions of syars and galaxies, planets, etc, all in there, or the stuff that made them! Moving on billions of imaginary years here, another miracle, Granny Bacteria just somehow, from non life, appeared. they really can't say how! Then proceeded to evolve all life on earth! You say there are no accidents in evolution, but there is nothing but, because it rests on premises of things somehow appearing, not by design, but for any other reason than that!
Yes there was original intent in the form of creation, and nothing in this world you can evidence against it.

 

[Loren Michael]

By accident, I mean we didn't jus find ourselves here for no apparent reason, as old age philosphy teaches. You know, they can't say how, but the universe just found itself in a little speck, less than dust sized, that could easily have fit on the head of a pin! Trillions of syars and galaxies, planets, etc, all in there, or the stuff that made them!

well, the origins of the universe and life aren't really a concern of evolution.

having said that, according to astronomy, the purported cause of the universe is not "anti-design", or "causeless" it's simply unknown.

science is based on observation, and until a designer is observed, it remains unknown to science. personal feelings, notions such as "how could there NOT be a designer! the universe is so vast and beautiful and awsome." are not appropriate to science. they could be personal motivations by individual scientists to unravel the secrets of the universe, perhaps, but there's nothing that science can do with those notions. science only reflects what we can observe verify, and repeat.

the theory of the "big bang" is only there, from what i understand of astronomy, because it has been observed that pretty much everything in the universe is flying away from a single point. similar with the age of the universe- we just recognize the speed of light and find that the furthest stars that we can see are that many billion light-years away. (there may be other methods, but i am unsure.) the known age of the universe is hardly definite. again, it's only what we observe. it gets older each time we build a bigger telescope that can see even further than before.

Moving on billions of imaginary years here, another miracle, Granny Bacteria just somehow, from non life, appeared. they really can't say how! Then proceeded to evolve all life on earth! You say there are no accidents in evolution, but there is nothing but, because it rests on premises of things somehow appearing, not by design, but for any other reason than that!
Yes there was original intent in the form of creation, and nothing in this world you can evidence against it.

again, evolution isn't in the business of the origin of life. it merely answers how life forms change over time.

again, having said that though, this question (as far as i understand) is largely unanswered. there are many ideas floating around, but to my knowledge, nothing has been nailed to the wall, so to speak - there has yet to be a testable, repeatable, observable theory on the matter.

finally, forgive my usage of the term "intent" i didn't mean to infer that god could not have had a hand in the process (i would not presume to be so arrogant), simply that there isn't an observable, testable, etcetera theory on the matter. hence, the notion remains untouched by science.

certainly, it has been said before that in a universe as large as ours (potentially infinite), with as many stars (roughly 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that we can see, probably more- and new ones are being born as you read this) and as old as ours (billions of years, to our knowledge, based on what we observe- and getting older!), life could very well be inevitable.

i apologize for all of my parentheticals. :

 

[dad]

well, the origins of the universe and life aren't really a concern of evolution.

having said that, according to astronomy, the purported cause of the universe is not "anti-design", or "causeless" it's simply unknown.

They are a concern, in the same way a foundation is a concern for a house, because they are built on the foundation assumptions and beliefs of this first appearing lifeform, and that the world Granny appeared on came from the big bang.
You are correct to say that where the creator speck came from is unknown.

science is based on observation, and until a designer is observed, it remains unknown to science. personal feelings, notions such as "how could there NOT be a designer! the universe is so vast and beautiful and awsome." are not appropriate to science.

But sticking trillions of stars and galaxies inside a speck that appeared for no apparent reason is? Crediting all life on earth as appearing from a magically appearing first lifeform is? Seems like all some people care about is claiming is it unknown this and unknown that, but the only thing they seem to think they do know is "Goddidnotdoit"

they could be personal motivations by individual scientists to unravel the secrets of the universe, perhaps, but there's nothing that science can do with those notions. science only reflects what we can observe verify, and repeat.

Really? Glad to hear this, then if I were to say the universe was always just the same as it is now, physical only, and always will be, I could not claim this as science.
Funny some people actually try to do just that.

the theory of the "big bang" is only there, from what i understand of astronomy, because it has been observed that pretty much everything in the universe is flying away from a single point.

Well, I think it is more theorized than observed, through things like a red color of the very far stars they call redshift. But it is a collection of assumptions that are anything but solid.

similar with the age of the universe- we just recognize the speed of light and find that the furthest stars that we can see are that many billion light-years away. (there may be other methods, but i am unsure.) the known age of the universe is hardly definite. again, it's only what we observe.

Yes, light as it now is, and in a present universe where it operates a certain way. Would you think that the light that was here before the sun was made had the same speed, and if so, why? How about the light in heaven, where it says we they have 'no need of the light of the sun', because another kind of light from God lights things then? Would this be slow as molasses in January as well? No. We are trying to tie everything to the physical universe type of light we now have, and base all past and future by it, and imagine great timeframes.

it gets older each time we build a bigger telescope that can see even further than before.

It doesn't actually, we just see a little further, and try to apply our present based assumptions through time.

again, evolution isn't in the business of the origin of life. it merely answers how life forms change over time.

Again based on present rates of change.

again, having said that though, this question (as far as i understand) is largely unanswered. there are many ideas floating around, but to my knowledge, nothing has been nailed to the wall, so to speak - there has yet to be a testable, repeatable, observable theory on the matter.

Right, they have no clue where the universe in a speck supposedly came from.

finally, forgive my usage of the term "intent" i didn't mean to infer that god could not have had a hand in the process (i would not presume to be so arrogant), simply that there isn't an observable, testable, etcetera theory on the matter. hence, the notion remains untouched by science.

Untouched, yet flouted as solid science, and a replacement for the creation account of the bible!

certainly, it has been said before that in a universe as large as ours (potentially infinite), with as many stars (roughly 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that we can see, probably more- and new ones are being born as you read this) and as old as ours (billions of years, to our knowledge, based on what we observe- and getting older!), life could very well be inevitable.

It's big, it's wonderful, and science has no clue where it came from, yet life in it is inevitable. Sweet.

 

[Heidi]

By accident, I mean we didn't jus find ourselves here for no apparent reason, as old age philosphy teaches. You know, they can't say how, but the universe just found itself in a little speck, less than dust sized, that could easily have fit on the head of a pin! Trillions of syars and galaxies, planets, etc, all in there, or the stuff that made them!

well, the origins of the universe and life aren't really a concern of evolution.

having said that, according to astronomy, the purported cause of the universe is not "anti-design", or "causeless" it's simply unknown.

science is based on observation, and until a designer is observed, it remains unknown to science. personal feelings, notions such as "how could there NOT be a designer! the universe is so vast and beautiful and awsome." are not appropriate to science. they could be personal motivations by individual scientists to unravel the secrets of the universe, perhaps, but there's nothing that science can do with those notions. science only reflects what we can observe verify, and repeat.

the theory of the "big bang" is only there, from what i understand of astronomy, because it has been observed that pretty much everything in the universe is flying away from a single point. similar with the age of the universe- we just recognize the speed of light and find that the furthest stars that we can see are that many billion light-years away. (there may be other methods, but i am unsure.) the known age of the universe is hardly definite. again, it's only what we observe. it gets older each time we build a bigger telescope that can see even further than before.

Moving on billions of imaginary years here, another miracle, Granny Bacteria just somehow, from non life, appeared. they really can't say how! Then proceeded to evolve all life on earth! You say there are no accidents in evolution, but there is nothing but, because it rests on premises of things somehow appearing, not by design, but for any other reason than that!
Yes there was original intent in the form of creation, and nothing in this world you can evidence against it.

again, evolution isn't in the business of the origin of life. it merely answers how life forms change over time.

again, having said that though, this question (as far as i understand) is largely unanswered. there are many ideas floating around, but to my knowledge, nothing has been nailed to the wall, so to speak - there has yet to be a testable, repeatable, observable theory on the matter.

finally, forgive my usage of the term "intent" i didn't mean to infer that god could not have had a hand in the process (i would not presume to be so arrogant), simply that there isn't an observable, testable, etcetera theory on the matter. hence, the notion remains untouched by science.

certainly, it has been said before that in a universe as large as ours (potentially infinite), with as many stars (roughly 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that we can see, probably more- and new ones are being born as you read this) and as old as ours (billions of years, to our knowledge, based on what we observe- and getting older!), life could very well be inevitable.

i apologize for all of my parentheticals. :

Exactly. Science should be based on observation, not the imagination. And observation shows us that apes breed apes and humans breed humans. But evolutionists completely ignore that and instead, claim that apes breed humans which has never been observed, ever. You therefore are not telling the truth that science is based on observation. :wink:

 

[Loren Michael]

They are a concern, in the same way a foundation is a concern for a house, because they are built on the foundation assumptions and beliefs of this first appearing lifeform, and that the world Granny appeared on came from the big bang.
You are correct to say that where the creator speck came from is unknown.

they are not a concern for evolution because evolution doesn't encompass that facet of life. certainly it would be a great boon to science in general, i'm sure, but evolution has to do with the leap from one life to another, not the origin. another way of putting it is that evolution and the origin of life are two facets on the crystal of genetics, if you can forgive the cheesy visual.

But sticking trillions of stars and galaxies inside a speck that appeared for no apparent reason is? Crediting all life on earth as appearing from a magically appearing first lifeform is? Seems like all some people care about is claiming is it unknown this and unknown that, but the only thing they seem to think they do know is "Goddidnotdoit"

"no apparent reason" does not infer meaninglessness. it just infers a lack of information. i don't think any knowledge has been claimed as to what was there before the big bang. only speculation. i know that there are many people who claim that "god did not do it" but they hardly have any bearing on the understanding of the subject. they are ideologues, pure and simple. on the other hand, people who don't believe in god are certainly prone to simply saying that "i don't know" about the various big questions.

[quote:e058f]they could be personal motivations by individual scientists to unravel the secrets of the universe, perhaps, but there's nothing that science can do with those notions. science only reflects what we can observe verify, and repeat.

Really? Glad to hear this, then if I were to say the universe was always just the same as it is now, physical only, and always will be, I could not claim this as science.
Funny some people actually try to do just that.[/quote:e058f]

i meant in the sense of personal motivations for conducting a great deal of otherwise boring research. personal notions/motivations/beliefs are not science for the aformentioned testing/repeating/observing reasons.

[quote:e058f]the theory of the "big bang" is only there, from what i understand of astronomy, because it has been observed that pretty much everything in the universe is flying away from a single point.

Well, I think it is more theorized than observed, through things like a red color of the very far stars they call redshift. But it is a collection of assumptions that are anything but solid.[/quote:e058f]

it's not really my place to comment further on this, as it's the part of astronomy i least remember. keep in mind though, that assumptions are only used if they have been proven to work in the past. there are also multiple ways to check distances. i believe redshift is only a factor in the measurment that uses the spectrometer.

[quote:e058f]similar with the age of the universe- we just recognize the speed of light and find that the furthest stars that we can see are that many billion light-years away. (there may be other methods, but i am unsure.) the known age of the universe is hardly definite. again, it's only what we observe.

Yes, light as it now is, and in a present universe where it operates a certain way. Would you think that the light that was here before the sun was made had the same speed, and if so, why? How about the light in heaven, where it says we they have 'no need of the light of the sun', because another kind of light from God lights things then? Would this be slow as molasses in January as well? No. We are trying to tie everything to the physical universe type of light we now have, and base all past and future by it, and imagine great timeframes.[/quote:e058f]

you're right. but there's no way to measure light from god from an observation(etc) standpoint. again, science only deals in the physical universe of now, and deals with the past through artifacts and inference. i'm overstepping my bounds here, but i'm pretty sure that light that doesn't act like light is not light. forgive me, i know only the barest minimum of the theory of relativity, and would only be guessing for most of this.

[quote:e058f]again, evolution isn't in the business of the origin of life. it merely answers how life forms change over time.

Again based on present rates of change.[/quote:e058f]

there is evidence for variances in the rate of change in the past, but nothing incredibly extreme, from what i recall.

[quote:e058f]finally, forgive my usage of the term "intent" i didn't mean to infer that god could not have had a hand in the process (i would not presume to be so arrogant), simply that there isn't an observable, testable, etcetera theory on the matter. hence, the notion remains untouched by science.

Untouched, yet flouted as solid science, and a replacement for the creation account of the bible![/quote:e058f]

there must be a misunderstanding. the notion of an intelligent being with some form of grand design is untouched by science. all science has is evidence. and inferrance. if there is nothing observable(etc), science just sticks with what it has.

It's big, it's wonderful, and science has no clue where it came from, yet life in it is inevitable. Sweet.

with no malice intended, is there a problem? that's merely how the universe is viewed through the eyes of science. i'm saying that there is no evidence against some form of grand design. it would be impossible to find, and no scientist with any credibility would attempt to find it. i'm saying that science doesn't have all the answers, and doesn't claim to. but it is a very useful tool for examining evidence to get a larger and more detailed picture of the universe.

i wish there were an effective way to condense these long quote-things. they're annoying to read, and difficult to write well.

 

[Loren Michael]

Stuff. and a ":wink:"

i appreciate your opinion. i'll take it into consideration.

 

[dad]

[quote="Loren Michael":68d52]]

they are not a concern for evolution because evolution doesn't encompass that facet of life. certainly it would be a great boon to science in general, i'm sure, but evolution has to do with the leap from one life to another, not the origin. another way of putting it is that evolution and the origin of life are two facets on the crystal of genetics, if you can forgive the cheesy visual.

There could be no evolving from a bacteria, or what you may call it, if there were no Granny. It is based on the lifeform. The world and universe that Granny was said to live on was created by the creator speck, big bang, they say. I'm talking the whole 'gem' as you call it, though I find it's fragrance more one that would attract flies than a precious stone.

"no apparent reason" does not infer meaninglessness. it just infers a lack of information. i don't think any knowledge has been claimed as to what was there before the big bang. only speculation.

Right, yet with this no information, they still have our universe appear and claim it is science!

i know that there are many people who claim that "god did not do it" but they hardly have any bearing on the understanding of the subject. they are ideologues, pure and simple. on the other hand, people who don't believe in god are certainly prone to simply saying that "i don't know" about the various big questions.

Yet, not knowing, children are taught this as the new creation story, as science, under law!

it's not really my place to comment further on this, as it's the part of astronomy i least remember.

Don't worry about it, it changes so fast the stuff you learned is likely far outdated.

keep in mind though, that assumptions are only used if they have been proven to work in the past. there are also multiple ways to check distances. i believe redshift is only a factor in the measurment that uses the spectrometer.

This thread is too small to get into all that too deeply, so I will let it rest.

you're right. but there's no way to measure light from god from an observation(etc) standpoint. again, science only deals in the physical universe of now, and deals with the past through artifacts and inference.

But we can measure some light from God. Adam and Eve saw those far stars, and the light must have got here only hours or days after the stars were made! Just like spirits can travel beyond physical only limits, so the former light must have been different.

i'm overstepping my bounds here, but i'm pretty sure that light that doesn't act like light is not light. forgive me, i know only the barest minimum of the theory of relativity, and would only be guessing for most of this.

The theory of relativity is quite limited! It only bears on things within a physical universe and their relativity to each other! But again, that is getting off topic.

there is evidence for variances in the rate of change in the past, but nothing incredibly extreme, from what i recall.

But how would we know? For example we have the study of tree rings. Dendrochronology. But if trees were only planted or made a few days before they provided fruit for man and beast, all present rates of growth are irrelevant to apply to the far past.

there must be a misunderstanding. the notion of an intelligent being with some form of grand design is untouched by science. all science has is evidence. and inferrance. if there is nothing observable(etc), science just sticks with what it has.

But it not only has no evidence for how this creator speck, or granny bacteria came about, it has no clue! No observations, tests, etc. so it has nothing. yet, in schools kids are mocked often if they raise their faith in creation by God, because they are religiously taught that it was the big bang, and granny that really created all things! Then, instead of the garden, they teach it was just evolution. Evolution, no less, that flies in the face of bible timeframes on creation.

With no malice intended, is there a problem? that's merely how the universe is viewed through the eyes of science. i'm saying that there is no evidence against some form of grand design.

But the evidence they do claim is that the bible timeframes, and real creation in a week 6 thousand years ago could not have been, in effect. For millions, this goes against their beliefs.

it would be impossible to find, and no scientist with any credibility would attempt to find it. i'm saying that science doesn't have all the answers, and doesn't claim to. but it is a very useful tool for examining evidence to get a larger and more detailed picture of the universe.

[/quote:68d52]
It is the answers they do claim, I challenge, because the premises of old ages belief are themselves only belief!

 

[Loren Michael]

There could be no evolving from a bacteria, or what you may call it, if there were no Granny. It is based on the lifeform. The world and universe that Granny was said to live on was created by the creator speck, big bang, they say. I'm talking the whole 'gem' as you call it

you'll have to forgive me if i drop this part then. i'm by no means well-versed in the entire field of biology.

[quote:4b3e4]"no apparent reason" does not infer meaninglessness. it just infers a lack of information. i don't think any knowledge has been claimed as to what was there before the big bang. only speculation.

Right, yet with this no information, they still have our universe appear and claim it is science![/quote:4b3e4]

absolute knowledge is not vital to the theory as a whole. the "science" is merely the evidence that leads people to the conclusion of the big bang. as with all science, there are always going to be unanswered questions. some larger and more looming than others. this also applies to the previous citation about the "whole gem" of biology.

[quote:4b3e4]i know that there are many people who claim that "god did not do it" but they hardly have any bearing on the understanding of the subject. they are ideologues, pure and simple. on the other hand, people who don't believe in god are certainly prone to simply saying that "i don't know" about the various big questions.

Yet, not knowing, children are taught this as the new creation story, as science, under law![/quote:4b3e4]

this issue can somewhat relate to my comment above. in addition, let me repeat that it is only what the evidence has led us to believe. it is science, it is secular (as required under law for government schools). what matters in science isn't what is unknown to science- it is about what is known, and what we can learn from it. so, not knowing some things and accepting that we will never have all the answers, we make do with all that we have, in science.

But we can measure some light from God. Adam and Eve saw those far stars, and the light must have got here only hours or days after the stars were made! Just like spirits can travel beyond physical only limits, so the former light must have been different.

ah, i think i see what you mean. are you talking about light from stars that are, for example, far enough away so that the light from creation would just now be reaching us? if so, i am as yet unaware of any abberations in light hitting earth.

[quote:4b3e4]there is evidence for variances in the rate of change in the past, but nothing incredibly extreme, from what i recall.

But how would we know? For example we have the study of tree rings. Dendrochronology. But if trees were only planted or made a few days before they provided fruit for man and beast, all present rates of growth are irrelevant to apply to the far past.[/quote:4b3e4]

in the physical world, evidence has led us to the understanding of a much older earth. if the earth was created with the appearance of being in existence for eons, it certainly hs fooled the people that investigate that sort of thing. until some form of prominant evidence that invalidates a great deal of previous evidence comes along, science must stick where it is. again, science is evidence, observation, testing, repeating.

But it not only has no evidence for how this creator speck, or granny bacteria came about, it has no clue! No observations, tests, etc. so it has nothing. yet, in schools kids are mocked often if they raise their faith in creation by God, because they are religiously taught that it was the big bang, and granny that really created all things! Then, instead of the garden, they teach it was just evolution. Evolution, no less, that flies in the face of bible timeframes on creation.

i refer to my above statement on the unknowns in science. in addition, though science may not know how said origins came about, it does not affect the knowledge that we already have on those subjects. not knowing how life began does not negate the theory that it began, does not negate that however it began, it started a long process of evolution. also, though it may fly in the face of bible timeframes, it's still only what the evidence has led us to believe.

also, there's really no religion (or "religiosity") involved in the subject because teaching science is only describing things that have been observed or inferred. with respect to teaching about the big bang and the origins of life, those are always very foggy subjects, and any science teacher worth their salt will say as much. my fellow students and i were always drilling our astronomy teacher about the big bang and such, and he was always very coy about the whole thing. he laid out a lot of admitted speculation (his admission. he was a very good teacher).

[quote:4b3e4]With no malice intended, is there a problem? that's merely how the universe is viewed through the eyes of science. i'm saying that there is no evidence against some form of grand design.

But the evidence they do claim is that the bible timeframes, and real creation in a week 6 thousand years ago could not have been, in effect. For millions, this goes against their beliefs.[/quote:4b3e4]

evidence does leave us under the impression that we live on an earth that is eons old, in a universe that is even more ancient, yes.

[quote:4b3e4]it would be impossible to find, and no scientist with any credibility would attempt to find it. i'm saying that science doesn't have all the answers, and doesn't claim to. but it is a very useful tool for examining evidence to get a larger and more detailed picture of the universe.

It is the answers they do claim, I challenge, because the premises of old ages belief are themselves only belief![/quote:4b3e4]

the premises are large amounts of physical evidence, though. what we know of our universe and the laws that guide it are only what we have observed. no belief required, other than to test things multiple times by various people in different ways.