• You must now select Courier Delivery if you wish to receive items before Christmas.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...1213141516...30
ben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003

ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Total posts: 2474
Posted:ok so first read this http://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored this is.

*deep cleansing breath*

ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?

Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers

i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes? confused
/end vent


Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?

Delete Topic

Sym
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004

Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom

Total posts: 1858
Posted:Jeff, I agree (up to a point), but that doesn't allow you to be rude. I will never agree with someone like Patriarch, and I will never understand how someone can have views like that.

Anyway, no hard feelings, I've said what I wnated to!

tongue

carry on

hug


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: spiralx

Written by: Patriarch917
The theory of relativity, and subsequent discoveries, are making that neat little problem obsolete. We now know that time is not a constant, and can run at different speeds at different points in the universe depending on speed and gravity. If, during creation, the mass of the universe was concentrated in a small area and then blasted outward at incredible speed (as some evidence seems to suggest), the earth would have at some point passed through an "event horizon" where time (from the point of an observer on earth) would have slowed nearly to a pause. The claim that billions of years of stellar development could have taken place in a single day (as measured from earth) doesn't seem quite as ridiculous now as it would have a hundred years ago.


This isn't right... The mass in the Universe has always been almost entirely evenly distributed - we can see this in the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation. There are small fluctatuations (in the order of 1 in 1000 or so I believe), which are thought to have given rise to local areas of higher gravity in which galaxies formed - but at no point was there any central lump of mass.




Apparently, then, you believe in a static universe that is evenly distributed. However, there is another theory sometimes called the "big bang" theory that suggests that the mass of the universe was once concentrated in a central lump, then exploded outward. Evidence that seems to support this theory is the red shift in the light of stars, which suggests that they may be moving away from us.

Certainly, there are alternative explanations, but you cannot say conclusively that the mass in the universe has always been evenly distributed. There are reasons to think that the big bang theory is also a valid explanation. Assuming a static universe that has always evenly distributed has some advantages, but it is not the only explanation, or a particularly popular one.

The theory that nothing can escape an event horizon is a good theory, but one that is completely unproven. We have never found an event horizon, much less run tests on it.


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Incorrect on both counts.

In the 'big bang' theory the matter isn't concentrated in the middle, the matter was concentrated everywhere. The universe was a much smaller place at the time and empty space didn't yet exist. Thus it was roughly uniform.

An event horizon isn't a physical entity. It's a region where the pull of gravity is so great that light cannot escape it. Since nothing in the standard theory can travel faster than light, this marks the point of absolute no return for information.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:I don't see why you say I am incorrect. We seem to agree that the universe was once concentrated and at some point expanded outward. And I agree with your description of an event horizon. I stand by my assertion that an event horizon has never been found, so the standard theory has not yet been tested.

I have not gone into great detail on these theories, but neither have you when you suggest that the standard theory is that nothing can travel faster than light.

For those who care, the "standard theory" is that nothing can be accelerated beyond the speed of light. Thus, in theory a particle such as a tachyon could move faster than light because it has always been moving faster than light. There is also the question of whether the effects of gravity (theorized to be a curvature in space) travel faster than light. In other words, if the earth were to come toward you, would the gravity skew backwards (in the way a depression in a trampoline will skew backward if you roll a bowling ball on it really fast), or will gravity always extend outward in the same pattern regardless of motion.

The idea that no information can return from a black hole is another untested proposition to which there are alternative theories.

The field of cosmology is pretty uncertain right now, so Im not going to defend any of these theories as being beyond doubt. I do not even suggest that the red shift actually proves that stars are moving away from us. There are several alternative explanations for the red shift.


Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: , United Kingdom

Total posts: 15414
Posted:*side note*

Written by: Birgit
I'm a scientish myself..





Been drinking again? wink


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917

I don't see why you say I am incorrect.


It's because you say the universe was 'concentrated in a central lump'. In 'big bang' theory there never was a 'central lump'. Matter (or whatever was around at the time) was mostly uniformly distributed over the entirity of existance much as it is now. Of course, existance at the time was very small.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Pele
BRONZE Member since Dec 2000

Pele

the henna lady
Location: WNY, USA

Total posts: 6193
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)

Written by: Patriarch917

I don't see why you say I am incorrect.


It's because you say the universe was 'concentrated in a central lump'. In 'big bang' theory there never was a 'central lump'. Matter (or whatever was around at the time) was mostly uniformly distributed over the entirity of existance much as it is now. Of course, existance at the time was very small.



However, Big Bang is still just a theory, which means that it is not correct either, it is speculation. So, stating that Patriarch is absolutely incorrect is quite hypocritical because you are not absolutely correct either.

Keep in mind Jeff, that evolution is also called a theory, therefore it is yet fully unproven by scientific standards. So while you are maintaining that it is fact, it is not yet concidered to be so technically.

I don't agree with Patriarch but I do know enough about science to know that theories are not concidered fact.


Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:I see our problem. We are thinking of different versions of the Big Bang theory. As you know, there are many different versions that have vastly different conclusions based on what set of assumptions you start with.



Pretend, for a moment, that God has given you the opportunity to create your own universe. Some of your options are:



You can choose any combination of finite or infinite space or mass. You can also choose between a curved, flat, or open universe. You can set the speed of light (which will act as an upper speed limit for many objects) to be constant, infinite, increasing or decreasing in relation to time, or variable depending on mass. You can choose a universe that is rotating or sitting still. You can have space expanding through an addition of new space, or a stretching of existing space. You can have the mass be constant, increasing, or decreasing (perhaps flowing to or from another universe with a different set of physics).



All of these options have been suggested for our own universe, and we cannot with certainty pinpoint any of them as being reliable to assume.



We really don't know what the heck is going on. A good phenomenon to consider is that the stars appear not only to be moving away from us, but to be speeding up faster and faster. What the heck is pushing them? There are some pretty cool theories, like "dark energy," but no one really has any idea what this "dark energy" is. At this point, we might as well attribute it to "magic."



At one point, the Bible's claim that God "stretched out" the heavens would have been taken very figuratively. Now there seems to be a lot of evidence that suggests an extremely literal view of this passage.



I understand you did not mean that I was "incorrect" in an objective sense, but you thought I was misrepresenting a particular version of the Big Bang. If what I said doesn't make sense under the assumption of a universe without edges or a center, switch your perspective over to the theory of a universe with edges and a center.



Edit:



http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/white_hole_030917.html
br>


Here's something to get you thinking about singularities and the big bang.

EDITED_BY: Patriarch917 (1140654049)


Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
I see our problem. We are thinking of different versions of the Big Bang theory. As you know, there are many different versions that have vastly different conclusions based on what set of assumptions you start with.


No, there is one Big Bang theory. There are parts of the theory which are more speculative in that we don't have a single obvious explaination, but everyone (who believes in it) agrees on the overall shape of the theory.

And that states that the Universe began from a single point, which then expanded. The mass within the Universe did not "explode" from a single point, the Universe itself expanded so that the distance between each piece of matter got larger and larger. The intuitive idea of an explosion is incorrect.

Written by: Patriarch917
Pretend, for a moment, that God has given you the opportunity to create your own universe. Some of your options are:

You can choose any combination of finite or infinite space or mass. You can also choose between a curved, flat, or open universe. You can set the speed of light (which will act as an upper speed limit for many objects) to be constant, infinite, increasing or decreasing in relation to time, or variable depending on mass. You can choose a universe that is rotating or sitting still. You can have space expanding through an addition of new space, or a stretching of existing space. You can have the mass be constant, increasing, or decreasing (perhaps flowing to or from another universe with a different set of physics).

All of these options have been suggested for our own universe, and we cannot with certainty pinpoint any of them as being reliable to assume.


Not true. The acceleration of the expansion of the Universe shows we live in an open one. The expansion of the Universe shows we live in a spacetime that has existed for a finite time. Your list of choices are valid ones if we're playing around with mathematical models (I did some of this when doing General Relativity as part of my degree), but we live in the real world and observations rule out much of what you suggest... And finding another theory other than the Big Bang that accounts as well for the red shift of galaxies, the cosmic microwave background (and fluctuations in it) and the relative abundances of the elements is something people have tried to do for as long as the theory has been around without success.

Written by: Patriarch917
We really don't know what the heck is going on. A good phenomenon to consider is that the stars appear not only to be moving away from us, but to be speeding up faster and faster. What the heck is pushing them? There are some pretty cool theories, like "dark energy," but no one really has any idea what this "dark energy" is. At this point, we might as well attribute it to "magic."


It's a new phenomenon, it's not surprising we don't yet have a good idea what it is wink

Written by: Patriarch917
Edit:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/white_hole_030917.html
br>
Here's something to get you thinking about singularities and the big bang.


That's a pretty old idea. Lee Smolin's book The Life of the Cosmos is a superb read and a very interesting theory based on universes arising from white holes which explains how the Universe could exist in a state which provides the conditions for life.

But anyway, while Pele is technically right that this (and evolution) is a theory, that's true of every scientific idea. But some theories are better than others - they describe more phenomena, they have stood the test of time and have been experimentally validated. Both the Big Bang and evolution have this. They certainly could be wrong, but so could Newton's theory of gravity *shrug*

Why is any of this so controversial? Science can't say if God started the Big Bang, the cause of that is metaphysics, not physics. Why limit yourself to the petty, meddling, human-centric God the Bible describes when you could instead believe in a God that could create a Universe with so much wonderous complexity goverened by such elegently simple rules and principles (like evolution!)? Strikes me as a more awe-inspiring God...


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
The theory that nothing can escape an event horizon is a good theory, but one that is completely unproven. We have never found an event horizon, much less run tests on it.


Perhaps I should've been clearer. Nothing that enters an event horizon can leave (all paths within it lead to the singularity), but the black hole does radiate via Hawking radiation. Whether that contains any information is as you say something we don't understand. To do so we'd need a proper theory of quantum gravity, which is still years off.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: spiralx

No, there is one Big Bang theory. There are parts of the theory which are more speculative in that we don't have a single obvious explaination, but everyone (who believes in it) agrees on the overall shape of the theory.

And that states that the Universe began from a single point, which then expanded. The mass within the Universe did not "explode" from a single point, the Universe itself expanded so that the distance between each piece of matter got larger and larger. The intuitive idea of an explosion is incorrect.





The intuitive idea of an explosion is a correct way to picture the Big Bang according to descriptions of it from reliable sources. I will quote a portion from an article on space.com which describes the Big Bang:

"The leading theory for the formation of our universe is the Big Bang, of course. According to this theory, all the matter and energy in our present observable universe was compressed into a very small area, before, in a nanosecond, it exploded outward and expanded continually until the present time -- and will perhaps do so forever." (emphasis added)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/universe_overview_010605-1.html
br>
Feel free to disagree with them. The Big Bang is admitted to be only speculation. Whether you want to think of it as an "explosion" or an "extremely rapid expansion" doesn't really matter, since the terms mean basically the same thing.

It seems that the real objection is to my use of the name "Big Bang" to describe any theory that asserts that the universe expanded outward from a much smaller area. There are many theories that embrace this assumption, and the words "big bang" seem to be a good way to distinguish them from other general concepts such as a uniform static universe. Would you be satisfied if I used small letters ("big bang") to speak of the broader concept?

Written by: spiralx

The acceleration of the expansion of the Universe shows we live in an open one. The expansion of the Universe shows we live in a spacetime that has existed for a finite time. Your list of choices are valid ones if we're playing around with mathematical models (I did some of this when doing General Relativity as part of my degree), but we live in the real world and observations rule out much of what you suggest... And finding another theory other than the Big Bang that accounts as well for the red shift of galaxies, the cosmic microwave background (and fluctuations in it) and the relative abundances of the elements is something people have tried to do for as long as the theory has been around without success.




I think you may be too confident in a particular theory about what the observations may mean, and in particular explanations for the phenomenon. While it may be true that there is data (such as redshifting) that appears to suggest that stars are moving away from us, it does not follow that they are actually moving away from us. There are several explanations for redshifting that have been suggested:

1. The stars are moving away from us (Doppler effect)
2. The universe is rotating, causing the stars to be moving quickly without increasing their distance from us (also the Doppler affect)
3. Space is stretching
4. New space is being added
5. Red shift is caused by gravity
6. Red shift is caused by "drag" that takes place when light moves through "vaccum"
7. They are just red. Our theory that they are "too red" is wrong.

Your assertion that we can be sure that the universe is "open" may be a prominent part of a particular "big bang" theory, but is certainly not agreed upon by everyone. There is data that suggests the universe is flat, or nearly so. There are also models of a closed universe, and models with multiple big bangs interacting with each other to create matter.

No one should be confident that a particular version of the universe will turn out to be the right one. It is way to early at this point. You are right in saying that some interpretations of data seem to contradict some suggestions. In fact, there are interpretations of data that cast serious, unanswerable doubts on every theory that has been suggested so far, which is why they are all in constant flux with "wild" new variations being considered all the time.

Remember, a lot of this stuff is just fancy math and requires you to make fundamental assumptions (open universe, dark matter, variable speed of light, infinite even distribution, point singularities, monopoles) in order to have the math make sense. We really can't even talk about most of these things without speaking in mathematical equations.

That's a real problem, because the temptation is to start thinking that because our math works best with a certain assumption, it is reasonable to assume that our assumption exists in the real world. Observation of past events is impossible, and observation of certain present events is extremely difficult to interpret. Most details of cosmology are not settled enough to warrant being dogmatic about.

Written by: spiralx


Written by: Patriarch917
Edit:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/white_hole_030917.html
br>
Here's something to get you thinking about singularities and the big bang.




Why is any of this so controversial? Science can't say if God started the Big Bang, the cause of that is metaphysics, not physics. Why limit yourself to the petty, meddling, human-centric God the Bible describes when you could instead believe in a God that could create a Universe with so much wonderous complexity goverened by such elegently simple rules and principles (like evolution!)? Strikes me as a more awe-inspiring God...



I do not limit myself to a petty, meddling, human-centric God. Instead, I believe in the God of the Bible who has created a wondrous universe that is at the same time elegantly simple and beyond our capacity to fully comprehend. The universe God has created is awe-inspiring, and a study of it leads to humility.

Certainly, I would never limit myself to a particular theory from fallible humans, no matter how certain they claim they are. If a current theory of men contradicts a clear statement by the God that created them along with the universe they are studying, it is obvious to me who I should choose to believe.


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:I get sick of people putting up dogmatic theories, when history has shown that dogmas are Bulls...

Sorry Patriarch, don't take it personal but as much as people claimed Earth to be a slate, but a globe - they believed it so much and said: "It's FACT! And it's PROVEN!"

Maybe we all get to the kind habit of quoting theories that might be valid for us and on Earth, but may not be valid somewhere else and for others.

spank is annoying me....


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Birgit
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005

Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)

Total posts: 4145
Posted:Written by: UraniumChipOxidationFacility

Been drinking again? wink



ubblol
AFTER writing it... been in a hurry and needed to explain all the smilies in order to not offend anyone. I'm glad that phase is over again wink

Just wait till May when I'm in London, and if I can remember it I'll take revenge spank


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
The intuitive idea of an explosion is a correct way to picture the Big Bang according to descriptions of it from reliable sources. I will quote a portion from an article on space.com which describes the Big Bang:

"The leading theory for the formation of our universe is the Big Bang, of course. According to this theory, all the matter and energy in our present observable universe was compressed into a very small area, before, in a nanosecond, it exploded outward and expanded continually until the present time -- and will perhaps do so forever." (emphasis added)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/universe_overview_010605-1.html
br>
Feel free to disagree with them.


I will indeed smile That's just bad popular science. The matter and energy was not compressed into a "very small area" - the Universe was a single point, a singularity. The Big Bang was an expansion of spacetime, not of matter.

[quote=umich.edu]About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward.


http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
br>
The diagram on Wikipedia's page at the top shows this - the galaxies in the picture have not moved within spacetime, but spacetime itself has expanded so they are now further apart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
br>
We can tell that it has to be an expansion of spacetime because the most distant galaxies appear to be receeding from us faster than the speed of light. This would be impossible if it was actual physical motion obviously, but not impossible if the galaxy is stationary but the space between us and it is expanding.

Written by: Patriarch917
The Big Bang is admitted to be only speculation. Whether you want to think of it as an "explosion" or an "extremely rapid expansion" doesn't really matter, since the terms mean basically the same thing.


Nope, because of the large redshift issue I stated above which rules out an explosion.

Written by: Patriarch917
It seems that the real objection is to my use of the name "Big Bang" to describe any theory that asserts that the universe expanded outward from a much smaller area. There are many theories that embrace this assumption, and the words "big bang" seem to be a good way to distinguish them from other general concepts such as a uniform static universe. Would you be satisfied if I used small letters ("big bang") to speak of the broader concept?


I'm not sure what other expanding universe theories there are... could you provide any links?

Written by: Patriarch917
I think you may be too confident in a particular theory about what the observations may mean, and in particular explanations for the phenomenon. While it may be true that there is data (such as redshifting) that appears to suggest that stars are moving away from us, it does not follow that they are actually moving away from us. There are several explanations for redshifting that have been suggested:

1. The stars are moving away from us (Doppler effect)
2. The universe is rotating, causing the stars to be moving quickly without increasing their distance from us (also the Doppler affect)
3. Space is stretching
4. New space is being added
5. Red shift is caused by gravity
6. Red shift is caused by "drag" that takes place when light moves through "vaccum"
7. They are just red. Our theory that they are "too red" is wrong.


Ok...

1. Red shift is just the Doppler effect, but as I said we can rule out actual motion due to red shifts incating velocities greater than the speed of light.
2. We can make measurements to see if the matter within the Universe is rotating (you can't say the Universe itself is rotating - with respect to what? See Mach's principle) from the cosmic background radiation which would show different blue/red shifts in different directions. We can't see any though. However... the answer is we don't really know if it is rotating, we just know that the rotation, if any, is smaller than a certain value, and therefore not enough to account for the red shift. Interestingly enough Godel came up with a rotating universe solution to General Relativity in which you can travel backwards in time if you travel far enough!
3. That's what the Big Bang theory and General Relativity says.
4. If the Universe is quantised (i.e. has a smallest possible length and time) then if you looked at this scale then stretching spacetime would just be adding new "chunks". So in that sense this is the same as 3.
5. To an extent in that gravity affects light... but it can't account for the amount of red shift.
6. This is the "aether" which was experimentally disproved at the start of the last century by Michelson+Morley's experiment.
7. But the whole point is that we can look at the spectrum of the light and match it with the spectrum we'd expect to see here on Earth, and all of the different elements present show up in the same order, but shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. Red shift isn't just about being "red", it means that spectral lines are shifted. So this can't be the case unless every element somehow has a different energy spectrum for each body we examine and see red shift - which would make every theory we have completely wrong.

Written by: Patriarch917
Your assertion that we can be sure that the universe is "open" may be a prominent part of a particular "big bang" theory, but is certainly not agreed upon by everyone. There is data that suggests the universe is flat, or nearly so. There are also models of a closed universe, and models with multiple big bangs interacting with each other to create matter.


There are models, yes. And originally it was thought that the Universe was flat... until the recent discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, which makes it an open Universe. Whether it is open, flat or closed depends on the mass-energy density of the Universe, and we can't see nearly enough to make it closed - heck, we needed 90% of the Universe to be dark matter just to make it flat!

Written by: Patriarch917
No one should be confident that a particular version of the universe will turn out to be the right one. It is way to early at this point. You are right in saying that some interpretations of data seem to contradict some suggestions. In fact, there are interpretations of data that cast serious, unanswerable doubts on every theory that has been suggested so far, which is why they are all in constant flux with "wild" new variations being considered all the time.


I'd like the hear these "serious, unanswerable doubts on every theory". Because while there are a lot things like alternative theories of gravity (I've heard of at least half a dozen alternatives to General Relativity) none of them alter fundamentally the idea of the Big Bang.

Written by: Patriarch917
Remember, a lot of this stuff is just fancy math and requires you to make fundamental assumptions (open universe, dark matter, variable speed of light, infinite even distribution, point singularities, monopoles) in order to have the math make sense. We really can't even talk about most of these things without speaking in mathematical equations.


The Universe being open and the speed of light are experimental measurements, not assumptions. And variable speed of light theories have serious problems of their own, not least a lack of any experimental evidence. Monopoles are predicted by some grand unified theories, but we're still looking to see if they exist or not. Point singularities are most likely an artifact of an incomplete synthesis of gravity and quantum theory - it seems likely that because of fundamental minimum lengths and times there is no actual point. Which would be a good thing smile

Only the even distribution of mass in the Universe (i.e. it is homogenous) is an assumption made in cosmology, but across the visible Universe it appears to hold on the largest scales.

Written by: Patriarch917
That's a real problem, because the temptation is to start thinking that because our math works best with a certain assumption, it is reasonable to assume that our assumption exists in the real world. Observation of past events is impossible, and observation of certain present events is extremely difficult to interpret. Most details of cosmology are not settled enough to warrant being dogmatic about.


Anyone believing that shouldn't be called a scientist. While you're correct we will never see the Big Bang, the theory is perfectly valid in that it predicts things which have been observed - the microwave background radiation for instance. It could all be wrong indeed - but then you've got to come up with a different theory that matches all of the observable facts as well smile

Written by: Patriarch917
I do not limit myself to a petty, meddling, human-centric God. Instead, I believe in the God of the Bible who has created a wondrous universe that is at the same time elegantly simple and beyond our capacity to fully comprehend. The universe God has created is awe-inspiring, and a study of it leads to humility.

Certainly, I would never limit myself to a particular theory from fallible humans, no matter how certain they claim they are. If a current theory of men contradicts a clear statement by the God that created them along with the universe they are studying, it is obvious to me who I should choose to believe.


And yet you believe that a book written by dozens of people over a thousand years or so is the infallible word of God? Why then does it only contain concepts that the people of its time understood? Seems as though even if God dictated it, these people could only express that knowledge in terms they understood... therefore it would be the word of God as they understood it.

*shrug* I've still yet to find a Christian who follows everything in the Bible anyway. I'm sure you've seen the list of questions that's been around for ages.

Written by:
Okay buddy -- please explain these to me:

Exodus 21:7

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do."

Qustion -- How much should I ask for when I sell my daughter? What's the going rate?

Exodus 35:2

"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."

My neighbour mows his lawn every Sunday -- can I put him to death or should I get someone else to do it?

Leviticus 11:7

... and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.

8Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."

This is going to really [censored] up the Superbowl right?

Oh -- could you also solve these questions:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem is, how can I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A U.S. friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

A friend of mine says that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Leviticus 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's Word is eternal and unchanging.



I think the point is valid - do you follow everything in the Bible? If not, then how can you pick and choose which bits you accept as valid?


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: FireTom
Maybe we all get to the kind habit of quoting theories that might be valid for us and on Earth, but may not be valid somewhere else and for others.

spank is annoying me....


The theory of relativity (both special and general) states that all observations are equivalent no matter where you make them wink


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

Domino
SILVER Member since May 2004

UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK

Total posts: 757
Posted:The range of topics covered in this thread is stunning. Well done, all sides.

Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:I agree that you can find different versions of the theory, as the links that you and I posted prove. I do not deny that different variations on the Big Bang theory exist. However, we should be careful to make sure we understand the difference between saying a particular theory holds that there was once a singularity, and saying that there was once a singularity. While you and I and many other may both agree that the theory of a singularity makes sense, that does not mean it is true.

Written by: spiralx


We can tell that it has to be an expansion of spacetime because the most distant galaxies appear to be receeding from us faster than the speed of light. This would be impossible if it was actual physical motion obviously, but not impossible if the galaxy is stationary but the space between us and it is expanding.





That is not the only explanation for the apparent acceleration. Instead of an unknown force stretching spacetime, it could be an unknown force (perhaps dark energy) that is pushing them away from us in existing spacetime. Alternatively, the appearance of acceleration could be an illusion best explained by some other theory. Just because something looks obviously true (Jupiter revolves around the earth) doesnt mean that we can immediately put all our faith in one explanation.

Written by: spiralx


Written by: Patriarch917
It seems that the real objection is to my use of the name "Big Bang" to describe any theory that asserts that the universe expanded outward from a much smaller area. There are many theories that embrace this assumption, and the words "big bang" seem to be a good way to distinguish them from other general concepts such as a uniform static universe. Would you be satisfied if I used small letters ("big bang") to speak of the broader concept?


I'm not sure what other expanding universe theories there are... could you provide any links?





Check the first link I posted on the subject. It explains a white hole singularity theory that is radically different from previous versions of the Big Bang. In that article, there is a link in the text that will take you to another article that summarizes other similar theories.

Written by: spiralx

Written by: Patriarch917
Your assertion that we can be sure that the universe is "open" may be a prominent part of a particular "big bang" theory, but is certainly not agreed upon by everyone. There is data that suggests the universe is flat, or nearly so. There are also models of a closed universe, and models with multiple big bangs interacting with each other to create matter.


There are models, yes. And originally it was thought that the Universe was flat... until the recent discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, which makes it an open Universe. Whether it is open, flat or closed depends on the mass-energy density of the Universe, and we can't see nearly enough to make it closed - heck, we needed 90% of the Universe to be dark matter just to make it flat!




The fact that we cant see enough matter to make it flat, or closed, may indeed indicate an open universe, or it may indicate the limitations of our equipment. I am not hasty to rule out possibilities such as dark matter, or that we cannot see all of the universe from our vantage point.

Written by: spiralx


I'd like the hear these "serious, unanswerable doubts on every theory". Because while there are a lot things like alternative theories of gravity (I've heard of at least half a dozen alternatives to General Relativity) none of them alter fundamentally the idea of the Big Bang.




No version of the origin of the universe has accounted for all that we observe. Attempts to answer questions such as what caused the point singularity lead to pure speculation with almost no foundation in observational science (like colliding branes). Even if these branes exists, we have no explanation for what created them.

Written by: spiralx


Written by: Patriarch917
That's a real problem, because the temptation is to start thinking that because our math works best with a certain assumption, it is reasonable to assume that our assumption exists in the real world. Observation of past events is impossible, and observation of certain present events is extremely difficult to interpret. Most details of cosmology are not settled enough to warrant being dogmatic about.



Anyone believing that shouldn't be called a scientist.





I disagree. Again, I suggest that a scientist (or anyone else for that matter) should not believe that:

1. "Because an assumption makes our explanation easier, the assumption must exist in the real world." - This is just bad logic.

2. "Observation of past events is possible" we dont (yet) have a time machine

3. "Observation of all present events are easy to interpret" certain phenomenon defy our ability to easily explain

4. "Most details of cosmology are settled enough to warrant being dogmatic about" Cosmology is a robust science, meaning that not much is certain and most of what we think we know will probably undergo radical changes as time goes by.

Written by: spiralx


*shrug* I've still yet to find a Christian who follows everything in the Bible anyway. I'm sure you've seen the list of questions that's been around for ages. [list deleted]




The reason you have met no one who follows everything in the Bible is because only one such person has ever existed.

I had never seen your list of questions before, but I am happy to answer them. Cosmology is not within my field of expertise, but the interpretation of laws and Biblical apologetics are. The questions are all easy to answer (for a good laugh, look up the scripture referenced in the last one). I will send you answers to all the questions in a PM, since they are clearly off topic. If anyone else would like to see the answers, send me a PM or start a relevant thread.


Delete

Sym
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004

Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom

Total posts: 1858
Posted:Patriarch917, would you agree with spiralx to the same point that you do on these things if the bible said otherwise?

What about the whole young earth thing? Can you tell us why you're not ignoring clear evidence because you think the bible is an accurate account of historical events?


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: Sym

Patriarch917, would you agree with spiralx to the same point that you do on these things if the bible said otherwise?

What about the whole young earth thing? Can you tell us why you're not ignoring clear evidence because you think the bible is an accurate account of historical events?



Your post is worded in a way that is not completely clear to me (us southern folk talk different). But I think my reply is that I would not agree with spiralx on a theory that clearly contradicts the Bible, and I would not believe the Bible if I were to find clear evidence that proved it was false.

The question of what is considered clear evidence is the touchy subject. At one point, it would have seemed that there was clear evidence that it was possible to count the stars (while the Bible says it is not). Thus, even if something apparently cannot be explained except by a theory which seems to contradict the Bible (that there are only about 3,000 stars), I am more willing to doubt the truth of the theory rather than immediately assuming that the Bible is wrong.


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:How about the fossil record of plants? (which you animal bigots have ignored wink )



It's a fairly clear picture of modification with descent.



I've also not heard a reason why the 'flood sedementation' conjecture put forward by creationism would produce an Iridium-60 band at the KT juncture. Nor how, if the animals were laid down in order of size, a vole counts as being bigger than a t-rex. Nor an explaination as to why the order of the species in the sediment would be so similar world wide, after all it would just take a few drifts of the current to put a raptor into the tertiary. Or for why there are occasional deposits of volcanic ash in sediments deposited by the flood.



Creationism is simply vastly less parsimonious than evolution. The only reason to believe in creationism is faith that the bible is literally true, and there is no good reason to do that. It is and remains the 'fallable word of man', like all else, despite what is written inside it.



The notion that evolution comes from an equally invalid assumtion of 'billion year old Earth' is simply wrong as the age of the Earth is not an assumtion but a deduction corroberated independently by cosmology, geography, physics and chemistry. To contest those deductions simply because the bible suggests it's wrong is, again, just not parsimonious.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Patriarch917

'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? Jeremiah 8:8 (New International Version) wink


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)

How about the fossil record of plants? (which you animal bigots have ignored wink )

It's a fairly clear picture of modification with descent.

I've also not heard a reason why the 'flood sedementation' conjecture put forward by creationism would produce an Iridium-60 band at the KT juncture. Nor how, if the animals were laid down in order of size, a vole counts as being bigger than a t-rex. Nor an explaination as to why the order of the species in the sediment would be so similar world wide, after all it would just take a few drifts of the current to put a raptor into the tertiary. Or for why there are occasional deposits of volcanic ash in sediments deposited by the flood.

Creationism is simply vastly less parsimonious than evolution. The only reason to believe in creationism is faith that the bible is literally true, and there is no good reason to do that. It is and remains the 'fallable word of man', like all else, despite what is written inside it.

The notion that evolution comes from an equally invalid assumtion of 'billion year old Earth' is simply wrong as the age of the Earth is not an assumtion but a deduction corroberated independently by cosmology, geography, physics and chemistry. To contest those deductions simply because the bible suggests it's wrong is, again, just not parsimonious.



The reason we aren't likely to speak much about the evolution of plants is because there is even less evidence for plant evolution than for animal evolution (if that is possible). Your statement that there is a "fairly clear picture of modification with descent" is incorrect.

Volcanic ash mixed with flood sediments deposited by flood is to be expected. The flood is thought have been accompanied by much volcanic activity. A worldwide similarity in deposits indicates a worldwide mechanism for depositing them (such as the flood).

On the other hand, I have already given you examples of fossils turning up in the "wrong" areas that contradicted the predictions of evolution. In the real world, the "column" is distorted, mixed, or sometimes flipped completely. I have already shown evidence that organisms are not organized by complexity.

Evolution suffers from a horrible lack of evidence to back up its fundamental claim: that life forms change gradually into different kinds of life through chance additions of new information. The problem with the fossil record is not "missing links," it is the "missing chains." Despite the billions upon billions of transitional forms that evolution predicts would have existed, all we have are a handful few highly disputed candidates that can just as easily be explained as separate species.

Recall the bats we discussed earlier. They are not an exception, they are the rule. The fossil record indicates that life appears suddenly, fully formed and functional, without generation after generation of transitional forms linking them to other, completely different kinds of life. The lack of evidence is not proof that transitional forms never existed, but it certainly casts serious doubt on the theory.

The belief that the earth is billions of years old is just one among many necessary assumptions that cannot be verified by observational science. There is no way to directly date the age of the earth. People have repeatedly brought up carbon dating, which I have already explained away (it has a half life of about 6,000 years, and is incapable of giving accurate ages of millions of years.) No one has yet brought up other radiometric dating methods, and for a good reason. They are wildly inaccurate. "Wild" as in "they date living animals as being millions of years old." Yes, if you assume that the earth is in fact billions of years old they have some limited utility at giving ages in the far distant past, but if the earth is only 6,000 years old they would still give dates of millions of years. No dating method exists that can conclusively "disprove" a young earth, much less "prove" an old one.

@Stone: Your post is offtopic, and better suited to a PM or a different thread, so I won't discuss it here.


Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
Evolution suffers from a horrible lack of evidence to back up its fundamental claim: that life forms change gradually into different kinds of life through chance additions of new information. The problem with the fossil record is not "missing links," it is the "missing chains." Despite the billions upon billions of transitional forms that evolution predicts would have existed, all we have are a handful few highly disputed candidates that can just as easily be explained as separate species.


Come on now, given the circumstances in which fossilisation can occur it's hardly surprising that so few fossils are ever found.

Written by:
Recall the bats we discussed earlier. They are not an exception, they are the rule. The fossil record indicates that life appears suddenly, fully formed and functional, without generation after generation of transitional forms linking them to other, completely different kinds of life. The lack of evidence is not proof that transitional forms never existed, but it certainly casts serious doubt on the theory.


The earliest fossil has been dated to 3.5 billion years old. While we don't have a complete chain of all transitional forms, we certainly have plenty across the intervening years showing an overall increase in complexity and diversity.

Written by:
The belief that the earth is billions of years old is just one among many necessary assumptions that cannot be verified by observational science. There is no way to directly date the age of the earth. People have repeatedly brought up carbon dating, which I have already explained away (it has a half life of about 6,000 years, and is incapable of giving accurate ages of millions of years.) No one has yet brought up other radiometric dating methods, and for a good reason. They are wildly inaccurate. "Wild" as in "they date living animals as being millions of years old." Yes, if you assume that the earth is in fact billions of years old they have some limited utility at giving ages in the far distant past, but if the earth is only 6,000 years old they would still give dates of millions of years. No dating method exists that can conclusively "disprove" a young earth, much less "prove" an old one.


Certianly carbon-14 dating is only accurate within relatively recent times. But plenty of other elements are used, and contrary to your beliefs they are useful - while potential errors are far larger, so is the span they're useful other. 4.5 billion years +/- 1 billion years sounds like a huge error, but even at worst the age would still be 3.5 billion years.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:There aren't any fossils in the 'wrong' strata, and physical distortion is a natural result of geological action. The strata itself is the same, just moved.

Written by: Patriarch917
The fossil record indicates that life appears suddenly, fully formed and functional, without generation after generation of transitional forms linking them to other, completely different kinds of life.

Quite simply that's dagma-driven censored. The fossil record of horses for instance shows clearly the gradual lengthening of the bones and loss of the toes. There is also a very clear lineage of the movement of the fish jaw bones to the mammalian inner ear. Within the plant fossil record we see the gradual formation of photosythetic surfaces called leaves. In bats the fossil record is sketchy due to their fagility but I and the other posters have clearly shown that flight can easily evolve by modification from gliding.



The notion of 'transitional form' is also an anachranism used today mostly by creationists. Creatures didn't just exist as a transition from one form to anouther, they were fully functional creatures in their own right. A 'transition' from a shrew-like creature to a bat wouldn't look like a half-way bat, it would look like a gliding shrew.



You have also not given satisfactory answers as to the dates given by stellar chemisty, the study of dueterium in the universe (known as deuteronomy ubblol ) or the problem of the visibility of distant objects. Or why the Quran isn't equally as valid as the Bible.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
I agree that you can find different versions of the theory, as the links that you and I posted prove. I do not deny that different variations on the Big Bang theory exist. However, we should be careful to make sure we understand the difference between saying a particular theory holds that there was once a singularity, and saying that there was once a singularity. While you and I and many other may both agree that the theory of a singularity makes sense, that does not mean it is true.


Ok, assume when I say "there was a singularity" I mean a particular theory holds that there was once a singularity smile As someone who holds to a scientific viewpoint I fully accept that there are only theories, and that a theory might be proven wrong by new observations at any time. However... that doesn't mean that some theories aren't stronger than others.

By the same token I'm a weak atheist - I don't believe in God, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong if the evidence comes in. Don't assume I'd hold any belief past the point where it contradicts the evidence, that's not scientific at all.

Written by: Patriarch917
That is not the only explanation for the apparent acceleration. Instead of an unknown force stretching spacetime, it could be an unknown force (perhaps dark energy) that is pushing them away from us in existing spacetime.


Again that can't be the case because the velocities appear to be greater than the speed of light. Unless of course they're tachyonic galaxies, but that's even less likely wink

Written by: Patriarch917
Alternatively, the appearance of acceleration could be an illusion best explained by some other theory. Just because something looks obviously true (Jupiter revolves around the earth) doesnt mean that we can immediately put all our faith in one explanation.


But as I said, the expansion of spacetime is the most likely theory... no other ones offer as much.

Written by: Patriarch917
No version of the origin of the universe has accounted for all that we observe. Attempts to answer questions such as what caused the point singularity lead to pure speculation with almost no foundation in observational science (like colliding branes). Even if these branes exists, we have no explanation for what created them.


As I said, the question of "why" is metaphysics, not physics. You can quite happily say "God did it" and have no conflict with science as we know it *shrug*

Written by: Patriarch917
I disagree. Again, I suggest that a scientist (or anyone else for that matter) should not believe that:

1. "Because an assumption makes our explanation easier, the assumption must exist in the real world." - This is just bad logic.

2. "Observation of past events is possible" we dont (yet) have a time machine

3. "Observation of all present events are easy to interpret" certain phenomenon defy our ability to easily explain

4. "Most details of cosmology are settled enough to warrant being dogmatic about" Cosmology is a robust science, meaning that not much is certain and most of what we think we know will probably undergo radical changes as time goes by.


You seem to be ignoring the fact that science is nothing if it doesn't agree with experiment or observation. Sure people have made assumptions in models of the Universe which led to the Big Bang... but at the same time the Big Bang theory made certain predictions which were later observed (the cosmic background radiation). An assumption is often made to makes things easier, but that doesn't mean that the assumption is necessarily wrong!

Unless of course you don't believe in the speed of light, observations of past events is emminently possible wink

Phenomena may currently be beyond our ability to explain, but I can't think of any such thing that doesn't have at least one theory to try and explain it, even if such theories are very basic. And anything we can observe falls within the realm of science.

Cosmology may undergo "radical changes" but I doubt it. And yes, I could be wrong as I said earlier... but a theory that explains so many things and has made predictions that have been verified like the Big Bang is unlikely to be completely wrong - wrong in detail perhaps, but the overall idea would seem to be sound.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

drewjitsu
BRONZE Member since Feb 2006

newbie
Location: CA & NM, USA

Total posts: 19
Posted:fact is only what you believe
fact and fiction work as a team


Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: drewjitsu

fact is only what you believe
fact and fiction work as a team


Thanks for that... confused


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:So Patriarch917, what qualifications do you have that enables you to interpret the laws and Biblical apologetics ?

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)

There aren't any fossils in the 'wrong' strata, and physical distortion is a natural result of geological action. The strata itself is the same, just moved.
Quite simply that's dagma-driven censored. The fossil record of horses for instance shows clearly the gradual lengthening of the bones and loss of the toes. There is also a very clear lineage of the movement of the fish jaw bones to the mammalian inner ear.





Certainly there are fossils in the "wrong" strata, meaning that they overthrew the predictions at the time. I've already mentioned the dinosaur found in the stomach of the mammal (before that, it was believed that dinosaurs died out long before mammals of that size appeared). You are probably also aware of the Coelacanth, which was once thought to be a shallow water fish that "walked" along the bottom and was a precursor to the fish that supposedly grew lungs and came out on land. It was believed to be extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period, until we found a living one. Pollen has been found in Precambrian layers of the grand canyon, before seed bearing plants were thought to have evolved.

Such finds don't particularly matter to serious proponents of evolution, since the fossil record provides so little evidence for evolution anyways. Would the discovery of a living velociraptor really shake the faith of evolutionists? Certainly not. A living tree was discovered from a species that was supposed to have been extinct since the "dinosaur age," yet this has not bothered evolution a bit. The theory of evolution does not stand or fall based on evidence from the fossil record.

The horse evolution "series" is similar to the "embryonic evolution" that was brought up in a much earlier post. It is a relic from old textbooks that has been discredited so much that it is not worth bothering about. The different kinds of horses lived together in the past, according to the fossil record, and they live together now (we have three toed horses still, for example). Some sorts are related, others are different species altogether.

I've never seen a fossil of a transitional form between fish and a mammal, so I have not seen the evidence for the gradual change you mentioned. I'll be happy to look at it if you send me a link.

Written by: jeff(fake)

In bats the fossil record is sketchy due to their fagility but I and the other posters have clearly shown that flight can easily evolve by modification from gliding.




Your theory about a gliding creature gradually getting better at flying sounds pretty good. However, the change from a walking creature to a gliding one is the problem. Any claim of gradual evolution flies in the face of the evidence found by the scientists in the article that bat wings could not have evolved gradually. The idea of evolution through macro-mutation is criticized because of the huge injection of useful new information required, but it is becoming more popular as we learn how truly complex life is.

Written by: jeff(fake)

You have also not given satisfactory answers as to the dates given by stellar chemisty, the study of dueterium in the universe (known as deuteronomy ubblol ) or the problem of the visibility of distant objects. Or why the Quran isn't equally as valid as the Bible.



I haven't given you an answer about stellar chemistry because I have never done chemistry on a star, and because you haven't asked about it. I have, however, given an answer on the problem of the visibility of distant objects. Check my earlier posts.

Criticizing the Koran is too offtopic, so I'll leave that question alone.

Written by: Stone

So Patriarch917, what qualifications do you have that enables you to interpret the laws and Biblical apologetics ?



I'll forward you my resume

j/k ubblol, I'm in the middle of interviews for summer legal internships right now so your question is setting off the knee-jerk "sell yourself" reactions that career services has been trying to pound into me.

Seriously though, you should start a thread on the subject that requires people to provide their qualifications up front in an initial post before being allowed to discuss the topic. I've never seen a thread that asked people to do that before. You could start a new internet fad that moderators of other boards might learn about and start enforcing.

If you are really curious, check my introduction thread.


Delete

drewjitsu
BRONZE Member since Feb 2006

newbie
Location: CA & NM, USA

Total posts: 19
Posted:Written by: spiralx

Written by: drewjitsu

fact is only what you believe
fact and fiction work as a team


Thanks for that... confused



lol smile maybe this is a little to the side of the debate here, but my question is, how do we really know what is true? even if multiple sides of an argument are explored and present compelling evidence either way, it is up to the individual to make a choice of what to accept and reject as the truth.

if i see red, i dont think to myself, "hmm thats got about a wavelength of 650 nm" nor do i think, "god/the book of god told me that's red, so it's red" i just see red.

everybody has their own window to the world, and nobody can see through anybody else's. the way i see it is that both religion and science (and anything else for that matter) are subject to reality. both are just attempts at describing whats going on, or what happened, or why things are the way they are. i see truth in both, but attach myself to neither.

as for evolution/intelligent design...well...i'm not smart enough to tackle that one and come up with a end-all-be-all string of text that describes why one is right and the other is wrong. all i know is that from my experience, things can change in amazing ways in a short amount of time...i can only imagine how much things can change over a period of millions and billions of lifetimes.

obviously there is evidence in fossils and such of how things used to be, but WHY does it change? i think any religious or scientific answer to that is merely speculation and serves no purpose other than to satisfy curiosity or manipulate the future.

so i guess that's where i stand...hopefully it means something to somebody. but if not, feel free to disregard! don't let me get in the way if the main people in this debate think it's off-topic.

but isn't it great how there can be more than one way for something to be? diversity makes the world more colorful hug


Delete

Page: 1...1213141516...30

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [intelligent design v* evolution] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Is Intelligent Design a Theory or a Critique? [60 replies]
2. Forums > Intelligent Design vs Evolution [874 replies]
3. Forums > need your help/opinion [14 replies]
4. Forums > Burning Man 09' Evolution [17 replies]
5. Forums > 5/19 The Next Evolution Sideshow

     Show more..