I Realized Why Evolution Is a Fact

Off Topic
181

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

Lastly, your analogy between the specific claims of religion and science isn’t as valid as it seems. Each religion makes a specific set of unchanging claims, many of which are easily falsifiable by science.

Religion never modifies itself? What were things like the protestant reformation then?

I think you will find that modern religion beliefs are very different than they were some years ago.

The only unchanging ones are philosophical concepts Lonnie doesn’t want to discuss with me without resorting to a tea-cup or giant ant defense.

I didn’t say “religion never modifies itself”. I said that each religion makes a specific set of unchanging claims. The bible says god created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. It has always said that it (probably) always will. The Genesis 1 creation account (there is another creation account in Genesis that differs from this one) earth is created before light and stars. This is absurd. There is evidence that light producing stars are older than the earth.

If you choose to believe in this god, you are willfully ignoring the physical evidence in the world around you.
[/quote]

Not sure which passages you are talking about. As far as I know heavens and earth are listed on day one.

182

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

Here is where he states that somehow gravity disproves god, though we still have no answer to what causes the force:

?This kind of thinking is stifling. Stopping the research when something gets hard is not the way to approach problems in my opinion. Newton, probably the greatest human mind of all time, insisted that God was responsible for holding the planets in orbit because he couldnt work out the incredibly difficult math. We now know the math of course, but we wouldnt if everyone just though “Well, I guess God does it. End of story.”?

That doesn’t say anything about gravity disproving god. I think you might want to read it again. It says that a “god of the gaps” is intellectually stifling.

But I bet he was thinking it pretty loudly. j/k

He is still being very disrespectful sarcastic about religion.

My point is that science doesn’t know what holds the planets together. It has merely labeled and quantified it. To end your query at that is intellectual stifling in my book.

Agreed. Scientist haven’t stopped at labeling and quantifying it though.
[/quote]

Nor should they. I use their work every day.

183

But…it doesn’t end there…? That’s the whole point.

Whereas with religion, what more explanation is needed than god did it?

184

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Clearly, the earth preceded any light producing objects.

“God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn’t make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be “the evening and the morning” on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?”

-Sketipc’s Annotated Bible.

185

[quote]Ronsauce wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:My point is that science doesn’t know what holds the planets together. It has merely labeled and quantified it. To end your query at that is intellectual stifling in my book.

But…it doesn’t end there…? That’s the whole point.

Whereas with religion, what more explanation is needed than god did it?[/quote]

Labeling and quantifying is where modern science ends.

Religion doesn’t need an explanation of physical means at all.

Newton’s religious beliefs didn’t prevent his scientific undertaking.

186

[quote]
Science does not deal with philosophical concepts… I don’t recall anyone stating any different in this thread.

Axioms cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow.

Axioms are philosophic principles that cannot be logically deduced, so they are assumed true. This is correct most of the time but not always.[/quote]

I’m not sure I follow. Was this a quote from earlier in the thread, or something you want to discuss?

187

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Clearly, the earth preceded any light producing objects.

“God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn’t make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be “the evening and the morning” on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?”

-Sketipc’s Annotated Bible.

[/quote]

Now I agree, god can’t exist. I was willing to accept that an all powerful being created everything, but yeah he couldn’t have made light before the stars. Impossible.

Could light and dark not be created in existance before they are given forms?

188

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

Science does not deal with philosophical concepts… I don’t recall anyone stating any different in this thread.

Axioms cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow.

Axioms are philosophic principles that cannot be logically deduced, so they are assumed true. This is correct most of the time but not always.

I’m not sure I follow. Was this a quote from earlier in the thread, or something you want to discuss?[/quote]

No, that was something I was bringing up in relation to science, not a quote.

189

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

3 - Heliocentricity replaced God making the Earth the center of the universe

Like I said before the last time you brought this up spacial center, if infinite in space what is the center?

[/quote]

THIS is why I stopped talking to you in PM’s, not beacuse you showed me my beliefs were incorrect. You just dont get the basic facts.

There is no “center” of the universe, the universe is not infinite, the universe has a starting point, the universe does not go on forever. You have a ton of reading to do.

Now…Lets contrast that with Religion. Understandably they now agree with the science, but originally they said that the Earth was the center of the universe and that everything revolved around it.

Straw man alert. Please show me where I stated that “God decreed gravity does not exist.”

[quote]The only reason I started on this thread was that you said there was scientific evidence suggesting there was no god. Are you now admitting you made that up and there is none? I was calling you out on your claim, not the other way around.

You are the one that brought up proof of god.
[/quote]

I dont feel like going to look for the quote, but if I said that there was proof God does not exist I misspoke. That is not my position (I really doubt that I said that).

Rather, what my current position is is that all of the current evidence we have seems to suggest that God does not exist. Many of the claims made by religious people about God have been shown to be false (I dont know how else to know what God is up to except to look to religion, that is why I use their claims)

Without naming the topics individually, suffice it to say that nearly anytime religion comes up against science (when it comes to claims about the nature of reality) it falls short. This does not bode well for it.

I’m well aware of that, but in this modern age they are in no way equal subjects.

[quote]
You are only comfortable believing ONLY in what the highly falsifiable science tells you, I am not.

You were chastising religion for stifling investigation earlier by saying people give up thinking by saying “god did it.” I think you are now the one stifling thought by not asking why forces exist. That “it just is that way don’t ask why” mentality sounds like a lot of creationists.[/quote]

Yes, as I said in our PM’s, you are comfortable believing in that which has no evidence for it, or cannot have evidence, I am not. That is the difference between us and that is why we will get nowhere talking to each other. You accept claims that do have evidence behind them. Simple as that.

190

[quote]Ronsauce wrote:
Here is where he states that somehow gravity disproves god, though we still have no answer to what causes the force:

?This kind of thinking is stifling. Stopping the research when something gets hard is not the way to approach problems in my opinion. Newton, probably the greatest human mind of all time, insisted that God was responsible for holding the planets in orbit because he couldnt work out the incredibly difficult math. We now know the math of course, but we wouldnt if everyone just though “Well, I guess God does it. End of story.”?

Where in his statement does he even remotely state that gravity disproves god?[/quote]

Exactly, Duce sees what he wants to see in my messages. He draws his own conclusions based on his own beliefs. Many of the things he accuses me of saying I never actually did. The straw man is his favorite logical tool.

191

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Negative traits being successfully propagated to a population are a necessary part of current evolutionary theory. He apparently didn’t realize this.[/quote]

I admitted to this point, and now it IS a part of my current understanding of the theory. See how that works?

I’m not really sure what this proves about me? That I’m willing to synthesize new evidence into my understanding of ideas? Guilty as charged. You really got me good.

192

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Newton’s religious beliefs didn’t prevent his scientific undertaking.[/quote]

Actually they did. When the math got “too hard” Newton simply threw his hands in the air and essentially said “well, the math is too hard to figure out, therefore God must be doing it.” leaving others to pick up the pieces years and years later.

We could literally be years ahead of our current understanding if Newton didnt let his religion get in the way of his science.

193

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Clearly, the earth preceded any light producing objects.

“God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn’t make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be “the evening and the morning” on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?”

-Sketipc’s Annotated Bible.

Now I agree, god can’t exist. I was willing to accept that an all powerful being created everything, but yeah he couldn’t have made light before the stars. Impossible.

Could light and dark not be created in existance before they are given forms?[/quote]

Through God, all things are possible.

You really are showing your true colors with a post like this. Of course an all powerful being, capable of anything, could make light just appear out of nowhere. Now prove that he did it.

But this has NEVER been observed to happen. THIS is why I stopped talking to you in PM’s. You are willing to accept claims like this whereas I am not… Do you understand this concept?

If you are willing to accept the fact that God can create light out of nowhere (before he created light emitting objects) than you must be willing to accept ANY claim about God that ANYONE makes. I am not willing to do this and you are, this is where we differ.

194

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Negative traits being successfully propagated to a population are a necessary part of current evolutionary theory. He apparently didn’t realize this.

I admitted to this point, and now it IS a part of my current understanding of the theory. See how that works?

I’m not really sure what this proves about me? That I’m willing to synthesize new evidence into my understanding of ideas? Guilty as charged. You really got me good. [/quote]

I’m saying the laws of and methods of science are fallible.

195

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

3 - Heliocentricity replaced God making the Earth the center of the universe

Like I said before the last time you brought this up spacial center, if infinite in space what is the center?

THIS is why I stopped talking to you in PM’s, not beacuse you showed me my beliefs were incorrect. You just dont get the basic facts.

There is no “center” of the universe, the universe is not infinite, the universe has a starting point, the universe does not go on forever. You have a ton of reading to do.

Now…Lets contrast that with Religion. Understandably they now agree with the science, but originally they said that the Earth was the center of the universe and that everything revolved around it.

4 - Gravity explains how the planets revolve around the sun

I missed the part where god decreed gravity doesn’t exist.

Straw man alert. Please show me where I stated that “God decreed gravity does not exist.”

[/quote]
You were stating that somehow labeling gravity as the force removes god from the equation, I do not.

What do you mean equal?

196

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Negative traits being successfully propagated to a population are a necessary part of current evolutionary theory. He apparently didn’t realize this.

I admitted to this point, and now it IS a part of my current understanding of the theory. See how that works?

I’m not really sure what this proves about me? That I’m willing to synthesize new evidence into my understanding of ideas? Guilty as charged. You really got me good.

I’m saying the laws of and methods of science are fallible. [/quote]

But how can you even be sure we know the information in the article you sent me is true? Surely he arrived at that information through the methods of science, which we both know is a fallible undertaking.

I suppose God must be the one making all of those extra chromosomes…

197

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

You were stating that somehow labeling gravity as the force removes god from the equation, I do not.[/quote]

What place does he have still? We know the natural cause for the reason the planets stay in motion around the Sun. The only other road to go down is the philosophical one where science does not apply, in which case any idea is just as valid as the next.

What I mean by equal is that Metaphysics is typically considered an intellectual endeavor with no proof. “Why are we here?” “What is the true nature of reality?” “Why is there something instead of nothing?”

At the end of the day these questions are little more than mental masturbation ( although often times equally as fun as the real thing.) although every now and then we come across one that we can investigate, but when that happens it typically leaves the realm of metaphysics and enters a natural science.

Physics however, actually answers questions about the nature of reality. Why does a ball fall to the ground? What holds the planets in place around the sun? Why does the sun emit light? At what rate does light drop off as it travels away from its source?

The finding of physics are considered “real”, whereas metaphysics are typically nothing more than thoughts and ideas that seem novel.

198

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

THIS is why I stopped talking to you in PM’s, not beacuse you showed me my beliefs were incorrect. You just dont get the basic facts.

There is no “center” of the universe, the universe is not infinite, the universe has a starting point, the universe does not go on forever. You have a ton of reading to do.

Now…Lets contrast that with Religion. Understandably they now agree with the science, but originally they said that the Earth was the center of the universe and that everything revolved around it.

[/quote]
I googled center and here is what I found:

an area that is approximately central within some larger region; “it is in the center of town”; "they ran forward into the heart of the struggle …

center field: the piece of ground in the outfield directly ahead of the catcher; “he hit the ball to deep center”

a building dedicated to a particular activity; “they were raising money to build a new center for research”

a point equidistant from the ends of a line or the extremities of a figure

kernel: the choicest or most essential or most vital part of some idea or experience; “the gist of the prosecutor’s argument”; “the heart and soul of the Republican Party”; “the nub of the story”

the object upon which interest and attention focuses; “his stories made him the center of the party”

a cluster of nerve cells governing a specific bodily process; “in most people the speech center is in the left hemisphere”

the middle of a military or naval formation; “they had to reinforce the center”

(basketball) the person who plays center on a basketball team

(football) the person who plays center on the line of scrimmage and snaps the ball to the quarterback; “the center fumbled the handoff”

a place where some particular activity is concentrated; “they received messages from several centers”

politically moderate persons; centrists

the sweet central portion of a piece of candy that is enclosed in chocolate or some other covering

plaza: mercantile establishment consisting of a carefully landscaped complex of shops representing leading merchandisers; usually includes restaurants and a convenient parking area; a modern version of the traditional marketplace; “a good plaza should have a movie house”; "they spent their …

focus on: center upon; “Her entire attention centered on her children”; “Our day revolved around our work”

the position on a hockey team of the player who participates in the face off at the beginning of the game

concentrate: direct one’s attention on something; “Please focus on your studies and not on your hobbies”

move into the center; “That vase in the picture is not centered”

of or belonging to neither the right nor the left politically or intellectually

It doesn’t meet any of those definitions? where is the revolving around the earth at the center quote?

Please show me your proof of the limits of space and the universe. I was un-aware science had discovered it’s bounds.

199

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Clearly, the earth preceded any light producing objects.

“God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn’t make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be “the evening and the morning” on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?”

-Sketipc’s Annotated Bible.

Now I agree, god can’t exist. I was willing to accept that an all powerful being created everything, but yeah he couldn’t have made light before the stars. Impossible.

Could light and dark not be created in existance before they are given forms?

Through God, all things are possible.

You really are showing your true colors with a post like this. Of course an all powerful being, capable of anything, could make light just appear out of nowhere. Now prove that he did it.

But this has NEVER been observed to happen. THIS is why I stopped talking to you in PM’s. You are willing to accept claims like this whereas I am not… Do you understand this concept?

If you are willing to accept the fact that God can create light out of nowhere (before he created light emitting objects) than you must be willing to accept ANY claim about God that ANYONE makes. I am not willing to do this and you are, this is where we differ.[/quote]

Light does exist regardless of source. I’ve heard it said that many stars we currently see are burnt out.

Besides there is a difference between existance and current action.

If we were to say put out all flames in the universe would fire no longer exist? it would exist even if nothing is currently burning.

it could be brought into existance before put into practice. But things like this are entirely trivial in regards to my faith.

200

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Negative traits being successfully propagated to a population are a necessary part of current evolutionary theory. He apparently didn’t realize this.

I admitted to this point, and now it IS a part of my current understanding of the theory. See how that works?

I’m not really sure what this proves about me? That I’m willing to synthesize new evidence into my understanding of ideas? Guilty as charged. You really got me good.

I’m saying the laws of and methods of science are fallible.

But how can you even be sure we know the information in the article you sent me is true? Surely he arrived at that information through the methods of science, which we both know is a fallible undertaking.

I suppose God must be the one making all of those extra chromosomes…[/quote]

Exactly you can’t ever quote science as dogma.