I Realized Why Evolution Is a Fact

Off Topic
201

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

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

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 do you mean equal?

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.

[/quote]

What then does hold the planets in position?

202

What do you mean regardless of source? If the star emitting light was never there to being with, light would have never been created in the first place. You are believing some cryptic text that was written two Millenia ago yet deny any actual proof presented to you.

You have let your ego get so far ahead of you that you will believe anything a religious person recites out of the bible. If god had performed so many miracles back then in Noah, Moses, and Jesus’s time, why the lack of miracles? I don’t see people walking around being handed large rocks with god’s writing on them on top of mountain peaks.

/rant
Religious followers are the most selfish type of humans I have ever met, believing everything was created for them and them alone, no one else matters. You pray that the parking spot at work is open, yet the thousands of children dying in Africa in front of their starving parents causes you no grief. You get on top of a roof house and scream how much you love god because you are afraid, afraid of the life you really lead and hoping god will forgive you, and let everyone else that is not up to your standards burn in hell. Why do you keep judging people thinking they will go to hell when the bible states that Jesus said “…let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”.

203

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

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

Again you sure your sheer ignorance. The light, ORIGINALLY EMITTED BY THE STAR, is still traveling even though the source of the light is gone. The does not mean that light can exist without a source, it simply means that light continues to travel even though the source of the light is gone.

[quote]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.[/quote]

They are not entirely trivial in regards to the CLAIMS of your faith though, which is all I have ever had a problem with.

204

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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…

Exactly you can’t ever quote science as dogma.[/quote]

No one ever does… Only the religious who try and say that “Science is a religion too” do that. Science holds as one of its tenets that nothing can ever be 100% proven or disproven, the exact opposite of dogma.

205

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

What then does hold the planets in position?[/quote]

… The force that we call “Gravity” holds them in position. Without going into too much detail, and this is an over simplification, the space-time around the Sun is curved and the planets are traveling in a “straight” line around the sun.

Nowwwww… I know you are going to say this, so I’ll just go ahead and address ahead of time. No one knows WHY this is the way the universe is, we just know that it is this way. You can put in WHATEVER explanation you want for that, just know that it is only a guess, not science.

206

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

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.
[/quote]

I’m seriously just wasting my time now, but what the hell…

LOOK AT DEFINITION NUMBER ONE. The church held for more nearly 1500 years that the Earth was the STATIONARY CENTER (look at definition number one again, please) of the entire universe.

If you are genuinely curious:

Center of the universe:
http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-77-where-is-the-centre-of-the-universe/

Size of the universe:
http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-79-how-big-is-the-universe/

Followup:
http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-81-questions-on-the-shape-size-and-centre-of-the-universe/

I have provided you an easily downloaded MP3 of the topics that will sum up nicely the scientific viewpoint on these issues. Since you seem to be unable to comprehend even the most basic ideas in text, this is the best format I think. These are audio files so it should be no problem to listen to while driving, working out, walking around, grocery shopping… Anything really.

Please address the topics in the audio files, WITH EVIDENCE, if you have any gripe with them.

207

[quote]Hellfrost wrote:

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

What do you mean regardless of source? If the star emitting light was never there to being with, light would have never been created in the first place. You are believing some cryptic text that was written two Millenia ago yet deny any actual proof presented to you.

You have let your ego get so far ahead of you that you will believe anything a religious person recites out of the bible. If god had performed so many miracles back then in Noah, Moses, and Jesus’s time, why the lack of miracles? I don’t see people walking around being handed large rocks with god’s writing on them on top of mountain peaks.

[/quote]

Its very obvious that he has no idea what he is talking about, he claims to be an advocate of science yet tries to deny its findings at every corner and shoehorn in some half thought out idea beyond its limits. He then tries to use a “God of the Gaps” type argument for everything science doesn’t currently know, his posts just get more sad by the day.

208

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:Its very obvious that he has no idea what he is talking about, he claims to be an advocate of science yet tries to deny its findings at every corner and shoehorn in some half thought out idea beyond its limits. He then tries to use a “God of the Gaps” type argument for everything science doesn’t currently know, his posts just get more sad by the day.
[/quote]

Amen to that!

This thread’s been like a car wreck. The pro-science arguments are like a semi that’s annihilated the pro-religion station wagon. It’s been complete destruction, but I can’t help but watch.

209

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

What then does hold the planets in position?

… The force that we call “Gravity” holds them in position. Without going into too much detail, and this is an over simplification, the space-time around the Sun is curved and the planets are traveling in a “straight” line around the sun.

Nowwwww… I know you are going to say this, so I’ll just go ahead and address ahead of time. No one knows WHY this is the way the universe is, we just know that it is this way. You can put in WHATEVER explanation you want for that, just know that it is only a guess, not science.[/quote]

First off, even according to quantum the planets are not moving in a straight line, I don’t know where you are getting that from.

however, science’s only answer to what holds the planets in orbit is “a force”. Do you see how that doesn’t answer the question? Labeling the mystical force gravity doesn’t gain incite. It is still a mystical force with an unknown cause.

210

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

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

Again you sure your sheer ignorance. The light, ORIGINALLY EMITTED BY THE STAR, is still traveling even though the source of the light is gone. The does not mean that light can exist without a source, it simply means that light continues to travel even though the source of the light is gone.

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.

They are not entirely trivial in regards to the CLAIMS of your faith though, which is all I have ever had a problem with.[/quote]

I like how you fail to address my second point here.

As for the end, why don’t you tell me what exactly is important to my faith so I can have a better understanding of what I believe.

211

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
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…

Exactly you can’t ever quote science as dogma.

No one ever does… Only the religious who try and say that “Science is a religion too” do that. Science holds as one of its tenets that nothing can ever be 100% proven or disproven, the exact opposite of dogma.[/quote]

Do I need to go back through and quote you all the times you’ve said “it is this way” “it is not that way” “these never happened”?

212

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Hellfrost wrote:

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

What do you mean regardless of source? If the star emitting light was never there to being with, light would have never been created in the first place. You are believing some cryptic text that was written two Millenia ago yet deny any actual proof presented to you.

You have let your ego get so far ahead of you that you will believe anything a religious person recites out of the bible. If god had performed so many miracles back then in Noah, Moses, and Jesus’s time, why the lack of miracles? I don’t see people walking around being handed large rocks with god’s writing on them on top of mountain peaks.

Its very obvious that he has no idea what he is talking about, he claims to be an advocate of science yet tries to deny its findings at every corner and shoehorn in some half thought out idea beyond its limits. He then tries to use a “God of the Gaps” type argument for everything science doesn’t currently know, his posts just get more sad by the day.

[/quote]

Yeah, agree with the guy that has nothing but personal attacks for an argument.

First off, My point is that if nothing were currently admitting photons, it doesn’t mean they don’t exist. even if there are none currently traveling anywhere, they still would exist. If you can’t understand that current action is not necessary to existance and that practice and existance are 2 different things, I don’t know how to dumb it down any more.

In my first response to this question my whole post completed one line of though, you and your partner in Christian bashing here focused on one line without the context and explanation of the others to make it sound stupid or false, much the same way people like you do with the bible.

213

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Hellfrost wrote:

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

What do you mean regardless of source? If the star emitting light was never there to being with, light would have never been created in the first place. You are believing some cryptic text that was written two Millenia ago yet deny any actual proof presented to you.

You have let your ego get so far ahead of you that you will believe anything a religious person recites out of the bible. If god had performed so many miracles back then in Noah, Moses, and Jesus’s time, why the lack of miracles? I don’t see people walking around being handed large rocks with god’s writing on them on top of mountain peaks.

Its very obvious that he has no idea what he is talking about, he claims to be an advocate of science yet tries to deny its findings at every corner and shoehorn in some half thought out idea beyond its limits. He then tries to use a “God of the Gaps” type argument for everything science doesn’t currently know, his posts just get more sad by the day.

[/quote]

I have yet to deny one scientific claim. in fact if you look at my posts before you started attacking religion and beliefs rather than advocating science, I was arguing for evolution.

You are the one being dogmatic, you are the one that was stead fast on an idea of evolution that was wrong, you are the one that for unexplainable reasons thinks the universe is finite and the planets are moving in a straight line. I really don’t think you know much of what you are talking about. maybe you should go read about science rather than googling bible contradictions.

214

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

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.

I’m seriously just wasting my time now, but what the hell…

LOOK AT DEFINITION NUMBER ONE. The church held for more nearly 1500 years that the Earth was the STATIONARY CENTER (look at definition number one again, please) of the entire universe.

If you are genuinely curious:

Center of the universe:
http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-77-where-is-the-centre-of-the-universe/

Size of the universe:
http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-79-how-big-is-the-universe/

Followup:
http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/ep-81-questions-on-the-shape-size-and-centre-of-the-universe/

I have provided you an easily downloaded MP3 of the topics that will sum up nicely the scientific viewpoint on these issues. Since you seem to be unable to comprehend even the most basic ideas in text, this is the best format I think. These are audio files so it should be no problem to listen to while driving, working out, walking around, grocery shopping… Anything really.

Please address the topics in the audio files, WITH EVIDENCE, if you have any gripe with them.[/quote]

Why are we throwing out all the other definitions of the word?

Funny that size of the universe link says almost exactly what I did about it?s center in regard to the geometric definition. ?We’ve learned that it has no center; rather everywhere is its center and nowhere.?

It also says the calculate it a finite because the math is easier, but there is no evidence one way or another.

Where are you getting the idea of a finite universe?

215

I didn’t want to drop out of a thread without saying something.

In fact, I didn’t mean to post and talk as much as I did…normally i don’t do that but got caught up in it.

I really don’t have the time to dedicate to this thread anymore.

Thanks to those two with whom I was having an intelligent discussion and for Lonnie for being what I’ve come to expect from most people in this kind of discussion.

My original purpose was merely to point out the other side of things…then got caught up in it. The latter was not my purpose.

Have fun with this thread, and I still encourage those who are at least a little curious about Creation Science to go ahead and check it out…it may well be something that would interest you.

216

Yeah, I?m sorry it got turned into what it did.

My point is that I don?t see the need to trash religion when perusing science, nor do I see the need to trash science when perusing religion.

I personally never try to pull scientific information from the bible, when to me, the bible has nothing to do with science. If I want to discover biology I open a biology book. If I want to try to understand the spiritual side of things I?ll open religious books.

Trying to get the scientific explanation for creation out of the bible seems like trying to understand calculus by studying art history. To me they are entirely distinguishable quandaries. And by the same token I don?t criticize the content a biology book for poor graphic design, or for not telling me the meaning of life.

I still like to learn about both and maybe I?m a contradiction or I?m just kidding myself, but that?s how I?m wired. I don?t seem to have a problem with it.

I do think it?s a shame when religion gets in the way of science but I don?t think that property is inherent. I have the gut feeling that creation science is a way of justifying scientific beliefs about the bible (something I disagree with even having, much less trying to justify), but I admittedly don?t know much about creationism as a science.

217

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
…
I do think it?s a shame when religion gets in the way of science but I don?t think that property is inherent. I have the gut feeling that creation science is a way of justifying scientific beliefs about the bible (something I disagree with even having, much less trying to justify), but I admittedly don?t know much about creationism as a science.
[/quote]

It’s not that religion gets in the way of science, it’s that religion jumps at the first chance science has no explanation for a phenomenon and calls it gods will! You said god created light before the planets, could it just be a different version of the big bang? Now, I can guarantee you that no one here (religion aside) is 100% from where the universe came to be. But you are going to tell me that some fairy tale written 2,000 years ago by some drunken old men is more of a credible source that your own common sense? I guess we might as well start believing in dragons, wizards, and oracles, since we have written texts of them too.

No one really believes the story of Adam an Eve because it’s exactly that, a story. It was used to tell little children about strangers and how they might cause harm. Do you think the Iliad & Odyssey is real too? That text is over 2700 years old, they have actually found the city of troy but I don’t see people being lured by sirens and attacked by giant cyclopes in the sea, why? Because it was a story!

218

[quote]Hellfrost wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
…
I do think it?s a shame when religion gets in the way of science but I don?t think that property is inherent. I have the gut feeling that creation science is a way of justifying scientific beliefs about the bible (something I disagree with even having, much less trying to justify), but I admittedly don?t know much about creationism as a science.

It’s not that religion gets in the way of science, it’s that religion jumps at the first chance science has no explanation for a phenomenon and calls it gods will! You said god created light before the planets, could it just be a different version of the big bang? Now, I can guarantee you that no one here (religion aside) is 100% from where the universe came to be. But you are going to tell me that some fairy tale written 2,000 years ago by some drunken old men is more of a credible source that your own common sense? I guess we might as well start believing in dragons, wizards, and oracles, since we have written texts of them too.

No one really believes the story of Adam an Eve because it’s exactly that, a story. It was used to tell little children about strangers and how they might cause harm. Do you think the Iliad & Odyssey is real too? That text is over 2700 years old, they have actually found the city of troy but I don’t see people being lured by sirens and attacked by giant cyclopes in the sea, why? Because it was a story![/quote]

I don’t know if you are accusing me with this, much like the previous post, but like I’ve said religions do do things like that, but it isn’t a fundamental characteristic.

On the other side of the issue, we do take a lot of historical knowledge even from fictional texts. Most of the texts written about Alexander contain large amounts of what is almost certainly embellished legend, not to mention different authors blatantly contradict one another. But does that mean Alexander didn’t exist?

I think there is a lot of good knowledge and understanding in religious texts that I am not willing to through out simply because it says light was created before the stars.

If you go back and throw out every text that seemingly had one thing you couldn’t logically justify, we’d lose all our knowledge of ancient history.

I personally find it amazing that the bible is even coherent given the time frames, perspectives, languages involved. You really have to nit-pick it to even find these arguments and to me that is amazing.

219

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

What then does hold the planets in position?

… The force that we call “Gravity” holds them in position. Without going into too much detail, and this is an over simplification, the space-time around the Sun is curved and the planets are traveling in a “straight” line around the sun.

Nowwwww… I know you are going to say this, so I’ll just go ahead and address ahead of time. No one knows WHY this is the way the universe is, we just know that it is this way. You can put in WHATEVER explanation you want for that, just know that it is only a guess, not science.

First off, even according to quantum the planets are not moving in a straight line, I don’t know where you are getting that from.

however, science’s only answer to what holds the planets in orbit is “a force”. Do you see how that doesn’t answer the question? Labeling the mystical force gravity doesn’t gain incite. It is still a mystical force with an unknown cause.[/quote]

Thats why I said “…and this is an oversimplification.” I really dont think we need to delve deep into quantum mechanics on this thread, nor do I think either of the two of us have enough schooling in it to do so adequately.

220

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
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…

Exactly you can’t ever quote science as dogma.

No one ever does… Only the religious who try and say that “Science is a religion too” do that. Science holds as one of its tenets that nothing can ever be 100% proven or disproven, the exact opposite of dogma.

Do I need to go back through and quote you all the times you’ve said “it is this way” “it is not that way” “these never happened”?

[/quote]

Of course, linguistically, we speak with phrases like “this is how it happens” and " blah blah has never a happened"… These are the formalities of language.

It would get tiresome, I assure you, to repeatedly type in “According to the best scientific evidence” and “It has not yet been observed to be the case that…” or " The best observational evidence points us to the conclusion that…"

I’ll just assume you understand that when I say “The planets move around the sun” that you know that I mean “According to the best scientific evidence, human beings are can state with near 100% accuracy that the planets revolve around the sun and not the other way around”