I Realized Why Evolution Is a Fact

Off Topic
221

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:

Why don’t you tell me what exactly is important to my faith so I can have a better understanding of what I believe.[/quote]

You have not made any claims about your faith in specific, so you leave me no choice but to use other examples of faith based claims to show that, in general, they lead nowhere, are generally wrong, and are based on nothing.

You have yet to tell me what your religion is or what your claims are, when you do that I will respond appropriately.

222

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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.?[/quote]

You have done NOTHING but say the universe has a central point which has “not undergone any kind of acceleration.” That has been your point all along, please just admit to this and dont make me go back and find the quote.

[quote]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?
[/quote]

There is no conclusiveevidence either way, but given what we know about the universe (it had a starting point, it is expanding, it is not expanding at an infinite speed) it is more reasonable to assume that it is of limited size, however, given enough time it will be infinitely large (barring some unforseen force that causes it to collapse again)

223

[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:

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.

[/quote]

Creation Science is definitely interesting. Its a fantastic study into the use of logical fallacies.

224

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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.[/quote]

No one ever said that. There is no “science” or “religion” rather there are SPECIFIC CLAIMS made by the two that are at odds at times. THIS is where the clash happens, it is not a subject v. subject debate, but a claim v. claim debate.

Consider yourself rare then. Many, many people do NOT do this. The current estimates say that only 4 in 10 Americans accept the theory of evolution. I wonder why they might reject the idea… Hmmm…

[quote]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.[/quote]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with learning about both, I’ve done quite the same myself. The pursuit of knowledge is, in my opinion, one of the great things we can do for ourselves, which is why I hate it when religion stifles this activity.

[quote]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]

Now we are on the same page brother. I’ll drink (a protein shake) to that.

225

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

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.[/quote]

Your analogy falls short in one respect… The bible says it is the inerrant word of God and that everything, EVERYTHING, in the book is absolutely true. Therefore, if even one fact is wrong the entire book becomes (at the very least) suspect.

Such is the power of God :slight_smile:

226

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

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.
[/quote]

I dont know if I agree with this statement. I think that the idea of photons would exist, the potential/possibility would be there… But are you suggesting that Dinosaurs still exist even though there are none of them around? The “idea” of dinosaurs does, but I dont think its accurate to say they “exist”

Photons and dinosaurs are two different things however, because photons continue to travel even when an object fails to emit them, therefore the photon will always be in existence irrespective of its source.

Are you suggesting that if NO objects EVER emitted ANY photons, they would still exist?

227

This is going back a few pages on this thread when the discussion was about where the domain of science ended and the domain of religion began. I think the author makes a great point about just how much religion really can be the business of science.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/effectively_non-existent.php

228

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
This is going back a few pages on this thread when the discussion was about where the domain of science ended and the domain of religion began. I think the author makes a great point about just how much religion really can be the business of science.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/effectively_non-existent.php [/quote]

Great post, PZ really has honed his craft quite nicely. But I guess thats why he has one of the most read science blog on the net, huh?

229

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

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.

Your analogy falls short in one respect… The bible says it is the inerrant word of God and that everything, EVERYTHING, in the book is absolutely true. Therefore, if even one fact is wrong the entire book becomes (at the very least) suspect.

I personally find it amazing that the bible is even coherent given the time frames, perspectives, languages involved.

Such is the power of God :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Actually, I don’t know of any place the Bible says that. Revelations gives a warning to taking away from or adding to revelations (the bible didn’t exist yet) though people often apply it to the whole bible. Several parts the author remarks that he was instructed to write something or was shown something.

Them being labeled “inspired by god” didn’t come until the early church developed canons later on.

And Like I said before I hesitate to make up claims that aren’t directly in the bible.

230

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
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.?

You have done NOTHING but say the universe has a central point which has “not undergone any kind of acceleration.” That has been your point all along, please just admit to this and dont make me go back and find the quote.

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?

There is no conclusiveevidence either way, but given what we know about the universe (it had a starting point, it is expanding, it is not expanding at an infinite speed) it is more reasonable to assume that it is of limited size, however, given enough time it will be infinitely large (barring some unforseen force that causes it to collapse again)[/quote]

No, I didn’t say there was an exact center, only that there is an ultimate perspective one could label “center”. Or more correctly it would be an inertial center not a single location but an actual absolute zero of velocity. That was in PMs though if you want to copy it over. It didn’t really pertain to the discussion as I’m pretty sure they weren’t referring to that line of thought in the bible as I kinda made it up.

Further what we know as matter has estimable limits, however, the universe includes all space itself. Even the empty stuff that matter hasn’t gotten to yet. I don’t know of any reason to think space itself is finite.

A geometric center of the universe doesn’t make sense to me at all, unless space itself has limits.

Last I’d point out that the geocentric universe model comes more from Aristotle and older science/philosophy than it does from the bible. I’ve never found the geocentric model in the bible, more than some thin verses about the earth and it’s foundations not moving.

231

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

Actually, I don’t know of any place the Bible says that. Revelations gives a warning to taking away from or adding to revelations (the bible didn’t exist yet) though people often apply it to the whole bible. Several parts the author remarks that he was instructed to write something or was shown something.

Them being labeled “inspired by god” didn’t come until the early church developed canons later on.

And Like I said before I hesitate to make up claims that aren’t directly in the bible.[/quote]

So you believe the bible word for word?

There are two options here.

  1. Believe the bible word for word and explain why you believe everything in a 2000 year old book, especially since most of it is outrageous and contradictory to what is known and observable in today’s world.

  2. Pick and choose which parts of the bible you believe and make up the rest. This is creating you own god. If you do this, you should be able to explain why you chose the parts of the bible you believe, why you choose not to believe the parts you don’t believe, and why you made up everything else.