• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution My ToE

TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
dad said:
No. That is not something telling us about earth nature long ago. Keep trying.
Click to expand...

A gravitational wave is the result of 2 massive bodies (like black holes) colliding. This triggers an immense burst of energy so huge that space itself ripples from it. These ripples are gravitational waves that travel at the speed of light through space.

LIGO is a facility designed specifically to detect such waves.

LIGO detected the collision of 2 blackholes within 60 minutes after turning it on.

For us to be able to detect such wave, it needs to reach us first.
The source of it would have to be VERY far away, for obvious reasons. It's quite a burst of energy....

So the wave needs to reach us from VERY far away. Like billions of lightyears.


If the physics of the past were different, these waves should NOT exist.
But they do.


EDIT: typo, added the "not" in the second to last sentence
 
Last edited:
dad

dad

Undefeated
TagliatelliMonster said:
A gravitational wave is the result of 2 massive bodies (like black holes) colliding. This triggers an immense burst of energy so huge that space itself ripples from it. These ripples are gravitational waves that travel at the speed of light through space.
Click to expand...
I think we are familiar with the theory. So now show us how you know that the waves move at the speed of light out there, have you measured it? Ha. Waves move (whatever the actual reason for the waves) but how much time is involved is altogether another issue!
.
LIGO detected the collision of 2 blackholes within 60 minutes after turning it on.
Click to expand...

So what?
For us to be able to detect such wave, it needs to reach us first.
Click to expand...
Correct and the issue is not whether stuff reaches us but what time is involved far far far far far far from earth!
The source of it would have to be VERY far away, for obvious reasons. It's quite a burst of energy....
Click to expand...
Very far says almost nothing.
So the wave needs to reach us from VERY far away. Like billions of lightyears.
Click to expand...
Conjecture! If time were the same out there, then it would need time. It is UNKNOWN what time is like out there. Checkmate.
If the physics of the past were different, these waves should exist.
But they do.
Click to expand...
Once again you conflate issues. The nature on earth was likely different, nothing to do with deep space.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
dad said:
No. That is not something telling us about earth nature long ago. Keep trying.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that if current physics doesn't support your particular mythology, the physics must be wrong, or the laws of physics are different offworld, or were different thousands of years ago.
 
dad

dad

Undefeated
Valjean said:
How not? It's a straightforward story.
Are you saying it's a fictional parable?
What else in the bible is fictional, then?
Click to expand...
. God uses lots of things to work for us. He used a pool...doesn't mean that or any pool is what heals. He used mud on a blind man's eyes..doesn't mean mud heals blindness. Etc etc etc etc etc.
 
dad

dad

Undefeated
Valjean said:
So what you're saying is that if current physics doesn't support your particular mythology, the physics must be wrong, or the laws of physics are different offworld, or were different thousands of years ago.
Click to expand...
Sort of. So that raises the question, does science know? The answer is no. Checkmate.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
dad said:
Sort of. So that raises the question, does science know? The answer is no. Checkmate.
Click to expand...
Science believes that physics is the same here and everywhere, now and everywhen. No evidence contradicts this. Technology, navigation, &c depends on this.
 
dad

dad

Undefeated
Valjean said:
Science believes that physics is the same here and everywhere, now and everywhen. No evidence contradicts this. Technology, navigation, &c depends on this.
Click to expand...
No evidence supports it so who cares what anyone believes? If you claim it does, post it. Ha.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
dad said:
No evidence supports it so who cares what anyone believes? If you claim it does, post it. Ha.
Click to expand...
dad, you refuse to learn what evidence is. You are not able to make such demands until you have the ability to understand what you are talking about.
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
Jose Fly said:
I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable moving on if you do not agree that populations vary in their traits.

What exactly is it that you're having trouble with? To me, it's obvious that any population has variability of traits. The only way a population wouldn't, would be if it was entirely composed of identical clones.

So is it your understanding that populations are usually made up of identical clones?
Click to expand...
I did not say that there are no variations in populations.
I am having trouble with statements I am not clear about, nor in agreement with... due to their vagueness, and inaccuracies.

You said... "Variation in a population" simply means that within any population of organisms, no two individuals are exactly alike. If you picked one individual out of the population and examined all of its traits, then did the same with another individual, the two of them would differ.

How can I agree when that is not exactly true... depending?
When you say traits, I do not know if you mean every possible difference you can find - like patterns, etc.
Black in peppered moths is a trait, so you can pick out two peppered moths - actually thousands - with the same trait, in a population.
The variation in the traits are basically three, I think.
I am in the dark as to if you are saying, you are going way deeper, and looking for a speck of difference on every possible level. What would that be, and how would it be relevant to your explanation?

I am just not clear on what all this specifics has to do with simply saying that there exist variations in populations.
So I think you are the one creating the problem... when there ought to be none. However, I think I understand why that is.

There will be differences. What you are looking at exactly, is right now the showstopper, I think.
Right now, I am stuck at "all of its traits".
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
nPeace said:
I did not say that there are no variations in populations.
I am having trouble with statements I am not clear about, nor in agreement with... due to their vagueness, and inaccuracies.

You said... "Variation in a population" simply means that within any population of organisms, no two individuals are exactly alike. If you picked one individual out of the population and examined all of its traits, then did the same with another individual, the two of them would differ.

How can I agree when that is not exactly true... depending?
When you say traits, I do not know if you mean every possible difference you can find - like patterns, etc.
Black in peppered moths is a trait, so you can pick out two peppered moths - actually thousands - with the same trait, in a population.
The variation in the traits are basically three, I think.
I am in the dark as to if you are saying, you are going way deeper, and looking for a speck of difference on every possible level. What would that be, and how would it be relevant to your explanation?

I am just not clear on what all this specifics has to do with simply saying that there exist variations in populations.
So I think you are the one creating the problem... when there ought to be none. However, I think I understand why that is.

There will be differences. What you are looking at exactly, is right now the showstopper, I think.
Right now, I am stuck at "all of its traits".
Click to expand...
The "all of its traits" is just a statement of the obvious. We know that you are different from your brothers and sisters, from your cousins, from your neighbors etc.. You may share similar traits but you will be different here and thee. That is all. Why is that hard to understand?
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
viole said:
How life started is still a mystery, true. However, how many times it started is not a mystery. There were some scientists who looked for some evidence of a second start, but found nothing.

So, again, if your religion says that life started many times (one per kind), religion is against science. What could be simpler than that?

Ciao

- viole
Click to expand...
LUCA is not thought to be the first life on Earth but only one of many early organisms, all the others becoming extinct.

I'm sure it's religion against religion, or if you hate that... religion against philosophy. It's just a made up story viole. Not science.
If it is science, it's a kind that includes philosophy and religious thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top