Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[rrobs]

Not at all when I'm just correcting the endless repetitive misunderstandings of creationists (like "evolution is just a theory") - they've all been done to death a thousand times - why not go and read through some of the old debates, or actually bother to learn something about science (like what 'theory' means)?

As opposed to the endless repetitive misunderstanding of non-believers? Why not bother learning something about the scriptures?

First definition of "theory" in the Collaborative International Dictionary of English:

A doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice; hypothesis; speculation.
​

Is there some other definition that makes "theory" the same as "fact?" I don't thing so, but if you have one, I'm open.

 

[rrobs]

But there is copious evidence that does show exactly that. For a tiny example from genetics see: Genesis and the Genome [pdf].



This is another total misunderstanding of what's happening. This appears to be a highly speculative hypothesis that seeks a more fundamental understanding than offered by the present theories. It doesn't change the evidence and the fact that our current theories are a good match to it. We still use Newton's theories for most applications.

Science changing its view in the light of new evidence means it far, far more likely to be true than blind unyielding faith that refuses to accept evidence even when it directly contradicts it.

There is no such thing as blind faith. Faith is based on trust. I trust the chair would not collapse if I were to sit on it, so I have faith it will hold me up. I have faith in God because he has proven Himself to me on innumerable occasions. I can trust that which I know and understand.

Really, for anyone who takes an honest look at the Bible and walks according to it, it becomes obvious that the those who believe in evolution are the ones who are blinded to the truth. If there was such a thing as "blind" faith, it would belong to those who make science their source for truth. My not being a first hand witness to Jesus' resurrection is no different than you not being a first hand witness to evolution. Be careful who you criticize.

 

[ratiocinator]

First definition of "theory" in the Collaborative International Dictionary of English:

As I previously said, you shouldn't confuse the scientific usage with the everyday colloquial usage.

Is there some other definition that makes "theory" the same as "fact?" I don't thing so, but if you have one, I'm open.

Try, for example: Scientific theory - "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation" [my emphasis]

I've seriously lost count of how many times I've had to correct this for clueless creationists, let alone the number of times I've seen other people doing the same. Why don't creationists ever do their homework?

 

[rrobs]

You seem to be referring to a literal coming down. At times, God turning his attention to Earth is in coming down in reference that there will be action on Earth.
Please read the size measurements about Heavenly New Jerusalem as found at Revelation 21:10-23 and let us know where that city fits ____________

The ' new earth ' is in connection to 2 Peter 3:13. Not a new planet ( Ecclesiastes 1:4 B) but a new righteous new society. New world of righteousness.

I've already been told by some that the ' new Earth ' of Revelation 21:1 would have No oceans, No seas.
Psalms 72:8 informs us that Jesus will have earthly subjects or citizens from sea to sea, so the 'sea' of Rev. 21:1 is Not literal water but about people.
The restless sea of wicked humanity - Isaiah 57:20; Isaiah 48:22.
The 'waters' ( people) of Revelation 17:1; Revelation 17:15

So, since Revelation is written in very-vivid word pictures, then we can see that all of Revelation is Not literal.

If you can allegorize the scriptuers one way, then anybody can allegorize them any way they want, and we are left with nothing but imaginations.

Personally, I think the words "new earth" mean a "new earth." I also think that the words, "and the elements shall melt with fervent heat" (2 Peter 3:10), go way beyond a new righteous society. There will be a new righteous society, but it won't be on an earth that has melted with a fervent heat.

 

[ratiocinator]

Really, for anyone who takes an honest look at the Bible and walks according to it, it becomes obvious that the those who believe in evolution are the ones who are blinded to the truth.

The bible is disjointed, incoherent, and riddled with contradictions. I took it seriously for a while before I learnt to think for myself.

If there was such a thing as "blind" faith, it would belong to those who make science their source for truth.

And yet it is the results of the scientific method that are allowing you to type these words and have them seen all over the world...

 

[rrobs]

As I previously said, you shouldn't confuse the scientific usage with the everyday colloquial usage.



Try, for example: Scientific theory - "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation" [my emphasis]

I've seriously lost count of how many times I've had to correct this for clueless creationists, let alone the number of times I've seen other people doing the same. Why don't creationists ever do their homework?

I've seriously lost count of how many times I've had to correct the meaning of observation for clueless amateur scientists. Why don't Bible critics do their homework?

 

[rrobs]

The bible is disjointed, incoherent, and riddled with contradictions. I took it seriously for a while before I learnt to think for myself.

I'll bet you don't even know the main subject of the Bible.

And yet it is the results of the scientific method that are allowing you to type these words and have them seen all over the world...

Yes, I can type words, not because of science, but because of God. God gave us the brains to do that. He didn't give that ability to apes. We are light years beyond apes in thinking ability, with the possible exception of thinking we came from them. Even an ape is smarter than that!

 

[ratiocinator]

I've seriously lost count of how many times I've had to correct the meaning of observation for clueless amateur scientists.

Example? Scientists know perfectly well what observation means - as do most people who discuss the science of evolution (at least in my experience). We can observe the copious evidence for evolution* (for example, the link I gave you above and you've ignored). Genetics could have completely falsified evolution - instead, we could now make the case from genetic evidence alone.

* as well as the actual process and mechanism of evolution. The only limitation is the fact that we have limited time, so cannot (obviously) observe the result of millions of years of evolution.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, I can type words, not because of science, but because of God. God gave us the brains to do that.

That doesn't make any sense. Regardless of whether god gave us the brains to do it or not, the process we used to do it is the scientific method - the same method that we use to come to conclusions about evolution and cosmology.

He didn't give that ability to apes.

Humans are apes.

 

[halbhh]

Speaking of observation, nobody has ever observed convergent evolution, or any evolution for that matter. Specifically. nobody has ever observed one genus evolving into another.

We can see species evolving, but that is in perfect accord with Genesis where everything was made "after its kind." The word kind in the Greek bible is "genus." A dog, despite hundreds of varieties, are none the less all members of the genus canis and a canis will never produce anything but another canis. That we have observed and therefore accords with the scientific method.

Any evolution that happens of course would be happening according to the way nature works -- physics/chemistry.

Believers in God that accept the New Testament learn that God created all that is (all things), and therefore we learn that He created the very laws of nature.

In other words, physics/chemistry.

In other words, anything that happens in nature would and could only be, for such a believer, of course, simply God's own work/design unfolding -- the actions of nature are a result/outcome of the creator of nature.

Creating Nature, God would then be the designer of all that Nature does.

So, for a believer in God and also the contents of the New Testament, any aspect of Nature is God's own outcome He caused.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's good, but it's nothing more than a classification of animals. It proves nothing about people coming from apes. Besides, Adam did the same thing:

Gen 2:20,

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.​

BTW, to show how what science "knows" about the universe changes, often radically, as in this case: New Theory Casually Upends Space and Time

Is it true? I don't know, but it does show how nebulous scientific knowledge really is.

Your belief in cosmology/evolution requires no less faith than that of a Christian. You've not observed a Pan evolving into a Home and more than I've observed an event that took place thousands of years ago.

The fact that people fit into that classification is evidence for evolution. And no, Adam was a myth. We know that, you may not, but any rational person can understand this. And I love it that you will grasp at straws and believe any article that seems to give you hope for your myth.

I tell you what, if you want to ask questions ask one well formed question per post. If you post foolish nonsense, as you did with an article form a "Men's Health" section of a nontechnical internet article you will just be laughed at.

As I have said before until you learn the basics of science you cannot learn and you continually demonstrate that you do not even understand the basics in your posts. You might have taken classes, but it is possible to take classes and pass if one merely parrots what one has heard. Understanding it often a bit deeper.

And no, do not insult me by claiming that my beliefs require faith when you have no understanding of them or even the basics of the science we are trying to discuss. You have faith. That is your downfall. It gets in your way of learning. I try to avoid faith since it is an obstacle to coming to a true answer.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If you can allegorize the scriptuers one way, then anybody can allegorize them any way they want, and we are left with nothing but imaginations.
Personally, I think the words "new earth" mean a "new earth." I also think that the words, "and the elements shall melt with fervent heat" (2 Peter 3:10), go way beyond a new righteous society. There will be a new righteous society, but it won't be on an earth that has melted with a fervent heat.

Sounds to me as if you are saying Paul is referring to the Periodic Table.
Surely Paul was Not referring to the Periodic Table elements, but rather the elementary things, the base things, as in the wicked acts of men.
Whether politically wicked, merchants of doom's day weapons, or clergy who promote violence ( war ).
2 Peter 3:7 connects the day of judgement to the destruction of the ungodly , Not to ' Earth which abides forever ' according to Ecclesiastes 1:4 B.
By the executional words from Jesus' mouth is what will bring about a new righteous society - Isaiah 11:3-4; Rev. 19:14-16
Earth will Not be moved according to Psalms 104:5.
Just as Earth was Not removed in Noah's day, so Earth will Not be gone, just the wicked will be gone - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35.
This is Not biblical imagination, but what the Bible really teaches, what we can learn from the Bible as God's Word.
Remember what Psalms 78:69B says ____________________________

 

[rrobs]

Sounds to me as if you are saying Paul is referring to the Periodic Table.
Surely Paul was Not referring to the Periodic Table elements, but rather the elementary things, the base things, as in the wicked acts of men.
Whether politically wicked, merchants of doom's day weapons, or clergy who promote violence ( war ).

Here's the Greek word for "elements"

G4747 στοιχεῖον stoicheion (stoi-chei'-on) n.

1. something orderly in arrangement.
2. (by implication) an initial element of a fundamental series.
3. (literally) fundamental principle.
4. (figuratively, plural) the elements.​

 

[rrobs]

I already mentioned this article as a way of showing how even the most fundamental scientific "facts" can change: New Theory Casually Upends Space and Time

Basically it theorizes that energy, not particles, is the basic building block of the universe. Of course energy is not visible as are particles. So what we see came from what we can't see. That's the science in any case. Here's what the scriptures say:

Heb 11:3,

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.​

Hmmm....perhaps the Bible is not as devoid of science as those who think it is. Maybe they just haven't read it with an open mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already mentioned this article as a way of showing how even the most fundamental scientific "facts" can change: New Theory Casually Upends Space and Time

Basically it theorizes that energy, not particles, is the basic building block of the universe. Of course energy is not visible as are particles. So what we see came from what we can't see. That's the science in any case. Here's what the scriptures say:

Heb 11:3,

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.​

Hmmm....perhaps the Bible is not as devoid of science as those who think it is. Maybe they just haven't read it with an open mind.

And your article is garbage. It is from a non-technical source that does not even understand the word "theory" in the sense that they tried to use it. Once again your posts attest to a total lack of education in the sciences.

By the way, pulling verses from the Bible and reinterpreting them in light of what we know now is a losing strategy. The Muslims have been doing this longer and better. In effect you just claimed Islam to be true.

 

[rrobs]

And your article is garbage. It is from a non-technical source that does not even understand the word "theory" in the sense that they tried to use it. Once again your posts attest to a total lack of education in the sciences.

I see you pick and choose your science. And I find it intriguing that your research lasted no more than a few minutes before coming to a conclusion.

By the way, pulling verses from the Bible and reinterpreting them in light of what we know now is a losing strategy. The Muslims have been doing this longer and better. In effect you just claimed Islam to be true.

What needs to be interpreted here, let alone reinterpreted? It's a pretty straight forward deceleration. What do you think it says? Before answering, you should know that to get to the real depth of what is says requires at least a rudimentary knowledge of Greek grammar. Short of that, I'd be interested in hearing what you think it means. Somehow I doubt that is forthcoming, but hey, surprise me.

Heb 11:3,

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.​

What it says stands on its own. Whether it jives with science is irrelevant. I just thought you might be interested in seeing what it says. But I should already know by now that you think every single word in the scriptures is nonsense. Sorry, my friend, but life is not that cut and dry.

I understand you to be a scientist. So I'm flabbergasted on how you concluded I think Islam to be true. You sure reached a conclusion with the barest of data, if any data at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see you pick and choose your science. And I find it intriguing that your research lasted no more than a few minutes before coming to a conclusion.

No one does not get to do that. Where is it okay in Christianity to accuse others of your sins? And what makes you think that my research was just a few minutes? Don't you know that other creationists have made the same incredibly foolish claim?

What needs to be interpreted here, let alone reinterpreted? It's a pretty straight forward deceleration. What do you think it says? Before answering, you should know that to get to the real depth of what is says requires at least a rudimentary knowledge of Greek grammar. Short of that, I'd be interested in hearing what you think it means. Somehow I doubt that is forthcoming, but hey, surprise me.

Heb 11:3,

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.​

What it says stands on its own. Whether it jives with science is irrelevant. I just thought you might be interested in seeing what it says. But I should already know by now that you think every single word in the scriptures is nonsense. Sorry, my friend, but life is not that cut and dry.

I understand you to be a scientist. So I'm flabbergasted on how you concluded I think Islam to be true. You sure reached a conclusion with the barest of data, if any data at all.

And once again you try to reinterpret a vague verse to something that we know today. I can find far clearer verses that lead to Flat Earth claims. Here is a hint, if you have to rely on single verses taken out of context you it is all but guaranteed that you have nothing. I am not playing this foolish game.

Let's discuss the nature of evidence. Once you understand it you too will understand that there is no scientific evidence for the beliefs of creationists.

 

[shunyadragon]

I've seriously lost count of how many times I've had to correct the meaning of observation for clueless amateur scientists. Why don't Bible critics do their homework?

Really?!? I am a geologist of over 50 years. Tell me what objective verifiable evidence is in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

As opposed to the endless repetitive misunderstanding of non-believers? Why not bother learning something about the scriptures?

First definition of "theory" in the Collaborative International Dictionary of English:

A doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice; hypothesis; speculation.
​

Is there some other definition that makes "theory" the same as "fact?" I don't thing so, but if you have one, I'm open.

Wrong definition for theory in terms of science. In science it does not include speculation nor contemplation

Definition of scientific theory | Dictionary.com

noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution

 

[ratiocinator]

Speaking of observation, nobody has ever observed convergent evolution, or any evolution for that matter. Specifically. nobody has ever observed one genus evolving into another.

We can see species evolving, but that is in perfect accord with Genesis where everything was made "after its kind."

As soon as you accept that evolution happens, i.e. that species can change according to the mechanism of variation and selection - something that we can directly observe (in fact we can observe one species turning into another, but that doesn't really matter to the point), then, if you're going to reject the idea that a new genus can result from lots and lots of those small changes, over a long period of time, you'll need to propose a new mechanism that limits those little changes from building up into large changes. A mechanism that, as far as I know, nobody has any idea about and which has certainly never been observed.

There is no qualitative difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" - they work in exactly the same way, using exactly the same process - macroevolution is just lots of microevolution built up over a large number of generations.

So, what process do you think stops one 'kind' from turning into another due to lots of small changes (that you accept do happen)?