Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[gnostic]

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.

That’s simply conjecture and unsubstantiated superstition.

Because if what you said were true, then the NT authors should be smarter than the natural philosophers of the 3rd century BCE.

Instead, none of NT authors showed any understanding of natural phenomena.

And all the miracles supposedly performed by Jesus and his disciples, demonstrated that such miracles couldn’t happen naturally because those miracles would defy the laws of nature that you claimed these believers accepted God was responsible for the physics and chemistry. Which is hypocrisy.

Like I said, your claim is unsubstantiated because the NT clearly didn’t understand natural science, and didn’t understand nature.

 

[rrobs]

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?

The article I sent you wasn't even about creationism! That makes me think your research lasted less than a microsecond. Did you bother to look up the actual research paper, or did you just read the headline of the article about the actual paper? And you talk about silly games. Yes, you are playing a silly game.

 

[rrobs]

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

I know you are a professional and I respect that. I called an amateur scientist and scientist.

 

[rrobs]

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

Where's the observation of one genus evolving into another. I understand we have fossils, DNA, etc, but all conclusions are inferences, not direct observation,

 

[rrobs]

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.[/QUOTE}
I have to come up with a new mechanism to explain something that nobody has ever observed? How about it hasn't been observed because it never happens?

 

[ratiocinator]

I have to come up with a new mechanism to explain something that nobody has ever observed? How about it hasn't been observed because it never happens?

I see that went right over your head.

Try reading what I said again, and try to concentrate this time....

Hint: a new genus starts with a small change in a species.

 

[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.

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.

Here's a link to their research paper:

https://www.mae.ncsu.edu/eischen/wp...020/12/PhysicsEssaysSilverbergEischen2020.pdf

Perhaps after reading, you could point out the actual "garbage."

As I said before, there is no need to "interpret" anything in that verse. It's a simple, clear cut assertion. Of course belief is optional, but the concept itself is as simple as it gets. Pointing out a simple reading of a simple sentence is not a loosing strategy. To deny the obvious is a loosing strategy.

 

[rrobs]

I see that went right over your head.

Try reading what I said again, and try to concentrate this time....

Hint: a new genus starts with a small change in a species.

I read it again. You said little changes within a genus (new species) will eventually lead to a new genus. You said I had to come up with a mechanism that would explain why that is not true. I said that since it has never been directly observed it was not necessary to come up with a new mechanism. That which does not occur does not need an explanation. To say something occurs that has never been observed, does deserve an explanation, so the onus is on you, not me.

You can stop with the little barbs (over my head, et.al) anytime. It has no effect on me or my arguments, but it does make you look insecure in your proposition. Let's act like adults, OK? Just a suggestion.

 

[ratiocinator]

I read it again. You said little changes within a genus (new species) will eventually lead to a new genus. You said I had to come up with a mechanism that would explain why that is not true. I said that since it has never been directly observed it was not necessary to come up with a new mechanism. That which does not occur does not need an explanation. To say something occurs that has never been observed, does deserve an explanation, so the onus is on you, not me.

You still don't seem to get it. Quite apart from the copious evidence we have (not least from genetics - did you look at Genesis and the Genome yet?) that it has happened, if you accept that little changes can happen, then why do you think they can't build up into arbitrarily large ones?

We aren't discussing two different mechanisms here or two different phenomena. The way a new genus (which is just a human label anyway) comes about is exactly the same as the way small changes happen within species - it's just that a lot of those small changes build up to large ones.

You seem to be claiming this has never happened or couldn't happen. That needs explaining. Why has it never happened or why do you think it can't happen?

 

[ratiocinator]

Where's the observation of one genus evolving into another.

I don't get why you're so obsessed with this (apart from the fact that it's obvious that we don't actually live long enough to make such an observation), an awful lot of science is done with indirect evidence. The impossibility of direct observation is simply insignificant. The evidence we have is overwhelming anyway.

 

[shunyadragon]

Where's the observation of one genus evolving into another. I understand we have fossils, DNA, etc, but all conclusions are inferences, not direct observation,

The fossils and DNA are consistent, predictable and confirmed observations of evolution. The consistent and predictable observations of the history of life is objective in nature. Science is based on the consistency and predictability of observations is the criteria for science, and not your non-scientific 'direct observations' in all the science. Also Physics and Cosmology are based on this same definition, and by your ancient definition, much of the knowledge of physics and cosmology is not based on 'direct observations.' Your definition of 'direct observation' does not work in all sciences. It is based on a religious agenda and not science.

Again your definition of 'theory' concerning science is not correct.

Also your lack of education and experience in actual science clouded by a religious agenda is an issue here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The article I sent you wasn't even about creationism! That makes me think your research lasted less than a microsecond. Did you bother to look up the actual research paper, or did you just read the headline of the article about the actual paper? And you talk about silly games. Yes, you are playing a silly game.

I did not need to do any research to laugh at an article from an ignorant source. Guess what? Creationists are not the only ones that have no clue when it comes to the sciences. Your source failed. And if you read my post and understood it you would have known that I did more than read the headline.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's a link to their research paper:

https://www.mae.ncsu.edu/eischen/wp...020/12/PhysicsEssaysSilverbergEischen2020.pdf

Perhaps after reading, you could point out the actual "garbage."

As I said before, there is no need to "interpret" anything in that verse. It's a simple, clear cut assertion. Of course belief is optional, but the concept itself is as simple as it gets. Pointing out a simple reading of a simple sentence is not a loosing strategy. To deny the obvious is a loosing strategy.

I will take a look at that when I can. It probably is garbage, but I will keep an open mind. The problem was your earlier source that is guaranteed to have it wrong. At least by the headline which is all that you seemed to read.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read it again. You said little changes within a genus (new species) will eventually lead to a new genus. You said I had to come up with a mechanism that would explain why that is not true. I said that since it has never been directly observed it was not necessary to come up with a new mechanism. That which does not occur does not need an explanation. To say something occurs that has never been observed, does deserve an explanation, so the onus is on you, not me.

You can stop with the little barbs (over my head, et.al) anytime. It has no effect on me or my arguments, but it does make you look insecure in your proposition. Let's act like adults, OK? Just a suggestion.

I see that you still do not understand even the basics of science. Why demand that one see something "directly"? By the way, you need to try to understand how to apply the burden of proof as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's a link to their research paper:

https://www.mae.ncsu.edu/eischen/wp...020/12/PhysicsEssaysSilverbergEischen2020.pdf

Perhaps after reading, you could point out the actual "garbage."

As I said before, there is no need to "interpret" anything in that verse. It's a simple, clear cut assertion. Of course belief is optional, but the concept itself is as simple as it gets. Pointing out a simple reading of a simple sentence is not a loosing strategy. To deny the obvious is a loosing strategy.

First off it is garbage because it is not a research paper. Part of the scientific method is to publish your article where other scientists can criticize it. And the first step is to go through peer review in a well respected professional journal. It does not appear that they did this.

Second they attempt to replace relativi

Here's a link to their research paper:

https://www.mae.ncsu.edu/eischen/wp...020/12/PhysicsEssaysSilverbergEischen2020.pdf

Perhaps after reading, you could point out the actual "garbage."

As I said before, there is no need to "interpret" anything in that verse. It's a simple, clear cut assertion. Of course belief is optional, but the concept itself is as simple as it gets. Pointing out a simple reading of a simple sentence is not a loosing strategy. To deny the obvious is a loosing strategy.

First off it screams "garbage" because it was not properly published. We get that far before we even begin to read it. Real scientists publish in well respected peer reviewed professional journals. This is not even close to that. In fact this paper would probably be rejected by any such sources. He apparently knows this since he did not even go the vanity press route. That alone should set off large alarms.

Second, it is rather vague in its terminology. He does not appear to have any valid problems with Special Relativity nor does he appear to answer some very important questions that SR does. He only deals with geometric problems, such as light curvature and orbital precession. He does not touch at all upon time or space dilation. Both of which have been tested and confirmed countless times. By the way, do you use a cell phone? The GPS that helps you to navigate in a smart phone refutes this paper since it relies upon the time dilation of SR and GR.

Once again, this is the sort of article that a person with no scientific education would refer to. It is not scientific since it fails at following the scientific method. Proper publishing is a very important part of the scientific method.

 

[halbhh]

superstition

It can be helpful for all, anyone, to review the definition of a common word at times:

Superstition: excessively credulous belief; unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event.

So to believe over time, without any unique to the cause confirming evidence -- that kind of belief would be 'superstitious'.

I don't have that, but instead the kind of faith I think most Christians that believe all their lives have: faith that proves out over time, gets confirmed.

Believing the sun will rise tomorrow isn't 'superstitious' because one has unique evidence about it, personally, first hand.

In short, your speculative assertions about my thoughts and experience are "unsubstantiated."
(I think the word you yourself chose is the actually perfect to describe your own assertions here)

 

[rrobs]

You still don't seem to get it. Quite apart from the copious evidence we have (not least from genetics - did you look at Genesis and the Genome yet?) that it has happened, if you accept that little changes can happen, then why do you think they can't build up into arbitrarily large ones?

We aren't discussing two different mechanisms here or two different phenomena. The way a new genus (which is just a human label anyway) comes about is exactly the same as the way small changes happen within species - it's just that a lot of those small changes build up to large ones.

You seem to be claiming this has never happened or couldn't happen. That needs explaining. Why has it never happened or why do you think it can't happen?

Well, I will admit the article was a bit over my head, I nonetheless got the gist of his argument. However, I did find another paper that questioned Venema's paper. It also, was fairly technical, but it did say there are others who question Venema's conclusions. They all look like the same kind of scientist as Venema.

Maybe you would be able to glean information the article that I was unable to do. If so, would you be able to boil the arguments down into layman terms? Here it is: Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? | Evolution News

Honestly, I'm not informed enough to make an informed decision based on these two divergent papers. Genesis makes sense to me and it accords with what I have personally observed. I also know that nobody has observed one genus evolving into another. The idea that it happens is based on indirect evidence which could have many different explanations.

Have you ever done the math on how often beneficial mutations occur? You might pursue that course. Suddenly, 4.5 billion years is not really that long.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I will admit the article was a bit over my head, I nonetheless got the gist of his argument. However, I did find another paper that questioned Venema's paper. It also, was fairly technical, but it did say there are others who question Venema's conclusions. They all look like the same kind of scientist as Venema.

Maybe you would be able to glean information the article that I was unable to do. If so, would you be able to boil the arguments down into layman terms? Here it is: Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? | Evolution News

Honestly, I'm not informed enough to make an informed decision based on these two divergent papers. Genesis makes sense to me and it accords with what I have personally observed. I also know that nobody has observed one genus evolving into another. The idea that it happens is based on indirect evidence which could have many different explanations.

Have you ever done the math on how often beneficial mutations occur? You might pursue that course. Suddenly, 4.5 billion years is not really that long.

Evolution News is not a reliable source. It is a creationist site. It is not science based.

Vet your sources. You failed on your article that you were all excited about. You failed here.

 

[rrobs]

I don't get why you're so obsessed with this (apart from the fact that it's obvious that we don't actually live long enough to make such an observation), an awful lot of science is done with indirect evidence. The impossibility of direct observation is simply insignificant. The evidence we have is overwhelming anyway.

Observation happens to be the first step in the scientific method. Not sure why pointing that out makes me obsessive. Do you think it is not important?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Observation happens to be the first step in the scientific method. Not sure why pointing that out makes me obsessive. Do you think it is not important?

Yes, but you do not even seem to understand observation. Observation is not limited to what we can observe occurring right now.