-
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!
How do you define evolution?
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Science human in modern times should be quoting quotes.
Nature garden existed in all millions of diverse bodies.
All insects.
Dinosaurs.
Snap freeze and thaw.
Evolution as a thesis bio from the body of a dead bio giant.
As science today.
Claiming life returned as a new animal.and human nature from dead still living snap frozen dinosaurs.
Yet they don't as egotists just humans claiming reasons why a first dead two human lives first parents lived and died.
As sex is the ONLY reason in science quotes that any living body is living today. In natural atmospheric support.
If a human is sick the natural atmosphere supports that body first.
If you own a healthier body sex is why.
Just sex.
If you compare your health. Think about future life babies ..you would say I don't want them to be born sick.
Then as an intelligent realistic human and not aHuman egotist you would ask why sick humans are sick.
Sporadic attacks would be reasoned.
Changes to gods O earths gas spirits the answer.
As water and oxygen one of two forms keeps us alive suffering sporadic God changes.
Gods spirits are gas forms.
Change stones form of spirits gases we die sacrificed.
A very basic human science natural observation first.
Versus lying coercion by use of science words as the false language of Satan.
If science says what does it matter if suffering increases. When they inherit it personally is the only moment of their care or concern. A human condition we already are advised about.
Nature garden existed in all millions of diverse bodies.
All insects.
Dinosaurs.
Snap freeze and thaw.
Evolution as a thesis bio from the body of a dead bio giant.
As science today.
Claiming life returned as a new animal.and human nature from dead still living snap frozen dinosaurs.
Yet they don't as egotists just humans claiming reasons why a first dead two human lives first parents lived and died.
As sex is the ONLY reason in science quotes that any living body is living today. In natural atmospheric support.
If a human is sick the natural atmosphere supports that body first.
If you own a healthier body sex is why.
Just sex.
If you compare your health. Think about future life babies ..you would say I don't want them to be born sick.
Then as an intelligent realistic human and not aHuman egotist you would ask why sick humans are sick.
Sporadic attacks would be reasoned.
Changes to gods O earths gas spirits the answer.
As water and oxygen one of two forms keeps us alive suffering sporadic God changes.
Gods spirits are gas forms.
Change stones form of spirits gases we die sacrificed.
A very basic human science natural observation first.
Versus lying coercion by use of science words as the false language of Satan.
If science says what does it matter if suffering increases. When they inherit it personally is the only moment of their care or concern. A human condition we already are advised about.
We say a nucleus is radioactive if it is unstable. That unstable nucleus will 'decay' in one of several ways, including alpha decay, beta decay, and gamma decay.
In alpha decay, the nucleus emits two protons and two neutrons (a helium nucleus), thereby changing into a nucleus of a different element.
In beta decay, one of the neutrons changes into a proton and emits an electron. This can also run in reverse, a process called electron capture, where a proton 'captures' an electron and turns into a proton.
I gave several examples of these two types of radioactivity in a previous post.
Gamma decay doesn't change the type of nucleus, but simply emits a very high energy form of light (a gamma ray), thereby putting the nucleus into a more stable state.
These are the three main forms of radioactive decay. There are others. For example, some very large nuclei will spontaneously split in two (fission). Some will emit large groups of protons and neutrons (say, the nucleus of a carbon atom that has 6 each). In another type, a proton can emit a positron (a positive version of an electron--a form of anti-matter) and turn into a neutron.
These other forms of radioactive decay are far less common. Spontaneous fission is used in some dating methods.
In all of these, it is possible that the new nucleus will also be unstable, and will decay as well. This leads to radioactive series. For example, Uranium-238 has a decay series starts at U-238 and goes through 14 different nuclei until it finishes at Lead-208, which is stable (not radioactive). This is an important one because it is often used for dating things.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But the reality is that we will never know for certain how and exactly when it first started, thus the best we can do in terms of causation is to possibly show how it might have happened. But even with that, the question of "divine creation" cannot likely be established beyond being a hypothesis at best.
'Never know for certain?' nor is 'how it might have happened?' does not reflect how science works. It is a vague layman 'arguing from ignorance.'
As I said abiogenesis is a young science, and at present when I follow a google search there are more that 20+ peer reviewed articles a month on the subject. What science can eventually determine is the different ways abiogenesis can take place given a suitable environment.
Divine Creation cannot be considered a viable hypothesis in science, because there cannot be any viable 'objective verifiable evidence' to justify a legitimate hypothesis.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I have a graduate degree and taught anthropology for 30 years, including physical anthropology, so don't be so arrogant as to try and tell me "how science works".
Technically, "divine creation" is not even a scientific hypothesis but it can be a personal one, and that's all fine & dandy as far as that goes because we simply don't have all the answers in science. We do not know how the first life started, and it is highly unlikely that we will ever know for certain. If you cannot understand this, then you're the one "arguing from ignorance".
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I understand that an atom is comprised of a nucleus, electrons and protons. I use the following definition as a basis. What is atom? - Definition from WhatIs.com"An atom consists of a central nucleus that is usually surrounded by one or more electrons. Each electron is negatively charged. The nucleus is positively charged, and contains one or more relatively heavy particles known as protons and neutrons. A proton is positively charged." So I'll have to remember that if it's correct. Atom: has central nucleus which is usually surrounded by one or more electrons. Electrons are negatively charged. The nucleus is positively charged and contains one or more relatively heavy particles called protons and neutrons. A proton is positively charged. Proton - positive within the nucleus. Electron negative outside the nucleus. Electron negative outside nucleus. Proton positive within nucleus along with neutrons. Now I'm beginning to understand nuclear bomb. Going back to atomic structure, though, related to discussion about dating of cave paintings.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I am sure you are not correct with your hypothesis. One is that it is a hypothesis as if mankind can find out HOW it all started, and two is that some things (such as your hypothesis,) are incredible.
There is an axiom in the Bible which is, you will never know the beginning and the end. Which is written in our hearts and minds. As I consider this, it makes sense.
Ecclesiastes 3:11
Then stop using layman's language to describe how science works. If you wish we can discuss the 'work in progress' concerning abiogenesis one of my specialties instead of shooting shotguns in the dark.
You misused the term 'hypothesis' without clarification, and it does not apply to the subjective claims of religious beliefs nor personal justification of belief..
Again unfortunate layman's language. Science does not necessarily "know" anything. Science is always a work in progress falsifying theories and hypothesis.
The above 'arguing from ignorance' is not a construction way to have a dialogue concerning science.
My use of hypothesis is correct here, and continued self imposed ignorance as to how science works is glaringly apparent.
Try getting an understanding of Methodological Naturalism, and the falsification of theories and hypothesis, and then come back and we may be able to have an intelligent conversation. Again, again and again no human will ever know absolutes neither in science nor theology.
I would also add that the neutron (in the nucleus) is not charged.
So, one of the things about the nucleus is that there are those protons there and they repel each other because they have the same charge (like charges repel). The negatively charged electrons are held in place by the positively charged protons in the nucleus, but the protons are packed much closer together.
Fortunately, there is another force involved, which is known as the strong force. It acts between the different protons and neutrons in the nucleus, helping to hold it together. Whether the nucleus is stable or not depends on the balance between the repulsion of the positive charges and the attraction from the strong force. In a sense, the neutrons are a glue that holds the protons together (not strictly accurate, but it gives the idea).
Yes, this is involved in nuclear bombs because reactions like fission release a LOT of energy. Fusion (where small nuclei merge together) can also release a LOT of energy--in fact, this is what powers the sun.
So, to summarize: atoms have a nucleus at the core composed of positively charged protons and uncharged neutrons. This nucleus is surrounded by an electron 'cloud'. The number of electrons in the cloud is the same as the number of protons in the nucleus (for a neutral atom) and this is what determines the chemical properties of an element.
So, hydrogen always has 1 proton in its nucleus, Helium has 2, Lithium has 3, all the way up to Uranium which has 92 and up further to the elements made by humans (Americium is in smoke detectors and has 95 protons in its nucleus). The most important for us will be carbon, which has 6, nitrogen, which has 7, potassium, which has 19, argon, which has 18, and a few others. The periodic table has a list of all of the elements together with their 'atomic number', which is just the number of protons in the nucleus.
Periodic table - Wikipedia
Next, the number of neutrons in the nucleus can vary, even for the same element. So, carbon atoms usually have 6 neutrons in their nucleus, but they can have 7 or 8. Uranium usually has 146 neutrons in the nucleus, but can have 143 or 141.
Atoms of the same element (same number of protons) but with different numbers of neutrons are called isotopes of each other.
Most of the 'weight' of an atom is in the nucleus (electrons have very little mass), and is related to the total number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. So a carbon atom (6 protons) that has 7 neutrons has a total of 13 particles in the nucleus and is called Carbon-13, or C-13.
This is important becomes some isotopes will be stable and others will be radioactive. So, C-12 and C-13 are stable (no radioactivity), while C-14 is unstable and is radioactive.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Radiometric dating processes have nothing to do with my question.
So you think that a Creator who supposedly created all the different "kinds" on earth, all separately over time, only to have 99.9% of them die off is an intelligent Creator? That doesn't make much sense. What does makes sense is that this is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution were a fact of reality.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Sorry, what? He created each and every different kind to "allow things to happen" so that 99.9% couldn't make it on earth and went extinct?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You are misportraying what I posted, so my part of this discussion has just come to an end. If you want to go ahead with more of your game of Twist, you'll just have to play the troll on others who may be more tolerant than I.
The second post above of yours is intellectually dishonest, and I have no tolerance for such disinguousness as I explained how I was using the term "hypothesis" outside scientific parameters. With the 3rd post of yours, you took out of an obvious context that I had already explained by twisting the word "know" to suit your own fancy and twisting it, which begs the question why would you stoop to such a low?
IOW, this is on you. I'm done.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Science is a proven liar.
It says no beginning no end itself as creation formed naturally hence he cannot discuss creation.
He discusses changing creation removal of evolution into transformation and destruction.
Ion.
Says I know I destroy.
We know we ended as humans after a life experience the body dies
Science tried to convince humans we never ended.
Claiming creation never ended.
Yet formed and present such as stone is an end formed itself removal.of its form destruction.
Still some cooling bodies yet in space not their ended highest form..science said end was stone.
A sun he says one day will end by destruction of it's form. It will die he says no longer alight.
What lying means.
In theism so I can bring a dead sun back from its death?
As earths atmosphere lost its light.
The possession of human theisms.
The sun never died...get the message brother theist ..so it never returned from the dead
As science is science discussed first only as science for machines owning no status whatsoever in our life.
As sciences designer was a human. How humans pretended they were a creator.
Therefore science said humans cannot evolve past being human.
Liars however said but humans can evolve past a human mutation.
A very different idea.
As stone being changed only gains destruction it never healed.
Thesis however said stone was once a pre existing energy that ended in evolution cooling as stone.
Science hence said a sun dies and becomes a dead stone body.
Earth he said lived because of its hell.
God preowned an evil burning form.
Which should conclude why science said no man is God so science possessed by theorising wouldn't burn us to death like it had before.
It says no beginning no end itself as creation formed naturally hence he cannot discuss creation.
He discusses changing creation removal of evolution into transformation and destruction.
Ion.
Says I know I destroy.
We know we ended as humans after a life experience the body dies
Science tried to convince humans we never ended.
Claiming creation never ended.
Yet formed and present such as stone is an end formed itself removal.of its form destruction.
Still some cooling bodies yet in space not their ended highest form..science said end was stone.
A sun he says one day will end by destruction of it's form. It will die he says no longer alight.
What lying means.
In theism so I can bring a dead sun back from its death?
As earths atmosphere lost its light.
The possession of human theisms.
The sun never died...get the message brother theist ..so it never returned from the dead
As science is science discussed first only as science for machines owning no status whatsoever in our life.
As sciences designer was a human. How humans pretended they were a creator.
Therefore science said humans cannot evolve past being human.
Liars however said but humans can evolve past a human mutation.
A very different idea.
As stone being changed only gains destruction it never healed.
Thesis however said stone was once a pre existing energy that ended in evolution cooling as stone.
Science hence said a sun dies and becomes a dead stone body.
Earth he said lived because of its hell.
God preowned an evil burning form.
Which should conclude why science said no man is God so science possessed by theorising wouldn't burn us to death like it had before.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Reason two not one is holy.
Earths body converted by sun. Earths heavens converted by sun.
Two holy separate bodies. Two.
Humans are a human conditioned explained one. Yet two holy humans own life.
Two the holy number present both important but varied.
The teaching one was man's egotism as self scientist separated thinking.
Became life's destroyer our human teaching.
Two bodies created a third.body a human baby.
Two creation bodies owned selves as two birthed forms. God never owned life continuance of a God
Humans said holy life was a human baby as three.
Why two and three stated holy life.
An updated teaching against science lying about one.
Earths body converted by sun. Earths heavens converted by sun.
Two holy separate bodies. Two.
Humans are a human conditioned explained one. Yet two holy humans own life.
Two the holy number present both important but varied.
The teaching one was man's egotism as self scientist separated thinking.
Became life's destroyer our human teaching.
Two bodies created a third.body a human baby.
Two creation bodies owned selves as two birthed forms. God never owned life continuance of a God
Humans said holy life was a human baby as three.
Why two and three stated holy life.
An updated teaching against science lying about one.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, he didn't misuse the word hypothesis. Some have their own definitions of the word, as if it's a law. Now I know you aren't stupid as some consider it, so now it's back to you, Shunya.
Chromium microphone reptile baby.
Two lives are just a game.
A smattering of concupiscent acrimony
Dancing in the rain.
Rain, rain, go away.
Science raw in tooth and claw.
Are lies to make you sway.
Human machine seesaw.
Here she comes now sayin'
Acrimony Mony.
Religion is a pony.
"You can't handle the truth."
"No, I am your father."
"He's dead Jim."
"What the Klingon has said is unimportant, and we do not hear his words."
"Any of you boys happen to be a smithy or otherwise versed in the metallurgical arts?"
"What we've got here is failure to communicate."
"Hi Ho Silver"
Did you know that if you covered him in garbage, George Sanders would still have style.
Two lives are just a game.
A smattering of concupiscent acrimony
Dancing in the rain.
Rain, rain, go away.
Science raw in tooth and claw.
Are lies to make you sway.
Human machine seesaw.
Here she comes now sayin'
Acrimony Mony.
Religion is a pony.
"You can't handle the truth."
"No, I am your father."
"He's dead Jim."
"What the Klingon has said is unimportant, and we do not hear his words."
"Any of you boys happen to be a smithy or otherwise versed in the metallurgical arts?"
"What we've got here is failure to communicate."
"Hi Ho Silver"
Did you know that if you covered him in garbage, George Sanders would still have style.
Unless we can agree on the definitions, then there is not much point of discussion. If I decide that hypothesis means mushroom it isn't really going to advance my position in the discussion when everyone else is talking about the scientific definition.
Of course, that there is some ambiguity in the definition of a word does not mean that the points of this discussion can be dismissed with a hand wave either.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
oh boy oh boy. Now I'm reading about quarks oh boy. Lol...ànyway, I'll try to go over and continue. Oh yes, and even more powerful, the 4 forces. Oh boy oh boy... gettin' there...ok look, I hope to meet Edison and Bohr in the future. However, let's go on.