walt
Jesus is King & Mighty God Isa.9:6-7; Lk.1:32-33
I am not saying what is right or wrong, it's all just information wherever it comes from.
You feel some information is more reliable than other information, don't you?
-
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!
On Evolution & Creation
- Thread starter READY S W
- Start date
You feel some information is more reliable than other information, don't you?
walt
Jesus is King & Mighty God Isa.9:6-7; Lk.1:32-33
Would it be okay to ask you a question, when I get one?
Is it a question related to science? That is what I'm really interested in discussing. I believe it is my path to help others understand.
I would be happy to answer those.
I do feel that some information is more reliable than others. I have not been given reason to doubt what experts in the field of biology have to say about what we have already learned or where we might be better served as a people and scientists to look.
I am less confident in personal views and interpretations of scripture or other religious writings that seem more geared to uphold a group ideology rather than the theology.
If man keeps adding hoops that others must jump through to "prove" their faith, while the Bible only has one, then what am I to think?
icant
Member
Sorry, I have you on ignore now, so as not to waste my time having things waved away. If you don't know the evidence, then why are you even here to tell everyone they are wrong?
Enjoy.
Audie
Veteran Member
Terrif. Now, stay gone until you can report that they have turned up
at least ONE SINGLE FLIPPIN FACT contrary to ToE!!
Anything short of that is just publicity- seeking
blather (worked on you, worked for Bebe, didn’t it?)
Last edited:
What is biological evolution?
The simplest definition is the change in gene frequency of a population over time. A more telling definition defines it as change in genetic and phenotypic variation of a population over time in response to the environment through successive generations where the environment can potentially protect the development of new and distinct populations.
The environment is the sum total of the biotic and abiotic factors, both internally and externally, that living things interact with during the course of their existence. Living things are components of the environment and not distinct from it. Your internal organs and systems are part of your environment.
There is no mandate that a species must disappear, because another species evolved from it. The ancestral species could go extinct. It could continue on. The daughter species could go extinct while the ancestral one thrives. It is a matter of the environment acting on the living populations that drive the outcomes.
Evolution does not go from a problem to a solution in a single step. Just as humans did not go from walking to airplanes in a single step.
The theory of evolution is the best explanation that has been derived from all the available evidence and observation with logic, reasoning, debate and discussion that has been applied over the last 200 years. To date, the theory is perhaps the best supported theory in all of science. From it questions are answered, valid predictions have been made, hypotheses formulated and tested and new areas of study have been opened up.
To challenge the theory requires evidence and logical reasoning to convince others that the challenge is valid and requires synthesis into science. Challenges and controversies in science do not indicate the theory is collapsed and any default and unsupported believed view is suddenly elevated to the level of explanation. This default paradigm is the operating modus of many deniers, but it has no validity. Attacking science instead of demonstrating an alternative claim is a common approach, but also a bad approach with no real chance of finding ground to grow in.
For those that want to challenge the theory, you need to know and understand what has been discovered and hypothesized. What you believe isn't a viable challenge, since anyone can believe anything without evidence. You need to know the sciences of biology and all the related, supporting sciences and understand what has been learned so far. Logical fallacies and continually asking the same questions over and over, while always ignoring the answers tells us something about a person, but nothing about the theory or the evidence. Claiming to find it all too incredible to have happened tells about the ignorance of a person and does nothing to the theory or the phenomenon. Handwaving away the evidence and just repeating your dominance for having chosen an ideology or theistic interpretation is not evidence against the theory.
The theory does not make claims or predictions against gods or God. For instance, a Christian can accept science and believe in God without worry that science is telling them that God is not real. It doesn't do that.
If you want to challenge the theory, then understand it, understand the science, understand the evidence and apply some logical reasoning. Otherwise, what everyone sees is a person with a personal opinion that no amount of reason or evidence will persuade and for which no reason exists to continue to engage them in that circle.
The simplest definition is the change in gene frequency of a population over time. A more telling definition defines it as change in genetic and phenotypic variation of a population over time in response to the environment through successive generations where the environment can potentially protect the development of new and distinct populations.
The environment is the sum total of the biotic and abiotic factors, both internally and externally, that living things interact with during the course of their existence. Living things are components of the environment and not distinct from it. Your internal organs and systems are part of your environment.
There is no mandate that a species must disappear, because another species evolved from it. The ancestral species could go extinct. It could continue on. The daughter species could go extinct while the ancestral one thrives. It is a matter of the environment acting on the living populations that drive the outcomes.
Evolution does not go from a problem to a solution in a single step. Just as humans did not go from walking to airplanes in a single step.
The theory of evolution is the best explanation that has been derived from all the available evidence and observation with logic, reasoning, debate and discussion that has been applied over the last 200 years. To date, the theory is perhaps the best supported theory in all of science. From it questions are answered, valid predictions have been made, hypotheses formulated and tested and new areas of study have been opened up.
To challenge the theory requires evidence and logical reasoning to convince others that the challenge is valid and requires synthesis into science. Challenges and controversies in science do not indicate the theory is collapsed and any default and unsupported believed view is suddenly elevated to the level of explanation. This default paradigm is the operating modus of many deniers, but it has no validity. Attacking science instead of demonstrating an alternative claim is a common approach, but also a bad approach with no real chance of finding ground to grow in.
For those that want to challenge the theory, you need to know and understand what has been discovered and hypothesized. What you believe isn't a viable challenge, since anyone can believe anything without evidence. You need to know the sciences of biology and all the related, supporting sciences and understand what has been learned so far. Logical fallacies and continually asking the same questions over and over, while always ignoring the answers tells us something about a person, but nothing about the theory or the evidence. Claiming to find it all too incredible to have happened tells about the ignorance of a person and does nothing to the theory or the phenomenon. Handwaving away the evidence and just repeating your dominance for having chosen an ideology or theistic interpretation is not evidence against the theory.
The theory does not make claims or predictions against gods or God. For instance, a Christian can accept science and believe in God without worry that science is telling them that God is not real. It doesn't do that.
If you want to challenge the theory, then understand it, understand the science, understand the evidence and apply some logical reasoning. Otherwise, what everyone sees is a person with a personal opinion that no amount of reason or evidence will persuade and for which no reason exists to continue to engage them in that circle.
Tornadoes do not create airplanes. It does not matter how many salvage yards they may pass through. And the theory of evolution does not claim that new species are created fully formed from random changes in variation. The tornado model is a fallacious comparison attempting to refute what is not being claimed. Of course the odds of wings evolving in birds in a single go are astronomical. But the odds that small changes could occur stepwise in a path that might lead to birds is not at all astronomical and an evolution supported by the evidence. Selection of the environment works with what it has. It does not result in fully formed and fully functional structures from practically nothing.
This made no sense to me when reading it on the tablet. I was convinced the first sentence said "Tomatoes do no create airplanes".
It's time to start wearing my glasses.
Dimi95
Прaвославие!
Oh , i am sorry , i taught that we can skip the things that should be known to everybody.
And it seems that you were corrected , so...
On a much simple basis
First is theory then comes experiment/experimentation.
You are Shifting the burden of proof here.
Dimi95
Прaвославие!
That's not an assumption , that's well recognized theory based on eytraordinary evidence and extraordinary facts.
It has even more evidence then the Spherical Earth and you just can't understand that.
Early Life on Earth – Animal Origins
Learn what fossil evidence reveals about the origins of the first life on Earth, from bacteria to animals, including the phyla we know today.
Here is also one video , if you want to hear it.
What about it?
Can't you just translate it for yourself?
Or is it important to you , that i say it?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He may have been wrong with the demand for modern deep water. What would be needed is some sort of volcanic activity underwater and that was occurring back then. In fact it would have been at a much higher rate than today. As to Pangaea it was made up when the existing continents all combined (not all at once) it was formed about 335 million years ago:
Pangaea - Wikipedia
It is estimated that there have been seven super continents. Their formation and break up is recorded in magnetic records left in igneous rocks when they cooled:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
From the exploding star that formed the Earth. Do you know what happens inside of a star as it ages?
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
An interesting article about differences in opinion and realizations regarding a "fine-tuned universe" is outlined in the following article: Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?
Quite interesting.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
It is much easier to adjust the font size than getting yet another pair of glasses for that device. So you have to do a little more scrolling, or maybe invent quadfocals.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the link, the next article is my pet theory, the universe is just an experiment by a bunch of snarky students in God universe creation lab.
Could our Universe be Someone’s Chemistry Project?
It is a pivotal time for astrophysicists, cosmologists, and philosophers alike. In the coming years, next-generation space and ground-based telescopes will come online that will use cutting-edge technology and machine learning to probe the deepest depths of the cosmos. What they find there, with any luck, will allow scientists to address some of the most enduring questions about the origins of life and the Universe itself.Alas, one question that we may never be able to answer is the most pressing of all: if the Universe was conceived in a Big Bang, what was here before that? According to a new op-ed by Prof. Abraham Loeb (which recently appeared in Scientific American), the answer may be stranger than even the most “exotic” explanations. As he argued, the cosmos as we know it may be a “baby Universe” that was created by an advanced technological civilization in a lab!
As the former chair (2011-2020) of the astronomy department at Harvard University, the founding director of Harvard’s Black Hole Initiative (BHI), the director of the Institute for Theory and Computation (ITC) at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), and one of the chief researchers with the Galileo Project, Loeb is no stranger to “exotic” theories about advanced intelligence and cosmic origins.
After all it does explain all the quirkiness and pointlessness. It is even a great intelligent design argument if you consider adolescent boys intelligent.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Interesting question, Walt. I notice something very interesting about evidence and scientific research:
"Late last month, a US physicist began a jail sentence for scientific fraud. Darin Kinion took funds for research on quantum computing but did not carry out the work he claimed; instead, he invented the data that the research supposedly produced." Science, lies and video-taped experiments - Nature
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes, there's more. One link I posted is referring to a scientist now in jail for fraud. But there's more. Another is about Annarosa Leri and Piero Anverse, collaborators and former researchers at Harvard University, found in a 2014 investigation to have "manipulated and falsified" data in their research on endogenous cardiac stem cells, and to have included "false scientific information" in grant applications." (There's more...) So you can't always believe what scientists say.Thanks for the link, the next article is my pet theory, the universe is just an experiment by a bunch of snarky students in God universe creation lab.
Could our Universe be Someone’s Chemistry Project?
It is a pivotal time for astrophysicists, cosmologists, and philosophers alike. In the coming years, next-generation space and ground-based telescopes will come online that will use cutting-edge technology and machine learning to probe the deepest depths of the cosmos. What they find there, with any luck, will allow scientists to address some of the most enduring questions about the origins of life and the Universe itself.
Alas, one question that we may never be able to answer is the most pressing of all: if the Universe was conceived in a Big Bang, what was here before that? According to a new op-ed by Prof. Abraham Loeb (which recently appeared in Scientific American), the answer may be stranger than even the most “exotic” explanations. As he argued, the cosmos as we know it may be a “baby Universe” that was created by an advanced technological civilization in a lab!
As the former chair (2011-2020) of the astronomy department at Harvard University, the founding director of Harvard’s Black Hole Initiative (BHI), the director of the Institute for Theory and Computation (ITC) at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), and one of the chief researchers with the Galileo Project, Loeb is no stranger to “exotic” theories about advanced intelligence and cosmic origins.
After all it does explain all the quirkiness and pointlessness. It is even a great intelligent design argument if you consider adolescent boys intelligent.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Come back to us when you can show us equivalent concern over claims of pieces of the true cross.