The circular reasoning of Evolution and billions of years believers.

[Astrophile]

Your no answer is proof of your circular reasoning and that evolution and billions of years are false. The Big Bang is being discarded by your own experts. You need to be reprogrammed.

James Webb Space Telescope keeps finding galaxies that shouldn’t exist

Six of the earliest and most massive galaxies that Nasa’s breakthrough telescope has seen so far appear to be bigger and more mature than they should be

www.independent.co.uk

The new observations by the James Webb Space Telescope do not cast doubt on the fact that the universe began in a state of ultra-high density and temperature about 13.8 billion years ago. What they do show is that there is something wrong with scientific theories about the formation of galaxies, and particularly of disc galaxies. This has been known since the beginning of the present century; computer simulations of galaxy formation yield objects that do not much resemble real galaxies.

Realistic computer simulations of the formation of galaxies are very difficult; so far as I understand it, present-day simulations rely on tweaking the values of various parameters, and are not able to represent the physics of the problem accurately. However, this does not mean that the problem can never be solved, still less that we must fall back on the idea of a supernatural creator.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The new observations by the James Webb Space Telescope do not cast doubt on the fact that the universe began in a state of ultra-high density and temperature about 13.8 billion years ago. What they do show is that there is something wrong with scientific theories about the formation of galaxies, and particularly of disc galaxies. This has been known since the beginning of the present century; computer simulations of galaxy formation yield objects that do not much resemble real galaxies.

Realistic computer simulations of the formation of galaxies are very difficult; so far as I understand it, present-day simulations rely on tweaking the values of various parameters, and are not able to represent the physics of the problem accurately. However, this does not mean that the problem can never be solved, still less that we must fall back on the idea of a supernatural creator.

If the evidence does not fit and the predictions failed, put it in the falsified category for now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the evidence does not fit and the predictions failed, put it in the falsified category for now.

That would be the theory of galaxy formation. Not the Big Bang. You keep forgetting what the topic is. And of course, billions of years are not affected by this either. That is still a fact.

 

[F1fan]

If the evidence does not fit and the predictions failed, put it in the falsified category for now.

1. This is how science self-corrects, as it gathers more data (photos) it adjusts to more accurate explanations and models. 2. That some elelments of an observed phenomenon is not fully understaood does not mean the broader explanations are incorrect. For example we don't fully understand how gravity works, but it is a real thing and it has serious affects on matter. It doesn't stop NASA from being able to calculate how to land a rover on Mars, and collect samples. What have creationists contributed to this work? Nothing. 3. Creationists, like yourself, have no evidence or hypothesis that offers a better explanation than science, so you continue to contribute nothing to the dicussion. As I have noted on another thread your posts are getting smaller and smaller as you are confronted with real science and real answers, and can't rebut any of it with your religious beliefs.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

1. This is how science self-corrects, as it gathers more data (photos) it adjusts to more accurate explanations and models. 2. That some elelments of an observed phenomenon is not fully understaood does not mean the broader explanations are incorrect. For example we don't fully understand how gravity works, but it is a real thing and it has serious affects on matter. It doesn't stop NASA from being able to calculate how to land a rover on Mars, and collect samples. What have creationists contributed to this work? Nothing. 3. Creationists, like yourself, have no evidence or hypothesis that offers a better explanation than science, so you continue to contribute nothing to the dicussion. As I have noted on another thread your posts are getting smaller and smaller as you are confronted with real science and real answers, and can't rebut any of it with your religious beliefs.

The Bible predicted this false science and thus proves the Bible is true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible predicted this false science and thus proves the Bible is true.

Where? What is false science? Show me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible predicted this false science and thus proves the Bible is true.

That is odd. I can show you failed prophecies. I do not know of any confirmed ones.

 

[F1fan]

The Bible predicted this false science and thus proves the Bible is true.

If this is true why didn't you post the text? You need to do better than this.

It's as if you are trying to fool us, but you should know by now that we aren't fools, nor easily deceived. So are you just trying to fool yourself?

I notice you haven't mentioned Satan being the deceiver in recent days, is that because you may be suspicious that you have been deceived in your religious beliefs given the massive response you have gotten from well educated members?

Is it possible you have been deceived by creationists spreading false claims about interpreting the Bible, and rejecting science? Is it possible? Do you have any second thoughts about your beliefs?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If this is true why didn't you post the text? You need to do better than this.

It's as if you are trying to fool us, but you should know by now that we aren't fools, nor easily deceived. So are you just trying to fool yourself?

I notice you haven't mentioned Satan being the deceiver in recent days, is that because you may be suspicious that you have been deceived in your religious beliefs given the massive response you have gotten from well educated members?

Is it possible you have been deceived by creationists spreading false claims about interpreting the Bible, and rejecting science? Is it possible? Do you have any second thoughts about your beliefs?

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. - 1 Tim 6:20-21

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. - 2 Tim 3:7

 

[Subduction Zone]

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. - 1 Tim 6:20-21

That is a mistranslation since "science" as we use the term today did not exist then. It would be better to say "knowledge". But the verse is a worthless accusation since it does not even tell you what that knowledge is.

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. - 2 Tim 3:7

Ah, yes, that would be theists for sure. Well, except for the "learning" part.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That is a mistranslation since "science" as we use the term today did not exist then. It would be better to say "knowledge". But the verse is a worthless accusation since it does not even tell you what that knowledge is.

Ah, yes, that would be theists for sure. Well, except for the "learning" part.

It is right from the King James Bible, the word of God in English.
the word science is from Old French and Latin.

 

[McBell]

It is right from the King James Bible, the word of God in English.
the word science is from Old French and Latin.

Which of the hundreds of KJV is the one true Word of God?
I remember that you do not know which version you even use.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is right from the King James Bible, the word of God in English.
the word science is from Old French and Latin.

Yes, and the interpretation is wrong because the meaning of words change over the years. Today's English is not that of King James.

 

[McBell]

It is right from the King James Bible, the word of God in English.
the word science is from Old French and Latin.

science (n.)​

mid-14c., "state or fact of knowing; what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know."​

​

The original notion in the Latin verb probably is "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," or else "to incise." This is related to scindere "to cut, divide" (from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split;" source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").​

​

OED writes that the oldest English sense of the word now is restricted to theology and philosophy. From late 14c. in English as "book-learning," also "a particular branch of knowledge or of learning, systematized knowledge regarding a particular group of objects;" also "skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness." From c. 1400 as "experiential knowledge;" also "a skill resulting from training, handicraft; a trade."​

​

From late 14c. in the more specific sense of "collective human knowledge," especially that gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning. The modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation" is attested by 1725; in 17c.-18c. this commonly was philosophy.​

​

The sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1670s. The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Greek epistemē) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhnē), but science sometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill.​

​

science | Etymology, origin and meaning of science by etymonline

SCIENCE Meaning: "state or fact of knowing; what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also… See origin and meaning of science.

www.etymonline.com

​

Seems the word was not used back then the way you seem to think it meant....

 

[SavedByTheLord]

science (n.)​

mid-14c., "state or fact of knowing; what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know."​

​

The original notion in the Latin verb probably is "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," or else "to incise." This is related to scindere "to cut, divide" (from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split;" source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").​

​

OED writes that the oldest English sense of the word now is restricted to theology and philosophy. From late 14c. in English as "book-learning," also "a particular branch of knowledge or of learning, systematized knowledge regarding a particular group of objects;" also "skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness." From c. 1400 as "experiential knowledge;" also "a skill resulting from training, handicraft; a trade."​

​

From late 14c. in the more specific sense of "collective human knowledge," especially that gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning. The modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation" is attested by 1725; in 17c.-18c. this commonly was philosophy.​

​

The sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1670s. The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Greek epistemē) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhnē), but science sometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill.​

​

science | Etymology, origin and meaning of science by etymonline

SCIENCE Meaning: "state or fact of knowing; what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also… See origin and meaning of science.

www.etymonline.com

​

Seems the word was not used back then the way you seem to think it meant....

science (n.)​

mid-14c., "state or fact of knowing; what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know."​

​

The original notion in the Latin verb probably is "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," or else "to incise." This is related to scindere "to cut, divide" (from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split;" source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").​

​

OED writes that the oldest English sense of the word now is restricted to theology and philosophy. From late 14c. in English as "book-learning," also "a particular branch of knowledge or of learning, systematized knowledge regarding a particular group of objects;" also "skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness." From c. 1400 as "experiential knowledge;" also "a skill resulting from training, handicraft; a trade."​

​

From late 14c. in the more specific sense of "collective human knowledge," especially that gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning. The modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation" is attested by 1725; in 17c.-18c. this commonly was philosophy.​

​

The sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1670s. The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Greek epistemē) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhnē), but science sometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill.​

​

science | Etymology, origin and meaning of science by etymonline

SCIENCE Meaning: "state or fact of knowing; what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also… See origin and meaning of science.

www.etymonline.com

​

Seems the word was not used back then the way you seem to think it meant....

What is the etymological meaning of science?

knowledge

It originally came from the Latin word scientia which meant knowledge, a knowing, expertness, or experience

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the etymological meaning of science?

knowledge

It originally came from the Latin word scientia which meant knowledge, a knowing, expertness, or experience

It is not just "knowledge". That is a falsehood. It is knowledge obtained by using the scientific method. Once again, the definition of words change over times. The etymological base for science may be knowledge, that does not mean that it still has the same meaning.

 

[Yazata]

The circular reasoning of Evolution and billions of years believers.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

"Evolution" just means change over time. It's hard to argue against that. Most of the objections seem to be to the idea of explaining observed features of reality by long-term changes occurring, rather than by intentional creation events, and (especially) by the assumption that those were all natural changes.

I think that there are multiple lines of evidence for both the age of the earth (from radiographic dating to plate tectonics) and for biological evolution (biogeography, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, comparative genomics).

Certainly all of those lines of evidence seem to assume the naturalism that I mentioned above. They don't exactly refute special creation, but they do suggest that any special creation that occurred must have occurred in such a way as to be consistent with naturalistic long-time-scale explanations as well.

As Bertrand Russell (I think it was) once wrote, the universe might have come into being just a second ago, complete with "evidence" of a past that never happened.

Furthermore, they have no real rational answer to the origin of anything.

Yes, nobody knows the ultimate answers about why reality exists in the first place or why it displays the deeper order (mathematics, logical structure, "laws of physics") that it seems to have.

Some will even try to belittle you as ignorant, not scientific, a grade school education, evil, even accuse you as a hater. I had one say that 2-1 does not equal 1 but infinity. Some will even claim that you never answer their questions, are lying, and are falsely accusing them. Of course, it is always a joy to suffer for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes, some atheists can certainly behave like hostile jerks. That's one (of several) reasons why I consider myself an agnostic not an atheist, and I hope that I don't come across like that.

It's ironic that the people who talk loudest about "celebrating diversity" often aren't including intellectual diversity in the diversity that they celebrate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Evolution" just means change over time. It's hard to argue against that. Most of the objections seem to be to the idea of explaining observed features of reality by long-term changes occurring, rather than by intentional creation events, and (especially) by the assumption that those were all natural changes.

I think that there are multiple lines of evidence for both the age of the earth (from radiographic dating to plate tectonics) and for biological evolution (biogeography, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, comparative genomics).

Certainly all of those lines of evidence seem to assume the naturalism that I mentioned above. They don't exactly refute special creation, but they do suggest that any special creation that occurred must have occurred in such a way as to be consistent with naturalistic long-time-scale explanations as well.

As Bertrand Russell (I think it was) once wrote, the universe might have come into being just a second ago, complete with "evidence" of a past that never happened.



Yes, nobody knows the ultimate answers about why reality exists in the first place or why it displays the deeper order (mathematics, logical structure, "laws of physics") that it seems to have.



Yes, some atheists can certainly behave like hostile jerks. That's one (of several) reasons why I consider myself an agnostic not an atheist, and I hope that I don't come across like that.

It's ironic that the people who talk loudest about "celebrating diversity" often aren't including intellectual diversity in the diversity that they celebrate.

Yes, the universe could have come into existence just a second ago. But that also assumes a lying God. Planting false evidence is a form of lying. That is why one of the first questions that I often ask is whether or not a person's God can lie or not.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Evolution" just means change over time. It's hard to argue against that. Most of the objections seem to be to the idea of explaining observed features of reality by long-term changes occurring, rather than by intentional creation events, and (especially) by the assumption that those were all natural changes.

I think that there are multiple lines of evidence for both the age of the earth (from radiographic dating to plate tectonics) and for biological evolution (biogeography, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, comparative genomics).

Certainly all of those lines of evidence seem to assume the naturalism that I mentioned above. They don't exactly refute special creation, but they do suggest that any special creation that occurred must have occurred in such a way as to be consistent with naturalistic long-time-scale explanations as well.

As Bertrand Russell (I think it was) once wrote, the universe might have come into being just a second ago, complete with "evidence" of a past that never happened.



Yes, nobody knows the ultimate answers about why reality exists in the first place or why it displays the deeper order (mathematics, logical structure, "laws of physics") that it seems to have.



Yes, some atheists can certainly behave like hostile jerks. That's one (of several) reasons why I consider myself an agnostic not an atheist, and I hope that I don't come across like that.

It's ironic that the people who talk loudest about "celebrating diversity" often aren't including intellectual diversity in the diversity that they celebrate.

Evolution in the Darwinian sense is not merely "change over time." It's much more than that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution in the Darwinian sense is not merely "change over time." It's much more than that.

Yes, it is speciation as well.

But there is no "Change of kind". Do you realize that?