proof against evolution

Originally posted by Horza
From what JPhish said I thought that you were a creationist. There was a little sarcasm in my question of you being a evolutionary biologist.

Heh, I missed the sarcasm. But as I noted, not really on the ball at the moment.

As yet I have not had a debate with a creationist that has actually presented some alternative evidence to the evidence I have presented. They have never presented evidence of creation or I.D. (ok ... besides Kirk and the banana).

Because they haven't got any. It's generally post-hoc titanic-like arrangement of deckchairs. They have barely added anything of worth to the scientific endeavour, more a group of Keystone assassins.

I have only had debates with creationists involve them trying to prove evolution wrong and not trying to prove creation or I.D right.

You appear to have similar experiences to myself. I do like it when they try to explain stuff positively though, usually good for lulz (like the Morris idea on moon craters).

Have you ever had any experiences to the contrary?

The arguments barely ever get beyond 'ooooh, that's just so complex/beautiful, therefore goddidit', 'I want rat to bat!', and 'evolution can't explain x, therefore goddidit'.

But the strange thing is that evolutionary theory isn't really intrinsically detrimental to religious faith, just to one form of fundamentalist dark-age mentality.

Originally posted by Horza
The terms Micro and Macro are actually rarely used by the majority of scientists when describing evolution.

Well, I’m not a scientist. And I highly doubt you are. You thought that gravity was a theory. If you are a scientist, let me know where you work. Cause I’d love to take your job.

The term "micro-evolution" is most commonly used by some creationists and I.D. proponents who use it in a very strategic way to try to disprove evolution and the theory of evolution.

Micro-Evolution is also employed by critical thinkers, like me, who don’t like to dumb things down. No one can disprove evolution. It would have to be proven first.

Wrong. A phenomenon is a fact, something that exists or can be seen, felt, tasted etc.

I’m sorry, but telling someone they are wrong and then supporting their stance is pretty silly. You keep contradicting yourself. You just said that evolution is a scientific theory and a phenomenon.

Evolution = phenomenon?~

A phenomenon = Fact

Fact = Truth

A Truth = not a scientific theory.

Evolution = not a scientific theory?~

Come on . . .

You can not directly observe Macro-Evolution taking place with any of the five senses.

You agree that evolution can happen within your lifetime, so "micro-evolution" is a phenomenon.

Phenomenon is a subjective word when deducing whether or not it is extraordinary. If you’re amazed and consider environmental adaptation extraordinary, then yes, you can say that micro-evolution is a phenomenon. But I don’t see anything extraordinary about it. So yes, you can call micro-evolution a phenomenon if you’d like. It’s not a phenomenon to me.

We also have huge amounts of fossil data, that overwhelmingly and consistently corresponds to the theory of evolution, that shows that evolution happens over geological time frames, so "macro-evolution" is a phenomenon.

I have lots of Kool-aid in my refrigerator which directly corresponds to my pet dragon. Is my pet dragon a phenomenon?

JPish, you are incorrect in your definition of the word phenomenon.

Not at all.

Originally posted by Eyemagistus
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

hundreds of failed experiments by Thomas Edison and his assistants in attempting to make a light bulb, only proved that light bulbs are a myth. Only the last one showed that it might be possible.

Originally posted by Horza
This was posted by Bob Sholz ... please double check your sources and please do not put my name to posts that I did not make.

It was a post made by Eyemagitus, not Bob Sholz. And then I told him he was wrong. But then you passively supported him by disagreeing with my main line of objection. (That macro-evolution is a scientific theory). I said you inadvertently said it. I believed you were, because you were supporting his argument which was advocating it. If you’re saying you don’t support his beliefs. Then it appears I was mistaken.

My sincere apologies, I’ll be sure to quote more carefully.

As far as evolution is concerned, there is no difference. It happens over 30 years, as seen in bacteria, and it happens over 30 millions years as the fossil records show for reptiles and birds.

If you’re talking about Macro-Evolution, nothing has ever done this in all of human history. This includes bacterium. It’s all coherentism in the first place . . .

Is Melatonin an evolutionary biologist?

I don’t believe he is. But he appears to have better understanding of evolutionary biology than you or I.

Originally posted by Horza
No JPhish, you are wrong and yes I do know the definition of "species".

I may be wrong, but if you know what a species is, then why are you claiming that there are different species of single celled organisms that replicate A-Sexually?

Originally posted by Horza
Technically, there are so many different species of bacteria that we cannot determine how many there are with today's technology. One rough estimate is that there are 10 million to 1 billion different species of bacteria. So, what I am talking about is E.coli's inability to use citrate is what is used to distiguish it from other species of bacteria. The fact that E.coli mutated, changing one of it's defining features as a species is why this is such a big deal.

They’re called phylotypes not species. . . . . .







[edit on 7/3/2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

 

Science proves the Bible to me too.

Huh?
Maybe you fundies can help me out here. Every time I try to read that Big Black Book you call the "infallible" owners instruction manual, I keep running into the word "firmament" in that all important Genesis section on creation.
Does that word refer to the vacuum of infinite space, continental drift, or both? Is there a special dictionary you use, or do you just make up your own definitions to make science "prove" it?
If you allow for interpretations of "infallible" words to evolve merely to survive new challenges in the religious environment, that just defeats your own argument against evolution!

reply to post by JPhish


Your arguments are fundamentally flawed due to your misinterpretation and misunderstanding of terms and your deliberate use of terms out of the context they should be applied.

These are the terms we have been using and their correct meaning in the context of this argument:

Scientific theory - A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
science.kennesaw.edu...

The Law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical equation. Gravitational Theory explains how it works.

Phenomenon - A phenomenon (from Greek φαινόμενoν, pl. φαινόμενα - phenomena) is any occurrence that is observable.
dictionary.reference.com...
dictionary.reference.com...
www.merriam-webster.com...

Gravity, the moons orbit, earthquakes, glaciers, snow, rain and evolution are all phenomenon.

The word phenomenon does not necessarily imply an extraordinary, unexplainable or supernatural event.

Phylotypes - Some dictionaries do not have a definition of phylotype but of the ones I did find none seemed to imply the meaning of the word in the context you used it.

1) A proposed stage in embryonic development that characterizes some basic features in the body plan of a phylum
2) The evolutionary history of a microbiological species (mostly determined by 16S rRNA gene sequence comparison). Can be compared with a phenotype, which is a physical manifestation of a genetic trait in an organism.
3)The phylogenetic type of an uncultured organism as inferred from analysis of its ribosomal RNA sequence.

Wiki has this to say about it which seems to contradict you argument:

A phylotype is a term for species that is becoming common among microbiologists that describes genomic uniqueness of the organism described.

So it what context, exactly, are you using the word "phylotype"?

It is true that some scientist argue that bacteria cannot be classified into seperate species, Lynn Margullis for example but this seems to be controversial.

It is generally accepted that bacteria are classified into different species.

So, yes, there are different species of single celled organisms that replicate a-sexually.

Are you saying that there are no different species of bacteria?

Please provide the evidence of this.

reply to post by Eyemagistus

Firmament is a name for the sky or the heavens, generally used in the context of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word used for "firmament" is "raqiya`" (pronounced rä·kē'·ah) meaning an extended solid surface or flat expanse, considered to be a hemisphere above the Earth. en.wikipedia.org...

Which is a good example of science proving the Bible because it describes a hemisphere shape to the sky before humans knew that earth was round.

The original text is infallible. But its not in English and its not contemporary. Do you expect everything to be spoon fed to you? You can't read it like some sort of pop best seller like Richard Dawkins writes. It requires some knowledge of ancient history, critical thinking skills and diligent study to read the Bible. So your ignorance stems from the fact you don't really understand the Bible or why it was written and who it was written too. There have been many errors made by well intentioned people due to the Genesis creation account. Imagine the errors by people with bad intent. For instance the Bible makes no claim on the age of the earth or creation. Young earth creationists in their well intended zeal have painted themselves into a proverbial corner and it was not necessary.

You must also consider it was written in Hebrew to ancient Hebrew people in terms they could relate too. It was not intended to be a science text for malcontent twentieth century skeptics. My understanding of the first books of the Bible is based on the understanding of Hebrew scholar Dr. John Sallihammer. He can "think" in ancient Hebrew which is a lot different than just using a lexicon to look up words.

He contends that the creation of the universe occurs in the first verse. "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth" and it doesn't say how long that took. "in the beginning" comes from one Hebrew word resh-t that always denotes an indefinite period of time not a point in time. There are other words that present translation and understanding difficulties for modern English readers. For instance when you read the word "earth" you probably automatically assume the planet earth - well often it means dirt or soil.

Creation is a fact. Since in the 1960s Edwin Hubble found the red shift in the stars. Now the residue heat radiation of the big bang creation event has also been detected. The finite nature of the universe is a given among all serious scientists. It's only New Age dreaming atheists that deny the reality of creation.


[edit on 7/3/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


You are awfully persickety when it comes to the fuzzy, archaic languages of Biblical apologetics, but every last one of you creationists is incapable of understanding the plain, modern English definitions of the most basic scientific terms every high school graduate should understand, like: theory; evolution; Big Bang; species; entropy; method; fossilization; evidence; proof; and a great many more, which only demonstrates a concerted willful ignorance on your part. I see no signs of any critical thinking skills on mundane topics that don't require rationalizing supernatural mumbo-jumbo.
But, hey, that doesn't stop them, or you, from believing you understand more about science that scientists!
The Bible it totally irrelevant to science. Get over it.

You expect me to think you actually know anything about astrophysics?
The person who first proposed what later became known as the "Big Bang," was Georges Lemaitre. He was a Jesuit priest and had the integrity to give even the pope a hard time for trying to use it to justify the Biblical creation story. But not you. Oh no. You know better!

Edwin Hubble did absolutely nothing in the 1960's. He died in 1953. Hubble's Law concerning red shift distances was formulated in 1929. It was Penzias and Wilson who measured the residual background microwave radiation confirming the Big Bang model in the 1960's and were awarded a Nobel Prize for it in 1978. You don't need an obscure antiquities scholar to know that.
The "Big Bang," is an unfortunate misnomer that happened to stick in the popular media. It does not describe the actual model very well at all.
FYI, the Big Bang is still vulnerable.

The Ekpyrotic model is what is gaining momentum lately.

We have to wait for the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to be installed in the ISS and complete it's survey before we know more.

Stop pretending to understand science unless you are willing to change what you believe, in light of the best available evidence. You can't, so stop pretending.

Tell you what. You quit thinking you can understand science, and I'll quit thinking I can understand the Bible.



[edit on 3-7-2008 by Eyemagistus]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy


Creation is a fact. Since in the 1960s Edwin Hubble found the red shift in the stars. Now the residue heat radiation of the big bang creation event has also been detected. The finite nature of the universe is a given among all serious scientists. It's only New Age dreaming atheists that deny the reality of creation.


[edit on 7/3/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Atheists do not deny that things are created.

Atheists do not believe that a god created things.

They believe that combinations of natural forces in the universe combined to produce all things.

The finite nature of the universe is not a given among serious scientists at all.

There is great debate at the moment about if the big bang and inflation theory is correct and whether or not the universe may be, in fact, infinite.

www.princeton.edu...

space.newscientist.com...

riofriospacetime.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Horza


Atheists do not deny that things are created.

Horza, why you got to be that way? ya think whammy signed up here today his first forum? You think that strawman is gonna get past any of us ? HUH? Whut? Yeah you know damn well what I am talking about, you have done this on just about every post to Jphish and now you seem to hallucinate Whammy saying Atheists deny "things" are created.

READ HIS POST!

WHAT DOES IT SAY! Now Context Horza Context

Atheists do not believe that a god created things.

Uh huh?? Yeah and isn't that what he said?

They believe that combinations of natural forces in the universe combined to produce all things.

Who the hell are you horza? the social conscience of Atheism?

The finite nature of the universe is not a given among serious scientists at all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean horza? You think YOU come off as a serious Scientist? You post like every other knowitall atheist Ive seen on these boards talking in some slippery semantics but your particular brand of circumlocution seems more post modernist.

There is great debate at the moment about if the big bang and inflation theory is correct and whether or not the universe may be, in fact, infinite.

www.princeton.edu...

space.newscientist.com...

riofriospacetime.blogspot.com...

Yeah I have seen a lot of people talking about that latley.

- Con





[edit on 3-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Horza


These are the terms we have been using and their correct meaning in the context of this argument:

Scientific theory - A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
science.kennesaw.edu...

The Law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical equation. Gravitational Theory explains how it works.

Phenomenon - A phenomenon (from Greek φαινόμενoν, pl. φαινόμενα - phenomena) is any occurrence that is observable.
dictionary.reference.com...
dictionary.reference.com...
www.merriam-webster.com...

Gravity, the moons orbit, earthquakes, glaciers, snow, rain and evolution are all phenomenon.

The word phenomenon does not necessarily imply an extraordinary, unexplainable or supernatural event.

Get your Darwininan convoluted Concept Science today! If you order now, get your Macro with your Micro, FREE!!




Archie Duhbunker:How can they afford to do that?

Johnny Atheist:the macro doesn't cost anything cuz it's an imaginary phenomena.

Archie Duhbunker: Whats a phenomenon?

Johnny Atheist: This week? or last?

Archie Duhbunker: wait isn't that dishonest? ya know like aren't you guys just making stuff up as you go? this is a lie?

Johnny Atheist: "We" in Science, are so confident that someday the mega tons of proof we have will show we were right, we decided to delete the word "lie" from all the dictionarys in all public schools and librarys.
Those damn things were getting as problematic as the Bible used to.

So anymore we don't use the word lie,, we like to call it a,,"logical epiphany."


Archie Duhbunker: The Darwininan kind?


Johnny Atheist: Oh, but of course.


Archie Duhbunker: No Thanks


Johnny Atheist: What ya don't believe me? This stuff comes straight from the NAS!


Archie Duhbunker: Neo Atheist Society?.


Johnny Atheist: No! National Academy Science!


Archie Duhbunker: Macro, Micro, National, Neo,, what the hell is the difference, you guys will have a new meaning for it by tommorow anyway.


Johnny Atheist: Well Science is self correcting


Archie Duhbunker:

[edit on 3-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology

READ HIS POST!

WHAT DOES IT SAY! Now Context Horza Context

His post says the atheists deny the reality of creation.

I disagree with him.

I agree with Atheists that Creationists deny the reality of creation.

Semantics yes, out of context? No

Atheists do not believe that a god created things.

Uh huh?? Yeah and isn't that what he said?


If you interpret the phrase "the reality of creation" as meaning that god created the universe then, yes.

So taking that tack, I will have to now agree with whammy and say that, yes, Atheist deny a god created anything.

The finite nature of the universe is not a given among serious scientists at all.

What the hell is that supposed to mean horza? You think YOU come off as a serious Scientist? You post like every other knowitall atheist Ive seen on these boards talking in some slippery semantics but your particular brand of circumlocution seems more post modernist.

Please don't be rude.

How is that comment semantic. It means exactly what it says it means.

The Big Bang theory and the idea of a finite universe is under serious threat of having to be fundamentally re-worked or replaced. Because of this it is no longer a given. It is still the most popular method of describing the beginning of the universe but there is are still things within the theory, like inflation, that sit very uncomfortably with some scientist. As they have tried to explain these inconsistencies, like the constant background temperature of the universe, some have realised that there may be other explanations that are more complete. Some of these alternative theories now have hard science to help support them. These new theories are being taken very seriously by the scientific community.

Did you read the articles I posted?

www.princeton.edu...

space.newscientist.com...

riofriospacetime.blogspot.com...


Yeah I have seen a lot of people talking about that latley.

- Con

Honestly Con ... Do you read scientific publications? If you do, do you read the articles on astrophysics?


[edit on 4/7/08 by Horza]

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Get your Darwininan convoluted Concept Science today! If you order now, get your Macro with your Micro, FREE!!

Archie Duhbunker:How can they afford to do that?

Johnny Atheist:the macro doesn't cost anything cuz it's an imaginary phenomena.

Archie Duhbunker: Whats a phenomenon?

Johnny Atheist: This week? or last?

Archie Duhbunker: wait isn't that dishonest? ya know like aren't you guys just making stuff up as you go? this is a lie?

Johnny Atheist: "We" in Science, are so confident that someday the mega tons of proof we have will show we were right, we decided to delete the word "lie" from all the dictionarys in all public schools and librarys.
Those damn things were getting as problematic as the Bible used to.

So anymore we don't use the word lie,, we like to call it a,,"logical epiphany."


Archie Duhbunker: The Darwininan kind?


Johnny Atheist: Oh, but of course.


Archie Duhbunker: No Thanks


Johnny Atheist: What ya don't believe me? This stuff comes straight from the NAS!


Archie Duhbunker: Neo Atheist Society?.


Johnny Atheist: No! National Academy Science!


Archie Duhbunker: Macro, Micro, National, Neo,, what the hell is the difference, you guys will have a new meaning for it by tommorow anyway.


Johnny Atheist: Well Science is self correcting


Archie Duhbunker:

[edit on 3-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

Does this change the meaning of the word phenomenon or the phrase "scientific theory"

No.

Con,

Are you suggesting that definitions that I provided are incorrect?

If so:

Please provide evidence that the meanings of the word phenomenon and the phrase "scientific theory" that I have provided are incorrect.

reply to post by Horza

FYI. Just thought you should be aware of who you keep trying to have some kind of coherent dialog with:

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Yes you are correct but let me be BLUNT.

I don't believe in BS merely to seek the approval of others, fearing I will be accused of having a closed mind.


You are damn right it's closed

For a good reason too

evolution is a LIE

- Con

This is someone who assumes he owns the ultimate truth and is incapable of learning anything here, or anywhere else. I continue to deny his ignorance, even though he chooses to ignore me.

reply to post by melatonin


Interesting.

It seems that Creationists are good at sticking their fingers in their ear and shouting NAH NAH NAH IT ISNT TRUE IT ISNT TRUE.

I would love to engage in a debate with a creationist that challenged evolution with solid evidence against it.

It would inspire me to dig even deeper and learn more about this wonderful phenomena in order to try and refute what was presented by said creationist.

Semantics, misinterpretation and incorrect context only lead to banging my head against the wall.

Thanks for your info!

reply to post by Eyemagistus


Thanks Eyemagistus,

For a second there I thought I was engaging in actual debate.

Con - are you really presenting this Abbott and Costello routine as a valid rebuttal to my "glossary" post?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Eyemagistus

 

Firmament is a name for the sky or the heavens, generally used in the context of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word used for "firmament" is "raqiya`" (pronounced rä·kē'·ah) meaning an extended solid surface or flat expanse, considered to be a hemisphere above the Earth. en.wikipedia.org...

Which is a good example of science proving the Bible because it describes a hemisphere shape to the sky before humans knew that earth was round.

You must also consider it was written in Hebrew to ancient Hebrew people in terms they could relate too.

So, when did science prove that the sky was shaped like a hemisphere? Pretty sure that is just an optical illusion due to our perspective down here on a round planet. And it definitely doesn't prove that the Bible says the earth was round or that the people back then thought the earth was round. Remember, you have to think like an ancient Hebrew here...

Wiki

The Jewish Encyclopaedia describes the Firmament as follows:
"The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. "

So, just like every civilization, whose ignorance regarding the cosmos was larger than their understanding of it, they made up what they wanted to describe what they saw. Later, after finally figuring out the world was round, Christian decendants travelled halfway around the world and destroyed the civilizations which had the cosmos figured out a long time ago...

Creation is a fact.

Using a double meaning here Whammy? If you mean that the Big Bang happened and the universe was created then yes it is fact. Cosmic Background Radiation does confirm this. If you mean that God made the Big Bang happen and created the universe, then no, that is not fact. We'll need some proof for that.

Originally posted by Horza
reply to post by JPhish

 

Your arguments are fundamentally flawed due to your misinterpretation and misunderstanding of terms and your deliberate use of terms out of the context they should be applied.

You said that gravity was a theory, and that Evolution wasn’t. Repeating what I said as if you knew it all along does not present the illusion that you’re inexorable.

The Law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical equation. Gravitational Theory explains how it works.

I’ve said this at least twice already . . . But since you seem to enjoy hearing and repeating what I say . . .

The terrestrial Laws of gravity can be expressed as mathematical equations; Under established conditions they predict and are congruent with the affect of gravity on matter. Gravitational theories (plural, there are more than one) attempt to describe why gravity behaves the way it does on earth, space, other dimensions, etc.

Phenomenon - A phenomenon (from Greek φαινόμενoν, pl. φαινόμενα - phenomena) is any occurrence that is observable.

I’ve said this already as well . . .

Originally posted by JPhish
A phenomenon = Fact
Macro-evolution is not a phenomenon because it is not observable

Originally posted by Horza
Gravity, the moons orbit, earthquakes, glaciers, snow, rain and evolution are all phenomenon.

Incorrect.

If you wanted to observe gravity, you can drop a ball and see it fall;
if you can walk outside you will see the moon move across the sky;
if you wanted to feel an earthquake you could go to one of the fault lines;
if you wanted to see touch or even taste a glacier you can go to the pole;
if you stand outside long enough you’ll get rained on . . .

You can do anything humanly possible and you will never directly observe macro-evolution with any of the five senses. Therefore, it is not a phenomenon.

The word phenomenon does not necessarily imply an extraordinary, unexplainable or supernatural event.

Yes, I already said this too.

Originally posted by JPhish
Phenomenon is a subjective word when deducing whether or not it is extraordinary.

Originally posted by Horza
Wiki has this to say about it which seems to contradict you argument:

A phylotype is a term for species that is becoming common among microbiologists that describes genomic uniqueness of the organism described.

That is supporting what I’m saying. It’s saying that you don’t refer to single celled organisms as different species. You refer to the as different phylotypes . . . This is something I learned a long time ago . . . My professor was pretty adamant about the fact that you cannot differentiate species of a-sexual organisms and that phyolotype is the correct term to use.

It is generally accepted that bacteria are classified into different species.

It’s Generally Accepted world wide that it makes sense to have a religion. It doesn’t make it right.

So, yes, there are different species of single celled organisms that replicate a-sexually.

Scientists who don’t want to apologize for being wrong later on should call them phylotypes.

Are you saying that there are no different species of bacteria?

I’m saying that it’s the incorrect term to use.

Please provide the evidence of this.

Will your own words be sufficient?

It is true that some scientist argue that bacteria cannot be classified into seperate species, Lynn Margullis for example but this seems to be controversial.

[edit on 7/4/2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by Evil Genius
So, when did science prove that the sky was shaped like a hemisphere? Pretty sure that is just an optical illusion due to our perspective down here on a round planet. And it definitely doesn't prove that the Bible says the earth was round or that the people back then thought the earth was round. Remember, you have to think like an ancient Hebrew here...

Wiki

The Jewish Encyclopaedia describes the Firmament as follows:
"The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. "

So, just like every civilization, whose ignorance regarding the cosmos was larger than their understanding of it, they made up what they wanted to describe what they saw. Later, after finally figuring out the world was round, Christian decendants travelled halfway around the world and destroyed the civilizations which had the cosmos figured out a long time ago...

You only confirmed my points. If you believed the earth was flat as they did back then why would a Bible prophet describe it as a curve? He was describing revelation from God which superseded his personal knowledge.

Using a double meaning here Whammy? If you mean that the Big Bang happened and the universe was created then yes it is fact. Cosmic Background Radiation does confirm this. If you mean that God made the Big Bang happen and created the universe, then no, that is not fact. We'll need some proof for that.

No creation means just that. It was an event. Atheists used to swear by an infinite universe to dispute creation. The Steady State theory. Then creation was proven. ooops! Now the fine tuning of the universe has caused Famous Atheists like Dr Antony Flew to convert. oooops ...

I just produced a video on this for You Tube.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'






[edit on 7/4/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

I am not going to call you names. I am merely going to impart my observation of your behavior as I interpret it.


I will offer you The Terra Papers to consider. Here are my predictions based on my observations of your behavior:

1. You will not read in detail all of the work (and likely not read all the way through);

2. You will declare it science fiction;

3. You will dismiss anything I might say regarding the Papers.

Here's the link to the thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you are brave enough to read them in detail, all the way through, I would love to hear your thoughts.

It's obvious you don't give a rats pahtooti what I think so why do you ask?

oh and by the way, what YOU think of me,,?

It would seem you have a paradigm with no repeatable evidence to back it up. Given that, you seem to behave belligerently, grandiosely, and with a mind that will not open to any other paradigm, perhaps to compensate for your lacks.

It's none of my business

- Con

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

You only confirmed my points. If you believed the earth was flat as they did back then why would a Bible prophet describe it as a curve? He was describing revelation from God which superseded his personal knowledge.

Maybe because he was describing the earth in a manner in which they believed it to be. They thought it was a hill (hills are curved right?) floating on water with a large curved vault overhead holding the stars. That was the way they looked at the world and his description fits that view. It wasn't revelation from God. To say that science proves the Bible because the earth really is round is just ludicrous. If that were true then science equally disproves it because there is no vault in the sky.

The problem I have with your arguments is that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. On one post you'll quote a source saying this...

When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously.

But when faced with evidence contrary to that idea, you change your tune and say this...

My understanding of the first books of the Bible is based on the understanding of Hebrew scholar Dr. John Sallihammer.

He contends that the creation of the universe occurs in the first verse. "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth" and it doesn't say how long that took. "in the beginning" comes from one Hebrew word resh-t that always denotes an indefinite period of time not a point in time.

You can't have it both ways Whammy! It either happened simultaneously or it happened over a period of time. Your flip flopping is you making my point.

You say that science proves the Bible. Personally, I think science has a ways to go before it can either prove or disprove the Bible. First it has to solve the problem of the Singularity at the beginning of the universe. Second, it has to prove how life began from non-life. Two very big questions which we still continue to work on.

These are two questions though, that one day might just be able to be answered. Whereas there are many questions from the Bible that science will not or might not ever be able to explain. Feel free to try and explain these questions scientifically.

1)Where did Adam and Eve come from?
1a) How did Eve come from a rib?

2) How did Cain and Able have children?

3) Where is the evidence all over the planet for a Great Flood?
3a) How could Noah get thousands upon thousands of species on an Ark that small?

4) Where is the archaelogical evidence for the Exodus?

If science can show some of these things to be true, then I'll give the Bible a second chance. Until then, I'll just try to figure things out and decide things for myself. It's a good feeling too, less guilt and more wonder.

If you’re talking about Macro-Evolution, nothing has ever done this in all of human history. ~ JPhish

Actually, recorded human history only dates back a few thousand years - and there were few biologists back then which diligently studied biological processes and changes. So that's not really enough time for the amount of change required for most creationists to accept. However, in the whole of human history we have several examples large scale speciation found in the fossil record. Some of them are still with us today, as is the case with Corn which took 8,000 to 10,000 years of cultivation (which is evolution - the only difference being we supplant artificial selection over natural) to transform it from a patchy wheat grass into what we currently eat. It's still unknown exactly why it was cultivated in the first place since the parent species of teosinte which corn came from was not particularly suitable for eating.


Image comparison between Teosinte and Maize.

Which is a good example of science proving the Bible because it describes a hemisphere shape to the sky before humans knew that earth was round. - BigWhammy

(KJV) Genesis 1:6-7 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

(KJV) Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven…

(NRSV) Genesis 1:8 God called the dome Sky…

(KJV) Genesis 1:17 And God set them (the sun, moon and stars) in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth

Matthew 24:29 and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Revelation 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

The writers of the bible believed the world was a flat circle covered by a dome. This is evident by the wording, especially the reference to a "tent". They also believed that the stars were affixed to this dome and could be shaken lose. They didn't have a concept of outer space, and assumed that above the atmosphere was water.

1st Chronicles 16:30 …the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalms 93:1 ... the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Psalms 96:10 ... the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved....

They believed that the Earth was stationary and could not be moved from it's foundations. This is a direct contrast to what we know about celestial mechanics. The Earth is in an elliptical orbit and not only moves around the sun, but revolves around the galactic core as well as moves in relation to other galaxies. The best known estimates give our average speed at around 2,160,000 km/hr. Yes, you're right now traveling at faster than the speed of sound.

The original text is infallible. ~ BigWhammy

Unfortunately the Bible never had an original text. It was told as oral tradition long before it was ever written down. The oldest known religious texts from the judeo-christian beliefs are the Dead Sea Scrolls which were written a hundred years after Christ. They are, unfortunately, incomplete, degraded, and differ greatly from currently practiced religion.

So you've just proven yourself wrong - as even if the original texts were infallible - they are lost to us, and I'm pretty sure YOU don't follow the religion they outline.