Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Is Genesis part of your Bible? If you claim it to be allegory, how do you know the whole "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" is not allegorical?
Did you get hit in the head? Your faith in science forms a layer over the world of religion where it is not even allowed. Your insult actually shows the religiosity of evolution.
Evolution can only be understood by those who accept it. That is the truest sign of religion and you just supported this fact by claiming that I do not understand "the world of science".
The only problem with your claim is that I teach biology daily and am state-certified to do so. So you are wrong, but in being wrong you helped prove my point, so by all means, continue being wrong.
Please! State certification and diploma do not have any meaning in terms of philosophical discussion, so avoid the call to higher autorithies. Thanks.
But I would add that if you refuse the basic arguments of science like speed of light and prefer to think that God somehow mess with our senses to make us believe that the universe is bigger than it actually is, or other things like that, I will not deny your right to do so, but then you breaks the basic assumptions of the science, and this discussion has nothing more to do on this forum.
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
I thought a science degree would at least provide some evidence of science literacy. Interestingly enough, when evolutionists deal with the general public they judge the public on the basis of their lack of science education and as a result the public does not know enough science to understand evolution. You people say, "well just believe us because we are science people".
So now you find yourself in a condundrum. I do have a science education and am certified to teach that which you claim I do not know. So now you simply question my college degree. Would a master's degree or doctorate help? Is their some type of evolution college degree I am missing?
You only hurt your cause by claiming that I do not know science or evolution. This is classic argumentation for religious duals which we currently find ourselves in. Every time an evolutionist on this forum questions my understanding of scientific concepts, I will be forced to remind you people of your mode of religious argumentation because it becomes glimmering everytime you question my knowledge.
I have never argued against the speed of light.
So just how big is the universe? Do you believe in God, and if so if the universe is only as big as science says it is, where does God reside?
Our discussion has everything to do with this forum if this is a true evolution and creation debate. I dont remember talking about anything off topic.
I am just asking you not to pull out diploma. I do not care if you have a Bachelor, a master or a Ph.D in a relevant or not discipline. This does not change anything about the question. If you have a good understanding of the problem show it in your arguments. As for licence to teach they usually mean that you have reached a certain level of education, not always that you have a good understanding what you are talking about (fortunately, it is mostly the case, but not always). So I prefer to judge you on what you say, rather than any diploma that you say you have. I could also pretend that I have a Ph.D in microbiology and worked on bacterial evolution, You could believe me... or not. And it would not be any more relevant.
As for the speed of light, if you deny the fact that when we see something a billion light year away, we see it as it was a billion year ago, I don't really understand you anymore.
I do not believe in god(s), and hence do not need to find a place of residence for him/her/it/them/whatever, so I do not see any problem with the size of the universe.
As for the nature of the discussion. As it has already been said this is a scientific forum, if you doubt science, we are on the edge of what can be accepted on this forum.
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
I'm tired and don't feel like typing a lot, but I'll just say that Canalon is entirely right. If biotchr's degree meant anything he/she wouldn't be making the rediculous claims the he/she has made. You have already admitted that you believe that God lies to us, so you obviously don't believe in the God of the Bible, since the Bible says that God is truthful, not deceitful. I suggest you re-read both your Bible and you science textbooks, before making such "stupidnatural" claims.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.
#2 Total Post Count
If you are not interested in being abreast of my eduation level then why did you and others challenge my level of understanding about science and evolution? If I was Joe Blow you would be preaching to me about not knowing science because I was not educated in such fields. Now that you are informed, that argument simply will not work. I detect a retreat.
This is the retreat. Since when does your analyzation of my ideas serve as a better indication of my level of education and knowledge than my college degrees, state certification, and national board certification?
Just because a galaxy is a billion light years away doesnt mean the light we are seeing came from a billion light years away. There is no way to support this idea other than hearing it as part of your storytelling.
Light can be tested, WHEN light originated cannot be tested nor could it be observed, therefore, no scientific thoughts can rest on your assumptions.
Since science is based on empirical findings I challenge you to show me how light from a galaxy that is so many millions of light years away originated millions of years ago. Remember, I want the hypothesis, predictions, tests done in a controlled, experimental setting with controls and variables, and a conclusion based on your analyzation of data. On the other hand, I do not wish to hear your stories, and then hear you call them "scientific".
Unfortunate and this belief is at the root of your belief in evolution. The only problem is everyone that has knowledge that we have a past, which would be everyone, knows we have come from somewhere, somehow, involving someone or something as responsible.
If you do not believe in God, or gods, then you believe in a substitute which would not be supreme, but, pardon my language, "stupid". Hence, you may not believe in the supernatural, instead, you opt for the stupidnatural being exactly opposite of supreme as unintelligent, unmotivated, and unpurposed - a lazy, blind, dumb mute.
Most evolutionists that I have dealt with call this supernatural substitute an "eternal universe". There is no empirical evidence to suggest that this supernatural substitute exists. There is just as much scientific data on God as there is an eternal universe.
This sounds suspiciously communist. This forum does entertain an evolution and creation debate right? I have yet to challenge science, just your stories.
Your attack does nothing to prove the analagous nature of evolution with religion.
The attacks lodged against me serves to show that the only way to understand evolution and science is to accept evolution. This is not characteristic of scientific theory but a dogmatic religion. And although our dualing religions are the cause for interesting debate it is unfortunate that your religion is taught to unsuspecting children.
What an unethical use of science. Since when does science uncover God and God's works? This is exactly why all the hypotheses you could possibly formulate regarding origins of anything outside recorded, human history fails the scientific method. This means the theory of evolution is excused from the realm of science and welcomed into the realm of religion.
It is unfortunate that you choose not to only ruin science, but also to unravel such a fine religion based on the Bible. The Bible is the way to God, NOT science.
But this is an important juncture because even an atheist categorically falls into the same line of reasoning that you have just used, only involving a different agent. Atheists are loyal to an eternal universe or eternal forces. So at least you have the God part right, but you are using atheist's logic disguised as science in order to study God and ruins bot the science and the religion involved. Your damage is two-fold.
You have already made it very clear which it is you believe illuminates the path to God. I cant believe I am forced to teach your religion to my kids straight-faced. I am so used to it by now I hardly think about it. I guess I am brain-washed to a point.
Please, there are no attacks, unless that is what you are doing.
Frankly, i dont really take what you say seriously, because they are not constructive, and they dont really have a basis. You are just basically telling me that i seem to have no purpose and im lost. Well yipee. You cannot make such judgements. And you also cannot compare an orphaned child for example, not knowing theire parents to the origins of life itself. They are different. Argue that all you like... but i feel it is not very mature. The consequences cannot be the same.
"What an unethical use of science. Since when does science uncover God and God's works? This is exactly why all the hypotheses you could possibly formulate regarding origins of anything outside recorded, human history fails the scientific method. This means the theory of evolution is excused from the realm of science and welcomed into the realm of religion" ...
no one says it does. get ur facts right and stop twisting sentences just to make your point which is what? all im getting is unconstructive judgements that are uncalled for.
atheists logic disguised as science? to study God ????
Get over it !! thats not the point!! thats jsut what you think it is!! Science is not a religion my freind, its a study, more a collection of studies. Theories and principles exist not to proove religion wrong, but to improve our quality of life, whether it is by conserving the biological world as we know it, by helping people get through physical and mental illnesses instead of just dying and suffering in a corner. Did you think of that? or you going to throw back at me your supernatuarl jibberish. Think Logically and dont answer back with a concept that cannot be explained. You are avoiding the real issue by saying ... well my creator snaps his fingers. Think maturely, and think of the benefits studies have brought us.
ANYTHING fanatical is unhealthy, maybe you are referring to that? who knows.
I am not disregarding religion at all, But whatever you believe in is either unethical or its they way you are interpreting it is. The way you are interpreting religion, you are missing the whole point. I pity that.
However unsciency this may seem, i find it a relevant thread, if you cut out the personal attacks without basis of course ....
Have a good day all
Biotchr, some thoughts:
First of all, your tone is VERY confrontational and aggressive. Calm down and communicate rationally and politely. Take a hint from Linn. In a couple of your posts I almost thought that one of your teenage students had gotten onto your account and was pranking you. Chill...
When you talk about "meaning of life based on the past" or make your many "factual" statements you're relying completely on your religion for those truths. There are many other religions in this world, and despite whether or not they understand/accept evolution, they would renounce every single thing you've said. I mean this in the politest possible way; try to understand where your biases are keeping you from seeing clearly.
Your "stupidnatural" "evolution is a religion" hypothesis has already been debated in another thread. If you wish to revive it, post in that thread. I will say this: the people that believe in evolution may have taken it a step beyond science. However, I think most of the people in the EVO forum understand and accept origins evolution as the current, most parsimonious scientific theory based on empirical evidence, rather than accepting it on a basis of faith.
Getting back to the issue that started it all: I don't think anyone has fully described the process of star dating. It can't really be argued without that information at hand. Here's my understanding of the issue; correct me if I'm wrong.
We date stars by a couple of methods:
First we use triangulation via satellites, space stations, and observatories on earth.
Second, we record frequency and amplitude of various rays (gamma, UV, etc) emmitted from these solar bodies. The speed of light (c) and other waves has been [b]proven[b] within our solar system. Scientists do have to operate on the assumption that this holds true outside of our solar system. Using these constants and the Doppler effect, scientists can not only judge how far away celestial bodies are, but also how fast they're moving and in what direction.
So the combined methods of triangulation and wave analysis provide some pretty precise measures of the universe. Forgive a little amateur physics, but I think that they can compare faster gamma rays to later, slower UV rays and align them to matching dates of origin and show strikingly similar amplitude and frequency.
For example, if you have two tubs of liquid, one is a viscous liquid in which waves will travel slowly, while the other is a very light liquid in which waves will travel fast. If you use an implement that will cause equal regular disturbance in both tubs, you will see the waves in the lighter liquid arrive at the other end of the tub first. Now if you change the force of the disturbance, the amplitude of the waves will be very close to equal, but the wavelength will still be different, with the lighter waves arriving at the other end first. Thus, if you're measuring both waves and getting a reading on a chart, on a computer you can shorten the wavelength of the lighter liquid and it will be analogous to the heavier. This is one way that scientists can verify that the speed constants they are using have held true throughout the waves' journeys through space.
Like I said, they are operating on some assumptions, but we really have no other choice. There are other models proposed for the shape and constitution of the universe that fit these figures, based on elliptical, parabolic, etc designs. At this time, though, what we see and understand is "3d" space with x,y,and z. It may be proven in the future that space is infinitely more complex than those simple three dimensions, or not.
As it is right now though, operating on those scientific facts and assumptions, we can conclude that some stars are millions of light-years away. We can further conclude that the light that is reaching earth right now, originated millions of years ago. THAT is scientific and biotchr if you argue that it is not I have nothing further to say to you. They are not stating this as a function of faith or belief, but purely based on mathematical evidence. There is no assumption included in these findings that a creator does or does not exist.
It is possible that through some anomaly of physics or some property of the universe that we don't yet understand, that the light is a mere hundred or thousand lightyears away, or for that matter, a millimeter away. However, to the best of our scientific capability, this is the most reasonable conclusion at this time.
I would just like to say that the above topic has NOTHING to do with the evolution of species, except in the very smallest way regarding the formation of solar systems and the environment of new planets.
I don't think that anyone has stated that we can watch our own history play out on these distant stars. We certainly can't observe evolution of species on distant planets as we don't have the technology to see those planets clearly enough, and chances are that none of the planets within visible range of us have habitable conditions.
We can, however, use our observations of the mathematical relationships between these far-distant celestial bodies to give us a better understanding of how things such as galaxies, solar systems, nebuli, black holes, supernovas, etc are formed, since what we are seeing (by all credible scientific reasoning) is something that actually happened millions or billions of years ago.
Not only that, but we can use those time-space mathematical relationships to form a sort of three dimensional standard curve to predict what the universe is going to do next.
As far as evolution is concerned, I think that's entirely irrelevant to the original topic and thus will not discuss it here.
there it goes on this debate will never end will it and I have to admit that everybody is in the search for God but I will also admit that I lost my fear over darkness and ghosts as soon as I stopped trusting religion.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests