Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[Tidus]

[Replying to post 1 by keithprosser3]

Can any creationist explain to me how we can see starlight from stars billions of light years away? If the universe is only 6,000 years old then logically we should only be able to see stars that are within 6000 light years of Earth. This is because when we look into the night sky, we see not the stars themselves but their light.

Every study scientists have done has shown it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light as it would require an infinite amount of energy, so it is absurd to argue that the light could have traveled faster than the speed of light. Therefore, creationists can only somewhat reasonably argue that all the objects we has observed in Astronomy have to be within 6000 light years.

However, what we see is that most of even observable stars by telescope are farther away than that. If you say the current Astronomical way of measuring distance is wrong and argue that we can not know the distance to ET stars or planets because we have not traveled there ourselves, then how come we have measured the distance between Earth and other planets with near 100% precision and this has been proven by the time it takes space probes to get to these planets? Surely if we can get distances in the solar system right we can't be off by a factor of a million to the farthest stars in the Hubble Deep Field?

Why is it that none of the other fields of science that don't contradict the Bible are this wrong by the Creationists viewpoint? Seems like we have to give special pleading to your book to completely and utterly trounce in any new evidence even if significantly overwhelming because it doesn't agree with your holy book.

Looking at all the evidence we have compiled from years of cosmology and a little bit of common sense, it is mathematically impossible to hold all the matter we have discovered in such a small area, it would be like holding the mass of the entire Solar System on a small asteroid near Jupiter. And also, how can both Evolutionists and Cosmologists be so wrong? These are two independent fields, how can they both be so wrong?

If you say God somehow distorted the light by making it break natural laws such as the speed of light(proven and tested numerous times, the speed of light is not up for debate) so we could see the entire observable universe( which just happens to be that we can see 13 billion light years away, same time around when the Big Bang happened) why would he do that?

More importantly, how would he do it? What mechanism could a God possibly use to so blatantly distort natural laws? So creationists explain to me, how could the entire science community and both independent fields of cosmology and evolution be so wrong?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1 by keithprosser3]

Can any creationist explain to me how we can see starlight from stars billions of light years away? If the universe is only 6,000 years old then logically we should only be able to see stars that are within 6000 light years of Earth. This is because when we look into the night sky, we see not the stars themselves but their light.

Every study scientists have done has shown it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light as it would require an infinite amount of energy, so it is absurd to argue that the light could have traveled faster than the speed of light. Therefore, creationists can only somewhat reasonably argue that all the objects we has observed in Astronomy have to be within 6000 light years.

However, what we see is that most of even observable stars by telescope are farther away than that. If you say the current Astronomical way of measuring distance is wrong and argue that we can not know the distance to ET stars or planets because we have not traveled there ourselves, then how come we have measured the distance between Earth and other planets with near 100% precision and this has been proven by the time it takes space probes to get to these planets? Surely if we can get distances in the solar system right we can't be off by a factor of a million to the farthest stars in the Hubble Deep Field?

Why is it that none of the other fields of science that don't contradict the Bible are this wrong by the Creationists viewpoint? Seems like we have to give special pleading to your book to completely and utterly trounce in any new evidence even if significantly overwhelming because it doesn't agree with the holy book.

Looking at all the evidence we have compiled from years of cosmology and a little bit of common sense, it is mathematically impossible to hold all the matter we have discovered in such a small area, it would be like holding the mass of the entire Solar System on a small comet near Jupiter. And also, how can both Evolutionists and Cosmologists be so wrong? These are two independent fields, how can they both be so wrong? And if you say God somehow distorted the light by making it break natural laws such as the speed of light(proven and tested numerous times, the speed of light is not up for debate) so we could see the entire observable universe( which just happens to be that we can see 13 billion light years away, same time around when the Big Bang happened) why would he do that?

More importantly, how would he do it? What mechanism could a God possibly use to so blatantly distort natural laws? So creationists explain to me, how could the entire science community and both independent fields of cosmology and evolution be so wrong?

This of course only would apply to young earth creationists of which there does not seem to be many left.

I would love to read a response though, but I'm not sure we have any left here.

[arian]

You didn't respond to my post and instead decided to quote scripture verses.

So if you quote some "Big-bang Evolutionary writings" on a subject on Evolution, should I consider that a "Non-Response" from you?

This is a very childish response IMO, but I guess it would depend on whether or not it was done in response to a question.

OK, so is this a question, or a statement?

As for what you said before; "You didn't respond to my post and instead decided to quote scripture verses."

Now how should I understand this other than
Scripture Verse = no response ??

Either way, this is the science sub forum and you should not be quoting from religious holy books and using said quotes as your only response.

Science observes facts,.. what they see around them? The Bible presents and magnifies and clarifies facts of the world we see/observe around us, so that too is science. It observes the brain and the mind so we could see the difference between them. The Bible includes EVERY field of science known to man, especially quantum theory and beyond.

Big-bang Evolution is about something expanding in something at an unknown rate that is uncomprehendebly faster than C, which is about, .. oh around 180,000 m/p/s. This expanding universe may be infinitely big, yet still expanding, .. you understand right?
Now this does NOT belong in science, .. but since this is the Science AND Religion Forum, any kind of religious ideologies/beliefs are welcome, even your BB Evolution religion.

Am I not worth a response from you? Your holy book I already know.

Of course you deserve a response from me Clownboat, only you kind of ask, .. or comment the same old things over and over again even though I went into great detail (as I do now) in explaining them to you. I honestly feel as if you're just 'pulling my chain', .. trying to piss me off!?! I am sorry if I offended you by this, but here again you say; "Your holy book". I didn't put the word 'Holy' on the Bible, the religious people did, those that worship the book more than its content. Some place it on an alter with flowers and lights and crosses and pictures of pretty blond blue-eyed glow-in-the-dark men and never even read its content.
I even asked this one Pilipino friend of my wife if she read that Bible on her alter (The book WAS a spectacular piece of work no doubt) and she just giggled and said: "Oh no, .. we go to church every week" A devout Catholic she was, following the old Catholic tradition where only the Priest could read from that 'Holy Book'.
Others take the Bible in one hand, and the sword in the other and go "spreading the Good News of love and peace of Jesus Christ" lol
And from what I have learned of you, you claim to have read the Bible yet it offends you when I quote it??

I'll take it from your lack of response that you really don't know who the bad trees are, or if there really is such a thing as a bad tree that you chose to interject.

You consider my carefully picked out 'Bible quote' to explain your question to me as a "lack of response"?? So what in blazes would you consider a "proper response" from me, .. that "I agree with you Clownboat, you are always right and my responses are always wrong"?? Is that what you are looking for?
Here again:

* You take a fruit from a tree, eat it and you get really sick, end up in the hospital = bad tree producing bad fruit

* Another time you take a fruit from another tree, eat it and feel satisfied and refreshed = good tree bearing good fruit

I can't keep up. First you talk about people being the good and bad trees. You know, like from your Bible where you will know them by their fruits and such. Now you supply an answer, yet describe actual trees as if they are good or bad. It doesn't seem as if you are being serious here.

OK, that's it. Until you stop being so childish (I know you understood the comparison) I will not answer your posts, .. sorry. There are other posters I would love to debate with than waste my time like this.

[Clownboat]

You didn't respond to my post and instead decided to quote scripture verses.

So if you quote some "Big-bang Evolutionary writings" on a subject on Evolution, should I consider that a "Non-Response" from you?

This is a very childish response IMO, but I guess it would depend on whether or not it was done in response to a question.

OK, so is this a question, or a statement?

It's a statement (your response is childish IMO) and an answer to your request (as I said, it would depend on whether.....)

As for what you said before; "You didn't respond to my post and instead decided to quote scripture verses."

Now how should I understand this other than
Scripture Verse = no response ??

I asked you a questions, I would hope you can articulate and answer. You did not seem able to and instead quoted from an ancient holy book in a science sub forum.

Either way, this is the science sub forum and you should not be quoting from religious holy books and using said quotes as your only response.

Science observes facts,.. what they see around them? The Bible presents and magnifies and clarifies facts of the world we see/observe around us, so that too is science. It observes the brain and the mind so we could see the difference between them. The Bible includes EVERY field of science known to man, especially quantum theory and beyond.

Ridiculous IMO and un-evidenced.
The Bible observes the brain and the mind. Are you even listening to yourself? How do books observe?

Big-bang Evolution is about something expanding in something at an unknown rate that is uncomprehendebly faster than C, which is about, .. oh around 180,000 m/p/s. This expanding universe may be infinitely big, yet still expanding, .. you understand right?
Now this does NOT belong in science, .. but since this is the Science AND Religion Forum, any kind of religious ideologies/beliefs are welcome, even your BB Evolution religion.

I have read this over and over and over and cannot come up with anything meaningful or relevant to reply to, so I will just take it as once again, an attempt to level the playing field by claiming a theory is a religion.

Am I not worth a response from you? Your holy book I already know.

Of course you deserve a response from me Clownboat, only you kind of ask, .. or comment the same old things over and over again even though I went into great detail (as I do now) in explaining them to you. I honestly feel as if you're just 'pulling my chain', .. trying to piss me off!?! I am sorry if I offended you by this, but here again you say; "Your holy book". I didn't put the word 'Holy' on the Bible, the religious people did, those that worship the book more than its content. Some place it on an alter with flowers and lights and crosses and pictures of pretty blond blue-eyed glow-in-the-dark men and never even read its content.
I even asked this one Pilipino friend of my wife if she read that Bible on her alter (The book WAS a spectacular piece of work no doubt) and she just giggled and said: "Oh no, .. we go to church every week" A devout Catholic she was, following the old Catholic tradition where only the Priest could read from that 'Holy Book'.
Others take the Bible in one hand, and the sword in the other and go "spreading the Good News of love and peace of Jesus Christ" lol
And from what I have learned of you, you claim to have read the Bible yet it offends you when I quote it??

I am not offended by the quoting of the Bible. I'm not even offended that you were not willing to respond with your own thoughts. It is you that seems offended when I point out that you are breaking forum rules. You made your bed, you need to sleep in it, not I.

I'll take it from your lack of response that you really don't know who the bad trees are, or if there really is such a thing as a bad tree that you chose to interject.

You consider my carefully picked out 'Bible quote' to explain your question to me as a "lack of response"?? So what in blazes would you consider a "proper response" from me, .. that "I agree with you Clownboat, you are always right and my responses are always wrong"?? Is that what you are looking for?
Here again:

* You take a fruit from a tree, eat it and you get really sick, end up in the hospital = bad tree producing bad fruit

* Another time you take a fruit from another tree, eat it and feel satisfied and refreshed = good tree bearing good fruit

I can't keep up. First you talk about people being the good and bad trees. You know, like from your Bible where you will know them by their fruits and such. Now you supply an answer, yet describe actual trees as if they are good or bad. It doesn't seem as if you are being serious here.

OK, that's it. Until you stop being so childish (I know you understood the comparison) I will not answer your posts, .. sorry. There are other posters I would love to debate with than waste my time like this.

And one last time:
Matthew 7:16 - By their fruit you will recognize them. Great post arian, truly convincing.

[arian]

[Replying to post 1 by keithprosser3]

Can any creationist explain to me how we can see starlight from stars billions of light years away? If the universe is only 6,000 years old then logically we should only be able to see stars that are within 6000 light years of Earth. This is because when we look into the night sky, we see not the stars themselves but their light.

Hello Tidus, and welcome to the Forum.

First, you say we are looking at stars billions of light years away, correct? Now can you answer me something? When were the lights turned on on the stars, do you know?
If they were always on, and were close by before they expanded away from us, then it doesn't matter how far away they are, we are still looking at the star.
Now given that if that star burnt up some time ago, IF light has speed as they claim, then it would take us billions of years to realize this.

Every study scientists have done has shown it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light as it would require an infinite amount of energy, so it is absurd to argue that the light could have traveled faster than the speed of light. Therefore, creationists can only somewhat reasonably argue that all the objects we has observed in Astronomy have to be within 6000 light years.

First, lets go with the Big-bang Evolution religious claims, OK?
They say that our 'known, or observable' universe is around 45 billion light years radius, and they say it got to this size in 13.75 billion years. You just said: Every study scientists have done has shown it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light as it would require an infinite amount of energy, since this is simple mathematics even I can do, something is very wrong here, wouldn't you say?

45 billion light year distance from earth (and that's just our observable universe, the actual size they say may be infinitely big) .. in 13.75 billion years. But wait, .. something even crazier is claimed here, they say that right after the Big-bang the universe expanded to the size we have now in just a few minutes, and the rate of expansion is unknown, so they can't know how far ANY star out there really is.

Look, .. if you are looking at a star, considering Big-bang claims, it had to get to that (whatever) distance between a few minutes after the BB, and 13.75 billion years, right?

Then they say that the 'observable universe' is 45 billion light years in radius, which is 90 some billion light years in diameter, right?

Then they say; that the ACTUAL universe may be 'infinitely big', ..

and finally, they say the universe is still expanding. Don't you think that time, and the rate of expansion is critical to know before we can say with any certainty how far something is from us??

Here is their claim in a nutshell; The universe reached infinity in a few minutes after a Big-bang. Nothing in the universe can travel faster than 168,282 m/p/s, which is 5,878,499,817 miles a year, but stars in our observable universe are already 45,000,000,000 (billion) light years away (which would of have to travel 8 times faster than the speed of light to reach that distance). But they claim they can give you a pretty accurate measurement how far stars and galaxies are from earth.

However, what we see is that most of even observable stars by telescope are farther away than that. If you say the current Astronomical way of measuring distance is wrong and argue that we can not know the distance to ET stars or planets because we have not traveled there ourselves, then how come we have measured the distance between Earth and other planets with near 100% precision and this has been proven by the time it takes space probes to get to these planets? Surely if we can get distances in the solar system right we can't be off by a factor of a million to the farthest stars in the Hubble Deep Field?

You see (as I pointed it out) that religion can make their own rules, and claim 100% accuracies because they know we ordinary people will never be able to verify this ourselves.

Why is it that none of the other fields of science that don't contradict the Bible are this wrong by the Creationists viewpoint? Seems like we have to give special pleading to your book to completely and utterly trounce in any new evidence even if significantly overwhelming because it doesn't agree with your holy book.

What doesn't agree with the Bible (or holy moly book if you prefer), .. that anything in the universe can only travel 186,282 m/p/s, yet billions of stars reached infinity in a few minutes? What New overwhelming Evidence that contradicts this holy book are you talking about?

Looking at all the evidence we have compiled from years of cosmology and a little bit of common sense, it is mathematically impossible to hold all the matter we have discovered in such a small area, it would be like holding the mass of the entire Solar System on a small asteroid near Jupiter. And also, how can both Evolutionists and Cosmologists be so wrong? These are two independent fields, how can they both be so wrong?

My friend you are stuck with some religious claims regarding the Bible, the 6,000 years is counted from the fall of Adam, time as we know it did not matter, nor did it even exist 'before the fall' because nothing aged, there was no deterioration. The six Day of Creation has nothing to do with time, or the counting of days where the sun came up and went down, there was no sun or moon yet until the fourth day. it was not based on hours and minutes, there is no time in the spiritual realm, or with God, or in your mind. Eternity is not defined or measured by time, just as infinity is not measured by length.

If you say God somehow distorted the light by making it break natural laws such as the speed of light (proven and tested numerous times, the speed of light is not up for debate) so we could see the entire observable universe (which just happens to be that we can see 13 billion light years away, same time around when the Big Bang happened) why would he do that?

I don't understand where you get a Biblical speed of light distortions, the Biblical Days of creation as certain length of solar time? Look, take two watches, one half the speed of the other, now time the sunrise to sunset with both of them? Now how would you determine which one is accurate and which one is not?

You would do it by your religious indoctrination, yet it is totally irrelevant.

More importantly, how would he do it? What mechanism could a God possibly use to so blatantly distort natural laws? So creationists explain to me, how could the entire science community and both independent fields of cosmology and evolution be so wrong?

God created every speck, every atom, whatever space is made of, and designed it giving each speck, each matter, each atom their individual rules and laws they are to go by. He can distort, add and destroy any part of this creation He choses. Just as easy as you can come up with concepts and change your mind and create a completely new or different one.

Take care, good to have you on this Forum you will love it here.

arian

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1179 by Jashwell]

To repeat, "in your posting 1162, you distorted what I'd said in posting 1161. I said that researchers had identified the brain area where humans transcend the physical and make contact with God, and you said instead "And no, researchers have not "identified ... the brain area where humans transcend the physical and make contact with God", they've probably identified the region where people believe they transcend the physical and make contact with God." which gives you a more convenient straw man to deal with. I stated what the researchers said and you say no, they didn't say that."

I said they had, and you said they hadn't, identified the God-contact area. That is a distortion of what I said. If you want to dispute a point, you can say I disagree, and give some basis for your disagreement, or you can ask for more details on the point I made. To say I didn't say what I said is a distortion plain and simple, where distortion is defined distortion as "the action of giving a misleading account or impression." Your reply makes it seem that researchers had not identified the "God contact spot" when I clearly said they had. One doesn't dispute by misquoting.
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1199 by kenblogton]

I've addressed this two or three times.

You said "the researchers have identified... brain area... transcend... contact with God"
I said they haven't identified it. This is of course, not in relation to whether or not they believe they have identified it, or whether or not the patients believe it.
This is not misquoting, this is not distortion, this is disagreeing with you

Do you want me to accept prima facie that these (still) anonymous researchers in this (still) unnamed book have identified where people make contact with God? Alright, then there is a God. discussion over.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1179 by Jashwell]

To repeat, "in your posting 1162, you distorted what I'd said in posting 1161. I said that researchers had identified the brain area where humans transcend the physical and make contact with God, and you said instead "And no, researchers have not "identified ... the brain area where humans transcend the physical and make contact with God", they've probably identified the region where people believe they transcend the physical and make contact with God." which gives you a more convenient straw man to deal with. I stated what the researchers said and you say no, they didn't say that."

I said they had, and you said they hadn't, identified the God-contact area. That is a distortion of what I said. If you want to dispute a point, you can say I disagree, and give some basis for your disagreement, or you can ask for more details on the point I made. To say I didn't say what I said is a distortion plain and simple, where distortion is defined distortion as "the action of giving a misleading account or impression." Your reply makes it seem that researchers had not identified the "God contact spot" when I clearly said they had. One doesn't dispute by misquoting.
kenblogton

Please show your work. Stop complaining about how he distorted what you said, show us that what you said is actually true because at this point it is just a claim made by some guy on the internet.

Can you show that your un-evidenced claim is even true? That might put Jashwell in a bit of a spot. IMO, he is on very safe ground though.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 1201 by Clownboat]

If "researchers had identified the brain area where humans transcend the physical and make contact with God", then I'm going back to church, and a lot of us have some serious mea culpa's to do.

Just a thought.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1199 by kenblogton]

I've addressed this two or three times.

You said "the researchers have identified... brain area... transcend... contact with God"
I said they haven't identified it. This is of course, not in relation to whether or not they believe they have identified it, or whether or not the patients believe it.
This is not misquoting, this is not distortion, this is disagreeing with you

Do you want me to accept prima facie that these (still) anonymous researchers in this (still) unnamed book have identified where people make contact with God? Alright, then there is a God. discussion over.

If you say :I don't believe it, that's fine; if you say that haven't done it, that's a distortion of what I said.
kenblogton