Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Wiccan_Child]

I thought we were supposed to be 'great apes' or something.

Think about it: before Darwin came along, we were still grouping animals into 'insect', 'mammal', 'canid', 'fish', 'bird', 'reptile', etc. Evolution just offers an explanation for (among other things) why organisms seem to fall into such (usually) neat categories. But people still did them back in the day.

Doesn't the Bible talk about general categories of animals, like creepy-crawly beasts (it's somewhere in Leviticus)? The same principle could work.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Actually, it's my fault.

Hey, it looks good on my profile .

Sure, sweep it under the rug.

Ah, we've debated it to death. I think we both know where we stand on the issue.

 

[Doveaman]

Seems like he's a bit outdated and very wrong.

Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s, however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly; the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely employed. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been utilized to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby. Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.

Is there a point to all this?

QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts.

Professional astronomers seem to be so enamored of their 'redshift equals distance' theory that it damages their eyesight.

Your post seems to be in agreement with the one I posted.

Thanks for the support.

 

[sandwiches]

Is there a point to all this?
Professional astronomers seem to be so enamored of their 'redshift equals distance' theory that it damages their eyesight.

Your post seems to be in agreement with the one I posted.

Thanks for the support.

Has electric universe damaged your brain? At any rate, like I said, even disproving the Big Bang wouldn't validate the idea of a creator. Keep reaching, though.

 

[Doveaman]

Has electric universe damaged your brain? At any rate, like I said, even disproving the Big Bang wouldn't validate the idea of a creator. Keep reaching, though.

I am not trying to validate the Creator, He already did that Himself.

 

[sandwiches]

I am not trying to validate the Creator, He already did that Himself.

Can you validate that claim with evidence independent of belief?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep. What's the harm, eh?

Why?
If memory serves, Sin Nature just means that you are sinful (i.e., you commit sins), as inherited from Adam. Why is that incompatible with evolution? Even we believe that humans lived around 4000BCE.

In evolution (theistic and otherwise), there is no Adam; therefore, we do not inherit the Adamic Nature.

As we put it: we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we're sinners.

In addition, no Adam = no dispensation of Innocence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Think about it: before Darwin came along, we were still grouping animals into 'insect', 'mammal', 'canid', 'fish', 'bird', 'reptile', etc. Evolution just offers an explanation for (among other things) why organisms seem to fall into such (usually) neat categories. But people still did them back in the day.

I'm not against grouping animals and giving them a taxon entry --- I'm against sticking us in there as well.

Doesn't the Bible talk about general categories of animals, like creepy-crawly beasts (it's somewhere in Leviticus)?

Yes:

All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Possibly a reference to the gargoyle.

 

[SkyWriting]

You're a good example or a fundamentalist. Your incredulity demands rigorous and thorough evidence to support claims that go against your religious beliefs. And when some is found, you always find it lacking.

PLAahh! I've never demanded "rigorous and thorough evidence to support claims". What could somebody in this place possibly produce?

You have it and this place is full of it:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Other scientists' support of the fraud was unwitting, but the decision to place so much trust in a colleague was a conscious rationalization that continues to be defended in science to this day.[/FONT]"

 

[SkyWriting]

Mainly literal creationism, but that has a fairly large scope. This is a good example of the very basic problem that we're experiencing.You (or Doveaman, or whoever) claim that science is a crock, that scientists are concealing evidence of special creation and instead working on fake publications. When asked to provide evidence that such a conspiracy is actually occurring, you respond with:"Well obviously they won't ADMIT it!"There's no reason to think that such a conspiracy exists, and there's no evidence to suggest that it does.To quote Doveaman quoting that holoscience page:Absolutely right.

I was referring to the SETI project. I've no clue what your talking about.

 

[sandwiches]

PLAahh! I've never demanded "rigorous and thorough evidence to support claims". What could somebody in this place possibly produce?

You have it and this place is full of it:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Other scientists' support of the fraud was unwitting, but the decision to place so much trust in a colleague was a conscious rationalization that continues to be defended in science to this day.[/FONT]"

You may not demand it from us, but despite all the preponderance of evidence that contradicts your beliefs and the fact that science has a tremendously accurate and fruitful record, you continue to ignore and disbelieve it. Not coincidentally, you disbelieve it in only those parts that would cause your fundamentalist beliefs to come crashing down. You blame other of rationalization but your platitudes and empty words amount to nothing but logic acrobatics and rationalizing of your position backed by nothing but more words taken from a book because you know of nothing evident that could truly support your view and you know this. You know this and yet you continue arguing to try to convince us and I have feeling that, partly, to keep yourself convinced.

 

[Cabal]

PLAahh! I've never demanded "rigorous and thorough evidence to support claims". What could somebody in this place possibly produce?

You have it and this place is full of it:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Other scientists' support of the fraud was unwitting, but the decision to place so much trust in a colleague was a conscious rationalization that continues to be defended in science to this day.[/FONT]"

Well, that's a cop-out.

 

[marlowe007]

There should be an Internet tax - a progressive one - that bangs your credit card every time you type the word "Goddidit".

And "strawman" for that matter. Like "paradigm", it's a smart-sounding word dumb people use all the time when other people are looking.

 

[Nostromo]

I was referring to the SETI project. I've no clue what your talking about.

I know you don't have a clue. That's because you read what I wrote, ignored it or misunderstood it and then constructed a reply to something different.

 

[Nostromo]

Further evidence of a global scientific conspiracy to bury the alternatives:


Astronomical Society of the Pacific invites contributions on Noncosmological Redshifts

 

[AV1611VET]

There should be an Internet tax - a progressive one - that bangs your credit card every time you type the word "Goddidit".

Will we be able to use it to buy and sell if the tax isn't paid first?

If not, maybe there's a number we can appropriate that will exonerate us from that law?

 

[marlowe007]

If not, maybe there's a number we can appropriate that will exonerate us from that law?

Honestly, I dunno why you lend that stupid term legitimacy by endorsing its use, especially since it's intended to mock the idea of God as creator.

 

[AV1611VET]

Honestly, I dunno why you lend that stupid term legitimacy by endorsing its use, especially since it's intended to mock the idea of God as creator.

First of all, I only use that "term" as a bottom-line explanation of something that I believe He did that cannot be explained in scientific terminology (viz., miracles).

Second of all, credit where credit is due --- if He did it, and put it in Writing that He did, He should get the credit for it; do you agree?

 

[Nostromo]

Boy do I feel stupid about this whole matter bridge thing, there's more of them.

 

[marlowe007]

Second of all, credit where credit is due --- if He did it, and put it in Writing that He did, He should get the credit for it; do you agree?

Yeah, but why not simply say "God created" instead of using a pejorative term coined by New Atheists?