The evidence for Evolution.

[dad]

Prove it? Easily. All references to your god are in the third person! Please indicate in those writings any place in which it says something like "In the beginning, I ........."


.

No. It often quotes God in the First Person! "I the Lord..." etc.

 

[SteveB28]

No. It often quotes God in the First Person! "I the Lord..." etc.

And the quotes are inserted by the man writing the text...!

Good grief....!


.

 

[dad]

And the quotes are inserted by the man writing the text...!

Good grief....!


.

If the man said God penned the original 10 commandments, who are you to say He didn't??

 

[SteveB28]

If the man said God penned the original 10 commandments, who are you to say He didn't??

Ah, finally.....

Because, as you point out interminably,..MEN TELL LIES...!!


.

 

[dad]

Ah, finally.....

Because, as you point out interminably,..MEN TELL LIES...!!


.

Not if God made em do it. If He did (as all the bible indicates) then the men were conduits of heaven, and those that try to cast doubt on it are conduits of hell and darkness.

 

[SteveB28]

Not if God made em do it. If He did (as all the bible indicates) then the men were conduits of heaven, and those that try to cast doubt on it are conduits of hell and darkness.

And, once again, that is a claim made by men...!

And men tell lies!

.

 

[SteveB28]

Consider yourself soundly defeated......


.

 

[dad]

And, once again, that is a claim made by men...!

And men tell lies!

.

Your claim is from a man. If God spoke to men long ago, that was God. You as a man today cannot say either way. Don't brag about ignorance.

 

[SteveB28]

Your claim is from a man. If God spoke to men long ago, that was God. You as a man today cannot say either way. Don't brag about ignorance.

And if your Aunty had a beard, she'd be your uncle...!

You still rely solely on the word of men that they were spoken to by a god....and men lie!


.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... One assumption is that the laws that determine how all these things happen would have been in effect in the distant past. That is unsupported and unsupoortable.

Not so. You're right that it is an assumption that the 'laws of nature' were the same in the past, but it is an assumption that has been questioned by scientists, resulting in some detailed modeling of what kind of universe we would expect to see around us if various laws were different in the past.

It turns out that although some of the fundamental constants governing the physical laws we see today could have been slightly different in the distant past, the differences would only be significant on cosmological scales and would not have significantly affected the small-scale behaviour of matter (e.g. chemistry). Any changes sufficient to change the chemistry of the elements would preclude the development of the kind of universe we see today, particularly the elemental composition of stars and planetary systems.

Astronomical observations of the spectral emissions of the most distant galaxies shows that their stars are consistent with the composition we would expect from first and second-generation stars under the same physical laws as we see today. The light from these distant galaxies has taken so long to reach us that what we see was emitted in the first stages of galaxy formation in the early universe, so we have independent corroboration of the relative constancy of the relevant physical laws billions of years before Earth even formed.

So the best fit to explain the observations we have made is that the physical laws determining chemistry have been unchanged at least since stars began condensing out of the primordial hydrogen clouds in the early universe. Your doubts in this regard have already been investigated and allayed - perhaps you hadn't heard?

 

[John 1720]

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Consider yourself soundly defeated......


.

dad is the all time champion of pigeon chess. He will return.

 

[dad]

And if your Aunty had a beard, she'd be your uncle...!

You still rely solely on the word of men that they were spoken to by a god....and men lie!


.

Impossible. Men could never get one of the hundreds of prophies right! We have the fingerprints of God. No man has those fingerprints. Identification is certain. Confirmed. Scripture was confirmed and Jesus rose from the dead to prove it was all true.

The biggest holiday on planet earth is the celebratio of His birthday.

Merry Christmas

 

[Speedwell]

Impossible. Men could never get one of the hundreds of prophies right! We have the fingerprints of God. No man has those fingerprints. Identification is certain. Confirmed. Scripture was confirmed and Jesus rose from the dead to prove it was all true.

The biggest holiday on planet earth is the celebratio of His birthday.

Merry Christmas

And here all this time I thought Jesus rose from the dead to save us--when it was really just to prove your interpretation of scripture? Boy, was I ever fooled.

 

[dad]

Not so. You're right that it is an assumption that the 'laws of nature' were the same in the past, but it is an assumption that has been questioned by scientists, resulting in some detailed modeling of what kind of universe we would expect to see around us if various laws were different in the past.

So you concede the main point, OK. As for so called modelling to see if the laws were different, that is not true at all. One cannot use our time and laws today on and near earth as a basis to determine what they will be or were! ALL we see has to be in the fishbowl of our time, and our laws, and our reality. In the fishbowl earth, manscience cannot even so much as detect the spiritual! It is rather comical when they make grand pronouncements about creation based on a beggarly little limited scope of perception. Actually, when the results are taught to man and child as gospel truth, overriding the truth revealed to man by God, then it is tragic.

It turns out that although some of the fundamental constants governing the physical laws we see today could have been slightly different in the distant past, the differences would only be significant on cosmological scales and would not have significantly affected the small-scale behaviour of matter (e.g. chemistry).

That could never be determined from a fishbowl perspective! Fishbowl science and rules and methods all make that impossible. They look through a fishbowl filter and try to reinvent the spiritual created universe accordingly. Since it all seems to fit our reality here and current laws, and comes down in our time, man has assumed this means all creation is under the same limits! That is the great mistake of science, and the Achilles heel of the scientific method.

Any changes sufficient to change the chemistry of the elements would preclude the development of the kind of universe we see today, particularly the elemental composition of stars and planetary systems.

NO! Changes from something else to what we have could not be detected from the vantage point of where we are today!

Astronomical observations of the spectral emissions of the most distant galaxies shows that their stars are consistent with the composition we would expect from first and second-generation stars under the same physical laws as we see today.

The basics like size and distance cannot be known unless we know time exists out there and exists just as it does here! (Time is used in all measures of distance such as parallax) Furthermore, the light carrying info that streams into fishbowl earth is under our time! You cannot do something like look at a light curve, and how much time it takes to decay or whatever, and then assume that the time we see and experience it take is universal.

The light from these distant galaxies has taken so long to reach us that what we see was emitted in the first stages of galaxy formation in the early universe, so we have independent corroboration of the relative constancy of the relevant physical laws billions of years before Earth even formed.

That is a good illustration of limited thinking. You determine how much time light takes to move only here where there IS time! Then you arbitrarily and without logic or reason, superimpose that time (I won't bring up space here, to keep it simple) onto the whole of the universe!!!

So the best fit to explain the observations we have made is that the physical laws determining chemistry have been unchanged at least since stars began condensing out of the primordial hydrogen clouds in the early universe.

That is one of the worst fits actually. A better fit might even be to assume that Creation Background Remnants (including gases) might exist...rather than assuming the 'gas' created all things. Chemistry in the fishbowl, is only see here. How much time any given reaction takes, for example would depend on where the reaction takes place. ( or where the light was seen and interpreted)

Have you not heard? Jesus created all things. The little baby born today (or whose birth is celebrated today) created all the stars and man, and ....everything.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you conceed the main point...

Kind-of - from an historical perspective. The assumption was a hypothesis that was tested and found to be supported by observation and to make predictions which were fruitful. So what was originally an assumption became a well-established part of a larger theory.

...

Sadly, no matter how much ignorance and denial you express, the facts, like the relevant laws of nature, remain stubbornly unchanged.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... The biggest holiday on planet earth is the celebratio of His birthday.

Poor lad, having his birthday on Christmas day - only one set of presents

 

[SteveB28]

Impossible. Men could never get one of the hundreds of prophies right!

They could if they wrote about them after they occurred!

Merry Christmas.


.

 

[dad]

And here all this time I thought Jesus rose from the dead to save us--when it was really just to prove your interpretation of scripture? Boy, was I ever fooled.

God did not create all things to prove any man's interpretation. Those who claim God created through evolution do violence to the text of Scripture...and the spirit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They could if they wrote about them after they occurred!

Merry Christmas.


.

You mean like Luke did, and yet he still messed up. He has Jesus being born at two different dates.