Are discussions on faith and science two different catagories?

[Brightmoon]

And their orbit is calculated without adding ad-hoc theory. Now the orbit of those binary stars around the galaxy itself is not correctly calculated using any gravitational theory without adding ad-hoc theory to what was just shown to be 99.9% correct without it.

And you might rethink that belief.

http://www.southastrodel.com/Page029e1.htm

did you actually read that paper ( I’m guessing probably not) . It basically stated that some double star parameters needed to be corrected. Astrophile was correct in that gravitational attraction can be used to figure out masses of stars .

 

[Brightmoon]

I see no common ancestors. Like I said, imaginary lines drawn to imaginary common ancestors to link them to past and present forms.

I find it telling that every single evolutionist posits the world is conspiring against them. Many fossils of the claimed steps before can be found. Many of the claimed steps after can be found. But the world has conspired to hide every single common ancestor for every single creature on every single evolutionary tree for every single epoch.

We hear how these before the split are found, and these after the split, but (conveniently?) every single one where the split occurred can never be found.

Yah, yah. They tell us lots of things and claim it’s factual. Like coelacanth was a clear transitional link. Until one was found of course. Now suddenly what was used in almost every argument is never heard from at all.

Sure they tell you things as if they were fact. That’s what people do who believe their faith is true.

So your answer to the entire fossil record is basically nuh-uh. Figures ! You really don’t have any detailed anatomical studies like Linnaeus had . Nor do you have genetic information that disproves common descent. Nor do you have information about why any protohuman fossils aren’t really protohuman . Oh well i guess nuh-uh is about all you creationists ever come up with other than nonsensical fabrications .
It’s also creationists who think the scientific community conspires against them when in reality they’re dismissed as crackpots . Unfortunately not harmless crackpots but definitely crackpots

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So your answer to the entire fossil record is basically nuh-uh. Figures ! You really don’t have any detailed anatomical studies like Linnaeus had . Nor do you have genetic information that disproves common descent. Nor do you have information about why any protohuman fossils aren’t really protohuman . Oh well i guess nuh-uh is about all you creationists ever come up with other than nonsensical fabrications .
It’s also creationists who think the scientific community conspires against them when in reality they’re dismissed as crackpots . Unfortunately not harmless crackpots but definitely crackpots

Common decent has already been disproved by genetics.

That’s why they are slowly going to the radial tree, because the ever branching tree of life from the age of Darwin was falsified.

Oh no, I don’t think the scientific world is conspiring against me. I know you sincerely believe your faith is true, there’s no conspiracy. It’s funny you see conspiracies where none exist, just misguided faith.

The entire fossil record supports me. Every single creature remains the same from the oldest found to the youngest for that type of creature. New types appear suddenly in the record. Just as happens when two mate. I just understand you can’t tell what mated with what from a pile of bones so you incorrectly classify them as separate species.

You make it sound as if variation must mean evolution. Not true. Over 100 variation of dogs have arisen, not one is a separate species. Over 12 types of humans exist, not one is a separate species. I find it strange that only with the variation of dogs and humans can you distinguish they are the same species.

 

[pitabread]

Common decent has already been disproved by genetics.

 

[Brightmoon]

Common decent has already been disproved by genetics.

That’s why they are slowly going to the radial tree, because the ever branching tree of life from the age of Darwin was falsified.

Oh no, I don’t think the scientific world is conspiring against me. I know you sincerely believe your faith is true, there’s no conspiracy. It’s funny you see conspiracies where none exist, just misguided faith.

The entire fossil record supports me. Every single creature remains the same from the oldest found to the youngest for that type of creature. New types appear suddenly in the record. Just as happens when two mate. I just understand you can’t tell what mated with what from a pile of bones so you incorrectly classify them as separate species.

. Those are all falsehoods . Why do creationists lie about something so obvious that as a ten year old I understood that all land vertebrates were related just by looking at foreleg bones. Genetics has confirmed common descent and in fact, you don’t need the fossil record at all to show common descent .

The radial tree is shown simply because it’s easier to print on paper . The bacterial root of the tree has stems stretching into the Eucarya (mitochondria, chloroplasts and other plastids) and the bacterial root also includes several kingdoms of bacteria

 

[Justatruthseeker]

. Those are all falsehoods . Why do creationists lie about something so obvious that as a ten year old I understood that all land vertebrates were related just by looking at foreleg bones. Genetics has confirmed common descent and in fact, you don’t need the fossil record at all to show common descent .

The radial tree is shown simply because it’s easier to print on paper . The bacterial root of the tree has stems stretching into the Eucarya (mitochondria, chloroplasts and other plastids) and the bacterial root also includes several kingdoms of bacteria

I know you have to tell yourself stories to keep your faith alive.

The radial tree is shown because that’s all their is.

There’s no link to past creatures except when you insert imaginary common ancestors.

Keep telling yourself stories so you can keep believing....

 

[pitabread]

Why do creationists lie about something so obvious that as a ten year old I understood that all land vertebrates were related just by looking at foreleg bones.

I suspect it's because otherwise they would have to deal with the reality of what they are up against. And then they would know how futile their war on science really is.

Better to engage in blanket denialism instead; it's an easier way to maintain one's beliefs in the face of overwhelming opposition.

 

[pitabread]

There’s no link to past creatures except when you insert imaginary common ancestors.

Just like there is no link to your own human ancestry because you've failed to identify all the members of your own family tree. </creationist logic>

 

[AV1611VET]

Just like there is no link to your own human ancestry because you've failed to identify all the members of your own family tree. </creationist logic>

But on the other end of that link is still a member of our own family tree.

As opposed to evolution, where it could be almost anything: an ape, amphibian, fish, pond scum ...

 

[pitabread]

But on the other end of that link is still a member of our own family tree.

Not according to Justatruthseeker. In his world if you can't explicitly identify it, it doesn't exist.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As a person of faith I believe, as Scripture teaches, that "the heavens declare the glory of God". But this isn't a scientific thing; that's a faith thing.

The scientific method doesn't lead us to God because the scientific method uses a naturalistic methodology--it therefore is unqualified, as a method, to speak for or against God.

One can, as a matter of faith, take the things we learn through science and appreciate them as part of the divine genius; but that is a matter of faith, not science.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I always go with scripture. But science helps is some cases to better understand scripture.

Which is fine if you wish to believe in God and the Bible. But, not so good if you actually want to understand the world.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Examples of ways we see God through science:

The scientific law of causality states that anything that begins must have a cause. When Einstein formulated his theory of relativity the math predicted that the universe consisting of time, space, and matter, must have a beginning. This observation was confirmed in 1929 when astronomer Edwin Hubble observed the expanding universe. Now since we have never observed something come from nothing its just not logical or "scientific" to claim the universe sprang from nothing. We must conclude that whatever caused our universe has always existed (or is infinite in nature).

Just because we haven't definitively observed something come from nothing doesn't mean that it can't happen. Like Newton's laws of physics, the law of causality works fine in day to day observations of the world, but that is no reason to conclude that it will also apply to events that are very small (e.g. disturbances in fields that are virtual particles) or the very large (e.g. origin on the universe.)

Even using your own logic, and assuming that the universe needs a cause, there is no reason to believe that any cause of the universe must have always existed. Any cause of the universe could have its own cause. You're simply committing the age-old philosophical error of trying to assign anything unknown to 'God'.

PS: What are the necessary and sufficient causes of radioactive decay?

 

[Jimmy D]

Common decent has already been disproved by genetics.

 

[Jimmy D]

I know you have to tell yourself stories to keep your faith alive.

The radial tree is shown because that’s all their is.
View attachment 234027
View attachment 234028
There’s no link to past creatures except when you insert imaginary common ancestors.

Keep telling yourself stories so you can keep believing....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not according to Justatruthseeker. In his world if you can't explicitly identify it, it doesn't exist.

But I am not the one trying to link separate species together using non-existent species.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

View attachment 234071

Why just look at all those imaginary lines drawn to imaginary "common ancestors"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just because we haven't definitively observed something come from nothing doesn't mean that it can't happen. Like Newton's laws of physics, the law of causality works fine in day to day observations of the world, but that is no reason to conclude that it will also apply to events that are very small (e.g. disturbances in fields that are virtual particles) or the very large (e.g. origin on the universe.)

Even using your own logic, and assuming that the universe needs a cause, there is no reason to believe that any cause of the universe must have always existed. Any cause of the universe could have its own cause. You're simply committing the age-old philosophical error of trying to assign anything unknown to 'God'.

Why sure, just propose the unobservable and untestable and then complain that others did the same thing.....

PS: What are the necessary and sufficient causes of radioactive decay?

Proven observable and testable changes in velocity, which you seem to want to ignore as an option in another post.

 

[pitabread]

But I am not the one trying to link separate species together using non-existent species.....

They are not non-existent though, that's the part you seem to be struggling with.

Unless you also believe that you don't have any human ancestors beyond your ability to trace your immediate family tree. That's the consequence of the argument you are making.

 

[Brightmoon]

You do realize that it’s impossible to show every living species on that diagram let alone every extinct species. Most mammals aren’t even represented . What you have are shown are a few representative species . That doesnt detract from the validity of the diagram .

Justa your name belies your behavior as you’re looking for scientific facts to confirm your religious fantasies. You’ve already been told repeatedly by people who are knowledgeable about science that you’re on a fools errand .