When you talk about your religion what are you using for 'facts'?
as for the 'events' talked of in the bible they are a mixture of stories from previous religions.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
When you talk about your religion what are you using for 'facts'?Here is the dictionary definition of theory:
“an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
Yes, there is! I’ll give you a couple of examples: Human DNA, and the fine tuning of the universe. There is no way of evolution to have produced this evidence by mere chance.
Evolution has had a monopoly on education for centuries now and it has failed to convince people that there is no God..
Just because you claim something means absolutely nothing, Islam could make the same claim and would be just as right as you are, wrong.Yes, there is! I’ll give you a couple of examples: Human DNA, and the fine tuning of the universe. There is no way of evolution to have produced this evidence by mere chance.
Evolution has had a monopoly on education for centuries now and it has failed to convince people that there is no God. Nearly 90 percent of Americans still believe in the existence of an entity responsible for life and the universe.
That statement tells everyone that you know absolutely nothing about evolution.Evolution has had a monopoly on education for centuries now and it has failed to convince people that there is no God.
My feeling is that there is both intentional and accidental misinformation of both sides on this issue. Don’t lay all the blame on creationists. When I have time to do this, I try to listen to both sides of this controversy.
Yes, there is! I’ll give you a couple of examples: Human DNA, and the fine tuning of the universe. There is no way of evolution to have produced this evidence by mere chance.
Evolution has had a monopoly on education for centuries now and it has failed to convince people that there is no God. Nearly 90 percent of Americans still believe in the existence of an entity responsible for life and the universe.
Here is the dictionary definition of theory:
“an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject”
This means that I did use the term correctly. You are trying to hold me to a specialized use of this term.
You probably misunderstood what I said. I did not claim that Dawkins believed in genuine design in nature. What he said is that there was an “appearance of design.”But there is no "evidence of design". You are misquoting him, please not he said "give the appearance..". He said nothing about there being actual evidence.
My feeling is that there is both intentional and accidental misinformation of both sides on this issue. Don’t lay all the blame on creationists. When I have time to do this, I try to listen to both sides of this controversy.
What seems foolish to some people today may turn to be rather smart tomorrow. A few centuries ago most people believed that the earth was flat!So all in all you have only admitted to ignorance and having no valid reasons for not accepting the theory of evolution. Not believing something merely because you don't like its personal implications is extremely foolish.
Evolution news even picked a website name that would lie in the title so that creationists will believe them.
What seems foolish to some people today may turn to be rather smart tomorrow. A few centuries ago most people believed that the earth was flat!
And these so called experts assume that there is no evidence of design in nature. Think about the human eye, the human DNA, the fine tuning of the universe.You should know, there really is no controversy among the experts.
And these so called experts assume that there is no evidence of design in nature.
Think about the human eye, the human DNA, the fine tuning of the universe.
Such belief is evidence of lack of consistency and plain logic. The belief that we are here by chance is pure nonsense. It is equivalent to winning the lottery a trillion times in a row.
Bear in mind that the Red shift theory is being reconsidered and alternative explanations are being studied. Experts need time to make the proper adjustments.
Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered
“By referring to cosmological redshifts as Doppler shifts, we are insisting that our Newtonian intuition about motion still applies without significant change to the cosmological arena. A result of this thinking is that quasars now being detected at redshifts of Z = 4.0 would have to be interpreted as traveling a speeds of more than V = Z x c or 4 times the speed of light. This is, of course, quite absurd, because we all know that no physical object may travel faster than the speed of light.
To avoid such apparently nonsensical speeds, many popularizers use the special relativistic Doppler formula to show that quasars are really not moving faster than light. The argument being that for large velocities, special relativity replaces Newtonian physics as the correct framework for interpreting the world. By using a special relativistic velocity addition formula the quasar we just discussed has a velocity of 92 percent the speed of light. Although we now have a feeling that Reason has returned to our description of the universe, in fact, we have only replaced one incomplete explanation for another. The calculation of the quasar's speed now presupposes that special relativity ( a theory of flat spacetime) is applicable even at cosmological scales where general relativity predicts that spacetime curvature becomes important. This is equivalent to a surveyor making a map of the state of California, and not allowing for the curvature of the earth! …”
This means that the special relativistic Doppler formula should not, in fact cannot, be used to quantify the velocity of distant quasars. We have no choice in this matter if we want to maintain the logical integrity of both theories. …
In the future it is hoped that a death knell will finally have sounded for the last vestige of the older thinking. With the Doppler interpretation of the cosmological redshift at last reconsidered, and rejected, we will finally be able to embrace the essential beauty and mystery of cosmic expansion as it was originally envisioned by its discoverers.”
In the cosmological setting which we believe is accurately described by general relativity, we have none of these luxuries! .... Unlike all other forms of motion that have been previously observed, cosmological 'motion' cannot be directly observed. It can only be INFERRED from observations of the cosmological redshift, which general relativity then TELLS US means that the universe is expanding.
Space, time and matter
The last conclusion drawn from general relativistic cosmology is that, unlike special relativity, it is not physically meaningful to speak of spacetime existing independently of matter and energy. In big bang cosmology, both space and time came into existence along side matter and energy at 'time zero'. If our universe contains more than a critical density of matter and energy, its spacetime is forever finite and bounded, in a shape analogous to a sphere. Beyond this boundary, space and time simply do not exist. In fact, general relativity allows the Conservation of Energy to be suspended so that matter and energy may be created quite literally from the nothingness of curved spacetime. General relativity provides a means for 'jump-starting' Creation!
Big bang cosmology is both a profoundly beautiful, and disturbing, model for our universe, its shape and its destiny. It contains many surprises which have yet to be completely worked-out. But one feature of the evolving universe seems absolutly clear, the big bang was not some grand fireworks display, but an event of a completely different order. It resembled more an expanding soap bubble film upon which galactic dust motes are carried along for the ride. This film represents the totality of all the space and matter in our universe, and it expands into a mysterious primordial void which is itself empty of space, dimension, time or matter.
Ref.: http://cecelia.physics.indiana.edu/life/redshift.html
Yes, but I have other priorities. I am here by accident. I saw the title of the thread and decided to react to what I read.If you were really brash you could even look things up for yourself, a radical idea perhaps but you are your own man after all.
The human eye has all the earmarks of evolution, as it is "wired" backwards and upside down. Modern cameras are designed much better.And these so called experts assume that there is no evidence of design in nature. Think about the human eye, the human DNA, the fine tuning of the universe.
Such belief is evidence of lack of consistency and plain logic. The belief that we are here by chance is pure nonsense. It is equivalent to winning the lottery a trillion times in a row.
Bear in mind that the Red shift theory is being reconsidered and alternative explanations are being studied. Experts need time to make the proper adjustments.
Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered
“By referring to cosmological redshifts as Doppler shifts, we are insisting that our Newtonian intuition about motion still applies without significant change to the cosmological arena. A result of this thinking is that quasars now being detected at redshifts of Z = 4.0 would have to be interpreted as traveling a speeds of more than V = Z x c or 4 times the speed of light. This is, of course, quite absurd, because we all know that no physical object may travel faster than the speed of light.
To avoid such apparently nonsensical speeds, many popularizers use the special relativistic Doppler formula to show that quasars are really not moving faster than light. The argument being that for large velocities, special relativity replaces Newtonian physics as the correct framework for interpreting the world. By using a special relativistic velocity addition formula the quasar we just discussed has a velocity of 92 percent the speed of light. Although we now have a feeling that Reason has returned to our description of the universe, in fact, we have only replaced one incomplete explanation for another. The calculation of the quasar's speed now presupposes that special relativity ( a theory of flat spacetime) is applicable even at cosmological scales where general relativity predicts that spacetime curvature becomes important. This is equivalent to a surveyor making a map of the state of California, and not allowing for the curvature of the earth! …”
This means that the special relativistic Doppler formula should not, in fact cannot, be used to quantify the velocity of distant quasars. We have no choice in this matter if we want to maintain the logical integrity of both theories. …
In the future it is hoped that a death knell will finally have sounded for the last vestige of the older thinking. With the Doppler interpretation of the cosmological redshift at last reconsidered, and rejected, we will finally be able to embrace the essential beauty and mystery of cosmic expansion as it was originally envisioned by its discoverers.”
Ref.: http://cecelia.physics.indiana.edu/life/redshift.html
And these so called experts assume that there is no evidence of design in nature. Think about the human eye, the human DNA, the fine tuning of the universe.
Such belief is evidence of lack of consistency and plain logic. The belief that we are here by chance is pure nonsense. It is equivalent to winning the lottery a trillion times in a row.
The human eye has all the earmarks of evolution, as it is "wired" backwards and upside down. Modern cameras are designed much better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?