Evolution - and their take over/destruction of science

[klutedavid]

Have you studied it?

I just studied it.

Transfinite numbers are numbers that are "infinite" in the sense that they are larger than all finite numbers, yet not necessarily absolutely infinite. (wikipedia)

There are no numbers larger than all finite numbers, the definition of, 'transfinite numbers', is a paradox.

We may as well say that, there exists a number greater than every number?

Also the distinction between, 'infinite', and, 'absolute infinite', is nonsensical.

 

[klutedavid]

Standard mathematics based on the standard axioms of mathematics is universal in science.

Are you repeating what I just said?

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Zolii.

You said.

The predictions emanating the BB/singularity that have been measured are background microwaves (those discovering it were awarded Nobel prizes) and the measurement of gravitational waves. In my discussion about what constitutes evidence, my definition is focused on that which can be measured and particularly where it has the capacity to be replicated.

Yes Zolii, that is the defined domain of science, the singularity and even the initial inflation, is beyond the reach of science. Hence science, is not qualified to specify the genesis of space time.

You replied - well you have a written account from a person who recorded a witness testimony and isnt that evidence. I guess since we take on board eye witness accounts in a court of law I have to accept your point. From my perspective though it weakens when it recorded by a 3rd party, then translated and re-drafted over millenniums, as such records are open to transcription error. That said - I accept your view that its a form of evidence albeit weakened by time and transcription, and not as strong as something you can actually measure and replicate.

Of course eye witness accounts when recorded by a third party, may degrade the source. That is why there are multiple accounts, this allows us to compare the accounts and clarify the subject in the accounts.

We know from the Dead Sea scrolls that the prophetic accounts recorded in the Old Testament, the book of Isaiah for example. Are virtually unchanged from beyond two thousand years ago. When your reading the book of Isaiah your reading an identical book, to the book of Isaiah that the apostles were reading.

Ultimately, weak or strong evidence, it remains sufficient evidence to paint the portrait of the Christ.

 

[klutedavid]

Not exactly; spacetime is itself an explanatory model. Science is trying to understand the observations from which models such as spacetime are derived. Promising lines of enquiry include those in which spacetime is emergent from a more fundamental context.

As I said before, two trillion galaxies are not derived from an energy source smaller than a ping pong ball. There is a problem with the scientific model presented, this model requires faith at a scale that I do not possess.

One of the main problems with any scientific model derived from the evidence, is the evidence must be sampled from the entire population. The evidence must not be sourced from a single sample of the population.

What I mean FB, is simply I would require observations from thousands of galaxies in different locations through space time. I am not going to speculate on the data from a single location, that would not be scientific.

Who is really following the scientific methodology?

 

[klutedavid]

Try transfinite cardinality just for starters.

How can I deal with the cardinality of numbers that are not defined?

A transfinite number cannot exist, a transfinite number is undefined by finite mathematical definitions of numbers. Let alone bothering to mention the cardinality of these members.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ultimately, weak or strong evidence, it remains sufficient evidence to paint the portrait of the Christ.

Not so fast there, klutedavid, we just established that there is no contemporary eyewitness accounts that record anything Jesus ever said or did. As I asked earlier, what is this "overwhelming" evidence you speak of?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you repeating what I just said?

Not exactly; note the qualification 'standard'.

 

[klutedavid]

Have you studied it?

Well if you don't believe in actual infinities, such as infinite numbers, you are in good company. Gauss, Poincare and Kronecker, to name a few, thought of infinity is nothing more than a kind of useful fiction that allows us to do things with limits. Mathematicians who reject the Cantorian approach to the construction of transfinite numbers are sometimes called finitists.

Welcome to Philosophy, Strathos.

Pixies, transfinite numbers, and pink unicorns.

 

[klutedavid]

Not so fast there, klutedavid, we just established that there is no contemporary eyewitness accounts that record anything Jesus ever said or did. As I asked earlier, what is this "overwhelming" evidence you speak of?

The New Testament accounts, non canonical accounts, the account given by Josephus (Jewish historian).

Second century accounts directly derived from disciples of the apostles. All in all, sufficient evidence to recognize the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of the messiah.

These accounts at the time of their writing were very much contemporary accounts.

Your reading in those accounts, authentic contemporary, descriptions of the words and events surrounding the life of Jesus.

 

[klutedavid]

Not exactly; note the qualification 'standard'.

Standard, finite, what is the difference?

I hope your not delving into science fiction.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As I said before, two trillion galaxies are not derived from an energy source smaller than a ping pong ball. There is a problem with the scientific model presented, this model requires faith at a scale that I do not possess.

You'll find that more familiar you are with the physics such models are based on, the less faith you'll require.

One of the main problems with any scientific model derived from the evidence, is the evidence must be sampled from the entire population. The evidence must not be sourced from a single sample of the population.

The physical conditions following the big bang are derived from applying our most successful physical model (with a vast amount of experimental support) to observations indicating our universe is expanding (i.e. suggesting it was much smaller in the distant past).

What I mean FB, is simply I would require observations from thousands of galaxies in different locations through space time. I am not going to speculate on the data from a single location, that would not be scientific.

I don't follow you - speculate about what, with data from which single location?

Who is really following the scientific methodology?

I don't know what problem you think you're seeing - can you be more specific?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Standard, finite, what is the difference?

They represent completely different concepts (in this context, 'normative' vs 'limited or bounded'). My point (again) is that there are non-standard mathematics based on different axioms to normative (standard) mathematics.

I hope your not delving into science fiction.

I used to read a lot of science fiction; not so much these days - though I did recently enjoy 'We Are Legion (We Are Bob)' by Dennis E. Taylor.

 

[HitchSlap]

The New Testament accounts, non canonical accounts, the account given by Josephus (Jewish historian).

Second century accounts directly derived from disciples of the apostles. All in all, sufficient evidence to recognize the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of the messiah.

These accounts at the time of their writing were very much contemporary accounts.

Your reading in those accounts, authentic contemporary, descriptions of the words and events surrounding the life of Jesus.

Which one of these accounts is a primary contemporary of Jesus?

 

[Speedwell]

Which one of these accounts is a primary contemporary of Jesus?

Of the Gospel authors, the only possibility is John.

 

[USincognito]

The ability of any theory to make predictions is not a proof of anything.

There's no such thing as proof in science so...

I can develop a theory based on observable weather patterns, this does not mean the theory would be valid. Even though in fifty percent of predictive cases the theory was valid.

I'd suggest reading up on what a scientific theory is, and is not.
What Is a Scientific Theory?

 

[HitchSlap]

Of the Gospel authors, the only possibility is John.

I would agree.

 

[Heissonear]

Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked

Should a religion like Darwinism be allowed to take over and destroy the core meaning of science, including the word faith?

The Godless Religion Darwinism has kidnapped the word "science" through deception, trickery and magic, and made it synonymous with the word 'evolution', and continues to redefine its definition in support of their own godless doctrines.

It has also redefined the word "faith" to mean "blind faith" which is what all Religions require;

Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine

By reinterpreting the word "faith" into just a religious concept based on nothing but blind faith (see synonyms of faith above)

Actual, Biblical definition of
Faith: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

True faith requires evidence with substance, while Religion requires 'blind faith'

in its 1,700 years existence has allowed tens of thousands of different denominations to derive from the RCC, which itself is the founder of the Big Bang Evolution theory.

Evolution:
1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.

Science:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

In this discussion, I ask Darwinians, who support and proselytize their BB-Evolution doctrines to;

1. prove that either biological or cosmological Evolution is based on "science"?
2. show why the word 'faith' can only mean 'blind faith'?

Hi Arius,
You rightly divided you first post Scriptures. And rightly infomed of a war with principalities and powers that have enveloped many, including many of those on Christian Forums Science Section, unfortunately.

Keep up the Shield. And the Sword.

Many are ensnared in what you have addressed in your post, that deal with Reality in our day and age.

Many have a background in religious principles, including when young going to Christian churches. Need I say they were churchy, and not sensitive to the Holy Spirit. At this point many are earnest in putting down the principles you presented. They find interest in coming to Christian Forums to push Christians around, in there eyes they see them as deceived, unenlightened, and twist science.

But you well know God On High will only bring Truth to awaken them by His doing, His Spirit opening up their eyes to verses in the Bible they need in order to be recovered from the snare of darkness that has them.

God recovered me from such, we know He can do the same for others.

May God lead and bless.

 

[HitchSlap]

Hi Arius,
You rightly divided you first post Scriptures. And rightly infomed of a war with principalities and powers that have enveloped many, including many of those on Christian Forums Science Section, unfortunately.

Keep up the Shield. And the Sword.

Many are ensnared in what you have addressed in your post, that deal with Reality in our day and age.

Many have a background in religious principles, including when young going to Christian churches. Need I say they were churchy, and not sensitive to the Holy Spirit. At this point many are earnest in putting down the principles you presented. They find interest in coming to Christian Forums to push Christians around, in there eyes they see them as deceived, unenlightened, and twist science.

But you well know God On High will only bring Truth to awaken them by His doing, His Spirit opening up their eyes to verses in the Bible they need in order to be recovered from the snare of darkness that has them.

God recovered me from such, we know He can do the same for others.

May God lead and bless.

May the Schwartz be with you.

 

[Heissonear]

There's no such thing as proof in science so...



I'd suggest reading up on what a scientific theory is, and is not.
What Is a Scientific Theory?

Way above us, aye Inco?

Yes, God knew well of the time when natural men using their intellect and scientific method would idolize Science, and the knowledge men of flesh would ascertain by such a path of learning.

But God has mysteries and hidden things in our time that only He can reveal. They are not side issues, but required knowledge in order to know Reality, even about Him, the Power of darkness, and matter that overtake many, such as evolution of life on Earth.

It would have been best if you did not by-pass God in ascertaining truth about this realm we are in.

Those led by the Holy Spirit encounter teaching from illuminated Scriptures and Convictions of right and wrong about many matter we face in life.

 

[Arius]

Here are a few observed examples, some of speciation in progress, some of speciation completed: Evidence from observed speciation.

from article;
-Speciation can occur from a variety of different causes and are classified in various forms (e.g. allopatric, sympatric, polyploidization, etc.). Scientists have observed numerous examples of speciation in the laboratory and in nature, however, evolution has produced far more species than an observer would consider necessary. For example, there are well over 350,000 described species of beetles

I told you guys, I didn't say speciation (the kind you guys keep showing me) never happens, it's right there in Genesis, God created all these creatures after their kind, and they all have variations, a mixture from both parents. And YES, .. evolution happens too, which is why God created us, to see what we will evolve to, either lovers of good, and justice, or haters of it. I'm sure you know that there are those that worship darkness, sin and evil they call themselves Satanists, who dig up graves and collect skull and bones for fun.

Ring species of seagulls, are seagulls on both ends, same with your beetles, lizards, moths, bacteria, all the different kind of apes, .. and the 7 billion humans covering every corner of the world, are still the same species.

I asked many times now about concentrating on the species at the end of a ring-species, they have been evolving for 4 billion years, and you guys say they speciated from amoeba millions of times where today you find some that don't even mate with one another, .. so why not get some camera on them, an entire population of them, and see when it speciate into another distinct species!? If it wakes up the next day as a seagull, or lays a seagull egg, you have no proof for this 'Evolution Theory'.

We both agree that no distinct species of one kind has, or will ever evolve into another completely distinct/different species (like a duck into a crocodile, a gorilla into a human, a seagull into dolphin or whatever), not in the lifetime of the species.

What you do tell me is that this does happen in the grave, and the proof is all the millions of 'transitional fossils, and skull & bones' they have on display as 'evidence', enhanced by Peleoartist's paintings to look like the desired "common ancestors" you are looking for, these paintings all lined up in sequences to give the illusion of speciation, .. like a gorilla morphing into a human.

So why continue defending something that even you Evolutionists admit to never happens, that Evolution/speciation of one distinct species into another distinct species NEVER happens in real life, or while the species are alive!? We are on agreement with that, so why push your religious belief of something we both agree never happens?