Evolution happens

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's important that you think that, isn't it?

For the record, here is precisely what I believe:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

And this shows exactly what I mean when you hold science and academia in such low regard. Even if science is 100% correct about something, if it doesn't mesh with your religious views, you cannot accept it.

 

[AV1611VET]

And this shows exactly what I mean when you hold science and academia in such low regard. Even if science is 100% correct about something, if it doesn't mesh with your religious views, you cannot accept it.

Can I say the same thing about you?

You hold the Bible in such low regard, that even if the Bible is 100% correct about something, if it doesn't mesh with your academic views, you cannot accept it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Can I say the same thing about you?

You hold the Bible in such low regard, that even if the Bible is 100% correct about something, if it doesn't mesh with your academic views, you cannot accept it?

Show me something that the Bible is 100% correct on? That isn't that everything had a beginning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will, when I see these "errors" as you see them.

Until then, I won't.

It appears that you are willfully blind to corrections. They have been given countless times. Pretending that you do not see them appears to be lying to others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Planetary Evolution is linked to Chemical Evolution, which then links to Biological Evolution.

All three are under the umbrella of: Cosmic Evolution.

Along with four others: Particulate, Galactic, Stellar, and Cultural.

Nope. Do you know why? Because you are using bogus terminology. And even if that is the case you only get a big 'So what?'. But then most of your arguments can be refuted with just a "So what?"

 

[AV1611VET]

And even if that is the case you only get a big 'So what?'.

I already got that in Post 82.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already got that in Post 82.

Then why on Earth repeat your error?

 

[Bradskii]

So get this. I read the last 4 pages of posts without the ignored content. And it hardly made any sense at all. So I showed the ignored content...and it made even less sense.

Unsubscribing.

 

[Astrophile]

No, evolution is not atheism but it does make God out to be a liar. I object to that. And evolution is the cornerstone of atheist belief.

Evolution is not the corner-stone of my atheism. I was a Christian, and I accepted the reality of evolution and the scientifically determined ages of the Earth and the universe, until I was 30. I still do not think that there is any irreconcilable conflict between theism and the findings of science.

I became an atheist as a result of studying the Bible, and learning that the Old Testament is unhistorical and that the gospels were written several decades after the death of Jesus by people who were not eye-witnesses and did not even speak the same language as Jesus.

 

[Astrophile]

A famous math scientist, who was an evolutionist, once said, in response to the fact that there is no mathematical possibility that a DNA molecule can come into existence by chance:

"If it comes to believing in a mathematical impossibility or a creator, I will believe in a mathematical impossibility."

Could you give a link to the source of this quotation, or could you name the famous math scientist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Could you give a link to the source of this quotation, or could you name the famous math scientist?

Most of the "mathematical impossibilities" by creationists are just examples of bad math. I can "prove" that those creationists do not exist using their own math. They cannot seem to understand the difference between a result and a goal. If one treats the evolution of humanity as a goal it can be shown to be mathematical impossible. If one realizes that it is as result the odds of a result approach one.

 

[Astrophile]

The others aside, I don't believe this at all.

What's this from National Geographic then?

Earth had Two Moons, New Model Suggests
For a whole what? week? month? year?

That article is from 2011, so is it a whole decade?

Do you think they'll come out with a new one tomorrow? You're right. I'm not.

And I'm still not, since I don't believe you.

The article is interesting, although the fact that haven't heard much about the hypothesis during the last ten years suggests that it has been rejected.

However, the hypothesis that the Earth originally had two Moons, the smaller of which collided with the present Moon, is not in conflict with the hypothesis that the Moon was formed from material ejected by a collision between the Earth and another planet. It merely postulates that there were two Moons, rather than one, that were formed from the ejected material. This is not a completely new hypothesis for the formation of the Moon; it is a modification of the long-standing planetary collision hypothesis.

 

[Astrophile]

I cited that link, because someone said:Of all the models (some seven different ones) that are in existence, he calls this one model "credible," as if all the others aren't.

Which model do you prefer?

The rotational fission model, the capture model and the co-accretion model have all been abandoned because the evidence is against them, and most of the other models are modifications of the planetary collision model.

 

[Astrophile]

And stellar evolution is stellar?

Stellar evolution is part of astronomy. I think that the use of the word 'evolution' in connection with stars is unfortunate because it gives the wrong impression of the process. Stars do not give birth to baby stars, and there is no stellar genetic code analogous to the DNA of living organisms that would enable one generation of stars to inherit the traits of its predecessors. What we call stellar evolution is more nearly analogous to the life-cycle of an individual living organism, although this analogy must not be pushed too far. Stars do not ingest material, and, crucially, they do not reproduce themselves.

I wish that we could think of a better word than 'evolution' to describe the changes in a star from its 'birth' in an interstellar cloud to the ejection of its envelope and the collapse of its core into a white dwarf, neutron star or black hole. This would allow the word 'evolution' to be used only in its biological sense. However, I cannot think of any terrestrial process that is analogous to the 'life-cycle' of a star and that could provide an appropriate word to describe these changes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Evolution is not the corner-stone of my atheism. I was a Christian, and I accepted the reality of evolution and the scientifically determined ages of the Earth and the universe, until I was 30. I still do not think that there is any irreconcilable conflict between theism and the findings of science.

I became an atheist as a result of studying the Bible, and learning that the Old Testament is unhistorical and that the gospels were written several decades after the death of Jesus by people who were not eye-witnesses and did not even speak the same language as Jesus.

Are you trying to steal my biography?

 

[Astrophile]

Are you trying to steal my biography?

No. I expect that a lot of atheists went through the same experience.

 

[Astrid]

No. I expect that a lot of atheists went through the same experience.

I was lucky, religion was never a part of my family life.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was lucky, religion was never a part of my family life.

You here for catch-up then?

 

[ruthiesea]

Can I say the same thing about you?

You hold the Bible in such low regard, that even if the Bible is 100% correct about something, if it doesn't mesh with your academic views, you cannot accept it?

Tanakh, what you would call the Old Testament, is 100% correct as long as you understand that it neither a history book nor a science book.
Of course, those who put their faith in The Seven Valleys and The Four Valleys, Tipitaka, The Vedas and The Upanishad, The Quran and The Hadiths, etc. believe in the literal truths of those books as some Christians and Jews do in theirs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tanakh, what you would call the Old Testament, is 100% correct as long as you understand that it neither a history book nor a science book.

In that case, the same goes for Humpty Dumpty.

As long as I understand Humpty Dumpty is neither a history book nor a science book, Humpty Dumpty is 100% correct.