Ken Behrens
Well-Known Member
- Sep 5, 2016
- 1,494
- 417
- 76
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Sorry, most of the people talking to me here are atheists.Why would I think that? I do believe God is real.
Upvote
0
Sorry, most of the people talking to me here are atheists.Why would I think that? I do believe God is real.
Definitions change.When they talk about scientific experiments, then I expect the experiments to be scientific. In order for them to be scientific, I expect them to be subject to scientific criteria.
If they are indeed scientific, then there should be scientific papers published in scientific journals detailing the setup, the premises, the data and the conclusion.
Without the science, an experiment is not a scientific experiment.
Definitions change.
I am asking for a model based on laws tested over the last 200 years. I want to see if the assumption that these have been the same for 6000 years is enough. I accept the 6000 year duration, and question anything beyond that.
The universe definitely expanded from a much smaller state, it had that beginning. So the big bang theory needs to be taught. It is true nobody knows why the big bang got started.
Nested hierarchy is evidence enough for universal common ancestor. Creationist deniers of evolution deny so much more than just universal common ancestor . . . how about merely accepting a common ancestor of all the primates? Since there is rock solid evidence for a common primate ancestry, people who go ahead and accept that evidence are not to be blamed for going ahead and accepting universal common ancestry . . . its not any more in conflict with the creationist position after all.
Actually, you won't catch any evolutionist saying about evolution "we don't know how". We've got a great evolution theory that explains "how". Please be careful about not putting words into an evolutionist's mouth that he would never say.
You only question things prior to 6,000 years because it contradicts your religious beliefs.
(Sorry, On a phone so i can't format things as neatly as I'd like)
Creationists would buy that finches come from a common finch ancestor and primates could very well come from a common primate ancestor, humans come from a common human ancestor... that doesn't conflict with creationism at all.
There is no more evidence that humans and apes and finches share a common ancestor than there is evidence in any given creator.
You discount the possibility of a common designer because things appear to have a common design... yet you throw in your support to nested hierarchy? Which is exactly the same thing?
Both are guesses as to how life began, which have no verifiable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence.
We can teach life science as hiw we observe biology working NOW. But to say we're sure somehow a cell just magically poofed into existance, lived long enough to successfully reproduce in an anaerobic environment long enough for mutate from a single celled asexual organism, into a multicellular organism at least two of which eventually randomly gained the ability sexually reproduce... there are a few leaps of blind faith required to even consider that plausible.
There is evidence for big bang cosmology, namely the recession of the galaxies and the expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background, and the observed abundances of deuterium, helium-3, helium-4 and lithium-7. Can your hypothesis for the origin of the universe explain these observations? Can it predict new observations?i agree that ideas with 0 positive evidence should not be in our science classes. This includes the big bang theory (which is physically impossible as a universal singularity would have infinite mass and therefore no amount of force could allow anything with mass to escape it),
I haven't read the entire 151 pages but I have read a good bit and skimmed through the rest. Here are some problems I see:
Can you provide a quote where the wiki article says that "The equations are only valid for a small view of time. After that the exponent changes because of damping factors."On the wikipedia article. It says so.
Are you ever going to answer the question;This shows indeed that the original study has not been duplicated. However, it also suggests at the end that homogenization may be bad for another reason.
I told you I was guessing.
There is evidence for big bang cosmology, namely the recession of the galaxies and the expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background, and the observed abundances of deuterium, helium-3, helium-4 and lithium-7. Can your hypothesis for the origin of the universe explain these observations? Can it predict new observations?
Paul, we observe DNA commonalities... i agree. What makes you so confident that certain chunks of dna is "junk dna."
How ere the variables experimentally isolated to demonstrate that these commonalities specifically came FROM retroviruses as opposed to simply being a sequence that also occurs in retroviruses? How was it demonstrated that this DNA sequence can not be something that actually serves a purpose?
We both see something we can't definitively explain... you have enough faith in your assumption that you take it as fact, without anybreal evidence... yet insult my theory because my evidence isn't as strong as your complete lack of evidence?
That's not logical.
We observe the universe expanding, I agree. This does not prove "how/why" this expansion started.
Talk to any astrophysicist, physics (except gravity) could cope with anything AFTER the big bang, but a universal singularity is definitively a black hole, the escape velocity would therefore be greater than the speed of light, requiring greater than an infinite amount of force for a single atom with mass to escape. ... unless we throw out Einstein's work (which I'm in favor of).
But to infer universal expansion from those results would NOT be an illusion. It would, rather, PROVE universal expansion!... or universal expansion could be an illusion. Take any piece of paper and make a bunch of dots. Enlarge any section of it, and line up any of the dots and it will appear that all other dots are moving outward from a central point. But any point would consider itself that central point.
If the universe is infinite, it's expansion doesn't necessitate a central origin point in space or time. An infinite universe can still emit radiation in any direction allowing for the radiation we observe "at the edge of the universe" commonly interpreted to be background radiation... to just be radiation from an area of space beyond our current capacity to observe from our perspective.
Point is, anything beyond our ability to perceive is definitively beyond our ability to test. We can have ideas, but can not call any of them science. Science is what we can observe here and now. The inobservable is a matter if faith whether it involves a God or not.
Take a step back there, Paul. Coincidence is a possibility. Or a common cause could have caused the coincidence. The point is seeing a commonality doesn't imply one cause for that commonality over another.
As far as junk DNA goes... mice surviving doesn't necessarily mean that DNA "does nothing."
We observe the evidence HERE of radiation coming from a certain direction... we are not observing radiation that actually exists elsewhere in space. And even if we detect which direction it came from, there's no way to prove it has an origin point of some "universal edge." It could be from any given object simply outside of our range of detection, or from an object within our range that was deflected at some point during its potentially billion year journey.
Also, the current version of the big bang requires one to believe that time and space are mutable, material that can be created and destroyed... which is balogna.
And while ear wiggling muscles may not serve an "important" function, those muscles do still reposition one's ears, which happens naturally when you're focusing on selecting a specific sound out of a group of sounds. They're also play a role in moving the rest of your face muscles around.
If you severed those specific muscles, you'd probably live just fine... but they do things.
Similar to whale and snake "vestigial hips" people talk about.
... they serveba function while mating and are very much not "useless."
Wut?special pleading