Speed of light

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Oh yes, very much so. But they are not proven; there's the slimmest of chances that evolutionary theory is false (for example, if two humans concieve and bear a modern chimpanzee by completely natural means, then no matter how much evidence we have accumulated, the theory must be discarded).

Yes, fact always trumps theory. But first you have to discover the falsifying fact.

Theory is never "proven". A theory is based on evidence. You can prove things in logic, not in science.

OTOH, one does get to the state that refusal to acknowledge a well-evidenced theory as "fact" is an exercise in intellectual perversity.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Yes, fact always trumps theory. But first you have to discover the falsifying fact.

Theory is never "proven". A theory is based on evidence. You can prove things in logic, not in science.

OTOH, one does get to the state that refusal to acknowledge a well-evidenced theory as "fact" is an exercise in intellectual perversity.
Agreed. I would go so far as to agree with this sentiment:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane." - Richard Dawkins
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Agreed. I would go so far as to agree with this sentiment:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane." - Richard Dawkins

Yes, despite finding Dawkin's opinions on religion incredibly sophomoric, I have to agree with him on that point.
 
Upvote 0

Fed

Veteran
Dec 24, 2004
2,296
78
36
CA
✟17,841.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Which one's Kurt Wise?

Harvard educated, PhD in paleontology.

As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Now you're being ridiculous. Come on, get real, that's more like science fiction

Point is that the "evidence" for a 6,000 year old earth and a 6 minute old earth is the same.

If the earth is not as old as the multiple lines of scientific evidence lead us to believe, then there is no way to say just how young it is.

It could just as well have been created last Thursday as a few millennia ago. Any guess on how recently it was created is as good as any other. None can be shown to be false.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
To prove a theory, it has to be able to be duplicated.

Not true. If this were the case, the prosecution would have to duplicate a murder to prove X is the murderer.

In any case theories are never proved. A theory is based on evidence, not proof. It is always subject to revision in the light of new evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
No! You're wrong, very wrong...Evolution has never been proven and any scientist that says that it has is full of hot air. To prove a theory, it has to be able to be duplicated. Evolution has never been proven in such a manner. It can't happen.
No: a theory is never proven. It can be evidenced to the point where it's almost certainly true, but it can never be demonstrated with 100% certainty.
Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
No! You're wrong, very wrong...Evolution has never been proven and any scientist that says that it has is full of hot air. To prove a theory, it has to be able to be duplicated. Evolution has never been proven in such a manner. It can't happen.
In fact, evolution has been duplicated. Evolution is a change in the traits of a population from one generation to the next. A way that biological systems can evolve is under selective pressures. This is what Darwin's original theory was about; people have done that to many species, and nature itself has done that to even more.

For the first case, look at domestic dogs. If you want a scientific experiment, look at how Dudley and Lambert selected for high and low oil content in maize and achieved spectacular results in both directions (couldn't find the article text online, but there's a graph of their results in The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins, and here's the reference in case you want to read the original paper:

Dudley, J.W. and R.J. Lambert. 1992. Ninety generations of selection for oil and protein in maize. Maydica 37:1_7.

There were similar experiments on fruit flies, I bet you can find loads of information on the internet if you care to look.

As for selection leading to change in nature, I can give you this paper. Apparently, finch beaks got smaller when there were few large seeds to eat and the big-beaked guys and girls died off...

True, this is small-scale evolution (to expect large-scale events such as a fish-tetrapod transition to occur within a human timescale is like expecting your brother to grow up in a few seconds, in my opinion), but it is evolution. So don't tell me it hasn't been "proved". It has been shown to occur, and probably as unambiguously as anything in science.

I agree with the others. Proof is for logic, evidence is for science.

(by the way, you're a bit confused on terminology. Yes, an experiment has to be replicable if you want people to take you seriously. But I don't see how you can "duplicate" a theory, unless by writing it down again and again :p What a theory/hypothesis* has to do is make testable predictions)

*And here's where I'm confused about terminology. Honestly, after having taken a course called Science Methods, I have not the faintest idea what a "theory" is. I like to think of them as sort of "extended", more general hypotheses, but you can argue with my definition.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MoonLancer

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
Aug 10, 2007
5,765
166
✟22,024.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
No! You're wrong, very wrong...Evolution has never been proven and any scientist that says that it has is full of hot air. To prove a theory, it has to be able to be duplicated. Evolution has never been proven in such a manner. It can't happen.

LALALA not listening ;p. evolution is 100% bonafide science.

deep voice
"99 out of 100 scientists agree, evolution leads to a healthy and balanced outlook on reality"
 
Upvote 0
R

rmenz53

Guest
When the moon is between the sun and the earth and casts its shadow on the earth, a solar
eclipse takes place. Due to an uncanny coincidence, the moon and sun appear in our sky to
be exactly the same size. Sure, the moon is 400 times smaller than the sun, but it also
just happens to be exactly 400 times closer. Strange, but true. Thus it is possible for
the lunar disk to precisely cover the sun when the alignment is just right.

This alone is enough to dispose of the the idea that the universe came to be by natural processes (no Creator).
Consider the human eye, a bird in flight, the circulatory system, human brain ....so many other facts that demand a creator. It is absolutely ludicrous to believe that the universe came to be through random chance without a Designer. It takes much more faith to believe in evolution with no Creator than "In the beginning, God created".
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
When the moon is between the sun and the earth and casts its shadow on the earth, a solar
eclipse takes place. Due to an uncanny coincidence, the moon and sun appear in our sky to
be exactly the same size. Sure, the moon is 400 times smaller than the sun, but it also
just happens to be exactly 400 times closer. Strange, but true. Thus it is possible for
the lunar disk to precisely cover the sun when the alignment is just right.

This alone is enough to dispose of the the idea that the universe came to be by natural processes (no Creator).
Have you ever heard of annular eclipses? Sad to say but the sun and the moon don't always appear the same size. A slight imperfection in the perfect creation, eh?

Consider the human eye, a bird in flight, the circulatory system, human brain ....so many other facts that demand a creator.
Oh no, the eye again.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
Watch the video, read the text. And if that's not enough, google evolution of the eye. Or read Dawkins.

As for bird flight, nobody thinks it just popped into existence. There are various hypotheses out there - one is that flight movements evolved from prey-grasping movements of predatory dinosaurs -, go and check them out...
The brain is a very similar case to the eye. If you look around the animal kingdom you can find just about every stage in its evolution in living animals.

It is absolutely ludicrous to believe that the universe came to be through random chance without a Designer. It takes much more faith to believe in evolution with no Creator than "In the beginning, God created".
:sigh: First, what does the beginning of the universe have to do with biological evolution? I willingly admit we know nothing (or very little) about the Beginning. But evolution isn't concerned with how things began, and unlike the birth of the universe or even the origin of life, it's been observed and documented and experimentally demonstrated in a huge number of cases. I don't think believing a theory like that requires any leap of faith.

For me, however, a Creator (1) intelligent enough to see through the entire complexity of a universe, and especially the complexity of organisms and ecosystems and (2) powerful enough to create natural laws, physical forces, matter... life... seems just a wee bit unreasonable as an assumption. Besides the fact that no evidence supports its existence.

Also, don't be overobsessed with "random chance". Random chance is only what produces variation in the first place - who survives to reproduce is usually not random at all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
R

rmenz53

Guest
the sun and the moon don't always appear the same size. A slight imperfection in the perfect creation, eh?




Don't have enough posts to link to external site showing total solar eclipse, but looks pefectly aligned to me!

As stated in the New Testement book of Romans :

19For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.
21Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. 22Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
When the moon is between the sun and the earth and casts its shadow on the earth, a solar
eclipse takes place. Due to an uncanny coincidence, the moon and sun appear in our sky to
be exactly the same size. Sure, the moon is 400 times smaller than the sun, but it also
just happens to be exactly 400 times closer. Strange, but true. Thus it is possible for
the lunar disk to precisely cover the sun when the alignment is just right.
Replace those 'exactly's with 'approximately's, and you've got a point. However, consider all the coincidences that could have been, but by some quirk of nature, didn't. This is just one of those coincidences that, in our lifetimes, happen to exist. Think about it: the Moon is constantly moving away from the Earth, so there's bound to be a period of time in which Total Eclipses occur.

This alone is enough to dispose of the the idea that the universe came to be by natural processes (no Creator).
I don't see how. See above, or explain your reasoning.

Consider the human eye, a bird in flight, the circulatory system, human brain ....
All fascinating products of evolution from simpler systems.

so many other facts that demand a creator.
Not really. They are all products of evolution.

It is absolutely ludicrous to believe that the universe came to be through random chance without a Designer.
Perhaps, but that doesn't make it any less true. Since when did the universe bow to be comprehensive enough for you to grasp?

It takes much more faith to believe in evolution with no Creator than "In the beginning, God created".
Why?

the sun and the moon don't always appear the same size. A slight imperfection in the perfect creation, eh?




Don't have enough posts to link to external site showing total solar eclipse, but looks pefectly aligned to me!
Then post the url as text. :doh:

As stated in the New Testement book of Romans :

19For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.
21Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. 22Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead.
Which means sod all if your can't justify the truth of Romans 1:19-22 (and no, just saying 'God said it, therefore it's true' doesn't count: you have to then justify that God did say it).
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Don't have enough posts to link to external site showing total solar eclipse, but looks pefectly aligned to me!
Have you read all I've said? Because I recall mentioning annular eclipses... Click the link and tell me, are these two objects the same apparent size?
http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2006/images/gal_010.jpg

And, believe it or not, there are also many more partial than total eclipses.

As stated in the New Testement book of Romans :
I don't give a damn what's stated in any book unless you give me good reason to accept it.
 
Upvote 0

Patashu

Veteran
Oct 22, 2007
1,303
63
✟16,793.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The angular diameters of the sun and moon (how big they are as seen from Earth) are as follows:

Sun 32'
Moon 29' – 33'

So the moon will only perfectly match up with the Sun during an eclipse when it's close to the furthest point of its orbit. Also, as Wiccan_Child pointed out, the orbits are always moving slightly; this seeming coincidence would not have been in play at all some millions of years ago, and millions of years from now it will have been long gone.

Also, I'd like Christians to come up with a general consensus on whether faith is good or bad. After all, if atheism requires more faith and faith is a virtue maybe we should all be one!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Eledhan

Member
Dec 6, 2007
19
2
✟15,149.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
In response to the original question of this thread...

Since you obviously are a Cristian, and you believe the Bible, you shouldn't find it too hard to accept that God made Adam a mature man. This means that Adam didn't grow into a man from a baby. The normal amount of "time" was skipped in order to create a mature male.

What about the rest of creation? God created trees, grass, animals, etc. fully mature and inhabiting the earth.

If you believe the Bible, then your answer is there if you will take the time to study it closely. I believe that the correct answer to your question is this...God created a mature man, mature plants, mature animals, mature earth. (I believe that you accept this too) Why would it be so hard of a stretch to assume that God also created the solar system, galaxy, and for that matter, the rest of the universe mature? This would explain the age of the earth debates that always come up in Christianity.

If you could have observed Adam 10 minutes after God created him, how old would you have estimated he was, without knowing he had just been created? I would guess he would have been at least 20 because he most likely had already "hit" puberty. If knowing what we know now about the speed of light, you were to be on the earth, with the absolute knowledge that God had just created it, would you question that the stars were actually billions of light years away? No, you wouldn't. You would assume that God made the universe mature, just like he made Adam mature. And you're not questioning whether Adam is really only 10 minutes old, because you just saw it happen.

Now, I realize that this is all based on the Bible's interpretation of the creation event, but you said you were a Christian. If you were claiming to be an atheist, or whatever, I would not have used this method.
 
Upvote 0