Tribulation physics

[TLK Valentine]

Much of the Bible is falsifiable. It is just that in every case where people thought they had proved it wrong, (ie, the existence of David), proof has been discovered that supports the historical accuracy of the text.

Indeed, much of what can and has been disproved (I prefer to reserve "falsifiable" for scientific works) has been as a result of traditions being imposed on the Bible as opposed to the text itself.

For example, David has traditionally been credited as the author of the Psalms, even though many of them were written in response to events which happened centuries after his death.

Similarly, Jewish tradition puts Moses as the author of the Torah, even though it covers hundreds of years of Jewish history, much of it occurring after his death.

The Bible is easily disproven if we make the rookie mistake of assuming that every bit of it was written as straight-up literal history, with no thought at all to historial or cultural context.

Read for what it is -- a collection of history, poetry, mythology, folklore, wisdom literature, protest literature, and no small amount of political propaganda -- it becomes a much more comprehensive picture of the Jewish people.

 

[Tiberius]

I agree with much of what you said above, aside from the statement: So, yes, there are a great many things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved (and a great many things it has). Please, if you care to, share what things in the Bible have been dispproved?

The account of creation, Humanity springing from only two people the diversity of languages, Noah's flood, the Exodus of Moses just off the top of my head.

Of course, if you present non-biblical, verifiable support for these claims, I'll be happy to reconsider them.

Simply saying that something is impossible is not proof that it is. Just think of all the things that we take for granted today, that humans 100 years ago would have thought are impossible. Impossibility is in the eye of the beholder, and is completely subjective.

Where did I say impossible? I said unlikely. And I judge that unlikely events are unlikely to have happened.

If someone tells me they rolled their car, I will assume that their car is very badly damaged and they most likely needed medical attention, because that's a likely outcome of rolling a car.

Now, I suppose it is possible that rolling the car meant that the car flipped while it was completely in mid air and thus suffered no damage from bouncing along the ground, and landed perfectly on all four wheels in such a way that no injury was sustained and no damage at all was done to the car, but you'd have a hard time believing that, wouldn't you? because it's unlikely.

Further, I don't claim to be able to prove the Bible is correct. It is good enough for me that you cannot prove the Bible incorrect. That is because I completely accept that the Bible is a book of faith. That is what I am, a believer. This is something that I am quite comfortable with. It doesn't bother me at all to believe. That is who I am, and what I do. And I am honest about it. I don't lie to myself about it, like the athiest often does, and so desperately tries to hide. I have no interest in trying to prove the Bible to you, or anyone else. If I could, then it wouldn't require faith, and then one couldn't receive anything from God anyway. Faith is the only avenue by which we can reach God, it is the way God created us to operate.

So you accept it as true because no one else has proved it wrong?

Well, as I mentioned above, there are many things that science has shown are impossible, such as Noah's flood.

But quite aside from that, why do you think that you do not need to rigorously examine what you take to be the word of God? You do you assume other people must do it? If we are talking about the most important knowledge available to humanity, isn't it everyone's responsibility to examine it as rigorously as possible and see if it stands up to that examination?

I am about as likely to read Richard Dawkings works as you are to read Matthew Henrys Expanded Commentary on the Bible. By the way, for your information, I dislike alot of the popular creationist material also. I am not a Young Earth Creationist. I am a Gap theory creationist, and believe that the earth and universe are likely as old as science says that they are.

A shame. You'll learn a lot about science from his work, and it's a good read. And the difference is, science is objective, unlike a theological commentary.

Look, I have read about and researched these before. This is not my first time around the mulberry bush. Changes within kinds occur all the time. Selective breeding is the most obvious example. I suppose that we could call this micro-evolution, for the sake of argument; but the fact is, when we are discussing evolution in this context we all know what we are talking about. We are talking about the addition of genetic information that was not there before, through ramdom mutation, that benefits the survivability of the species, and is passed on to succeeding generations resulting in a new kind. The experiments that you are describing have not been proven to have added any genetic information that didn't already exist within the subjects already.

This is false. See HERE.

Manipulation of the current gene pool is nothing new, and has been done through selective breeding, and evirnoment change, for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.

And that's evolution.

This can create amazing differences within kinds, but no amount of manipulation of existing genetic material is going to make a fish become an elephant. This can only happen with the addition of genetic information, which we have not yet observed in nature, nor within a controlled environment. With the advent of genetic mapping, mabey we can get a chance to better test this. But it has not been done yet. I believe that it cannot happen. But I am open to the possibility. If it is proven to occur, (ie., the addition of genetic material by ramdom mutation that did not exist before that benefits the survivability of the subject and is passed on to succeeding generations resulting in a new kind), then I will have to revisit my beliefs.

No offense, but you are incredibly wrong about this.

If a fish turned into an elephant, it would disprove evolution. Modern animals don't come from modern animals. Elephants didn't come from fish. Elephants and fish both came from the common ancestor between elephants and fish (by the way, did you know that, scientifically speaking, there's not really any such thing as a fish?). This ancestor would have been very fish-like, yes, but it would not be what we would call a modern fish.

But fish to elephant is a big change. What about a smaller change, such as fish to amphibian? If you saw intermediary steps, would you re-evaluate your beliefs?

It may have withstood rigorous testing, but so has the Bible.

I'd like to see information about these rigorous tests that have been done on Biblical claims.

What the testing of evolution has not done, as I have already described, is produce evidence of new genetic material that did not exist before that benefits the survivability of the species, and is passed on to succeeding generations resulting in a new kind.

Two things.

First, it has happened, as I showed above.

Secondly, new genetic information that gives some advantage does not automatically create a new kind (what is a kind, anyway?), species, genus or anything else. It creates a variation within the original species. The change to a new species is a slow one, and does not come from just a single change.

This leaves evolution in the same boat as the Bible. Tested, but unproven. Until it can be shown that new genetic information that didn't previously exist recesively or otherwise within the subject is created by random mutation that benefits the survivability of the species and is passed on to succeeding generations resuting in a new kind, evolution simply remains a theory. A very expensive theory, but a theory nonetheless. And everyone that hangs their hat on this theory, and calls it a proven fact, when it is not, is already excercising an act of pure faith. Exactly the behavior that they scorn in others.

First of all, proof is for mathematics. Evolution will never be proved 100%, because tomorrow we could find something that disproves it. In just the same way that gravity could be disproved as soon as someone throws a hammer into the air and it just floats there. Very unlikely to happen, but it can happen. Evolution could be disproved by finding a fossil rabbit in precambrian rocks. Almost certainly not going to happen, and no scientist worries that it will, but it is a possibility.

Secondly, the word "theory" means something other than what you think. You think it means the same as the everyday meaning of theory - a guess, an idea. But it doesn't. In science, a theory is a well supported explanation for a set of observations, an explanation that has been tested and verified many times. In science, a theory is as close to fact as you can get.

And finally, your requirements for something to be evolution are wrong. If the gene pool of a population changes over time because traits are being selected for and against by natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift, then that is evolution. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies.

This then brings us to the moral question. Why sould someone choose to excercise faith that their is no God, rather than choosing to excercise their faith in the existence of God? Jesus told us. He said that people do not come to the light, lest their deeds should be reproved. He also said that the world hated Him becasue He testified of it, that its works were evil. The moral motive for atheism is laid bare by the words of Jesus. It is simply the natural mans attempt at escaping accountability for their actions. The natural man wants above all else, to justify himself. To believe that he is good. To believe that he is not accountable to God. And that is always the motive.

Peace...

I do not have faith that there is no God, just as you do not have faith that there are no magical elves in your cupboards. I lack belief in God because I lack the evidence required to convince me of God.

 

[The Engineer]

Or that Daniel was captive.

What does this have to do with anything?

It was a logical deduction. Unless our state extended to all time and space, then certain things must follow.

We can assume our state (i.e. the state in which the laws of nature apply) extends to all infinity unless something happens. To assume that it will change for no reason isn't logical at all.

Then you are misinformed indeed. The big bang, hit and run moon creation, and the first life form are anything but proven. Insane claim.

The big bang has been proven, the expansion of the universe can even be measured. Abiogenesis hasn't been proven yet, but it's far from being unfalsifiable. Don't know enough about hit and run moon creation to say anything about it, but I doubt it's regarded as the ultimate truth by scientists.

Well then, whoever they are, as long as they deal in the present state, they have a good chance of success. Those that prophesy of their same state future and past are filthy dreamers.

I explained this to you time and time again, we can assume the laws of nature will always apply unless we are given a reason to assume they will not apply after a certain point in time.

The answer is that you do not know. Apparently most evos prefer to stay ignorant than to let God inform them also. So there we stand.

The knowledge God gives you isn't knowledge at all, it's just unsubstantiated assumptions, and it's not even given to you by God.

Right,, and your beliefs are fine. Just do not confuse them with knowledge or science.

It's my belief, yes, but I have a logical basis for this belief.

I read what the One that made it says actually. Man doesn't know. How could he? The only issue is whether little man is honest enough to admit the obvious.

I am honest enough to admit when I don't know something, unlike you.

I did? What was the context?

I'm certainly not going to check the whole respond-answer-chain just to tell you the context! If you don't remember the context, you can do it!

Bingo. All your predictions are then admittedly based on what you do not know after all. What more can I say? Come on over to the knowin side!

They are based not based on hard knowledge, but on logical assumptions.

Your knowledge isn't even a logical assumption. It's just unsubstantiated claims, taken from an old, old book.

You could be onto something.

I know.

The can't, as far as making long term models..past or future, that oppose God's word to man.

The bible isn't God's word. It's just a book.

Doesn't matter what they believe. They know not. So it is not from any position of knowledge or real science that they oppose God. Good thing for kids to know. Listen up kids. They don't know what they are talking about.

You always talk about knowledge, but you don't care about how you acquire knowledge. Scientists create hypotheses, test them, try to disprove them just to be sure they make sense, look if they can make predictions based on them, and in the end, they have a theory that makes so much sense it can be regarded as knowledge, even though no scientist will ever regard it as the ultimate, undeniable truth.

You read a book, and declare it the ultimate source of knowledge, and that's why I don't buy your knowledge.

Insane and uninformed belief.

Rational belief, whether you like it or not.

Now you take to prophesying. God's prophets were stoned to death if they got a prophesy wrong. Those that survived and made it into the book had credos. You have none.

So that's your argument? The prophets really, really believed in something, so it must be true?

Alex Jones really, really believes in a New World Order. That doesn't mean he's right.

So now they have a clue? About ..what?

About what they are saying.

Opinions are a dime a dozen. So called science has come off as knowing stuff. A fraud.

You can shout fraud as much as you won't, your arguments won't make more sense that way.

Don't worry about what God knows. All that matters here is that you know not.

You're not convincing me.

Baseless conspiracy theory. Whoopee doo.

It's not as extraordinary as the claim that a prophecy was fulfilled.

Keep lookin. I found some.

Then why don't you share it with us?

So? It won't be science or known, just baseless belief. Once science is busted as that then the jig is up.

Call me when you successfully busted science.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What does this have to do with anything?

Absolutely nothing.

We can assume our state (i.e. the state in which the laws of nature apply) extends to all infinity unless something happens. To assume that it will change for no reason isn't logical at all.

Ah, but it doesn't change for no reason -- it changes because dad demands that it change. So you see, the reason is to reinforce dad's feelings of superiority over us poor in the box people.

All hail dad -- master of time and space!

Call me when you successfully busted science.

Or anything else, for that matter.

 

[dkbwarrior]

The account of creation, Humanity springing from only two people the diversity of languages, Noah's flood, the Exodus of Moses just off the top of my head.

None of this has been proven false. Some may have proven wrong some fundamentalist interpretation of various passages of text, but biblical interpretation is constantly moving forward, and, if you believe in progressive revelation, as I do, it will continue to do so.

Of course, if you present non-biblical, verifiable support for these claims, I'll be happy to reconsider them.

I have already told you, I have no interest in proving the Bible to you, or anyone else for that matter. I believe the Bible. It is a matter of faith. It is good enough for me that you cannot disprove it.

Let me remind you of where we are. I am not at an Atheist web site trying to convert Atheists, nor trying to prove to them that my God is real. You are on a Christian website, trying to prove that evolution is real, and therefore the burden of proof is on you. The fact is, as you do state later in your post, to your credit, you simply cannot prove evolution, it is a science of assumtions. It will remain so until you can reproduce it in the lab, or observe it in real time in nature.

Where did I say impossible? I said unlikely. And I judge that unlikely events are unlikely to have happened.

If someone tells me they rolled their car, I will assume that their car is very badly damaged and they most likely needed medical attention, because that's a likely outcome of rolling a car.

Now, I suppose it is possible that rolling the car meant that the car flipped while it was completely in mid air and thus suffered no damage from bouncing along the ground, and landed perfectly on all four wheels in such a way that no injury was sustained and no damage at all was done to the car, but you'd have a hard time believing that, wouldn't you? because it's unlikely.

This is splitting hairs, and what these type of conversations usually devolve to. Fine with me if we want to define it as unlikely, rather than impossible. That is simply a tangent and a distraction.

So you accept it as true because no one else has proved it wrong?

Well, as I mentioned above, there are many things that science has shown are impossible, such as Noah's flood.

But quite aside from that, why do you think that you do not need to rigorously examine what you take to be the word of God? You do you assume other people must do it? If we are talking about the most important knowledge available to humanity, isn't it everyone's responsibility to examine it as rigorously as possible and see if it stands up to that examination?

False. Science has not disproved Noahs flood. Nor do I accept the Bible as truth just because it has not been proven false. There are many things that have not been proven false, that I do not believe. Evolution is one of them.

I believe the Bible because I had a revelation from the Spirit of God that Jesus is the Son of God, and that the Biblical account is divinely inspired, that I am a sinner, and that I need a saviour. I chose to excercise my faith in believing that Christ provided atonement for my sin as the scriptures declare on the cross of calvary, was raised from the dead on the third day for my justification, and accepted Christ as my saviour, and began developing a relationship with God through His Word.

A shame. You'll learn a lot about science from his work, and it's a good read. And the difference is, science is objective, unlike a theological commentary.

The only thing that Dawkins can teach me is unbelief, and I had enough of that before being saved from his ilk, both in the public education system, and from other intellectual idiots.

This is false. See HERE.

This link does not provide the proof that I was requesting. It does provide a word salad to obfuscate the issue however.

And that's evolution.

I disagree.

No offense, but you are incredibly wrong about this.

If a fish turned into an elephant, it would disprove evolution. Modern animals don't come from modern animals. Elephants didn't come from fish. Elephants and fish both came from the common ancestor between elephants and fish (by the way, did you know that, scientifically speaking, there's not really any such thing as a fish?). This ancestor would have been very fish-like, yes, but it would not be what we would call a modern fish.

But fish to elephant is a big change. What about a smaller change, such as fish to amphibian? If you saw intermediary steps, would you re-evaluate your beliefs?

I don't seek evidence of evolution in the form of turning a fish into an elephant, abra-cadabra. That is not what I meant. Forgive me for not being plainer in my explanation. I just thought that would be understood. Nor am I invested in the fish or the elephant. The point that I was making was that the evolution of kinds required to make a leap from, say, an easily recognizable kind to the lay person, to another easily recognizeable but completely different kind to the lay person, would involve numerous evolutionary steps, adding much information, and result in a new kind, plain to see to everyone. This has not been observed in nature, nor in a controlled environment. Manipulation of existing genetic information, sure, but not a new kind.

Even this is suspect, however, (the manipulation or copying of existing genes), because if such change is induced by intelligence, then it stands to reason that it is not random.

I'd like to see information about these rigorous tests that have been done on Biblical claims.

I am referring to the scores of times over the last century when biblical sceptics have taken a peice of the scripture and stated it was false, namely because they didn't have any evidence of it, only to find out from archaeology later on that it was true. I mentioned David, because that was one of the big ones. For some time in the early part of the 20th century the skeptics charged that David was simply a mythical figure, type of the warrior king hero of legend. They were able to do this as at the time, their was no archeaological evidence that he existed. Only the biblical text. They used this as evidence of the Bible being only a mythological book. Until evidence was discovered by archaeologists, of the historical reality of his existence. First the inscription on the Stela of Laish was discovered, then the inscription on the Egyptian temple wall at Karnac, then the ancient Moabite text that mentioned the house of David was discovered. Today it is pretty much accepted that King David, and King Solomon were both historical figures.

A good analogy here I can take from the movie, "The Chronicles of Narnia". When Peter and Susan told the Professor their problem about who to believe, Lucy or Edmund, (as Lucy's story was simply unbelievable), the Professor asked them, "So Lucy is known to lie then?" To which Susan replied, "That is just it sir, she never lies." So then the Professor asked them, "Well then, Edmund is known for telling the truth?" To which Peter repleied, "Well, no sir, in fact he lies all the time." To which the Professor replied, "Well then, what is the problem? What do they teach these children in these schools?"

The point being, of course, that the Bible has not been proven wrong in any appreciable way, that cannot be otherwise interpreted, or resolved. With its 2,000 year history of changing the world, arguably the most influential book of all time, one has to give some deference to its existence. Not to mention the experience of billions of people down through the ages who have personally experienced the life changing results of assimilating it; of which I am one.

Two things.

First, it has happened, as I showed above.

Secondly, new genetic information that gives some advantage does not automatically create a new kind (what is a kind, anyway?), species, genus or anything else. It creates a variation within the original species. The change to a new species is a slow one, and does not come from just a single change.

First, it was not new information. Secondly, for it to be evolution of the kind that I do not believe in, macro evolution, it needs to progress to the point that it creates a new kind. What is a kind? That is a good question. I haven't fully fleshed that out yet. But I don't like to use the scientific terms here such as species, phyla, or genus, because the Bible doesn't use those terms. The Bible uses the term 'kind'. I am still not fully convinced how to define this term. However, I am fairly certain that it requires a sustantial difference from other kinds, cannot interbreed with other kinds, and looks and and acts entirely different. (Like the difference between a fish and an elephant).

First of all, proof is for mathematics. Evolution will never be proved 100%, because tomorrow we could find something that disproves it. In just the same way that gravity could be disproved as soon as someone throws a hammer into the air and it just floats there. Very unlikely to happen, but it can happen. Evolution could be disproved by finding a fossil rabbit in precambrian rocks. Almost certainly not going to happen, and no scientist worries that it will, but it is a possibility.

Secondly, the word "theory" means something other than what you think. You think it means the same as the everyday meaning of theory - a guess, an idea. But it doesn't. In science, a theory is a well supported explanation for a set of observations, an explanation that has been tested and verified many times. In science, a theory is as close to fact as you can get.

And finally, your requirements for something to be evolution are wrong. If the gene pool of a population changes over time because traits are being selected for and against by natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift, then that is evolution. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies.

Well, you can define it however you want. However, I do believe that changes happen within kinds. Certainly. As I mentioned, selective breeding is a good example. So I do believe in evolution within kinds. What I don't believe in is Darwinian evolution, or what I call macro evolution, that results in cells becoming fish, and fish becoming mammals, and mammals becoming man, over prolonged periods of time.

I do not have faith that there is no God, just as you do not have faith that there are no magical elves in your cupboards. I lack belief in God because I lack the evidence required to convince me of God.

I never meant to imply that you have faith that there is no God. I did say that you have faith in evolution. Darwinian evolution to be exact. You believe in something that you have never seen, nor has been reproduced in a controlled environment, nor has been observed in real time in nature. You have probably much greater faith in your evolution, than I have in my God. It does take more faith to believe that we came from pond scum, than it does to believe that we were created, IMHO.

One final thought. Evolution is the atheists holy grail. It is the means by which they believe that they can disprove the God of the Bible. But back to the Chronicles of Narnia metaphor. Look at what Atheism has accomplished in less than a century of its propagation. It has arguably been responsible for more deaths in two generations than all the deaths of all religious wars of history combined. From its manifestation in the Superior Race quest of the Nazis through the gas chambers, to its manifestation in the communist ideals of Lenin, resulting in the pogroms of Stalin, Mao, and the Killing Fields of Cambodia, to its manifesatation in the de-sanctifying of life that justifies abortion, atheism has claimed over a quarter billion lives. But what is that to the person that is willing to sacrifice humanity in order to justify their own behavior? It is a deception, and the source of most of the violence in the world over the past two generations. (Not all, but most). Like the Professor said, "What do they teach these children in these schools?"

Peace...

 

[Christian-Catholic]

Of course there is controversy. There is very little on Wiki about the Shroud and it looks like it was written by a skeptic. I have read all I can find about the subject and it's all very interesting to me.

We should allow them to answer for themselves:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]14[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]15[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It looks like Paul is saying that if there is no resurrection. If there is no eternal life, then nothing matters. If there is no resurrection then all is useless. Life is useless if in the end we die and all our work is blown away in the wind. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To some degree this is one area I do not agree with Paul. I see plenty of benefit to living the Christian life even if this is all there is. For Paul it was all a waste of time if this life is all there is and if there was no eternal life. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The resurrection power of God is at work in Christians getting them ready for the resurrection. It would appear that the resurrection power of God is not at work in you. Also I am sure your testimony is when you die that is the end and you do not believe in any sort of eternal life. So there is no reason for you to prepare for what you do not believe in. [/FONT]

Notice how when the atheists talk about teh shroud of turin, they get their sources from a wikpedia page, but if they bothered to explore it with an open mind they will know that there are hundreds of peer reviewed scientific research papers on the shroud. The technology of the image cant be replicated today. My guess is that they have not gona over one peer reviewed paper on the shroud. Its funny how atheists claim that they love science and reason but when the evidence goes against their worldview, they abandon reason and the scientific method all together. This is because they are biased against God, and this is why atheism is worldview based on emotions rather then reason, wisdom and the scientific method.


Over 300,000 man hours of research from scientists of all fields, and they think that they can sweep it under the rug with a wikipedia article?
It is the only 2d image on earth with 3d spatial information encoded on it.
How do you explain this? How do you explain the xray qualities of the hands, part of the head and femur. I have studied the shroud for many years and still dont know everything about it, but I am now convinced that this image was formed during the process of resurrection of our Lord.
With all of the evidence this is the only thing that makes sense.

The c14 dating was invalidated a while back by agnostic chemist ray rogers who also gave it a vanillin test in which it tested negative which means that the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old, which puts it within the time of Jesus. Instead of studying the evidence in a true scientific manner the atheist uses a wiki article to try to debunk the shroud. This is atheism in a nut shell

 

[dad]

For example, David has traditionally been credited as the author of the Psalms, even though many of them were written in response to events which happened centuries after his death.

He wrote a lot of them. All are from God.

Similarly, Jewish tradition puts Moses as the author of the Torah, even though it covers hundreds of years of Jewish history, much of it occurring after his death.

Example?

The Bible is easily disproven if we make the rookie mistake of assuming that every bit of it was written as straight-up literal history, with no thought at all to historial or cultural context.

False.

You will disprove nothing. No sense pretending.

 

[dad]

The account of creation, Humanity springing from only two people the diversity of languages, Noah's flood, the Exodus of Moses just off the top of my head.

Rest assured none of those things are disproved in any way. Don't mistake the ineptness and limits of science as anything more. They are not even qualified to speak on the issue.. let alone 'disprove' creation the flood, etc.

 

[dad]

What does this have to do with anything?

Dating. We know when the captivity was. So not only is it impossible to not be from God because of the very day predicted for Christ and His being cut off after that, etc..but we have the astounding reality also, with the dating of the captivity, that Daniel predicted all this before the starting point (decree) was even given!

We can assume our state (i.e. the state in which the laws of nature apply) extends to all infinity unless something happens. To assume that it will change for no reason isn't logical at all.

Hilarious. I guess Buzz Lightyear can assume stuff to infinity and beyond too? Nice to have someone just honestly admit this stuff for a change. Evos...look and learn.

The big bang has been proven, the expansion of the universe can even be measured.

False. You merely assume earth state time and space apply far beyond where you can go. Nothing at all more.

Abiogenesis hasn't been proven yet, but it's far from being unfalsifiable.

What fable is?

Don't know enough about hit and run moon creation to say anything about it, but I doubt it's regarded as the ultimate truth by scientists.

Behold the theory!

"
Moon Formed In Interplanetary Hit-and-Run Incident, Say Astronomers




Computational astronomers have simulated this kind of slow, grazing impact in detail and shown that an Earth-Moon system could indeed have formed given the theory's constraints on mass and angular moment.
But there is a problem with this model. The silicate surfaces of both the Moon and the Earth have a similar isotopic signature indicating that they must have formed from the same stuff.
But in a slow, grazing impact, most of the debris that ends up in orbit and forms into the Moon comes from the Mars-sized impactor, which is unlikely to have had the required isotopic signature. That's a major problem.
Today, Andreas Reufer at the University of Bern in Switzerland and a few pals say they've come up with an alternative hypothesis that fixes this problem. They say the Earth must have been grazed by a larger object travelling at much higher velocity.
This extra speed caused much of the impact debris to escape, hence the hit-and-run moniker. "
Moon Formed In Interplanetary Hit-and-Run Incident, Say Astronomers - Technology Review

I explained this to you time and time again, we can assume the laws of nature will always apply unless we are given a reason to assume they will not apply after a certain point in time.

No. You don't get to overrule God, and dream up what is a good assumption. You either know, or as in this case...do NOT know.

The knowledge God gives you isn't knowledge at all, it's just unsubstantiated assumptions, and it's not even given to you by God.

False. His word to man has lots of knowledge. A lot of it was written before the events happened.

It's my belief, yes, but I have a logical basis for this belief.

Doesn't matter. Don't we all!

I am honest enough to admit when I don't know something, unlike you.

Great. A also admit you don't know nor does science. We are close on this one..

I'm certainly not going to check the whole respond-answer-chain just to tell you the context! If you don't remember the context, you can do it!

If your point is that unimportant I can let it ride.

They are based not based on hard knowledge, but on logical assumptions.

No. Present state earth assumptions in the future or far past!

Your knowledge isn't even a logical assumption. It's just unsubstantiated claims, taken from an old, old book.

Don't worry about God's case. He can take care of Himself. Just focus on how you don't know.

The bible isn't God's word. It's just a book.

Proof?

You always talk about knowledge, but you don't care about how you acquire knowledge. Scientists create hypotheses, test them, try to disprove them just to be sure they make sense, look if they can make predictions based on them, and in the end, they have a theory that makes so much sense it can be regarded as knowledge, even though no scientist will ever regard it as the ultimate, undeniable truth.

In box theories.

You read a book, and declare it the ultimate source of knowledge, and that's why I don't buy your knowledge.

I find that eternal life is a wonderful thing. When I see that the One who gave it to us for the asking was observed risen from the very very dead, that is more than knowledge. When I see the over 300 prophesies He amazingly fulfilled while here, that is an amazing thing. When I see the Buzz Lightyear talk of fishbowl wise men, that is foolishness.

Rational belief, whether you like it or not.

Only if you establish that the present laws must apply in the far future. You can't. Not rational. Fanatical would be the term.

So that's your argument? The prophets really, really believed in something, so it must be true?

For the bible, they are shown true already. Not an issue.

Alex Jones really, really believes in a New World Order. That doesn't mean he's right.

OK, but does he call it science?

You can shout fraud as much as you won't, your arguments won't make more sense that way.

Only if the fraud of the so called science models are proven.

You're not convincing me.

But you are showing lurkers that so called science is a belief. So it isn't all about you.

It's not as extraordinary as the claim that a prophecy was fulfilled.

Jesus came into Jerusalem to die soon after on a certain DAY. That day was given centuries before.

Call me when you successfully busted science.

Dad calling The Engineer..come in..science is busted...over.

 

[TLK Valentine]

He wrote a lot of them. All are from God.

Coming from God is one thing -- but the psalms were a collection of liturgical hymms to be sung in worship services to be conducted in the Temple -- which was, if I am not mistaken, built during the reign of Solomon.

What does that tell you?

Example?

You want an example of Moses' death? Or perhaps o events which happened afterwards?

False.

True. The rookie, when backed into a corner, has only a few canards to fall back on:

1: Deny everything, and insist that everybody is wrong but him.
2: Invoke the supernatural and command God to commit miracle after miracle in order to salvage his own pride.
3: Blather incoherently.

You will disprove nothing. No sense pretending.

Meawhile, you have proven nothing -- even in an absolute best-case scenario, nothing you say will be in a position to happen until long after we all all dust. So you have absolutely nothing to offer in the hear and now but vain fantasies of your own supposed wisdom, for which people will be perfectly justified in laughing at you over.

 

[Tiberius]

Rest assured none of those things are disproved in any way. Don't mistake the ineptness and limits of science as anything more. They are not even qualified to speak on the issue.. let alone 'disprove' creation the flood, etc.

None have been disproved in any way?

Well, until you present some evidence supporting that claim, I don't believe you, because you have a proven history of manipulating information and just plain saying things that aren't true in order to make your point. And I tink you are doing that here.

So from no on, whenever you make a claim, you better present evidence to support that claimwhen you make it, or I am just going to laugh.

 

[Tiberius]

None of this has been proven false. Some may have proven wrong some fundamentalist interpretation of various passages of text, but biblical interpretation is constantly moving forward, and, if you believe in progressive revelation, as I do, it will continue to do so.

Actually, the family trees of languages can be followed back quite a way into the past, and what we learn does not support the Biblical account of the tower of Babel at all. There are also many scientific impossibilities in the account of Noah's flood, and the story of creation contradicts DNA evidence.

So yes, they have been proven false.

Let me remind you of where we are. I am not at an Atheist web site trying to convert Atheists, nor trying to prove to them that my God is real. You are on a Christian website, trying to prove that evolution is real, and therefore the burden of proof is on you. The fact is, as you do state later in your post, to your credit, you simply cannot prove evolution, it is a science of assumtions. It will remain so until you can reproduce it in the lab, or observe it in real time in nature.

The burden of proof is on me to prove evolution is true? I'll remember that...

This is splitting hairs, and what these type of conversations usually devolve to. Fine with me if we want to define it as unlikely, rather than impossible. That is simply a tangent and a distraction.

I do not see how it is splitting hairs.

False. Science has not disproved Noahs flood. Nor do I accept the Bible as truth just because it has not been proven false. There are many things that have not been proven false, that I do not believe. Evolution is one of them.

Then how did the plants survive? How did the saltwater fish survive the dilution of their salt-water homes? How did the freshwater survive the increase in salinity? And let's not get started on the idea that all life on Earth today is descended from the small sample of life that was on the ark. Why, you'd need evolution to explain how it diverged into the variety we see today! Or do you really think Noah took along several thousand kinds of beetle? And how could a wooden vessel of such a size stay in one piece? Vessels that size today need seriously reinforced hulls to stop them from twisting and breaking open in even the smallest waves.

I believe the Bible because I had a revelation from the Spirit of God that Jesus is the Son of God, and that the Biblical account is divinely inspired, that I am a sinner, and that I need a saviour. I chose to excercise my faith in believing that Christ provided atonement for my sin as the scriptures declare on the cross of calvary, was raised from the dead on the third day for my justification, and accepted Christ as my saviour, and began developing a relationship with God through His Word.

Strong gut feeling then. Because there are people all over the world who have had the exact same thing, just with other religions. My girlfriend is one of them. She had a vision from Allah, and that's why she is a Muslim. Now, I'm assuming that you don't think that she is correct. But if it is possible for a person to have a revelation from a deity and yet be wrong about it, how do you know the same thing hasn't happened to you?

The only thing that Dawkins can teach me is unbelief, and I had enough of that before being saved from his ilk, both in the public education system, and from other intellectual idiots.

A very narrow view. What you can learn from Dawkins is science. the way the universe works.

it's honestly distressing to me when I hear a person say, "No, I have these beliefs that I've decided are true, and I'm going to assume that what you have to say is wrong before I even listen to what you have to say."

And getting back to what I said before...

You claim that the burden of proof is on me, and yet when I actually try to support that burden and provide evidence to back up what I am saying, you refuse to look at it! That's not very fair, is it? You demand I produce evidence, and then refuse to look at that evidence when it is presented and then declare that my position is wrong on account of not having seen any evidence for my position.

Well, if you want to disagree with me, fine. But at least have a look at the evidence I present and judge that evidence based on its own merits, okay?

This link does not provide the proof that I was requesting. It does provide a word salad to obfuscate the issue however.

No it is not. You asked for examples of new information being added to DNA. That link specified four ways in which such information could be added and then listed a few examples of instances where this has happened.

It answers your question and does so quite clearly.

I disagree.

Then you'd be wrong, because that is indeed evolution.

I don't seek evidence of evolution in the form of turning a fish into an elephant, abra-cadabra. That is not what I meant. Forgive me for not being plainer in my explanation. I just thought that would be understood. Nor am I invested in the fish or the elephant. The point that I was making was that the evolution of kinds required to make a leap from, say, an easily recognizable kind to the lay person, to another easily recognizeable but completely different kind to the lay person, would involve numerous evolutionary steps, adding much information, and result in a new kind, plain to see to everyone. This has not been observed in nature, nor in a controlled environment. Manipulation of existing genetic information, sure, but not a new kind.

Even this is suspect, however, (the manipulation or copying of existing genes), because if such change is induced by intelligence, then it stands to reason that it is not random.

I've already shown you how the addition of new information is possible.

I am referring to the scores of times over the last century when biblical sceptics have taken a peice of the scripture and stated it was false, namely because they didn't have any evidence of it, only to find out from archaeology later on that it was true. I mentioned David, because that was one of the big ones. For some time in the early part of the 20th century the skeptics charged that David was simply a mythical figure, type of the warrior king hero of legend. They were able to do this as at the time, their was no archeaological evidence that he existed. Only the biblical text. They used this as evidence of the Bible being only a mythological book. Until evidence was discovered by archaeologists, of the historical reality of his existence. First the inscription on the Stela of Laish was discovered, then the inscription on the Egyptian temple wall at Karnac, then the ancient Moabite text that mentioned the house of David was discovered. Today it is pretty much accepted that King David, and King Solomon were both historical figures.

But when it comes to the extraordinary claims, do you think we are ever going to find evidence of them? Of course not, because they are unfalsifiable.

To claim that the Bible is true because it got some historical details right is no different than claiming that Star Trek must be right because it correctly predicted that the first manned rocket to land on the moon would be launched on a Wednesday (in the episode Assignment Earth, for those of you playing at home).

A good analogy here I can take from the movie, "The Chronicles of Narnia". When Peter and Susan told the Professor their problem about who to believe, Lucy or Edmund, (as Lucy's story was simply unbelievable), the Professor asked them, "So Lucy is known to lie then?" To which Susan replied, "That is just it sir, she never lies." So then the Professor asked them, "Well then, Edmund is known for telling the truth?" To which Peter repleied, "Well, no sir, in fact he lies all the time." To which the Professor replied, "Well then, what is the problem? What do they teach these children in these schools?"

The point being, of course, that the Bible has not been proven wrong in any appreciable way, that cannot be otherwise interpreted, or resolved. With its 2,000 year history of changing the world, arguably the most influential book of all time, one has to give some deference to its existence. Not to mention the experience of billions of people down through the ages who have personally experienced the life changing results of assimilating it; of which I am one.

As I've said, many of the fantastical claims in the Bible have been shown to be false.

First, it was not new information.

First, yes it was. The mechanism for creating new genetic information is quite well understood. The only reason you don't agree with it is because you don't know about it. And I can't comprehend how anyone could ever be satisfied with not knowing. Anyway, if it is wrong, surely you'll be able to point out the flaws in it?

Secondly, for it to be evolution of the kind that I do not believe in, macro evolution, it needs to progress to the point that it creates a new kind.

There is no difference between macro and micro evolution. Is there a difference between micro and macro aging?

What is a kind? That is a good question. I haven't fully fleshed that out yet. But I don't like to use the scientific terms here such as species, phyla, or genus, because the Bible doesn't use those terms. The Bible uses the term 'kind'. I am still not fully convinced how to define this term. However, I am fairly certain that it requires a sustantial difference from other kinds, cannot interbreed with other kinds, and looks and and acts entirely different. (Like the difference between a fish and an elephant).

I don't know how long you;ve been in debates about creationism and evolution, but I've been doing this for many years and I can tell you that I've never once seen any creationist give me any useful definition of a kind.

Well, you can define it however you want. However, I do believe that changes happen within kinds. Certainly. As I mentioned, selective breeding is a good example. So I do believe in evolution within kinds. What I don't believe in is Darwinian evolution, or what I call macro evolution, that results in cells becoming fish, and fish becoming mammals, and mammals becoming man, over prolonged periods of time.

First of all, it's not how I define it. It's how the scientists define it.

Secondly, with what you said about selective breeding...

We are both well aware that people can select traits that they like in dogs, such as floppy ears or shaggy coats and breed for that. They simply take the dogs with the floppiest ears and the shaggiest coats and allow them to breed. But do you think a similar thing can happen in the wild. Let's say that the weather gradually started to get cooler. Do you think that the dogs with the shaggiest coats and the floppiest ears would be better able to keep warm?

I never meant to imply that you have faith that there is no God. I did say that you have faith in evolution. Darwinian evolution to be exact. You believe in something that you have never seen, nor has been reproduced in a controlled environment, nor has been observed in real time in nature. You have probably much greater faith in your evolution, than I have in my God. It does take more faith to believe that we came from pond scum, than it does to believe that we were created, IMHO.

It is not faith. Evolution has been observed many times. I'd provide sources to back this claim up (and I will do so if you say that I am wrong about wheat I am about to say), but I honestly believe that your beliefs have blinded you and that you just conclude that my sources will be wrong without even looking at them.

To be continued...

 

[Tiberius]

Continued from previous post...

One final thought. Evolution is the atheists holy grail. It is the means by which they believe that they can disprove the God of the Bible.

This could not be further from the truth. The last part, that is. Evolution is the unifying theory of all biology.

But to claim it is the atheist's tool to disprove God is ridiculous. Evolution no more disproves God than Einstein's relativity does. And there are millions of God-fearing Christians out there who accept that evolution is true.

I'm not trying to convince you that there is no God. I'm just trying to show you that evolution is true. Unfortunately, you don't understand much of what evolution actually is. But I'm hoping you'll stick around, learn a few things, and maybe come to see that evolution, even in a world made by God, is actually one of the Almighty's more brilliant creations.

But back to the Chronicles of Narnia metaphor. Look at what Atheism has accomplished in less than a century of its propagation. It has arguably been responsible for more deaths in two generations than all the deaths of all religious wars of history combined.

First of all, even if this were true, it would not prove evolution is false. It would just prove that people who were atheists have done some pretty horrible things, just the same way that people who were religious have done some equally horrible things.

But the fact is that there have been very few people killed in the name of atheism.

From its manifestation in the Superior Race quest of the Nazis through the gas chambers...

Actually, Hitler was a Catholic. He said it himself in his autobiography. And the Nazis had "God with us" on their belt buckles.

[/quote]...to its manifestation in the communist ideals of Lenin, resulting in the pogroms of Stalin, Mao, and the Killing Fields of Cambodia...[/quote]

All of which were committed for the desire of political power, not atheism.

to its manifesatation in the de-sanctifying of life that justifies abortion, atheism has claimed over a quarter billion lives.

I cannot answer for every woman who has had an abortion, but I would hardly think it is the de-sanctifying of life. There are many many circumstances that play an issue there. Nonetheless, I hardly think it's fair to say that only atheist women have abortions.

But what is that to the person that is willing to sacrifice humanity in order to justify their own behavior? It is a deception, and the source of most of the violence in the world over the past two generations. (Not all, but most). Like the Professor said, "What do they teach these children in these schools?"

Peace...

In other words, you don't like atheism because of what you think some people behave like without what you see as the influence of God.

This contains two logical fallacies. Both an appeal to emotion and argument from personal incredulity.

None of the last part of your post has any bearing on whether evolution is an accurate explanation for what we see or not. Please don't try to muddy the waters. I'm not going to fall for it.

 

[Jamin4422]

the psalms were a collection of liturgical hymms to be sung in worship services to be conducted in the Temple -- which was, if I am not mistaken, built during the reign of Solomon.

Solomon built the temple. David used a tent. They could start the animal sacrifices at any time because they could set a tent up on the temple mount very fast.

 

[dad]

Coming from God is one thing -- but the psalms were a collection of liturgical hymms to be sung in worship services to be conducted in the Temple -- which was, if I am not mistaken, built during the reign of Solomon.

What does that tell you?

That praise to God is not the flavor of the week...it has history.

You want an example of Moses' death? Or perhaps o events which happened afterwards?

??

"The final chapter, which contains the story of Moses' death, was probably written by his closest friend, Joshua."

Bible Notes - Deuteronomy

If this is all you have you better head for the hills.

True.

Prove it?

 

[dad]

None have been disproved in any way?

Correct. As in NONE...in ANY way.

Well, until you present some evidence supporting that claim, I don't believe you, because you have a proven history of manipulating information and just plain saying things that aren't true in order to make your point. And I tink you are doing that here.

Easy to do. See anyone disproving the flood or creation here? No. Cheap talk.

 

[Blayz]

Correct. As in NONE...in ANY way.
Easy to do. See anyone disproving the flood or creation here? No. Cheap talk.

Well, I saw you disprove it, when you made the mistake of posting about the Oklo reactor. Does that count?

 

[dkbwarrior]

The account of creation, Humanity springing from only two people the diversity of languages, Noah's flood, the Exodus of Moses just off the top of my head.

Where did I say impossible? I said unlikely. And I judge that unlikely events are unlikely to have happened.

This is splitting hairs, and what these type of conversations usually devolve to. Fine with me if we want to define it as unlikely, rather than impossible. That is simply a tangent and a distraction.

I do not see how it is splitting hairs.

Actually, the family trees of languages can be followed back quite a way into the past, and what we learn does not support the Biblical account of the tower of Babel at all. There are also many scientific impossibilities in the account of Noah's flood, and the story of creation contradicts DNA evidence.

So yes, they have been proven false.

That is why it is splitting hairs. You seem enamoured of your own ability to talk in circles. This is representative of your entire position. The words 'impossible', and 'unlikely', they are synonyms, not exact duplicates, but close. When we are having these type of discussions we both know what we are talking about. My experience with evolutionists, and atheists is that which I just demonstrated above. Because your side cannot win on the merits of the argument, you begin to redefine words, purposely 'misunderstand' what is evident by context and content is being discussed, and take the conversation into all kinds of rabbit holes over the definition of words, and meanings, which you then misuse in the same way yourself, after you have created volumes of obfuscation through your own tangents of discussion takeing umbrage to our side misusing them.

The fact is, your side does not have an argument, all it has is the ability to sow confusion and unbelief through reams of words that go in circles with no end.

Then how did the plants survive? How did the saltwater fish survive the dilution of their salt-water homes? How did the freshwater survive the increase in salinity? And let's not get started on the idea that all life on Earth today is descended from the small sample of life that was on the ark. Why, you'd need evolution to explain how it diverged into the variety we see today! Or do you really think Noah took along several thousand kinds of beetle? And how could a wooden vessel of such a size stay in one piece? Vessels that size today need seriously reinforced hulls to stop them from twisting and breaking open in even the smallest waves.

Becasue you cannot explain something, does not mean it did not happen. That is not proof, it is assumption.

Peace...

 

[Tiberius]

That is why it is splitting hairs. You seem enamoured of your own ability to talk in circles. This is representative of your entire position. The words 'impossible', and 'unlikely', they are synonyms, not exact duplicates, but close. When we are having these type of discussions we both know what we are talking about.

No, you assumed. If I said unlikely, then I meant unlikely.

Unlikely is winning the lottery.

Impossible is a triangle with four sides. If you cannot see the difference, then that is not my fault. And if you assume I mean impossible when I was very careful to say unlikely, then that is again your fault. I even gave an example of something that was unlikely and yet actually happened. Do you think this event that actually happened was impossible? The fact that it happened proves it is not impossible.

So don't blame me for your assumptions.

My experience with evolutionists, and atheists is that which I just demonstrated above. Because your side cannot win on the merits of the argument, you begin to redefine words, purposely 'misunderstand' what is evident by context and content is being discussed, and take the conversation into all kinds of rabbit holes over the definition of words, and meanings, which you then misuse in the same way yourself, after you have created volumes of obfuscation through your own tangents of discussion takeing umbrage to our side misusing them.

It seems to me that your experience with evolutionists has been that you misunderstand what they say, as you did with me.

The fact is, your side does not have an argument, all it has is the ability to sow confusion and unbelief through reams of words that go in circles with no end.

The fact is that my side has testable evidence that has withstood a great deal of testing.

If you want to dispute that, then look at the evidence. If you don't want to look at the evidence, then a rational debate forum probably isn't the best place for you.

Becasue you cannot explain something, does not mean it did not happen. That is not proof, it is assumption.

Peace...

No, I don't assume that an event didn't happen just because I can't explain it.

I assume an event didn't happen when several laws of physics and biology would need to be violated in order for it to happen.

 

[Tiberius]

Correct. As in NONE...in ANY way.

I was actually asking for a bit of clarification. If I wanted you to repeat yourself (I don't) I'd just read your post again.

Easy to do. See anyone disproving the flood or creation here? No. Cheap talk.

Ah, so since no one has disproved it, then it means it's real?

Well, I don't see anyone who has EVER disproved the existence of magical fairies on the moon either. Never been disproved by anyone anywhere. So I guess that's evidence for magical moon fairies too, isn't it?