What you aren't being told about astronomy

[juvenissun]

Incorrect

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

However, even if true, so what? If it's possible in the lab, it's possible in the field. The crux of the Creationist position is that it shouldn't be possible at all.

Have you ever work in a chemistry "lab"?
How many more variables are in the field than in a lab?
It may be possible, but we need to see it to believe that monkey changed to human.

 

[juvenissun]

It has been observed in both plants and animals. See the link I provided.

Speciation in bacteria is problematic, since they do not usually reproduce sexually.

It is apparent that you are already unable to handle the knowledge.

In any case, the science under discussion in this thread is astronomy.

The evolution of stars.
How about that?

 

[Armoured]

Have you ever work in a chemistry "lab"?
How many more variables are in the field than in a lab?
It may be possible, but we need to see it to believe that monkey changed to human.

Luckily, no one believes monkeys changed to humans, so your strawman is irrelevant.

 

[juvenissun]

Luckily, no one believes monkeys changed to humans, so your strawman is irrelevant.

No one?
I know a whole bunch of Christians believe in that, including the Pope(?)
If you believed in animal evolution, then you NEED to believe human evolution. You can not have it both ways.

 

[florida2]

"Evolution is only what I say it is". Not really.

There are 6 types of evolution, more if you count separate theories.

1. Cosmic evolution
2. Chemical evolution
3. Stellar evolution
4. Organic evolution
5. macro-evolution
6. micro-evolution (adaptation)

6 is the only actual scientific evolution.
the rest are fairy tales.

OK, let's just take one of those. So-called 'chemical evolution'

I assume you mean the process where lighter elements such as hydrogen can be fused to form heavier elements? Yes?

Are you therefore saying that nuclear fusion does not exist?

If so - just have a glance out of the window during the day and you'll see plenty of light from a big ball of nuclear fusion we call the Sun. Hydrogen (number 1 on the periodic table) atoms are fused to make helium (number 2). Elements further along the periodic table are made in the same way, though this primarily happens in older stars when the hydrogen reserves are starting to run out because H-H fusion releases the most energy. The science of nuclear fusion has been known for decades - I don't know why you would suddenly have an argument against it.

 

[florida2]

No one?
I know a whole bunch of Christians believe in that, including the Pope(?)
If you believed in animal evolution, then you NEED to believe human evolution. You can not have it both ways.

Nope - that's not what he said at all.

Monkeys did not evolve into humans. Humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[Armoured]

No one?
I know a whole bunch of Christians believe in that, including the Pope(?)
If you believed in animal evolution, then you NEED to believe human evolution. You can not have it both ways.

The Pope doesn't believe monkeys turned into men. Your strawman is false.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think your demand is irrational, Juvenissun. How on earth would you, in a lab, go from day one until today? you cannot collapse down millions of years of evolution into a simple lab experiment.

 

[Armoured]

I think your demand is irrational, Juvenissun. How on earth would you, in a lab, go from day one until today? you cannot collapse down millions of years of evolution into a simple lab experiment.

That's the point. Demand impossible "proofs" and then declare evolution "disproved" when it fails to appear.

 

[Hoghead1]

That seems to be the scheme of things here. Interesting how creation-science people never get around to applying this same logic to their own position. They try and fault evolution all day long on the basis there is no direct observation, and then turn around and say God made the world in six days, which also is something nobody could ever directly observe. What hypocrisy!

 

[AV1611VET]

That seems to be the scheme of things here. Interesting how creation-science people never get around to applying this same logic to their own position. They try and fault evolution all day long on the basis there is no direct observation, and then turn around and say God made the world in six days, which also is something nobody could ever directly observe. What hypocrisy!

It's not hypocrisy.

They present both sides of the coin, then let the Bible break the tie.

 

[Hoghead1]

No, they do not present both sides of the coin. They simply invalidate whatever they don't believe in, on the basis it can't be directly observed, then turn around and introduce all kinds of assumptions they hold fast and dear that also cannot be directly observed or verified. Again, what hypocrisy!

 

[AV1611VET]

No, they do not present both sides of the coin.

Excuse me?

Obverse: There is no direct observation of evolution.
Reverse: There is no direct observation of creation.
Conclusion: God did it.

Your assessment: they are hypocrites.
My assessment: they are letting the Bible break the tie.

 

[Hoghead1]

That doesn't even begin to make sense, AV1611. Their argument is that we should reject that for which we have no direct observation. We have no direct observations of evolution or the Big Bang, etc.,; therefore we should reject all this. By the same token, we have no direct observation of God creating in six days and we have no direct observation of how God went about Scripture, either. Therefore, by their own logic, these also should be rejected or at least seriously questioned. Since they are unwilling to do that, they are being hypocritical. This is not rocket science, just common sense. I don't know how you see a tie here or the Bible as a tie breaker.

 

[juvenissun]

I think your demand is irrational, Juvenissun. How on earth would you, in a lab, go from day one until today? you cannot collapse down millions of years of evolution into a simple lab experiment.

I do not demand that. I agree with you. We do not see these things happen. That is all I am saying.
In faith, this is OK. In science, this is fatal. What I am saying is that biological evolution is far far far from being a scientific theory.
So, biology should be the last one to be qualified in using the term: evolution.
I can see a rock evolves outside. Can anyone see a dog evolves in a zoo?

 

[juvenissun]

The Pope doesn't believe monkeys turned into men. Your strawman is false.

Do not play smart. The Pope believes that something evolved into human. Right?
That is an abomination to God.

 

[Armoured]

Do not play smart. The Pope believes that something evolved into human. Right?

Not a monkey. Maybe you should learn what people actually believe before disagreeing with them?

That is an abomination to God.

No it's not.

 

[Armoured]

That seems to be the scheme of things here. Interesting how creation-science people never get around to applying this same logic to their own position. They try and fault evolution all day long on the basis there is no direct observation, and then turn around and say God made the world in six days, which also is something nobody could ever directly observe. What hypocrisy!

Oh, word of caution, they hate, hate, HATE, when you apply their own standards them.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't understand how you can say, Juvenissun, that biological evolution is far, far, far from being a scientific theory, when that is precisely how it is defined in the community of scientists? Do you know more about science than they do? In point of fact, you are nowhere near qualified to decide what is science and what not or dictate to scientists what they are doing or should assume they are doing. So get off your high horse. Next, I don't follow you about the rock and the zoo. Are you trying to say we can't observe a dog turning into another species? If so, I suggest you read about the fox project. Since about 1950, Russian scientists have been working to turn foxes into dogs. So far, the results are impressive, though there is still a long ways to go. So, yes, long-term laboratory studies are being done on evolution, but they are long-term. Bacteria are a different story. Bacteria can go through thousands of generations is just a few months. more than one lab study has demonstrated evolution in bacteria. In science, the laws of nature do not stop at your stove, so you can well bet if this holds for bacteria, it also holds for all other organisms.

 

[juvenissun]

Not a monkey. Maybe you should learn what people actually believe before disagreeing with them?No it's not.

I do not want to push this. But I want you to learn: If not monkey, what is it? Spell out the species name and explicitly say that it evolved into human.