Revelation is starting to make some sense..

[trendlover]

Quote from rcn10ec:

Do the studies reveal where the supposed central point of the bang happened?
If they can see the effects of an apparent velocity this should be knowable/discoverable.

I would also like to apply my question to the theory of evolution.

Question: I would like to know what piece of scientific evidence (proof) convinced (proved) to you that the theory of evolution is true?
In your own words, please. (I want to know how you understand it in your mind.) No cut & pasted links, etc...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will ask you why you cut and pasted from the christian website. Why do you use that link? They are not your words, they are words you follow. So why do you think your cut and pasted is true?

 

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from deltastrike:

We're the result and in the midst of an ongoing reaction that took place billions of years ago, plain and simple. Why did that happen? I don't know...but it certainly wasn't because of the "gods" portrayed in any religious texts I've ever read.

Being the scientist that you would like to have others believe you to be, you should easily be able to deduce that it is YOU who suffers from a paradoxical belief system.

The beliefs that you carry can easily be proven false.

Scientific fact: You are claiming to have certain knowledge that all of the religious texts you are familiar with, are wrong in their depiction of our creator.

For you to have such certain knowledge, it would have to either be given to you from God, or you are God.

Since you have already admitted to your ignorance of God, and also as to why we are here, we can thus deduce you are clueless when you speak of God or your certainty of an absence of a depicted God.

You won't ever be able to learn anything worthwhile until you realize and own your ignorance.

 

[deltastrike]

Quote from Hoofhearted:

Being the scientist that you would like to have others believe you to be, you should easily be able to deduce that it is YOU who suffers from a paradoxical belief system.

The beliefs that you carry can easily be proven false.

Scientific fact: You are claiming to have certain knowledge that all of the religious texts you are familiar with, are wrong in their depiction of our creator.

For you to have such certain knowledge, it would have to either be given to you from God, or you are God.

Since you have already admitted to your ignorance of God, and also as to why we are here, we can thus deduce you are clueless when you speak of God or your certainty of an absence of a depicted God.

You won't ever be able to learn anything worthwhile until you realize and own your ignorance.

Do you guys deliberately takes statements out of context and spin them? I was stating based on the evidence provided by the man-written religious texts of various religious head-figures, or gods, that the universe was not created by one of them. One only needs to compare notes and reality to figure that one out.

The knowledge that I'm claiming to have is from fact-based scientific theories. The knowledge you're claiming to have is from a many times translated, many times revised doctrine written by shepherds from an archaic society. You are essentially relying on the world's longest game of "telephone" for your information from people who were mystified by the "element" of fire.

I hope I provided enough clarification.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from deltastrike:

Do you guys deliberately takes statements out of context and spin them? I was stating based on the evidence provided by the man-written religious texts of various religious head-figures, or gods, that the universe was not created by one of them. One only needs to compare notes and reality to figure that one out.

The knowledge that I'm claiming to have is from fact-based scientific theories. The knowledge you're claiming to have is from a many times translated, many times revised doctrine written by shepherds from an archaic society. You are essentially relying on the world's longest game of "telephone" for your information from people who were mystified by the "element" of fire.

I hope I provided enough clarification.

Yeah, but that Bronze Age Science is still the best. That don't make it like that anymore.

 

[rcn10ec]

LOL!!! All you atheist get bent out of shape when you find out I get information from a Christian website.
The information presented is available on secular websites as well.
Thing is, whether you are a Christian or not, the information puts seriously huge holes into the theories you guys adhere to.
Did you even read the article after you seen it came from a Christian website?
Did you research the evidence gathereed that debunks the theories you have chosen to believe? The evidence presented is scientific.
Even if you leave God out of it, the scientific evidence presented should make anyone who claims to be "educated" at least do their own research on the studies that raise the questions.
If the information challenging what you believe in can be proven wrong then you will have accomplished something.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from rcn10ec:

LOL!!! All you atheist get bent out of shape when you find out I get information from a Christian website.
The information presented is available on secular websites as well.
Thing is, whether you are a Christian or not, the information puts seriously huge holes into the theories you guys adhere to.
Did you even read the article after you seen it came from a Christian website?
Did you research the evidence gathereed that debunks the theories you have chosen to believe? The evidence presented is scientific.
Even if you leave God out of it, the scientific evidence presented should make anyone who claims to be "educated" at least do their own research on the studies that raise the questions.
If the information challenging what you believe in can be proven wrong then you will have accomplished something.

I looked at the first argument presented. That there is a bird older than Archeopterix . I found that is wrong. When what is supposed to be the one of the best arguments is so easily proven wrong I don't see much point looking further.

And yes, if I see something on a Christian website about evolution/creationism I won't bother reading it. Except for entertainment. Especially after this.

 

[piezoe]

I don't want to get involved in any discussion regarding whether organisms evolve or not, or some goofy creationist theory. It is a complete waste of time; like debating whether the Sun orbits the earth or vice versa, when it is a settled issue.

But I do want to add something that may be of interest to the better educated contributors here, and that is the possibility that all life on Earth did not have a single origin. The idea has logical appeal and a growing body of evidence behind it. An example of an observation that is consistent with the multiple origin hypothesis is the discovery of non-redundant, but differing codons for the same amino acid in different primitive species. The separate plant and animal kingdoms, and perhaps speciation within them, could be rather nicely explained by multiple origins.

There will be huge progress in our understanding of how we got here in this 21st Century. I hope I live long enough to see some of the major breakthroughs that are on the way!

I personally have, since sometime in the 1980's, become increasingly convinced that a single life origin is statistically prohibited. I also want to acknowledge Jacques Fresco, who in a brief lunchtime conversation, started my thinking in its current direction.

Here is a paper that will lead to many others in case anyone is interested.
http://www.pnas.org/content/80/10/2981.abstract

 

[rcn10ec]

Quote from piezoe:

I don't want to get involved in any discussion regarding whether organisms evolve or not, or some goofy creationist theory. It is a complete waste of time; like debating whether the Sun orbits the earth or vice versa, when it is a settled issue.

But I do want to add something that may be of interest to the better educated contributors here, and that is the possibility that all life on Earth did not have a single origin. The idea has logical appeal and a growing body of evidence behind it. An example of an observation that is consistent with the multiple origin hypothesis is the discovery of non-redundant, but differing codons for the same amino acid in different primitive species. The separate plant and animal kingdoms, and perhaps speciation within them, could be rather nicely explained by multiple origins.

There will be huge progress in our understanding of how we got here in this 21st Century. I hope I live long enough to see some of the major breakthroughs that are on the way!

I personally have, since sometime in the 1980's, become increasingly convinced that a single life origin is statistically prohibited. I also want to acknowledge Jacques Fresco, who in a brief lunchtime conversation, started my thinking in its current direction.

Here is a paper that will lead to many others in case anyone is interested.
http://www.pnas.org/content/80/10/2981.abstract

Yes, piezoe. I believe the multiple origins hypothisis scientifically and logically makes the best argument. Been going down that path for quite some time.
Appreciate the link. I will check it out when I have more time.

 

[jem]

Quote from piezoe:

Leslie Orgel's Second Law: "Evolution is cleverer than you are, jem."

I just saw this...

why are you directing this at me.

I have no problem with the idea there has been some evolution... once life happened. (perhaps it happened at different times and places.)

In fact I think evolution could be very clever, I suspect the scientists who say evolution was directed or imprinted with a drive for life are probably correct.

Its random chance which is not clever.
Random chance takes more time than we had.

 

[piezoe]

Jem, bless your heart, I think you have answered your own question.