Isaiah 6:8 Posted April 4, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 426 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,633 Content Per Day: 0.58 Reputation: 222 Days Won: 13 Joined: 03/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/26/1978 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 Please tell me you aren't serious. Isaiah, as indicated in the OP, is using ToE as an umbrella term for essentially every scientific theory with the word "evolution" in it and then some. That is not a scientific theory of evolution. You see, It is impossible to separate the biological TOE from Cosmological Evolution. Because if you have no Cosmos to evolve on then you have a problem. Every time I have heard of the history of life on earth, they start out with the "BIG BANG" theory. They talk about how the universe was created, and then on earth, how it was formed, and then how life formed on it. Perhaps I should have renamed this thread, where did everything, including life come from according to the theory of evolution. Again your playing word games. You do understand my point of the thread and you nit pick the wording, even of the favorite "Big Bang" theory that is touted as the start, from every major evolutionist I have talked to. You like playing with words while avoiding the real issue. I don't need faith, there is evidence of other life out there, it just isn't conclusive. There's evidence of methane based lifeforms on the surface of Saturn's moon Titan. There's even evidence of life below the surface of Mars, thanks to relatively high levels of methane in the atmosphere, and low geological activity makes life a prime suspect. No there is no such evidence. There is evidence that the chemical acetylene is not present on Trition, so one possible explanation is that this was metabolized by a methane based life form. This in spite of never seeing a methane based life form on earth. This is a wild flight of fancy, as there other possible reasons for this chemical not to be present. So this proves one thing, you are willing to accept completely improbable pseudo-science when it suits you, but, will refuse to accept any other evidance, no matter how sound that hurts your pre-conceived ideas of how everything works. This shows that you are not objective on your views of science as you try to clam you are, as you attempt to fit the facts to your theories, other then trying to come up with theories that fit the facts. This is because you have chosen in your heart what you believe is right, and no amount of reasoning will change this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheya joie Posted April 4, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,054 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 351 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 4, 2011 Lets see if I understand this right, some have said I don't belive it because I don't truly understand it. This is what I have been taught in school. I have also seen this all the time on the discovery channel. I have read things online and off stating the same things. This is what I have heard, summed up in a nutshell. Way back billions of years ago, Everything that has ever existed already existed in the form of matter and or energy. For some unknown reason, something caused everything to pull together, into basically a super singularity, (black hole) which compressed everything until, a massive explosion happened, creating all the building blocks of the universe we know know. As things cooled, debris pulled together to start forming stars and planets, and due to the help of gravity star systems. This took an untold amount of time, in the millions or billions of years. By chance in a solar system, in a galaxy known as the milky way a planetoid hit a planet, knocking off a segment of said planet which was kept from flying out into space, and this chuck turned into the planets moon. This moon helped to pull the axis of the planet to 23.45 degree tilt. This kept the planet spinning and prevented it from becoming tidally locked. (Tidally locked is one side of the planet always facing the sun) Also this new planet had a large amount of iron in its crust, which being heaver sunk down to the core, creating a magnetic field that was to shield this plant from cosmic radiation. This planet also settled into an orbit approximately 93 million miles away from the star we call the sun. These two things were very lucky for this planet, called earth, as these created conditions that were perfect for the upcoming formation of life. Now either by comet/asteroid impacts, and or the cooling of the planet, no one knows for sure water started to gather on the surface of the planet. At the same time due to similar processes the earth's atmosphere was formed. Now the stage was set. The earth was the perfect distance from the sun to form life, as well as shielded from radiation by the magnetic field, and due to the spin, there was a mostly even distribution of solar heat energy around the planet. All these were lucky for the Earth as they provided the perfect conditions for life. Now over time many chemical compounds floated around in the ocean, and by pure chance, over millions of years some amino acids were formed. These again, over time and by luck slowly formed into basic single cell life forms. These over time, over millions of years started to form groups, these groups started to become mulch-cellular life forms. These life forms continued to evolve little by little to form the life in the sea. Also somehow when these were forming, they just so happened to evolve into male and female at the same time, allowing for sexual reproduction. Also at this time basic plant life split off and evolved as well, for some unknown reason but it was a good thing as these provided the food needed for the animal life that was also evolving at the same time. Over another several million years these animals decided that the water was not good enough and there fore slowly started to evolve feet, and air breathing lungs. Slowly to start to walk out on to the planets surface. Also some how plants also started to evolve on the surface, perhaps by plants that got splashed ashore from the oceans. From this process repeated itself hundreds of thousands if not millions of times over, over millions of years until we have the verity of life we have on the planet now. So did I get this right? Being just a plain ol' non-scientist kicking around out here, I would say that you've pretty much nailed what we tend to take away from our mandatory elementary/high school science classes. Putting it all even more succinctly: First there was nothing - then it went boomies and there was everything. Then everything we see just happened, but it took a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaiah 6:8 Posted April 4, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 426 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,633 Content Per Day: 0.58 Reputation: 222 Days Won: 13 Joined: 03/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/26/1978 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 The ToE's validity doesn't depend on how the cosmos was set up to support life on a tiny blue planet. Everything in science is essentially connected to everything else in science, but you're (and most other creationists) make it to be more than what it is (more hyperbolic statements, a strawman). So everything is connected but yet you try to isolate one thing, and then say its not connected? What is the straw man here? Tell you what, for biological evolution to work you need a planet in the Goldilocks zone. This is the cause. The effect is biological evolution, on said planet. How can you have one without the other. And as Shyia knows every time I was taught about how life came in, the origins, of everything, it started off with the big bang and the formation of planets. Then we were taught how life formed on earth, but this was only possible once there was an earth to have life on! How this earth was formed is of great importance. There are two points of view on that. One had God, one did not. If you as you state belive in God creating the cosmos but then guiding evolution then, and only then is it of a non importance. How ever, the overall idea of evolution is a godless account of the creation of life. This is biased off a godless account of how the cosmos was formed. They are irrevocably linked. Trying to state one with out the other is saying there was an effect with out any cause. Every time I have heard of the history of life on earth, they start out with the "BIG BANG" theory. They talk about how the universe was created, and then on earth, how it was formed, and then how life formed on it. Perhaps I should have renamed this thread, where did everything, including life come from according to the theory of evolution. Again your playing word games. You do understand my point of the thread and you nit pick the wording, even of the favorite "Big Bang" theory that is touted as the start, from every major evolutionist I have talked to. You like playing with words while avoiding the real issue. I'm starting to wonder if this accusation of word games is nothing more than projection on your part. You specifically stated in the OP the question of whether or not you "truly understand" [the history of the universe as stated by science] because others have said you don't truly understand it. I'm just trying to give you a little better understanding of what the science says, and one of those things is understanding that modern physics/cosmology doesn't posit the BB as an explosion but as a rapid expansion of space (if it was an explosion scientists would see certain disturbances in space which they don't see, "explosion" is technically wrong). If you want to continue using hyperbole and strawmen concepts to attack the science you so passionately oppose be my guest, just don't go around pretending you truly understand it and this is what scientists say. It is dishonest, especially as I doubt I'm the first to try to correct some of your misunderstandings. First off, yes you are the first one to try to correct me. However do forgive me if I don't take it so well, as you are defending the big bang theory on another thread. You see, you are picking a part of the word BANG. That it was not an explosion yadda yadda yadda. That is playing a word game. You see even when I was at the Griffin observatory, they did a presentation on the creation of the universe. When they did the big bang, guess what sound effect they used. Yep an Explosion a Bang. You are trying to redefine the terms. You are playing a game, and you are being dishonest. Are you sure you're not just playing word games? I explicitly stated that it wasn't conclusive, but that is far from "no evidence". There is evidence of life on Titan, although it could also be the result of odd chemistry, thus there is evidence but it isn't conclusive. Do you understand what I'm saying? Yes Your playing the word games, allow me to quote... I don't need faith, there is evidence of other life out there, it just isn't conclusive. There's evidence of methane based lifeforms on the surface of Saturn's moon Titan. There's even evidence of life below the surface of Mars, thanks to relatively high levels of methane in the atmosphere, and low geological activity makes life a prime suspect. You did say that it was not conclusive. But the way you stated it was that it was fact. "I don't need faith, there is evidence" I would say that the lack of one element in the make up of a planet is a far stretch from evidence. Besides you have argued with your word games that proof and evidence do not really exist as they are subjective. The evidence you have provided is subject to a massive amount of interpretation, that it proves life. You choose the interpretation that best fit your theory. Your words "Beyond interpretation"? Nothing is beyond interpretation. Even with the theory of gravity, we interpret the movement of objects to be because of the fundamental force. Theories explain/interpret facts, that is what theories do. Interpretation is an integral part of science. Why do rabbits lack canine teeth? Scientists interpret this to be because rabbits don't hunt down their food and "impale" or "pierce" their prey. Scientists don't need to have ever seen a live rabbit to conclude this because they are able to interpret the evidence very well. Also, I would like to address this notion of "proof". Science doesn't deal with proof, nothing is ever proven in science. Things can only be disproved and/or have various levels of support. For example, it is not scientifically proven that the Earth is round. So your using a straw argument. You are taking facts and twisting them to fit your theories. So in doing this you are not being scientific and rational, but emotional. You have a predetermined choice that is evident. My whole basis is this The Origin of everything, the origin of matter of energy of everything. is unknown. There is no proof, or way of testing where this all came from. You must choose to believe by faith one of these arguments. From which ever of these are, your whole world view comes from. You know I was trying to paint the broad picture of what is taught as fact in schools and from what I see all the time on the discovery channel etc. you just had to nit pick the fine details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted April 4, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted April 4, 2011 This is what I was talking about, Isaiah - These guys will get all over you about technicalities, but will not address the heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 you have a point, but yet it is part of it. For evolution explains how life started but it requires cosmology to set the stage. Not exactly. I have read up quite a bit on Evolution since I have been on this board to get a better understanding of how real evolutionists, those who are experts in the field, frame the theory. They, and others I have spoken with, maintain that evolution does not explain how life got here. It explains how life has evolved. They have never claimed that Evolution is a theory about the origin of life. To most evolutionists, life, especially human life is an accident. According to the late Dr. Stephen Gould, the uiverse is a tree with many branches. Humanity is like an obsure branch on that tree. If the tree were uprooted and destroyed and new one grew in its place, the new tree would not have the "branch" of humanity. It is pure accidental chance that humnanity even exists, according to Gould. The evolutionists on this board are not really honest about some of what the genuine, mainstream proponents of evolution actually teach. I would not take the word of either Sam or D-9 as accurate reflections of genuine scholarship where evolution is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
princess2000 Posted April 5, 2011 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 68 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/22/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted April 5, 2011 Lets see if I understand this right, some have said I don't belive it because I don't truly understand it. This is what I have been taught in school. I have also seen this all the time on the discovery channel. I have read things online and off stating the same things. This is what I have heard, summed up in a nutshell. Way back billions of years ago, Everything that has ever existed already existed in the form of matter and or energy. For some unknown reason, something caused everything to pull together, into basically a super singularity, (black hole) which compressed everything until, a massive explosion happened, creating all the building blocks of the universe we know know. As things cooled, debris pulled together to start forming stars and planets, and due to the help of gravity star systems. This took an untold amount of time, in the millions or billions of years. By chance in a solar system, in a galaxy known as the milky way a planetoid hit a planet, knocking off a segment of said planet which was kept from flying out into space, and this chuck turned into the planets moon. This moon helped to pull the axis of the planet to 23.45 degree tilt. This kept the planet spinning and prevented it from becoming tidally locked. (Tidally locked is one side of the planet always facing the sun) Also this new planet had a large amount of iron in its crust, which being heaver sunk down to the core, creating a magnetic field that was to shield this plant from cosmic radiation. This planet also settled into an orbit approximately 93 million miles away from the star we call the sun. These two things were very lucky for this planet, called earth, as these created conditions that were perfect for the upcoming formation of life. Now either by comet/asteroid impacts, and or the cooling of the planet, no one knows for sure water started to gather on the surface of the planet. At the same time due to similar processes the earth's atmosphere was formed. Now the stage was set. The earth was the perfect distance from the sun to form life, as well as shielded from radiation by the magnetic field, and due to the spin, there was a mostly even distribution of solar heat energy around the planet. All these were lucky for the Earth as they provided the perfect conditions for life. Now over time many chemical compounds floated around in the ocean, and by pure chance, over millions of years some amino acids were formed. These again, over time and by luck slowly formed into basic single cell life forms. These over time, over millions of years started to form groups, these groups started to become mulch-cellular life forms. These life forms continued to evolve little by little to form the life in the sea. Also somehow when these were forming, they just so happened to evolve into male and female at the same time, allowing for sexual reproduction. Also at this time basic plant life split off and evolved as well, for some unknown reason but it was a good thing as these provided the food needed for the animal life that was also evolving at the same time. Over another several million years these animals decided that the water was not good enough and there fore slowly started to evolve feet, and air breathing lungs. Slowly to start to walk out on to the planets surface. Also some how plants also started to evolve on the surface, perhaps by plants that got splashed ashore from the oceans. From this process repeated itself hundreds of thousands if not millions of times over, over millions of years until we have the verity of life we have on the planet now. So did I get this right? Personal opinion, all of that just pr.oves that God is real, how could all of those prime conditions occure by chance, if we asked Charlie Epps from NUMB3RS the odds have to be ASTRONOMICAL, and yet they occured, they coincided perfectly, someone had to have His hand in that. Personal opinion 2.0 - science has continually confirmed my belief in God, never once denyed it, we are only understanding things now that God has created for us from the begining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted April 5, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted April 5, 2011 This is what I was talking about, Isaiah - These guys will get all over you about technicalities, but will not address the heart. What do you think the "heart" of this thread is? Isaiah asked for feedback on his/her ideas. I thought we were gently giving the requested feedback. Yet whenever anyone mentions how scientists think and talk about cosmology or physics, you guys start bouncing off the walls. You didn't notice how many times he stated, "By chance and luck" did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted April 5, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Yes, but if one of those chances had a different outcome, none of us would be here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldEnglishSheepdog Posted April 5, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 844 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 118 Days Won: 11 Joined: 12/23/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted April 5, 2011 Yes, but if one of those chances had a different outcome, none of us would be here! Actually we don't know what the chances of "us" being here are. We simply don't have the information at this point. There may well be an infinite number of universes. If that is the case, then we get to toss a coin 100 times over and over and over.... "Barrow and Tippler, two physicists in their book the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted April 5, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Yes, but if one of those chances had a different outcome, none of us would be here! Actually we don't know what the chances of "us" being here are. We simply don't have the information at this point. There may well be an infinite number of universes. If that is the case, then we get to toss a coin 100 times over and over and over.... Well, what if there aren't an infinite number of universes, and what if this isn't the case? You seem to have a lot of faith (strong trust of unproven claims) in these "universes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts