-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pass That Shit
Is it a fossil of a mermaid?
Possibly a seal or sea lion?
Seriously though, How does having a fossil prove that it evolved in any way? Science is just like religion, you have to beleive it to be true, it's not that there's scientific proof that we are a product of evolution. It always comes down to faith in God or faith in science. I started a thread about this very subject. People put faith in science just like people put faith in God. It always comes down to faith, not logic.
None of those types of things existed at that point in time, according to the fossil record.
Idk, I think its pretty telling all in all, you have a creature that has parts of it meant for life as a fish, as well as the beginnings of what is required to live on land. No other types of creatures have been found that are like this one, and it is believed to be from the period of time that just happens to be the gap between the all underwater creature period, and first landwalkers period.
Im not saying that it is definite proof, but its very convincing when looked at under the light of evolution.
And yes, in the end, for alot of things, it is faith. But the key thing about science is, the things it deals with can be tested in a varifiable way. Its not about some unknown unknown, and nothing is accepted as "fact" or more precisely, theory, unless it can pass a large measure of scrutiny that most other things faith based cant even begin to fathom passing.
Now we could argue that the methods used for testing, and the very theories and equations we use for the testing are faulty, and therefore what we find is faulty, but at that point in time, you would be calling into question everything in existance, and I think you would find a staunch opponent in natureisawesome then.
-
A path to faith with science
I'll answer all this stuff later.. tired
-
A path to faith with science
WOW- - - i n f o r m a t i o n o v e r l o a d
DANGER Will Robinson....
I can't keep up with you natureisawesome, I don't have time to read you replies/posts. Ask a simple question, get an answer the size of a thesis.
Could you perhaps condense this thread into a scientific text and next time I'm in Waterstones I'll pick up a copy and then I can read in on the train on the way to work?
You seem keen to dismiss Prigonine's theories very quickly, I find that surprising since you seem to know a thing or two about a thing or two. I feel out of my depth. I am somewhat sceptical about your bible babble though. I hope I can get round to replying to your comments. Order and disorder are confusing and somewhat subjective concepts when it comes to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. It's perhaps better to think of it in terms of equilibrium, non-equilibrium and quasi-equilibrium.
It's over ten years since I studied statmech and it took me some time back then to get my head round it, i've largely forgotten a lot of the microcanonical models and all that. But I am sure I still comprehend the concept of entropy, I looked up wikipedia and it seemed to agree with you on wether a closed system moves towards a state of disorder. So far as I see, a closed system, say a gas, will eventually even out into a state of equilibrium whereopon the molecules will represent a perfect Gaussian spread in term of the kinetic energy they possess. That to me seems the most ordered state a gas can be in?
Anyway, its good to have someone question theories which I have more or less accepted as valid, I hope I can convince both of us that Progigone's dissipative structures hold water.
Tot laters...
-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
1. Messiah is to be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15)
?? Jesus was born by Mary (Matthew 1:18??25, Luke 2:1??7, Galatians 4:4)
2. Messiah was to be descended from Abraham (Genesis 12:3, 18:18)
?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Abraham (Luke 3:34, Acts 3:25, Galatians 3:16)
3. Messiah to be born of Jacob (Numbers 24:17,19)
?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Jacob (Matthew 1:2, Luke 3:34)
4. Messiah to be descended from Judah, a son of Jacob (Genesis 49:10)
?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Judah (Luke 3:33, Matthew 1:2)
5. Messiah to be descended from King David (Psalm 132:11, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15, Isaiah 11:10)
?? Jesus is a direct descendant of Kind David through both his mother and adoptive father (Matthew 1:6, Luke 1:32??33, Romans 1:3, Acts 2:30)
Every other person that he is supposed to have descended from, according to the bible, they state that he is to descend from said person. But not with Jacob.
Why the difference when it came to Jacob?
-
A path to faith with science
Also, one problem I always had with the gospel's.
They were written after the fact.
You yourself said that Luke interviewed many people to write his gospel. How on earth do they know that what they quote Jesus and others as saying, is the EXACT words that he used, if its written after the fact? That leaves a margin of error in his words, and no reliable means at the time to make sure what they were attributing to him, was actually what he said.
Im not saying that Jesus didnt say things similar, with the same meaning, but a revisionists history is always much more interesting then the actual thing. There is too much of a chance for bias in the writings, and too much of a chance of error in its quotation of others.
Not to mention, man is imperfect, so to expect man to be able to transcribe past events, perfectly, in a book, is hard to believe. There are bound to be errors, but how can you have errors in a book of God?
-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Daniel uses the term sevens, sometimes translated weeks, to mean a group of seven years. 7 + 62 sevens = 69 sevens. 69 x 7 years equals 483 years. The decree came in 445 b.c from Artaxerxes the king of Persia.Using 360 day years as the Hebrews did, we add 483 years and come to ad. 32 plus or minus 1.5 years.
So wait, it sometimes is translated into weeks, but just for this excercise we know that he meant seven years? How do we know, excluding the fact that it fits your excercise here, that he didnt mean weeks? Especially if what he said could be interpretted as weeks?
Quote:
For example, the only way you could logically support buddhism is to deny that the second law always holds true, or to deny that the outside world exists, or that time is real, or that reality is even real. In fact, these are some of the things that buddhism does claim! They are forced to. I think this is unrealistic, and dangerous. Besides, there is no evidence to support that the 2nd law, the outside world, or reality are not real. The case is quite the opposite. I hope these facts do not elude anyones notice.
You took a shred of truth there, and spread it into something entirely different.
Buddhism says that its foolish to look at things as having a definite start, and a definite end. Such things are human creations to help deal with the first Noble Truth, Pain. Doing so, will only cause more pain, and will prevent you from ever reaching nirvana.
Secondly, what Buddhism says makes perfect sense, because alot of what they speak of works on the scientific level.
As is well known, you can not create or destroy matter. Therefore, everything that is your body and is you, existed before you were "born" and will continue to exist after you "die". That is the entire concept. Also, the concept of the everchanging.
You are not the same as you were half a second ago, and the same will be true a half a second from now. The you from then, and the you from now, are not the same being. There are differences, things that seperate the two, and make them different. How can the same thing, be different from another of the same thing? It cant, therefore, you are not the same being you were half a second ago.
Everything in life is waiting for the proper conditions to support its current manifestation. It doesnt completely poof out of no where, pretty much everything needed for it to manifest is there, its waiting for proper conditions.
I can go into more detail if you wish, but I thought I would correct that blatant attack against another religion, and blatantly incorrect statement. Everything Buddhism states about "death" and "birth" makes sense on a scientific level, and not even a complex level either.
-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
3. All events require that something caused them.
What caused the creation of God? If all events require that something caused them, then what caused the initial existance and creation of God?
If God can "just exist" and "just is", then doesnt that explicitly discredit that third rule? The key word for making it so its a problem, is of course "all", which implies everything, no exceptions.
Quote:
Some things we don't know. Perhaps we never will. But this doesn't mean answers don't exist, or are fundamentally ambiguous.A fact is a fact whether anyone recognizes it or not.
So wait, you state right here with this statement that some things we dont know, but that it doesnt mean that the answers dont exist, or that what we dont know doesnt exist? Isnt that what I was saying in regards to the Dreamer theory? That we dont know, but that doesnt mean its not true? And what did you say to argue against that? Odd...
Quote:
Could life be a self created hallucination? No, not really. To imagine that would be very.... unrealistic. It's an assumption, but while it may be hard to prove it's impossible to disprove.
Exactly. Thats the beauty of it, in so many ways.
And throughout the time you mention the option of this, you seem to immediately discredit it just from a dislike of your own. You claim its unrealistic, but in that case, what is realistic? Do you have definitive proof of what is realistic? Or just an assumption that you choose to believe in because its easier then the alternatives?
Quote:
1. the universe exists.
2. Events occur within the universe.
3. All events require that something caused them.
Therefore something started all motion in the first place. If anything has motion, an original mover must have existed.
Imagine you were riding your bike somewhere and there was a great big freight train blocking the road as far as you can see, all the way to the left, and all the way to the right. The train seems endless. But you would rightly assume that the train is not infinitely long, and at some point has an end. The 2nd law prohibits perpetual motion machines so the train cannot go on moving forever either.
Also, each car is being pulled by the one in front of it. No car moves unless it was pulled. You would rightly assume further that there is an engine car which is different from the other cars, the original mover. You determine that it pulled the first car which pulled the second etc.
The universe is very much like a machine that is in motion. It's laws of operation tell us that it's in motion. It cannot be perpetual, therefore it hasn't been around forever and someday will stop. Every atom of our universe is rubbing and pulling and bumping against each other. And since nothing moves until a force is placed on it, the original force must have begun the cascade of movement that we see today.
Jumping back again to this, and I apologize for the jumping.
If God exists while being exempt from the third rule, then we can assume that the third rule doesnt apply to everything, which means in essence it could apply to nothing. Not that it is applying to nothing, but that its possible if it doesnt apply to everything, that it could apply to nothing.
If that is the case, that God is exempt from the third rule, then is it not possible the universe is exempt from that rule as well? The universe could be a perpetual motion machine, since the third rule doesnt apply to everything. It could span on for infinity in all possible ways, never ending, never beginning. Again, I am not stating that this is the truth or the case, just saying that if the third rule doesnt apply to everything, then its a possibility, no matter how far fetched it might sound.
-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
As is well known, you can not create or destroy matter. Therefore, everything that is your body and is you, existed before you were "born" and will continue to exist after you "die". That is the entire concept. Also, the concept of the everchanging.
The bolded part should read believed. Slip of the fingers when typing that up. Meant believed, not known.
-
A path to faith with science
If this is a book, it's all wrong (sorry if this is your own post that you wrote)
First let me start off by re-introducing the first Law of thermodynamics.
Energy can not be created or destroyed
That means energy has always been here, and always will be. The energy just didn't pop out of nowhere and is now here. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN, and will always be seeing as you can not destroy it. Therefor, the universe can not end, nor can it be destroyed.
Our universe is nothing but pure energy, down to every single atom and quark.
-
A path to faith with science
imitator:
Quote:
There are places who are unbiased. There are unbiased reports done through many places. I find alot of interesting things from University based studies. Even if something isnt entirely unbiased, you can find things that arent as biased as others. A website that is entirely pro-creationism/evolutionism is the most biased thing you can find when you are searching for information on those two subjects. You cant get more biased then that.
I will tell you right now, that I expected that exact arguement from you. Its the typical one. Please, show me examples of where well thought out, formulated essays and theories founded upon the theory of creationism werent given the same exposure as similarly well formulated essays and theories on evolution.
I have yet to see a scientific journal of any kind not publish a well written, and varifiable essay/thesis, no matter what the subject. The key is, is the science there, and is it provable? If it isnt, no matter what the subject is, it wont get in. And you are rooting for a theory that is largely unprovable(God existing, creating the earth). There are some very very big blaring holes in the theory, which doesnt mean its not correct, but certainly means it is not provable by any means currently.
But just to clarify, you are stating that there is a concerted effort by a large group of people, to try to hinder or prevent the publication and exposure of the theory of creationism? That people are purposely, for no other reason then the subject of the thesis/esasy, rejecting the work of creationist scientists, who are putting out work that is just as good, if not better then the work they publish instead?
Its not unconceivable, but highly unlikely, considering there are plenty of articles in US based scientific publications that were pro-pot, and thats not the general concensus in regards to this country, and the government. Ive seen plenty of unpopular, or highly criticized articles published, because they were so well written, and were high quality thesis'. So this would, literally, be a first for me to see that there is a concerted effort by some large body of people, to purposely hinder and prevent the publication of creationistic theories and thesis papers.
I don't agree that there are totally unbiased journals or media.
There are testimonies of creation scientists who have been unrightfully (and probably unlawfully ) discriminated against that you can find by searching on the internet.
Everyone is biased and when you understand that, you realize it's a matter of finding the right bias rather than no bias. Even when we anylize information, we used a biased mind to do that. People have to decide for themselves ultimatley for themselves whether what someone shares is right or wrong. I believe that comparing both sides and weighing the evidence is an important part ofd this process.
-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
...I believe that comparing both sides and weighing the evidence is an important part ofd this process...
There might be only two side of the debate in one manner (ID or creation vs "not designed"), but if you get into the hows and whens of each side, there are probably millions of known ideas and billions more that are unknown and not really thought of .... that's a lot of work :D
-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome View Post
A person has to be open for something to be proven to them. There can be proof, but we value in our minds and hearts what's reasonable as proof. SOme people see things with their own eyes and it's not proof enough. For some people with some things their never enough proof. It's just a lack of faith, it's not reasonable or logical.
mfqr:
There's a difference between being open enough to be able to evaluate both sides of the argument and come up with your own conclusion, or remaining neutral, and being open minded to the extent that you believe everything you read/hear/see. It's a lack of faith, sure. But it doesn't make sense to have that faith without a believable story. To me, the story is fairly unbelievable. I am open-minded. Open-minded enough to say that it's a possibility, and hinted with enough narrow-mindedness to say there's not enough evidence, and thus is more improbable than probable. I think that's reasonable, don't you? I think it's pretty logical thinking, too.
There is no possible nuetrality. There is no perfect unbias.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
natureisawesome:
can you show me some examples?
Google can. It's documented that people back in the days of Christ, and even before, have made drawings and paintings of strange objects in the sky, which look quite like the ones we imagine and see today. I am not saying it is 100% true that people back then believed they were gods. I am assuming that they would, because it's far beyond them in any sort of explanation. Remember, back then, anything out of the ordinary was supernatural.
I'll have to look into that. I would think knowledge of drawings like that would be well circulated. You seem to say It's something you really believe in so I thought maybe you could find me a few examples.
Quote:
Quote:
natueisawesome:
Quote:
And are you referring to the catholic church ? I already pointed out that the catholic church isn't Christian earlier in this thread. They're not Christian and Jesus did not teach us to have any kind of physcial warfare, the opposite actually. If you want me to explain a few things about the catholic babylon mystery religion another thread can be started about that later. ( Like when thsi thread is done at least), but otherwise let's leave the rcc out of this.
mfqr:
Catholicism was only used as an example. Jesus did not teach anybody to have physical war, sure, that's true. However, people obviously took it into their own hands and used religion as a form of control, whether or not your Christian God exists.
That's true.
Quote:
natureisawesome:
Quote:
The evangicals and everyone else who votes in a Democracy all judge easch other through the ballot so everyone is guilty. But again, evangicals are obviously not Christians either. And I know their false doctrine.
mfqr:
Well, you believe their doctrine to be false - millions of others don't. Another example of conflicts between different faiths.
Millions of people are evil and ignorant. But when it comes to something like conflict in Christian doctrine, It's possible to hold it accountable to scripture. Unlike people have been indoctrinated to believe, there are not many interpretations to scripture, and the correct understanding can be found. The meaning is not fundamentally ambiguous.
Quote:
Quote:
natureisawesome:
I will reiterate a previous declaration in my post. There is no morality without God. And yes, I'm a sheep and I'd rather be a sheep than a wolf.
There is no morality without God? That's quite the statement there. I would say I am a moral human being, and yet I do not endorse the belief of any God but myself. You'd rather be a sheep than a wolf? Are you using the "wolf" as a metaphor to describe someone who is mentally free, and at the same time using that as a comparison to a sheep, like a wolf eats sheep, and is therefore a vicious animal?
I wish you understood the hypocricy when people say that sheep are close minded and igorant, or when they say they don't think for themselves. If I didn't think for myself, I would go along the same wide path that the world takes, but instead I use discernment and swim against the flow. And many people want to be and "special" and "unique", but they don't understand that everything they have is a gift from God. They in fact conform to unconformaty, but I think it's really only rebellion and selfishness.
mfqr:
Quote:
Let me get down to explaining something that might peak your interests.
There are many, many, many religions and faiths. Most religions will tell you that if you do not believe in that particular religion, that you will ultimately go to hell in the afterlife. Am I right? Well, then let's dig a bit deeper.
Not all religions believe that. Not at all. But some do.
Quote:
Everyone who believes in a particular religion believes their religion is correct, right? Obviously, because then they would not believe it. A bit deeper now...
I think that a lot of people don't really care whether it's correct or not honestly. Or at least not that much. And a lot of people convinced that there is no Truth only personal truth (which is a contradiction) or a few people like Imitator who think it's close to being or is unsearchable or unknowable. It's interesting how one can assert to know it's unknowable.
Quote:
If every religion claims you will go to hell if you do not believe in it, and you can only choose one religion, then you are ultimately doomed to go to hell. Your only way of not going to hell, in the eyes of religion, is to believe and have faith in every single religion. Of course, that is not possible either, because every religion tells you that you can only believe in that particular religion. But then again, your religion/belief is correct, right? Correct just like catholicism is correct, and Islam is correct, and Judaism is correct, and so on. Sigh. So which religion should you believe in? Any of them. Mostly all of them have the same general beliefs as to how a human being should act, and they all believe theirs is the correct one.
Why are you doomed to hell? If there's the right religion, then you can find it.
You don't have to believe in every religion, it's not unsearchable. So few have truly tried with honestly . And I know people will disagree with mwe on that. Just because many religions believe theirs to be correct does not mean a correct one exists, or that it is impossible to find. And there are big big differences between these religions.
-
A path to faith with science
Looks like I have some catching up to do.
-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
imitator:
I don't agree that there are totally unbiased journals or media.
There are testimonies of creation scientists who have been unrightfully (and probably unlawfully ) discriminated against that you can find by searching on the internet.
Everyone is biased and when you understand that, you realize it's a matter of finding the right bias rather than no bias. Even when we anylize information, we used a biased mind to do that. People have to decide for themselves ultimatley for themselves whether what someone shares is right or wrong. I believe that comparing both sides and weighing the evidence is an important part ofd this process.
There is truth in what you say. You will tend to find the "correct" answer if you look at what both sides are saying, and try to find what sits in the middle.
If you can provide me a few links to some people who have been treated as such, I would gladly read them, but I dont have much desire to do the looking myself. Figured it was one of those things that the burden of proof wasnt on me.
Still, I believe there are places where bias is purposely seeked and destroyed. There are magazines, and publications who try their best to not have a bias. Yes, some will still be there, even if the bias is that they try to have no bias.
-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Just because many religions believe theirs to be correct does not mean a correct one exists, or that it is impossible to find. And there are big big differences between these religions.
Its quotes like these that keep me in discussions like this.
And I dont mean that in a bad way. I enjoy talking with people are willing to entertain possibilities outside of those that they believe are the truth.
A question for you natureisawesome. You have said that there are many different religions, and that these many religions can be very very different from each other. What purpose do you think these other religions serve? Assuming that there is only one correct religion/god? Assuming that there is a pantheon-esque scheme?
Personally, I see religions as a tool to aid man. Its something that is there to help give us answers when we have nothing but questions, to give us strength when we feel weak, and to give us hope when things seem bleak. It allows people to keep on through life with their chin up, and for some it gives their lives meaning.
The bible, the Qur'an, The Noble Truths and The Noble Eightfold Path, etc etc... They are all texts that are there to help show people how to live a good life. And even if no god(s) exist at all, these texts have helped millions upon millions of people with their lives, and for that they are amazing. A person can read the bible, take the lessons that it teaches through its stories, and live a great life without ever having to believe in anything that the bible actual said was true. The stories dont need to be true to convey the important message. I say the important message, because we can debate about gods and afterlife til we are blue in the face, but we have no way of knowing the truth behind the matter. But we do "know" that we are living here and now, and that if nothing else, if there is no afterlife or god or rewards, we can still be happy if we live a good life now. And that is what these texts, in my belief, are really for, and what their true purpose is.
-
A path to faith with science
Imitator:
Quote:
I was just watching Colbert Report, an old one, that had a paleantologists(sp) on there, who had discovered a fossil from 375 million years ago, that was a link between fishes and the first land creatures. It had parts of a land creature in it, and still parts of a fish, and was believed to live in shallow water and ventured onto land occasionally.
It was called Tiktaalik, and here is a link to a transcript of a Nature documentary on its discovery.
: Nature
I think thats a pretty good example of evolution in action right there.
I've read several atricles on this now.
This is a fish that is supposed to be a missing link between fish and tetrapods. First off, it's not even complete. Scientists as of yet unable to determine what the hind fins and tail might have looked like. A picture of it is here:
http://www.icr.org/i/articles/news/tiktaalik_roseae.jpg
And from that they conclude that he could walk like a normal land creature.
Quote:
In his description of this fossil, evolutionist Shubin states the front fins look basically ??like a scale-covered arm? with ??bones that correspond to a shoulder, upper arm, elbow, forearm and a primitive version of a wrist? (AP 2006)...
One should note that the bones in Tiktaalik??s fins have no axial skeleton connections. This is significant because without this direct connection, no true walking could be done by Tiktaalik. Furthermore, the fins of this creature enclose rays, not digits such as toes or fingers..
Quote:
The hind limbs in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle.
Finally, no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits. While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as ??walking? in only the most trivial sense of the word.
The media gives the impression that this is something new but it's really not. There are more than a few fish than can breathe air and slide around on thier bellies for long distances with help of pectoral fins. The northern snakehead and walking catfish are air breathing fish that can travel for some notable distances. MUdskippers can breathe air through thier skin and can skip along with thier fins. The climbing perch breathes air and walks on land and can even climb trees. The flying fish can glide hundreds of yards over water. There are other examples also.
None of these though are considered to be anscestors of tetropods by evolutionists, they're just special fish. It's important to understand that fish come in lots of forms that defy consistant classification. There are different classifications depending on the bias of the classifier.
Evolutionists are not sure whether lungs came first before gills or vice verca .They're not sure whether cartaligious or bony fish came first either.
These sensational claims appear every now and then, and then soon faid away into obscurity when the evidence is more closely examined.
One thing is for sure, it's a fish.
more can be read about it here:
Tiktaalik and the fishy story of walking fish, part 2 - Answers in Genesis
-
A path to faith with science
tool 9:
Quote:
I hope you didnt type all that stuff... and if you did how long did it take?
A couple days. I know it's long, but I think it's really important to have a thorough and concise line of reasoning to begiinning to end. too often people nit pick about various evodence but it never really goes anywhere.
-
A path to faith with science
Staurm:
Quote:
WOW- - - i n f o r m a t i o n o v e r l o a d
DANGER Will Robinson....
I understand. I didn't mean for it to get like this. There's so many side questions and differnet objections. It's a deep post though, so it's not suprising. It's easier if you just stick to the posts relevant to the original thread, but I think a lot of stuff besides has gotten some good coverage.
Quote:
Could you perhaps condense this thread into a scientific text and next time I'm in Waterstones I'll pick up a copy and then I can read in on the train on the way to work?
Just stick to the posts between me and you and you'll be fine. Remember there are several other people who have been posting in this thread.
Quote:
You seem keen to dismiss Prigonine's theories very quickly, I find that surprising since you seem to know a thing or two about a thing or two. I feel out of my depth. I am somewhat sceptical about your bible babble though. I hope I can get round to replying to your comments. Order and disorder are confusing and somewhat subjective concepts when it comes to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. It's perhaps better to think of it in terms of equilibrium, non-equilibrium and quasi-equilibrium.
It's easy to discredit. Especially when Prigonine himself addmited it was not an obstacle to the second law. There is order, and then there is complexity. Randomness, order, and compexity are three seperate things. Life has order and specific complexity. But there is also "order" (really patterns) which arise from natural physical processes inherent to the nature of the molecules and natural laws themselves. But this is still the wrong direction from going to life. I hope you get around to replying to my comments too. I would like to actually confront the original post more than what has been done.
Hope to hear from you soon.
-
A path to faith with science
Nature:
The big difference is the bone structure in its fins. There is an almost complete wrist and finger structure there, not found in any other fish during that era.
They arent saying it walked on land, but that it was the father of land walking creatures.
And even if they found tommorow that the back half of it was fish like, the front half is still enough to show the difference.
And no fish during that time could even slide around on land. So this one was a first.
Ill post more in a bit, I am on my way out the door from work, and then off to a GH2 competition. Wish me luck. =P
-
A path to faith with science
Imitator:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. Messiah is to be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15)
?? Jesus was born by Mary (Matthew 1:18??25, Luke 2:1??7, Galatians 4:4)
2. Messiah was to be descended from Abraham (Genesis 12:3, 18:18)
?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Abraham (Luke 3:34, Acts 3:25, Galatians 3:16)
3. Messiah to be born of Jacob (Numbers 24:17,19)
?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Jacob (Matthew 1:2, Luke 3:34)
4. Messiah to be descended from Judah, a son of Jacob (Genesis 49:10)
?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Judah (Luke 3:33, Matthew 1:2)
5. Messiah to be descended from King David (Psalm 132:11, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15, Isaiah 11:10)
?? Jesus is a direct descendant of Kind David through both his mother and adoptive father (Matthew 1:6, Luke 1:32??33, Romans 1:3, Acts 2:30)
Every other person that he is supposed to have descended from, according to the bible, they state that he is to descend from said person. But not with Jacob.
Why the difference when it came to Jacob?
I sat here trying to understand what you mean and what your objection is but I don't get it.Please clarify for me.
-
A path to faith with science
One last thing though.
Just the existance of such fossils, and the age of them, would help to show if nothing else, that the current believed age of this world is incorrect according to the bible.
I skimmed through the article on AiG, but it looks like the only thing they dispute is that this fish exists due to evolution, not the actual time period that it lived in?
-
A path to faith with science
Imitator:
Quote:
Also, one problem I always had with the gospel's.
They were written after the fact.
You yourself said that Luke interviewed many people to write his gospel. How on earth do they know that what they quote Jesus and others as saying, is the EXACT words that he used, if its written after the fact? That leaves a margin of error in his words, and no reliable means at the time to make sure what they were attributing to him, was actually what he said.
It's true on one hand that they're fallible men, but on the other hand if it's God's word then he would exert control over it's being written and make sure it came out right.
You have to understand that back then people have much better memories then we do now. They trained themselves to memories long genialogies and stoies and such. There must have also been at least some scribes who wrote it down, and not to mention thousands upon thousands of people who heard him speak.
If 7 thousand people stood in front of the twin towers and specifically saw bombs going off inside both buildings wouldn't that be credible? He preached out in the open. He performed miracles out in the open, where everyone could see him. He spoke and taught in the temple, and I think most likely his words were taken down by scribes more than once. He preached throughout the whole land of Israel. And after the gospels were finished, many of the people who were alive with Jesus were alive also, and not to mention their children. That's what people don't think of. They think it's only a few people who wrote all this. But they only recorded his sayings from numerous testimonies. And in the end, if we look at his word, we find it to be consistant and not with any sign of fabrication.
Quote:
Im not saying that Jesus didnt say things similar, with the same meaning, but a revisionists history is always much more interesting then the actual thing. There is too much of a chance for bias in the writings, and too much of a chance of error in its quotation of others.
Why do you doubt everything so much? It's not reasonable, and there's more reason to believe and confirm it was consistantly well recorded than there is any error would be in it. There is thousands and thousands of witnesses to his words and acts. And no doubt, these gospels were circulated and read throughout the churches as well, making it hard to teach error because of those living who had witnesses Jesus with there own eyes, this very thing also would help to cross anylize the word for any mistakes if the authors of the gospels hadn't gotten it right the first time.
The gospel was most definitely more widely circulated by mouth than by writing, at least in the beginning for sure. This wide circulation made it possible for errors to be corrected.
Quote:
Not to mention, man is imperfect, so to expect man to be able to transcribe past events, perfectly, in a book, is hard to believe. There are bound to be errors, but how can you have errors in a book of God?
Just look at the history of scripture manuscripts! Over hundreds and hundreds of years, and of all the manuscripts we have they almost all match up exactly, only having certain spelling errors for the most part. Hows that for a testimony to man's ability to transcribe events.
-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
There is no possible nuetrality. There is no perfect unbias.
I'm sorry, but that is obviously beyond my point. Sounds to me like you didn't know what to reply with. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if you're going to reply, make sure to construct it to be arguable against my point.
Quote:
I'll have to look into that. I would think knowledge of drawings like that would be well circulated. You seem to say It's something you really believe in so I thought maybe you could find me a few examples.
They are indeed well-circulated. Do I really believe that people back then saw ufo's? I don't know, it's possible... just like people see ufo's nowadays. However, if we go any further into this another discussion on the concept of extraterrestial life would start, so I won't go into that. Somebody could have, of course, made it all up to try and disprove of religion. Then again, maybe not.
And for that reason that you agree with, I believe you are indeed following a religion that currently has no purpose but to control. To me, it's all a system of control.
Quote:
I wish you understood the hypocricy when people say that sheep are close minded and igorant, or when they say they don't think for themselves. If I didn't think for myself, I would go along the same wide path that the world takes, but instead I use discernment and swim against the flow. And many people want to be and "special" and "unique", but they don't understand that everything they have is a gift from God. They in fact conform to unconformaty, but I think it's really only rebellion and selfishness.
Then again, everyone has a definition of their own. My definition of a sheep is, in fact, someone who is closed minded and ignorant, and doesn't think for themselves. Are you a sheep? Maybe not. Am I a wolf? I don't know. You make some contradictions here, so I'm a bit confused as to what to say about that.
Quote:
I think that a lot of people don't really care whether it's correct or not honestly. Or at least not that much. And a lot of people convinced that there is no Truth only personal truth (which is a contradiction) or a few people like Imitator who think it's close to being or is unsearchable or unknowable. It's interesting how one can assert to know it's unknowable.
If people don't care whether it's correct or not, then they're wasting their time. One can know it's unknowable, at least in our present state of science. Our science, and your bible, have no way of disproving, or proving, that your faith exists. Thus, at this time it is indeed unknowable, and I know it.
Quote:
Why are you doomed to hell? If there's the right religion, then you can find it.
Exactly my point, if you can find the right religion, and if there is a right religion. And by no means does that mean that christianity is the end-all, be-all. However, every Christian would say so, just like every muslim would say Islam is.
Quote:
You don't have to believe in every religion, it's not unsearchable. So few have truly tried with honestly . And I know people will disagree with mwe on that. Just because many religions believe theirs to be correct does not mean a correct one exists, or that it is impossible to find. And there are big big differences between these religions.
The only thing I can think of that has any truth to what you say about the right religion being found, is about one finding the right religion for them. It's an individual preference. Just because many religions believe theirs to be correct does not mean a correct one exists, or that it is impossible to find? You just agreed with one of my biggest points. Yes, there are big differences with the religions, and yet at the same time they are all alike.
Like I said, I don't believe in God, but I don't rule out the possibility. And as I see it, if God does exist, I would not respect him. And yes, I would rather go to hell than to follow what the bible says. Even though the bible has been edited and revised many times to justify certain causes. To explain what the bible is in one word, it would be "propaganda." And in fact, it fits the definition of propaganda perfectly.
Some people use religion to find meaning in their life. Some people believe in God because they're afraid of the afterlife. Some people go to religion because they feel helpless and afraid in life (fight or flight. religion would be flight, in this case).
Some people use religion to help stay sober from addictive drugs.
Some people abide by religion because they grew up in a religious family.
Some people use religion as control, and to justify otherwise unjustifiable things.
From what I've seen in my life, these are some of the most common reasons why people believe in some sort of God.
-
A path to faith with science
Sorry to break it to you, but there is NO RIGHT RELIGION. EVERY religion is FALSE. Religion is Satan @ his best!
What happened natureisawesome? Can't come up with ONE scripture to back up your point? That's what I thought.
You would have to re-write the word of God for it to say what you preach!
You are the typical religious dude who doesn't know Jesus.
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
Jesus is LORD!
-
A path to faith with science
Imitator:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Daniel uses the term sevens, sometimes translated weeks, to mean a group of seven years. 7 + 62 sevens = 69 sevens. 69 x 7 years equals 483 years. The decree came in 445 b.c from Artaxerxes the king of Persia.Using 360 day years as the Hebrews did, we add 483 years and come to ad. 32 plus or minus 1.5 years.
Imitator:
So wait, it sometimes is translated into weeks, but just for this excercise we know that he meant seven years? How do we know, excluding the fact that it fits your excercise here, that he didnt mean weeks? Especially if what he said could be interpretted as weeks?
I have my concordance right here with me, and here is the meaning of the word used for weeks:
shabuwa
- lit. sevened, i.e. a week (spec. of years): seven, week.
from online concordance:
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) seven, period of seven (days or years), heptad, week
a) period of seven days, a week
1) Feast of Weeks
b) heptad, seven (of years)
So for starters, it meaning seven years cannot be ruled out. It would mean a day for a year, that is seven years. There are other examples in scripture of the day for a year rule:
Quote:
Ezekiel 4:6
6And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
numbers 14:34
34After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.
In both of these examples it was meant to be reminder of the rebellion of the Hebrews. In Daniels time, God had appointed 70 years for them to be held in captivity in Babylon. THis was foretold and prophesied by Jeremiah:
11And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.
Quote:
Jeremiah 25
12And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.
13And I will bring upon that land all my words which I have pronounced against it, even all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations.
Quote:
Daniel 9
1In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;
2In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.
3And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:
Now in response to this prayer God sent him the response of the prophecy of the seventy weeks. Now the 70 weeks begins "From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Dn 9:25) to the coming of "the Anointed One , the ruler, comes, and is then "cut off" (Dn 9:26). Now the word sevens could mean a regular week, but not in this context, and not comparing the other examples of prophecy that have been shown above. The decree to rebuild the temple was issued right about 445 BC, and took several years to finish. There is no mention of any claimed annointed one right around this period, as it would have been only 483 days until he would be killed! This doesn't fit the context at all and from comparing to the other prophecies shown it fits the context of the prophecy given to Daniel that it would mean a group of seven years, or a year for a day. You must also keep in mind these verses:
Quote:
Daniel 9
26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
That's a pretty specific prophecy that was also fulfilled in Christ. In fact, the fact that Christ fulfilled all of his prophecies just as it was foretold over 600 years earlier is iin itself be proof enough. It took them years to buiild the temple, and after the end when the messiah was to be cut off the temple and city were to be destroyed. This never happened in 446 b.c. but it was fulfilled exactly in the time of Christ.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For example, the only way you could logically support buddhism is to deny that the second law always holds true, or to deny that the outside world exists, or that time is real, or that reality is even real. In fact, these are some of the things that buddhism does claim! They are forced to. I think this is unrealistic, and dangerous. Besides, there is no evidence to support that the 2nd law, the outside world, or reality are not real. The case is quite the opposite. I hope these facts do not elude anyones notice.
Imitator:
You took a shred of truth there, and spread it into something entirely different.
Buddhism says that its foolish to look at things as having a definite start, and a definite end. Such things are human creations to help deal with the first Noble Truth, Pain. Doing so, will only cause more pain, and will prevent you from ever reaching nirvana.
To deny that the universe had a definite start is to deny the second law. It's interesting how you can say we know so little but you're so sure there was never a beginning.
Quote:
Secondly, what Buddhism says makes perfect sense, because alot of what they speak of works on the scientific level.
I know that evolution and buddhism go hand in hand, and tha't probably one of the greatest reasons so many westerners are embracing this religon. There is believed to be a parallel in the antithesis between Darwin's theory of the evils of evolution and Buddha's doctrine of the evolution of evils. The former is due to the great struggle for existence and the latter, to the will to live (tanha). which gives rise to the struggle for existence.
Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading. Nothing exists 'from its own side' or by reference to its own essence. So yes, it does deny reality. It's hard for a religion that teaches total impermanence to fit with science's foundational axiom which is that the natural laws remain true, and that the material world exists.
Quote:
Everything in life is waiting for the proper conditions to support its current manifestation. It doesnt completely poof out of no where, pretty much everything needed for it to manifest is there, its waiting for proper conditions.
It's waiting? Life doesn't come out of nowhere but the proper conditions do, it seems like what you're saying.
-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
3. All events require that something caused them.
Imitator:
What caused the creation of God? If all events require that something caused them, then what caused the initial existance and creation of God?
If God can "just exist" and "just is", then doesnt that explicitly discredit that third rule? The key word for making it so its a problem, is of course "all", which implies everything, no exceptions.
That's in this universe. The second law holds true in this universe, because the natural law is in this universe. Outside of this universe things would be different. You know I already addressed this a long time ago!
Quote:
Quote:
Some things we don't know. Perhaps we never will. But this doesn't mean answers don't exist, or are fundamentally ambiguous.A fact is a fact whether anyone recognizes it or not.
Quote:
So wait, you state right here with this statement that some things we dont know, but that it doesnt mean that the answers dont exist, or that what we dont know doesnt exist? Isnt that what I was saying in regards to the Dreamer theory? That we dont know, but that doesnt mean its not true? And what did you say to argue against that? Odd...
I never contradicted myself at all. You were arguing for a possibility as a fact when you had no evidence. It's not that possiblities don't exist, the evidence we have clearly supports that, it's that some things arn't possible, and possibilities aren't given, so you must go with the evidence always in determining your assumptions.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Could life be a self created hallucination? No, not really. To imagine that would be very.... unrealistic. It's an assumption, but while it may be hard to prove it's impossible to disprove.
Exactly. Thats the beauty of it, in so many ways.
Hard to prove but not impossible.
Quote:
And throughout the time you mention the option of this, you seem to immediately discredit it just from a dislike of your own. You claim its unrealistic, but in that case, what is realistic? Do you have definitive proof of what is realistic? Or just an assumption that you choose to believe in because its easier then the alternatives?
Remember I told you that it all depends upon human logic and reasoning. It's all we have. Once you establish anything , for instance your mind, then you can logically follow that the same mind you use as valid in one instance, can be applied for another similar purpose recognising the existance of the outside world as valid also.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. the universe exists.
2. Events occur within the universe.
3. All events require that something caused them.
Therefore something started all motion in the first place. If anything has motion, an original mover must have existed.
Imagine you were riding your bike somewhere and there was a great big freight train blocking the road as far as you can see, all the way to the left, and all the way to the right. The train seems endless. But you would rightly assume that the train is not infinitely long, and at some point has an end. The 2nd law prohibits perpetual motion machines so the train cannot go on moving forever either.
Also, each car is being pulled by the one in front of it. No car moves unless it was pulled. You would rightly assume further that there is an engine car which is different from the other cars, the original mover. You determine that it pulled the first car which pulled the second etc.
The universe is very much like a machine that is in motion. It's laws of operation tell us that it's in motion. It cannot be perpetual, therefore it hasn't been around forever and someday will stop. Every atom of our universe is rubbing and pulling and bumping against each other. And since nothing moves until a force is placed on it, the original force must have begun the cascade of movement that we see today.
Jumping back again to this, and I apologize for the jumping.
If God exists while being exempt from the third rule, then we can assume that the third rule doesnt apply to everything, which means in essence it could apply to nothing. Not that it is applying to nothing, but that its possible if it doesnt apply to everything, that it could apply to nothing.
Not applying to anything a biiiig step from not applying to everything. Besides, like I said, you can't lump God in with this because he's outside of the universe.
-
A path to faith with science
myself:
Quote:
If this is a book, it's all wrong (sorry if this is your own post that you wrote)
First let me start off by re-introducing the first Law of thermodynamics.
Energy can not be created or destroyed
As if I was unaware of this!
Quote:
That means energy has always been here, and always will be. The energy just didn't pop out of nowhere and is now here. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN, and will always be seeing as you can not destroy it. Therefor, the universe can not end, nor can it be destroyed.
Our universe is nothing but pure energy, down to every single atom and quark.
No that's not what it means. You must not have been paying attention to my original post. Matter cannot be created or destroyed by the universe.
The second law of thermodynamics shows that the universe is running down. Because it's degrading towards an end it thus neccecitates a beginning. The energy available to do work is decresing as time goes on, and since the total energy to do work can't exceed the total amount available you can only extrapolate as far back back in time as the point where they were equal and this would be the beginning , the point where they are equal.
So something had to start motion in the first place. Because complexity is decreasing with time, it must have started higher to begin with.
If low entropy systems like life can never be created by the universe but we know both things exist, then something besides our universe must be responsible.
Matter and energy are interchangable.If the energy for motion must have come from the supernatural then the energy for matter must have too. That is, the original provider of all energy.
So you're wrong. There's more to it than the first law.
-
A path to faith with science
Time for a serious break.
-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
I never contradicted myself at all. You were arguing for a possibility as a fact when you had no evidence.
Ok, I am going to say this one more time, with nothing else in the post but it, so that you can get this.
I, Imitator, have not once stated anything to be a fact. I have not insinuated anything to be a fact. I have not hinted at anything being a fact.
When I mention something from a specific source, I am merely quoting it for the point. It doesnt mean I believe in it, or that I hold it to be true at all, its merely a point to be brought up in a discussion to see what you have to say in response to it.
I have not, nor will I ever willingly state anything as a fact. Please, for the last time natureisawesome, stop stating that I have said something to be a fact, or have hinted at it being a fact, or anything that involves me, facts, and the stating of said facts.
-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Besides, like I said, you can't lump God in with this because he's outside of the universe.
If one thing can be exempt, why cant others? Who is to say that we ourselves are entirely a part of just this universe? Why cant we be like God, able to exist upon multiple universes, sort of like the principles behind String Theory?
-
A path to faith with science
Here's a good place for all you hardcore christians to answer questions from:
God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs
-
A path to faith with science
And also, take a look at:
Why Won't God Heal Amputees?
Please tell us why this is. Read the sites I posted. Perhaps some of you christians might end up re-thinking your belief...
-
A path to faith with science
In situations like this, I usually dont even want them to rethink their belief so much as understand where others are coming from, understand that they are not of their faith and choose not to be, and that that choice is ok.
I mean certainly, Id love to be able to "wake up" some people to the rest of the world and all the religions in it, and let them see things from a step back, because its hard to really look at something if you are right up in its midst... But I would be happy if there was more tolerance in the world from said religious people.
The idea that they can say they are tolerant and then in the same breath condemn me to their hell because I dont follow their exact beliefs... Its mind boggling.
-
A path to faith with science
I also find it humurous that people who are seemingly so well educated can still deny what others bring to a discussion about religion and cling to their beliefs. I, for one, don't believe in god, but in a way I appreciate religion. It's got a lot of control over its believers, and can be used to spread good ideas. Unfortunately, that's rarely the case. I also like the tales I hear about the bible, they sound like lovely little fables. Hopefully I can get a whole load of weed soon, maybe I'll just smoke and read the bible for a day.
By the way, to the OP, I'd be a little more cautious with spreading your ideas around and trying to push them on other people. If someone who was gay decided to come on here and tried to recruit you with photos of naked men and tried to convince you that their lifestyle was the right one, I imagine you'd be pretty aggravated. Because that would go against what you (or possibly your religion) has determined to be the correct way of living.
Even though your intention to save mankind and shit is pretty noble, at this stage in the game, I doubt many people will be swayed over to some radical new way of thinking just because of a post on cannabis.com.
-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai as a kite
By the way, to the OP, I'd be a little more cautious with spreading your ideas around and trying to push them on other people. If someone who was gay decided to come on here and tried to recruit you with photos of naked men and tried to convince you that their lifestyle was the right one, I imagine you'd be pretty aggravated. Because that would go against what you (or possibly your religion) has determined to be the correct way of living.
Haha that's pretty funny.
Gay Agenda, August 31st, 2007:
Convert Xians.
:D
-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardcore Newbie
Haha that's pretty funny.
Gay Agenda, August 31st, 2007:
Convert Xians.
:D
They already have the Gay Mafia working on it... The Mauve Hand.
-
A path to faith with science
mfqr:
Quote:
Here's a good place for all you hardcore christians to answer questions from:
God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs
mfqr, Please refrain from elephant hurling. I have no problem with these challenges but one thing at a time.
-
A path to faith with science
Imitator:
Quote:
The big difference is the bone structure in its fins. There is an almost complete wrist and finger structure there, not found in any other fish during that era.
They arent saying it walked on land, but that it was the father of land walking creatures.
No, that's not true at all:
Quote:
While the endochondral bones in the pectoral fins of Crossopterygians have some similarity to bones in the fore limbs of tetrapods, there are significant differences. For example, there is nothing even remotely comparable to the digits in any fish. The bony rays of fish fins are dermal bones that are not related in any way to digits in their structure, function or mode of development. Clearly, fin rays are relatively fragile and unsuitable for actual walking and weight bearing.
Even the smaller endochondral bones in the distal fin of Tiktaalik are not related to digits. Ahlberg and Clack point out that ??although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental rearranging.?
Quote:
And even if they found tommorow that the back half of it was fish like, the front half is still enough to show the difference.
no it's not by any means. Compare the bone structure to that of other fish and you will find, that it was a fish. A special fish.
Quote:
And no fish during that time could even slide around on land. So this one was a first.
Assumption!
Quote:
Just the existance of such fossils, and the age of them, would help to show if nothing else, that the current believed age of this world is incorrect according to the bible.
I skimmed through the article on AiG, but it looks like the only thing they dispute is that this fish exists due to evolution, not the actual time period that it lived in?
Do you know anything about dating methods? They are all based on assumptions. And carbon dating, which they use on dead things, can only be used up to a period of about 100,000 years If I remember correctly. They date the fossils by the rocks, and the rocks are dating by the fossils. They use circular logic, theirs really no other way for them to do it:
Quote:
In the April 2006, issue of Nature, Daeschler, et al. reported the discovery of several fossilized specimens of a Crossopterygian fish named Tiktaalik roseae. These well preserved specimens were found in sedimentary layers of siltstone??cross-bedded with sandstones??in Arctic Canada.4
Like the other lobe-fin fish, Tiktaalik was declared to be late Devonian (between 385-359 million years old) by means of a ??dating? method known as palynomorph biostratigraphy. This method presumes to date sedimentary rock layers on the basis of the assumed evolutionary age of pollen and spores contained in the rock. Most importantly, the discoverers of Tiktaalik claim that it ??represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs.?
These claims are all based on evolutionary assumptions. cannot be validated by empirical science. You have to realize that empirical science only works in the present! When it comes to talking about origins, it's a totally different matter.
-
A path to faith with science
Quote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
Was reading through the 50 reasons website, came across this gem of a quote.
-
A path to faith with science
Imitator:
Quote:
Quote:
natureisawesome:
Besides, like I said, you can't lump God in with this because he's outside of the universe.
If one thing can be exempt, why cant others? Who is to say that we ourselves are entirely a part of just this universe? Why cant we be like God, able to exist upon multiple universes, sort of like the principles behind String Theory?
First off, string theory is only a hypothesis which lacks experimental support and has not yet connected as far as I know with any data whatsoever. It doesn't predict or explain any data. Second, string theory has been replaced by superstring theory also lacking in experimental support, which postulates eleven dimensions.
Third, as far as I know any other dimensions would still be subject to space-mass-time. (proponents say for instance, the reason some of these hypothetical dimensions are not seen is that they are rolled up into incredibly tiny spaces). As our space-mass-time universe (sometimes called the space-time continuum) was created by God, He is therefore beyond or transcendent to it??i.e., not subject to its limitations (Genesis 1:1)
