| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 2:23:16 PM | It's the word that scientists use to describe a certain mechanism. I didn't make the word up.
Evolution is random mutations in dna, not adaptation.
If you understand adaptation as evolution, then you misunderstand evolution.
It isn't true that whales came from hippos, it's just what they speculate. Not 100% fact. Science never is.
If you say science is fact. Then you can say it's fact that meat turns into maggots, that mice come from underwear, that pond scum comes from water (all of which used to be believed by scientists by the spontaneous generation evolution mechanism). But of course we know these are not facts. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 2:43:56 PM | Adaptation:
a. any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.
b. a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment.
c. the ability of a species to survive in a particular ecological niche, esp. because of alterations of form or behavior brought about through natural selection.
-dictionary.com
Science is never fact huh? I belive it was the science community that figured out the world is round and Earth isn't the center of the universe. I accept this to be fact.
Ironic how Theologists like to dismiss theories as fiction. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 2:52:02 PM | I don't dismiss those as theories, but you have to remember that it used to be a scientific "fact" that the world was flat.
It has also been exposed that scientists are not always honest with their findings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802385.html
(and they're just the ones who admit to it)
But evolution believers seem to put so much trust in the scientific community. I do not put my trust in fallible man. I put my trust in God. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 2:53:11 PM | | No, it was never a fact that the earth was flat. The only people who believed that were uneducated. Most people of that time knew better. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 2:58:57 PM |
I am curious to what you think created God if something has to create something ? If God just always has been then that too would suppose that something came from nothing, would it not ?
As this was addressing one of the OP's strongest supporting statements, I'm curious: Did this ever get answered? | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 3:02:23 PM |
But evolution believers seem to put so much trust in the scientific community. I do not put my trust in fallible man. I put my trust in God.
Methinks your skepticism is misplaced. How can you put all your trust in a book of myths that were written yonks ago by men, some of whom for all you know might've been doing a bit of science in their spare time. Double standard. Trust no one... | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 3:07:05 PM |
you have to remember that it used to be a scientific "fact" that the world was flat.
With the threat of being excommunicated or the gallows I can undrstand why no one wanted to speak against the Church. The Church would kill people who disagreed or contested the Bible, which was written by men who weren't perfect. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 3:14:34 PM | The Bible is full of history and explanations to the world and even the universe in which we live. The writers were inspired by God, which is why we trust it.
I'm not slamming science, just the lies. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 3:25:25 PM | There's millions of fictitious books out there whose writers claim to be inspired by God but that doesn't mean we should believe stories about someone walking on water, a big boat which all life stems from(how old was Noah and his wife), and how a married, virgin woman got pregnant. You wanna talk about lies.
The Bible has a lot of "history' which can't be proven and the explanations of the universe continue to get discredited and when they do the Religious community dismisses it as non-believer rhetoric. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 3:41:53 PM |
I'm not slamming science, just the lies.
You know very little about science, and the content of your posts indicate that. You think that science once asserted that the earth was flat, which is untrue. Do some research on science, then maybe you can be considered an authority on the subject. Until then, you'll just come across as uneducated. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 4:27:09 PM | Because evolution is commonly known asanimals turning into different kinds (or species). Which doesn't happen.
Evolution, as defined by biologists, is a change in gene frequencies in a given population over time. That's why every birth is evidence for evolution. As far as speciation goes, it has been directly observed. See my earlier posting of the Speciation FAQ.
I can see you have misunderstood. Reproduction is not macro evolution. We are talking about evolution here, not reproduction.
There is no microevolution or macroevolution. There is only evolution.
The probability chance example I gave was about macro evolution, referring to that of the whale.
I'd love to see where these probabilities came from. It must have been a Creationist source, which means the numbers are pure fiction.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 4:33:11 PM | If you knew about creationism, you would know that we do not ignore any apparent "real" evidence. No stone is left unturned.
I was a Creationist for almost two thirds of my life. I know for a fact that Creationists ignore evidence, take Evolutionist quotes out of context, lie, and make wild claims that they haven't researched. Just the other day a Creationist on POF was claiming that there are tracks of humans inside tracks of dinosaurs in Texas. This claim was debunked by Creationists decades ago, but other Creationists keep repeating it. The same goes for the moon dust argument, which I also heard the other day from a Creationist. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 4:43:13 PM | It's the word that scientists use to describe a certain mechanism. I didn't make the word up.
Evolution is random mutations in dna, not adaptation.
If you understand adaptation as evolution, then you misunderstand evolution.
Whichever Creationist told you this lied. That is not the definition of evolution.
It isn't true that whales came from hippos, it's just what they speculate.
Nobody speculates that whales evolved from hippos. That's not what evolutionary theory says. Evolution says that the whale's closest living relative is the hippo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_evolution | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 5:09:54 PM | It has also been exposed that scientists are not always honest with their findings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802385.html
(and they're just the ones who admit to it)
Scientists are human and subject to human failings. Science has a built in method of coping with this (peer review and independent replication). Curiously religion has no counterpart. There's no religious method for distinguishing between prophets of god and charlatans.
But evolution believers seem to put so much trust in the scientific community.
Because scientists have created means of rooting out bad science and scientific misconduct. It was scientists, for example, who proved that Piltdown Man was a hoax (most likely perpetrated by a Catholic priest!).
I do not put my trust in fallible man. I put my trust in God.
I take it then, that you don't believe the Bible since it was written by fallible men. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 5:24:29 PM | scotterpop said:
Science is never fact huh? I belive it was the science community that figured out the world is round and Earth isn't the center of the universe. I accept this to be fact.
The roundness of the earth was established by Greek and Roman philosophers such as Aristotle in the 3rd century B.C., long before the development of modern science (circa the 17th century). It's a very common misconception that the flat earth model was believed until Columbus' time, although in reality, all medieval philosophers and theologians took the round earth model for granted. Hence, in Dante's Divine Comedy (a medieval epic poem), the model of the world is quite round.
Regarding geocentrism..... well, actually, the first man to develop a functional heliocentric model was a priest as well as a scientist: Nicolaus Copernicus. This is the case with a great deal of inventions and discoveries in the history of western civilization. The history of early science and invention is intertwined with that of priests and monasteries. This is self-evident with the progression of architecture thanks to cathedrals, the use of the same cathedrals as solar observatories, the invention of the clock to regulate the monastic hours of prayer, the invention of the printing press to relieve monks from copying manuscripts by hand, the founding of geologic science by the Jesuits, and so on, and so forth.
Although Galileo Galilei later got into trouble with the Italian Inquisition, it certainly wasn't just because he was a heliocentrist. He got into trouble for claiming that the book of Joshua in the Old Testament proved his theory (referencing the story of Joshua stopping the sun in the sky). In other words, no one cared about him until he himself brought religion into the argument. He got in more trouble when he attempted to prove heliocentrism but failed because he couldn't refute Aristotle's arguments to the contrary. No one could until more accurate telescopes were invented. To top it off, he put the words of his friend Pope Urban VIII into a caricature character named "Simplicio" and mocked him in a pamphlet. In other words, Mr. Galilei brought his misfortunes upon himself. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/11/2008 5:40:33 PM | CountIbli said:
It was scientists, for example, who proved that Piltdown Man was a hoax (most likely perpetrated by a Catholic priest!).
I've heard that Jesuit Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was accused of it by S.J. Gould. There are a couple of articles refuting that claim:
http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/Teilhard_de_Chardin/Chardin_defend/Teilhardandpilthoax.html
http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/winslow1.html
However, I never liked Father Teilhard much anyway. His theology is flaky to me. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/12/2008 11:47:41 AM | The Big Bang theory is very complicated, but as I understand it does not postulate that anything came from nothing. I am beginning to understand that the state of the universe before it expanded was one of mathematical probability.. it's a quantum thing.. maybe quantum theory will shed more light on the nature of these states.
I think before one pooh poohs a scientific theory, research into what it REALLY means is necessary. Layman explanations and pseudo-scientific comparisons just don't answer the real questions. Here is a small bit of information on the Big Bang (or more correctly the Big Expansion)
There is a lot of confusion with the big bang, mainly because of 2 concepts: a. the expansion of space and b. the singularity. For one, the concept of empty space expanding isn't natural. After all, how something we can't see, touch or feel have any physical existence at all? Most tend to visualize a ball of matter flying apart or expanding into this empty space instead. But this view is incorrect. In GR, space is a property of a very physical gravitational field, and can indeed expand. In the big bang model, it is the empty space in between galaxies that expands. If we wind the clock back on this cosmic expansion, we'll find that the universe becomes much more dense and hotter. In such a state, galaxies would not exist, and only very basic elements could. Tracing the expansion back to a maximum state of density is the beginning of time.
Which brings us to the second problem, the singularity. This is where Hovind's silly spinning dot comes from. If GR is correct on all scales, then with some assumptions it can be mathematically shown that the universe must begin in a singular state. This singularity is a point of zero volume and infinite density. It is not a dot, pixel or anything else. It is a mathematical point, and most cosmologists probably do not think it has anything to do with reality. Why? Well go back to the assumption that GR can accurately describe space on all scales. If the gravitational field (spacetime itself) is actually quantum field, then GR is not going to provide any useful description. Most working on developing a theory of quantum gravity expect the singularity to be replaced by something of finite density.
Once the singularity is removed, then the question "how small did our visible universe start off as?" becomes valid. But keep in mind that's only asking how big the visible universe is, not the entire universe itself. Oddly enough, the big bang theory is compatible with an universe of infinite size. In the case of the big bang, in the beginning the universe would be infinitely dense at each point, but the overall size was, and always will be, infinite. Only a finite universe gets smaller as we approach the beginning. If that is indeed the case, additional data on intitial conditions (as well as a quantum theory of gravity) will be required to know what that size was.
So as you can see, there is a. no dot b. no spinning dot either. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/12/2008 12:05:08 PM | I've come to believe that there's no such thing as empty space... Everything is energy and in "seeming" nothingness dwells potential energy waiting to be transformed into realized energy.
I think it's an older than age law that says if there is to be difference, there must be change... The clock starts when the first change is made. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/12/2008 12:46:22 PM |
You know very little about science
Great argument Concertina. When you have something substantial to come back with, let me know. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/12/2008 9:52:45 PM | "I think before one pooh poohs a scientific theory, research into what it REALLY means is necessary. Layman explanations and pseudo-scientific comparisons just don't answer the real questions. Here is a small bit of information on the Big Bang (or more correctly the Big Expansion)"
I think this point is quite important. The people working on cosmology are very bright, and have doctorates in physics and advanced maths. This doesn't mean they are infallible and can't make mistakes, but sometimes the sophistication of the ideas and concepts is such it goes over the heads of many laypeople. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/13/2008 8:34:21 AM | Adaption/ evolution. That is one problem when these discussions come up.
The poster I was responding to was using 'mutations/ adaptions'. My example followed the same path, when it first happened the scientists were using it as proof of evolution. After the animals mutated/ adapted' back, they were shocked but still trying to use it as evolution. I was merely saying nope.
Yes, I believe in adaption. Yes, I believe things evolve. But...................
Did primordial ooze create life? No. Did it 'evolve' to us now? Nope. Did humans and apes come from a single ancestor? Nope.
The difference between the earth being thought of as flat and then proven round is the simple word 'proven'.
I think science has more than a modicum of validity, but, it is when people put faith in it (just as religious folk) were the problem lies.
EDIT:::::::::lololol wrong thread, but same point. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/13/2008 9:12:47 AM | The poster I was responding to was using 'mutations/ adaptions'. My example followed the same path, when it first happened the scientists were using it as proof of evolution. After the animals mutated/ adapted' back, they were shocked but still trying to use it as evolution. I was merely saying nope.
Do you have any evidence that this actually happened?
Did humans and apes come from a single ancestor?
Humans are a kind of ape.
The difference between the earth being thought of as flat and then proven round is the simple word 'proven'.
Evolution is proven. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/13/2008 9:26:24 AM | Great argument Concertina. When you have something substantial to come back with, let me know.
Argument? You already posted that your school teachers spent most of their time ranting at kids about behavior instead of teaching. So you have claimed to be uneducated in at least one post & shown it to be true without any doubt whatsoever in the majority of your other posts.
Your posts contradict each other & you don't realise it. You also post stuff that is known to be outright lies.
Why is it an "argument" when someone agrees with what YOU posted about yourself? | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/13/2008 10:01:32 AM | glamb
The poster I was responding to was using 'mutations/ adaptions'. My example followed the same path, when it first happened the scientists were using it as proof of evolution. After the animals mutated/ adapted' back, they were shocked but still trying to use it as evolution. I was merely saying nope.
When evolution first happened the scientists were using it as proof? It first happened billions of years before there were scientists so...perhaps you should elaborate a bit more on this example so we can understand what you're talking about.
Its not unusual for animals to adapt back to where they once were, and it does not refute evolution. In a changing environment, this happens often. Darwin discovered that on the galapagos islands, there are finches with small, weak beaks and finches with large, strong beaks. Most years, beak size doesn't matter as there are plenty of small nuts that each bird can feed on. On drought years however, the small nuts are far less plentiful, leaving only large hard nuts that cannot be penetrated by finches with small beaks. Therefore, in drought years, finches with small beaks tend to starve and die out while finches with large beaks continue to flourish. When the season goes back to normal, finches with small beaks begin to flourish anew. | |
|
| Did Something come from Nothing?
Posted: 4/13/2008 10:06:48 AM |
The poster I was responding to was using 'mutations/ adaptions'. My example followed the same path, when it first happened the scientists were using it as proof of evolution. After the animals mutated/ adapted' back, they were shocked but still trying to use it as evolution. I was merely saying nope.
Do you have any evidence that this actually happened?
The Galapagos Islands incident in the late 80's/ early 90's. A major ouil spill happened, the animals adapted in a single generation, the evolutionists claimed it proved evolution. They held it up as their shining example. A few years later when the environment went back to normal, so did the animals, in a single generation. The evolutionists were dumbfounded (lol) and backtracked.
Did humans and apes come from a single ancestor?
Humans are a kind of ape.
I'm glad you said kinds. horse, domkey, zebra, etc., are kinds. Kinda like dogs, which allows for interbreeding (even if it produces a sterile offspring). I'm pretty sure apes and humans can't create offspring.
The difference between the earth being thought of as flat and then proven round is the simple word 'proven'.
Evolution is proven.
In the sense of adaption,mutations, and (to an extent) species ancestors, yes. But when concerning the theory of evolution, that from primordial ooze life sprang, to where we are now, nope. | |
|
Home
login 
