So one of the things I keep hearing over and over again is this something from nothing (I'm fairly sure that this pertains to life but be bear with me.) It turns out on a quantum level the universe creates something from nothing all the time and it's been tested and proven. Really interesting stuff go here for the details!
Also a new orbiting telescope has found a ton of planets outside our solar system. Not really Sunday material, but really friggin' cool! If a third of the 200 million stars in our galaxy have planets (that makes 66 million stars with planets by the way) and 6% of those are the right size and in the right place for liquid water. Then that makes 3,960,000 planets with the possibility to support life... Makes you wonder why this wasn't mentioned in the Bible, only the stars already known and some constellations, nothing about other planets or those dreaded aliens;)
Best!
Brett
18 comments:
Makes you wonder why this wasn't mentioned in the Bible
I think you mean it makes you wonder why people of faith don't wonder why this wasn't mentioned in the bible.I think we already know why ;)
Maybe the other planets are wondering why it was not mentioned in their holy texts either? ;)
(I mean, for all intents and purposes, with an ever expanding universe, we cannot be the only sentient life forms out there.)
Btw, here are some very clever cartoons by the talented cartoonist Tatsuya Ishida. The series is called Sinfest.
If you have the time, check out his other strips. Nothing is sacred, which is why I find them entertaining.
[url]http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=215[/url]
[url]http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=68[/url]
Tried to make those links active. To see the strips, just remove the [url] tags.
Peace.
Brett,
Exactly what are your guidelines for accepting a scientific theory? Do you believe everything a scientist tells you? This new theory is pretty young and not widely accepted, tested, or understood, but you seem ready to swallow it whole. You are exercising a lot of faith.
What do you do if you believe all scientists and you discover two competing contradictory theories? For instance you seem to believe Neo-Darwinian speciation has happened. Using the work of Pro-Evolutionary Biologists (you know, your team) I showed you how the experts in the field of speciation have said straight out that Darwinian Speciation has never happened. In other words, unless you switch the definition of species, you can’t claim one of the truths you regularly drag into our discussions. Even when proven it is inaccurate you seem unwilling to let go. Why? Again this is evolutionary scientists disagreeing with other evolutionary scientists. They all can’t be right. It seems you always side with whoever has the clearest anti-God motivation. Does that make you pause at all?
Steve,
I accept something that has been proven to be true, with peer review and studies. This is NOT a new theory. It's been tested and retested. Its amusing. You think a book written thousands of years ago with NO evidence is true but me agreeing with scientist who have tested and retesting things, studied and tested and then tested some more is taking things on faith?!?!?... ahhh.. That's not faith. 1+1 will equal 2 because we learned that and tested that. It will never equal 3 even if your bible says so. Do you not see the hypocrisy you are talking about?
As for the evolution thing. There is only one theory. How it works exactly is what they are still working on. It's possible there are more than one ways to trigger adaptive evolution. You have shown me nothing that proves speciation has never happened, only your inability to think in the long term. And unfortunately the current classification system is out dated and needs revamping. The whole no interbreeding things between species has been proven false, so the definition is being changed for the laymen like you. Scientists don't really use that system anymore, they use cladistics.
For some reason you seem to think there is this great divide amoungst scientists. There is not, you are simply reading into things. There is ONE theory, how it works exactly is still being hashed out with testing and retesting. When they discover something new that is added and what has been proven false is discarded. I accept what the scientist say when it's been accepted because you know they have a very good track record of being right. Medicine, the atomic bomb, astronomy... They have proven themselves. Religion? Well seeing as how most religions have been proven false, since no one follows them anymore... Can you not see how people would have problems believing in them?
The truth as Stephen Gould said is most likely in the middle. Usually evolution is slow but when niches open up something evolves to fill it sometime very quickly. For some reason, and I think it's is why you ID guys that irreducible complexity so much, you think something must only have one purpose, that's completely and utterly wrong. Your bones provide structure and attachment points for muscles and ligaments, you bones also produce marrow which is used for the immune system and they provide protection for your brain and heart and lungs. that's 3 things for one item. Things can and do have multiple uses.
It's not my fault that science is moving further and further away from your religion. Any motivation you see is because science can only test reality. And since your so proud that your god is outside that, science has stopped bothering with him, as the more we learn the less important he became for explaining things, until he's now become utterly useless. The only pause I get is from be being dumb founded about all the idiotic nonsense you seem to accept that has been proven wrong years ago.
Best!
Brett
M.O.R.
I was actually just there the other day, Pretty funny stuff!
Best,
Brett
So your comments don't rally answer the question. I'm not making it up and I'm not providing inaccurate information. It is there for you to check out yourself. Please don't take me at word, but just look at the information provided.
Changing definitions does not also change the studies, it only changes the wording.
So evolutionary speciations has not occurred, not as you popularly use the term. If that is in fact the case you can't say the evidence supports evolution. You can't say it is one theory being updated when the heart of the theory has been shown to be inaccurate.
Again, I'm not saying that disproves evolution, simply it does not have anywhere the ironclad facts you constantly site.
Someone asked why me and you continue to do this little dance, I would think the fact that the actual science does not support your beliefs would be reason enough.
There is not only one theory. Why does this fact seem to bother you so? Science is always about competing theories.
Anyways my beliefs have not been disproved. This too is odd that you constantly act as if they had been proven false, or even been discredited.
Again the first rule I stated about the supernatural is that it is supernatural. So far you seem to believe saying supernatural is the same as false. If you equate the supernatural with the false, merely say so-this is opinion and preference.
Also if you want some good reading on the problems of evolution from a non layman like myself check out this website:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/
Lots of real honest to goodness white lab coat wearing scientists get together here and discuss ID and their own conversions from materialists or evolutionists to IDists.
Unless it is you believe in "one theory" all scientists agree on. Then you can read the website and tell yourself it is a magic portal to fairy tale land where gnomes riding on the back of unicorns have created a spell to bewitch us simpletons.
Steve
What questions? It's basically you spewing a bunch of crap that doesn't make any sense.
UGH! There is ONE theory of evolution. How it works? There are competing ideas. And yes there are sometime multiple theories, but after years of research the one with the most evidence is usually brought forth. Like the Big Bang and Evolution.
Speciation HAS happened. It has been pointed out to you lots of times. The fact that you cant understand that is YOUR problem not mine.
Sorry your RELIGION has been disproven, you will of course believe what you are told to like the good little Christian soldier you are. But no 6 day creation, no flood, not real, this false and therefore disproven.
I'm saying THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE SUPERNATURAL!!!!! There is ZERO evidence tot he contrary and if you think there is PLEASE get your head examined!!!!!!
I've been to that site, they are NOT biologists or even scientists for the most part. They are like you, twisting what little science they know to suit there own purposes. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the hand of ignorant. These are the same people who were chastised by the Judge at Dover.
Brett
Whoa, guys, calm down.
Don't let things be taken to the point where they cannot be taken back.
Like either Brett or Jess said before, read a post, if it annoys you, take a time out or come back to it later. Then post.
I know we all have different opinions, the world would be boring if we didn't, but just be careful not to take things too far.
Sorry, but I don't wish to see things taken too far as to lead to potentially venomous comments.
Steve,
If you want to see evidence of speciation, go to youtube and look up Ensantina salamanders.
Retrieverman-On Ensantina salamanders, this is a good example. This is exactly what you should be giving as an example of Speciation. As you know it is a ring species- The interbreeding ability differs between the salamanders spread across a small geographical location. Those at the top and the bottom of the ring can not interbreed-apparently because of the geographical differences. But the inability to breed disappears when the population is reunited in a lab-so the speciation is not permanent. What does it mean? Well it is sort of a still an open question. Most IDists say this is a dead end for evolutionists because it prevents increased complexity and it is not permanent. I’m kind of fascinated and just want to know more, what is it really showing?
Off the top of my head, here is what could be happening. As you know the possibility of conception is regulated by temperature- a few differences in degrees and you can not have fertilization. With the salamanders you are talking about a geographical location with slight variations in the fitness landscape (different terrain, temperatures, nutritional availability, etc.) By modifying any of these variables you could create an organism with slightly different requirements for temperature for fertilization- so lets say the female has adapted by keeping her body temperature a half degree cooler or warmer-making her fertile for her terrain but infertile for a slightly different terrain. Suddenly it appears speciation has occurred-you have a divergence in a known species to interbreed. The problem is once the species are brought together in a lab they can suddenly start to interbreed again. The speciation is not permanent, and correct me if I’m wong, I don’t believe so far it has been shown to be transferred to offspring in the same environment-only as long as the geographical distance is maintained.
For a quick check on slight variations in terrain and the effect on salamander eggs google salamander eggs and temperature, light, or ph levels. You'll quickly see when dealing with an egg laying specimen how terrain variations increase or reduce apparent fertility.
I feel like perhaps I’m coming across as badgering; that is not my intent. Brett is on a tight deadline and it is cold-I don’t want to eat up anymore of his time with this current debate. After twenty posts or so I imagine most have stopped reading. So I want to be fair to Brett and his time, until at least Sunday this is my last post (I may say that picture is cool-but no correcting bad logic). So if you want to get in your cheap shots, now is the time; let the rhetoric fly!
Brett kind of has a habit of constantly making attacks based on religious grounds to scientific arguments. I think this is confusing some newer bloggers here. I’m not arguing religion against science.
I cover three basic areas of discussion:
1) What empirical science actually shows about evolution- this is probably our most frequent area of disagreement. I do not believe aspirin will some day cure brain cancer. In the say way there are limits and boundaries to what evolution has been shown to do, expanding them beyond current data is okay for theory; you just can’t say it is a fact it will someday cure cancer because it worked on headaches. Different problem requires different evidence.
2) What Intelligent Design is and what it says. Most materialists take a snarky condescending tone toward IDists. They misquote, twist and create straw men after straw men. Because they seldom honestly engage in a sincere debate the IDist has to spend an exorbitant amount of time correcting materialist’s shenanigans. It is an old political move designed to keep an opponent chasing their own tail. Just when you have corrected their fallacious views, the materialist starts it all over acting as if they misunderstood or as if nothing was said. It is just dishonest and hateful.
3) God. Like number two, for some reason Evolutionists love to drag religion into every discussion on evolution. It is uncanny. It is primarily a cheap shot, because they then don’t have to discuss science, they get to attack religion; which appears to be their chief motivation. As soon as an evolutionist mentions religion or God they are communicating a desire to discuss philosophy and world views, they are leaving the realms of materialistic science, but here is the kicker-they always act like you are the one who does not understand the nature of the hard sciences by discussing philosophy, history, or anthropology.
Remember, for the most part unless directly asked about an issue of faith or God’s character I pretty much stick to science on science debates. In an evolutionary discussion I’ve never said “God did it,” or “the Bible says so.” Not because I doubt the truth of the Bible or the possibility of God acting; but I believe those are philosophical arguments and not really applicable to the natural arena. I’ve also never made any claims to be a Young Earth Creationist. I believe God created the universe, but there is little need to use that as argument against evolution. Evolution could be true and my faith would be fine, thank you. Evolution does not disprove God, so constantly creating an unnecessary tension.
I am a Christian, I believe in the Judeo-Christian God revealed in the Bible and recorded throughout history. I believe as most scientists did up until the 19th century that God created the universe and fully intended us to be curious explorers. Real Christians have no problem with empirical science. We do not reject data collected through traditional scientific experimentation. We love science. Brett and I are both laymen; we are amateurs at this who just do a ton of reading. We accept the same empirical evidence, we differ in how it should be understood. For me I make a big differentiation between evidence and proof. Brett sees things and says because of evolution, this data must mean this. It must also be expanded to include this. And it explains this. Because I’m not an evolutionist, and I don’t claim to know everything, I point out well it could mean that, but it could also more probably mean this or this.
Steve out
The speciation actually is permanent. The two salamanders at the two ends of the "ring" are no longer chemically interfertile. They can interbreed with all the transitions subspecies, and all the transitions can interbreed with each other. But on of those at one of the ends is an entirely different species.
Take this hundreds of millions of years out, and you can see how things could have evolve.
Yes. There are problems with evolution, but there are far fewer problems with evolution than with the theory of gravity.
Irreducible complexity was destroyed at the Dover trial.
And I'll give you an even better example: There is a nerve that runs down our necks down to about where our heart is and then back up to our larynx. This nerve was more efficiently placed when we shared common ancestry with creatures with gills. But now that we have lungs it is rerouted almost a foot from where the most efficient connection could be. Giraffes have this same nerve, but it is rerouted somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 feet!
Don't you think an intelligent designer could have come up with a better connection?
Unless you're willing to admit that God is a terrible designer or a bad electrician.
I'm super busy so I'll be brief, need to get this issue done by Monday.
You're not badgering Steve you are being willfully ignorant. That's my greatest pet peeve, drives me insane. Those ID guys you like to read were totally discredited at Dover. And by doing actual math the numbers who support them are like .02% of the scientific community. Sorry, I'm not buying what they are selling. They are not biologists, they are snake oil salesmen.
Retrieverman,
I've used the nerve before, it's just ignored. I've used moths, lizards, whales, horses, birds.. it's ignored. Your will get either the 'Kinds' response, micro evolution, or we can't know the Will of God.
That's why it's so frustrating, they plug their ears when actual science disagrees with their belief system.
Best,
Brett
Hey Brett! There is no convincing people like Steve...they can't understand evolution because it doesn't jibe with their religion. Steve clearly does not understand the basic science behind evolution and how it actually works...he has misconceptions on what it actually is. I refer back to my evolution posts once again, and once again Steve, since you like reading and if you want to try and understand evolution more, read an evolution textbook before you try to discredit evolution...understand the basic science behind it. Learn how DNA works...how hereditary genetics work...how molecular biology works...and how those subjects tie into evolution.
Brett, I can't wait till your JLA issue comes out!
Nathan
Post a Comment