Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Cypress]

Agreed. There's also a lot of confusion in Genesis regarding the nature of the Tree, the nature of the Serpent in Genesis 3 plus this curious statement in Genesis 3:22:

"And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Who the fuck is "us"? Knowing good and evil makes man like God and his drinking buddies? There's a Tree of Knowledge and a Tree of Immortality? Obviously metaphors, but of what? Also, Genesis has indications of multiple writers and editors. Too many inconsistencies to be one author telling a single coherent story.

Great points.

The Old Testament has to be treated with caution also, because it has been through multiple permutations of translations, from archaic Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, and it is safe to assume many errors and mistakes were introduced by a thousand years of making hand written copies.

The true meaning and intent of the original Torah is probably distorted for native English speakers.

 

[Cypress]

So no Catholics take the Bible literally?

I am speaking in broad generalities.

Catholic theology does not promote a biblical literalism and inerrancy the way the Protestant tradition did (particularly protestant fundamentalists) but undoutedly a some lay Catholics treated the bible literally

 

[BidenPresident]

Nope. No standards.

you are very ignorant

 

[BidenPresident]

Argument of ignorance fallacy. You are assuming that biologists are a closed set of people on this forum.

get lost bozo

 

[Into the Night]

God is eternal and eternity exists outside of the space/time continuum. The latter is an attribute of the universe.

Then the universe is not the universe. Therefore it cannot have been created.

One of the reasons the multiverse theory exists is to get around the theological implications that arise out of a universe that had a distinct beginning: a universe with a beginning allows for the prospect of a Beginner that exists separate from the universe.

No, it's just someone trying to rationalize the paradox they've created. If there is more than one universe, then none of them are a universe, since none of them are universal.

Eternity is a state of being, not a place. You are trying to describe a universe that isn't universal, and yet call that the 'universe'. Which is it, dude?

 

[Into the Night]

Nobody knows. Why attribute a false creation by a magical deity you describe in detail from that state of evidence? That’s your monkey brain talking.

The best we have based on evidence is a Big Bang theory. Creationism isn’t even a theory, it’s a fairy tale.

The Theory of Creation exists. It states that life arrived on Earth as a result of an act by some intelligence. No fairies need to be involved.
The Theory of Abiogenesis exists. It states that life originated on Earth as a result of random unspecified events.
The Theory of the Big Bang exists. It states the universe was concentrated into some very small point and expanded.

None of these are theories of science. All of them are nonscientific theories, and religions. They remain circular arguments. They can be neither falsified nor proved True.

Supporting evidence is not used in science. Only religions do that.

 

[BidenPresident]

The Theory of Creation exists. It states that life arrived on Earth as a result of an act by some intelligence. No fairies need to be involved.
The Theory of Abiogenesis exists. It states that life originated on Earth as a result of random unspecified events.
The Theory of the Big Bang exists. It states the universe was concentrated into some very small point and expanded.

None of these are theories of science. All of them are nonscientific theories, and religions. They remain circular arguments. They can be neither falsified nor proved True.

Supporting evidence is not used in science. Only religions do that.

The Big Bang is getting more and more empirical support; it can be empirically tested.

 

[Into the Night]

believing that which cannot be proven is faith........I have no objection to your choice of religion.......

Correct. Faith is another word for the circular argument. A circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. Trying to prove one True or False, however, is. This is what a fundamentalist does.

All theories (which are explanatory arguments) begin as circular arguments. What takes a theory of science beyond that is the test of falsifiability. If a theory can withstand tests designed to destroy it (the null hypothesis of a theory), it is automatically part of the body of science. It will remain that way as long as it can withstand tests designed to try to destroy it.

The tests must be definable, available, practical to conduct, specific, and produce a specific result, and must test the theory itself.

This is what the 'falsifiable' means. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

There are two additional conditions:
All theories must conform to the internal consistency check. In other words, they must be explanatory arguments, and they must be valid arguments...no fallacies allowed. This means, of course, that all the phraseology must be definable in the theory. No magick buzzwords like 'climate change'.

All theories of science must conform to the external consistency check. In other words, no theory of science can conflict with any other theory of science. One or both must be falsified.

 

[Cypress]

why would you thank Owl when she denied "science" claims all life evolved from a single celled creature?....apparently you are fairly selective in what science you will accept.......

From what I saw her statement is accurate.

Humans and other hominids of the genus Homo evolved from a common primate ancestor which diverged into the genus Homo and the genus Pan (chimps, bonobos) about 8 to 10 million years ago.

As it stands, the DNA of homo sapiens and chimps is 98 percent identical.

For that matter, our genetic code is about 70 percent identical to jelly fish.

All life on earth is genetically interrelated at the level of genes and DNA, and all modern complex multicellular life ultimately originated from single celled organisms in the pre-Cambrian remote past. This is demostrated by the fossil record and genetic science.

The 64,000 dollar question is how molecules managed to make the leap from an inert chemical soup to organize themselves into proteins, organelles, and self-replicating cells.

No one knows the answer to that and abiogenesis is an active area of research. Natural selection as a mechanism does not explain abiogenesis, we need a different mechanism.

 

[Into the Night]

not to mention designing it intelligently.....

Heh. There are some cars that don't seem to be designed intelligently! However, it still took an intelligence to design the hunk of junk enough to call it a car.

 

[Into the Night]

The Big Bang theory is a fairy tale!

Nope. No fairies are required for the Theory of the Big Bang.

The Theory of the Big Bang does produce a paradox, however.

If the universe at one did not exist, how can a universe with no borders arise from it? How does zero become infinity?
If a god caused the Big Bang to occur, where was this god located? There was no universe for said god to exist in. If said god was outside the universe, than the 'universe' isn't universal. It's not the universe and never was.

The Theory of the Big Bang has problems.

Personally, I subscribe to the Theory of the Continuum (a mutually exclusive theory from the Big Bang theory). This theory simply states that the universe has always existed, and always will. There is no beginning. There is no end. Therefore what any god has created is Earth, not the universe itself.

This view is supported by the Bible. If you read the Bible with the Theory of the Continuum in mind, you will find no conflicts with this theory.
If you read the same Bible with the Theory of the Big Bang in mind, you will inevitably reach the paradox I just mentioned.

God is not the author of chaos. He is not irrational.

 

[BidenPresident]

Nope. No fairies are required for the Theory of the Big Bang.

The Theory of the Big Bang does produce a paradox, however.

If the universe at one did not exist, how can a universe with no borders arise from it?

What does "universe at one" mean?

 

[moon]

What does "universe at one" mean?

He thinks it was a big bigger than at half-past twelve.

 

[BidenPresident]

He thinks it was a big bigger than at half-past twelve.

AM or PM?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

The human mind cannot understand infinity nor eternity.
Perhaps a higher evolved species than we will figure it all out.

We've left them a pretty fucking low bar, obviously.
Made in the image of God?
Mother of fucking Christ!

 

[Cypress]

But your statement is a religious one nevertheless.

Nope, it is based on science, inference, and logical induction.

The so-called mitochondrial Eve was not even the first homo sapien, so it would make no sense to call her the first woman in a biblical sense. Homo sapiens existed tens of thousands of years prior to the so-called mitochondrial Eve.

Paleoanthropological evidence suggests homo sapien population plummeted to perhaps a few dozen individuals 70,000 years ago, for reasons unknown. Perhaps environmental catastrophe.

In that case, population genetic statistics make it emminently plausible that most if not nearly all the surviving female genetic lines reached a genetic dead end, at some point before the modern era, explaining the mitochondrial DNA evidence, and why there is such little genetic diversity in modern humans.

 

[BidenPresident]

The human mind cannot understand infinity nor eternity.

Because those concepts are incoherent. Mathematicians deal with infinity quite well.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Because those concepts are incoherent. Mathematicians deal with infinity quite well.

Agreed. We're all forced to deal with things that we don't completely understand.
Everything that makes sense in an equation isn't possible to actually visualize.

 

[Nordberg]

The Theory of Creation exists. It states that life arrived on Earth as a result of an act by some intelligence. No fairies need to be involved.
The Theory of Abiogenesis exists. It states that life originated on Earth as a result of random unspecified events.
The Theory of the Big Bang exists. It states the universe was concentrated into some very small point and expanded.

None of these are theories of science. All of them are nonscientific theories, and religions. They remain circular arguments. They can be neither falsified nor proved True.

Supporting evidence is not used in science. Only religions do that.

Rightys lack such basic understanding. Theories are the best possible explanations of phenomena and are based in data, observations and predictability. If any part of them changes or fails, the theory is changed to fit the new circumstances, it completely discarded. Religions are absolutely not under such rigor. They are based on ancient fables that can produce zero facts. You just gotta believe.I cannot believe you could actually type such a stupid post.

 

[BidenPresident]

Rightys lack such basic understanding. Theories are the best possible explanations of phenomena and are based in data, observations and predictability. If any part of them changes or fails, the theory is changed to fit the new circumstances, it completely discarded. Religions are absolutely not under such rigor. They are based on ancient fables that can produce zero facts. You just gotta believe.I cannot believe you could actually type such a stupid post.

You are correct. Amazing how many right wingers pontificate on science without even a high school knowledge of science.