Heyo
Veteran Member
Oh, I forgot you are a YEC, right?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Curiosity?
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
nPeace
Veteran Member
Wrong. However. I don't believe the just-so-stories of the evolution theory. Different story. Different thread.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Well, I'd first have to teach you current scientific consensus for you to understand the argument but the conclusion (last paragraph) still stands.
No?
You think species popped into existence by magic, then?
How does that work? I'd like to try it out.
nPeace
Veteran Member
No you won't. A preteen can understand the argument. Why do you think there are millions of science students who don't believe the theory? Do you seriously believe it's because they don't understand it? That would be comedy at it's best.
The last comment makes no sense actually. Can you explain it, so that I can understand what you really are trying to say (i.e. teach me). I don't want to hurt my head. You know... ignorance.
Oh wait> I think I got it.
Curiosity leads us to experience, which leads to progress. Right? Man, I really got to go back to school. RFers are so knowledgeable.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Popped into existence? I think that? People accuse me of so many things here. If I did the same to them, they would call me a liar.
Science is not our religion. You cannot “teach” us what you have been indoctrinated with any more than we can indoctrinate you with what we accept as truth.
Curiosity is good but if the conclusions reached have no real way to be proven, then at the end of the day, religion and theoretical science are both “belief” systems. We choose what we want to believe for our own reasons.
The truth can incorporate both science and faith....leading to conclusions that can accommodate both. Understanding the Bible involves comprehension of what the original language of the ancient writings conveyed. Translation is not always accurate. English does not always convey an accurate rendering of the Hebrew or Greek.
We accept both factual science AND the Bible as we believe that we arrive at the truth by confirming what the Bible says with what science knows (rather than what it assumes.) Its a shame that most people can’t see the line between what is known and what is assumed, so “beliefs” often appear as “facts”.
Can you tell the difference?
Heyo
Veteran Member
In that direction. Only not so simple.Oh wait> I think I got it.
Curiosity leads us to experience, which leads to progress. Right? Man, I really got to go back to school. RFers are so knowledgeable.
Curiosity leads to investigation. The success of investigation is unpredictable. Only successful investigation leads to progress.
Limit your investigations and you lower the chances for progress.
I think most of that is comprehensible. You only have to accept one thing: that success of investigation is unpredictable.
nPeace
Veteran Member
@Heyo I have a question for you. Curiosity again. That's two of my nine lives gone.
They say the moon stabilizes the earth from wobbling.
How that happened, is presented in a story...
Giant impact hypothesis
The prevailing theory supported by the scientific community, the giant impact hypothesis suggests that the moon formed when an object smashed into early Earth. Like the other planets, Earth formed from the leftover cloud of dust and gas orbiting the young sun. The early solar system was a violent place, and a number of bodies were created that never made it to full planetary status. One of these could have crashed into Earth not long after the young planet was created.
Known as Theia, the Mars-sized body collided with Earth, throwing vaporized chunks of the young planet's crust into space. Gravity bound the ejected particles together, creating a moon that is the largest in the solar system in relation to its host planet. This sort of formation would explain why the moon is made up predominantly of lighter elements, making it less dense than Earth — the material that formed it came from the crust, while leaving the planet's rocky core untouched. As the material drew together around what was left of Theia's core, it would have centered near Earth's ecliptic plane, the path the sun travels through the sky, which is where the moon orbits today.
I find people use the word theory quite loosely, but that's another issue.
Speculating on this idea, has gotten us where?
What progress have you found came out of this curiosity.
Why again, is it wrong to include God in the creation, and stabilization of earth - not based on guessing, but based on evidence, and statements of fact, or objective opinion?
That's two of my nine lives gone.They say the moon stabilizes the earth from wobbling.
How that happened, is presented in a story...
Giant impact hypothesis
The prevailing theory supported by the scientific community, the giant impact hypothesis suggests that the moon formed when an object smashed into early Earth. Like the other planets, Earth formed from the leftover cloud of dust and gas orbiting the young sun. The early solar system was a violent place, and a number of bodies were created that never made it to full planetary status. One of these could have crashed into Earth not long after the young planet was created.
Known as Theia, the Mars-sized body collided with Earth, throwing vaporized chunks of the young planet's crust into space. Gravity bound the ejected particles together, creating a moon that is the largest in the solar system in relation to its host planet. This sort of formation would explain why the moon is made up predominantly of lighter elements, making it less dense than Earth — the material that formed it came from the crust, while leaving the planet's rocky core untouched. As the material drew together around what was left of Theia's core, it would have centered near Earth's ecliptic plane, the path the sun travels through the sky, which is where the moon orbits today.
I find people use the word theory quite loosely, but that's another issue.
Speculating on this idea, has gotten us where?
What progress have you found came out of this curiosity.
Why again, is it wrong to include God in the creation, and stabilization of earth - not based on guessing, but based on evidence, and statements of fact, or objective opinion?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Yep.
But we may not agree what are facts.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Thank you Deeje, for bringing in the Bible here, and showing that there is a source of knowledge that surpasses mere curiosity.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Are you curious about how the earth just happen to be so precisely fit for life of all kinds, and everything else that goes with that package? How do we investigate its purpose?
Have you limited your investigation to exclude God - a creator? Why, may I ask?
I always think of the words of Psalms 10:4, and think they are quite fitting.
You seem to agree to some extent, only not in those words.
Heyo
Veteran Member
And not one that is controversial. String "theory" is a prominent example of such a misnomer.
Currently it "only" increases our knowledge. But that knowledge may help us decide where to look for minable minerals in the solar system and beyond. It may also be a dead end. We don't know, yet.
As I pointed out in my other post, knowledge is "a good thing". Some of it may lead to progress.
A magical god is antithetical to science. Scientists like to speculate but they don't ever cross the line of speculation outside of the laws of nature.
And there is no god hypothesis that is non-magical and non-trivial afaik.
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
Scientists have come up with a lot of speculative hand waving (and not precise) hypotheses for how life got started on Earth.
“Facts” are what can be proven beyond reasonable doubt....but then we have to ask...”what is reasonable?” How big a part does ‘indoctrination’ play in science, as is claimed for belief in the Bible?
When I read published articles on evolution and I see the words “might have”....”could have”.....or “leads us to conclude that...” alarm bells ring for me because these are not terms related to proven facts...they are words indicating “best guess” or “supposition”....these are not actual facts but ideas reinforced by the opinions of those who agree with the original premise....not based on real evidence. It’s the power of suggestion at work on a mammoth scale IMO.
If you take away the supposition, and assertion, macro-evolution has very little in its foundations to back up what is “believed” to have taken place.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Purpose is not in the scope of scientific investigation.
And Earth is not fit for life, life is fit for Earth.
A creator would be either trivial or out of scope.
A magical being would be entirely out of science.
Therefore "god" is a bad hypothesis.
[/QUOTE]
I always think of the words of Psalms 10:4, and think they are quite fitting.
You seem to agree to some extent, only not in those words.[/QUOTE]
"The wicked" know how to compartmentalize. They keep god out of science and science out of god. They call it NoMa.
Heyo
Veteran Member
What about "facts are direct, repeatable, objective measurements"?
So "this sample is 50.000 years old" is not a fact, "this sample contains a ratio of C14 to C12 that is compatible with an age of 50.000 years" is.
They are based on real evidence and they are not contradicted by available evidence. It is just the acknowledgement that not all the facts may be known.
Iirc we had that discussion and you backed out of it.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Well in that case Heyo, you might as well believe Goddidit, since your knowledge really has not increase, because you don't know what you assume. You merely accept a guess as correct.
Examining the composition of two bodies does not confirm a guess.
You can still mine for minerals without assuming that one body came from another.
The only knowledge you gained was the composition of the object you examined.
The other is an unconfirmed speculation. Not true?
Why do you call God magical? I don't understand that. Is energy magical? Is matter magical? Can you explain please.
I understand, it is claimed that scientists simulated how the moon formed.
I believe without knowing you, that you are an educated person, and you would agree that using your power of reason... some refer to it as common sense, is important in life.
Consider the story in detail.
Here the earth is, orbiting the giant star, along with all the other bodies.
Then BLAM! Struck violently by an object - some object... Mars size, whether it's an astroid, or a smaller planet. It's large enough to escape earth's gravity, and not linger around like the moon did.
Debris flies in all directions, and some of it is so gravity defying, that it does not fall to earth, but stays in orbit collecting with other pieces of debris... defying the earth's gravity, for how many years? A hundred years? Forget I said that @Heyo. I forgot the earth's gravity in not that strong.
This debris is collected together... ... ... by gravity... ? to form our moon, which stops the wobbly earth at just the right tilt. Lady luck?
I consider all these speculations just-so-stories Heyo.
Here is why we are asked to believe.
Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
Moon samples indicate that the Moon's surface was once molten.
The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
There is evidence in other star systems of similar collisions, resulting in debris discs.
Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the Solar System.
The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.
I like this article, and here is why.
How the Earth got its moon is a long debated question. The giant impact theory [there is that word used loosely again.
] – which states that the Moon formed from the a collision between the early Earth and a rocky body called Theia – has become the front runner among the explanations. But the details around how this happened are blurry and there are many observations that scientists are still struggling to explain.Now a new study, published in Nature Geoscience, has shed light on what actually happened by solving one of the biggest mysteries surrounding the crash [the crash. It did happen. It's not a supposed crash.
]– why the Moon ended up being nearly identical to Earth, rather than Theia, assuming she existed.The article says that the new study resolves the question of why the moon is suspiciously similar to Earth by showing that the Earth and the Moon aren’t as similar as previously thought.
Isn't that one of the evidences that gives us reason to believe. Now it is wrong?
Do you see what I an trying to say Heyo?
Why make all these guesses and speculations which can never be verified... unless... wait. I think I saw a video recording somewhere.
Here it is.
Or maybe you prefer these suggestions, but notice one thing, that is admitted. The mass of the earth, and its position, is a vital necessarily to earth's existence... or perhaps I should say, inhabitability.
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
Remember Deeje, facts are different to scientific facts, just as theories are different to scientific theories, so you might be speaking a different language to Heyo.
So, having rejected evolution, how exactly do you explain the origin of species?
Without magic, that is.