• 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!

Are Evolutionists Delusional ???

rojse

rojse

RF Addict
If there was such a large conspiracy, over the course of the last hundred years, don't you think at least one person would have exposed the lie? There have been many religious people in the field of biological science, who contributed to this theory. Are they liars, too?

And what advantage does participating in this conspiracy confer to scientists?
 
Blentyn chan Celi

Blentyn chan Celi

New guy
Autodidact said:
There are still new things for biologists to study. Therefore the consensus theory for over 100 years is a delusion.
Click to expand...

I recognize that you, Autodidact, are much more knowledgeable on the subject of theoretical cosmology then most of the rest of us. But, as Dr Keith Wanser, a professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton has stated:

“The sad thing is that the public is so overawed by these things [big bang and long-age cosmologies], just because there is complex maths involved. They don’t realize how much philosophical speculation and imagination is injected along with the maths—these are really stories that are made up.”

Dr Wanser does not think that the work of Barry Setterfield (OP’s subject) is very convincing, and I admit that I don’t understand half of this stuff. However, I would just like to reiterate something you said earlier. In the “Expelled” thread, post 121 you said:

“Actually, there is nothing happening that we don't understand.”

Perhaps I am taking this out of context. If not, can you please answer a few questions for me?

What is dark matter and why can’t it be observed?

Why does background radiation appear to be equal in all directions if earth is not in the center of the universe?

Why is nuclear –as in the nuclei of atoms- interaction constant?

What causes certain elements to be superconductive at high temperatures?

If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Blentyn chan Celi said:
I recognize that you, Autodidact, are much more knowledgeable on the subject of theoretical cosmology then most of the rest of us. But, as Dr Keith Wanser, a professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton has stated:

“The sad thing is that the public is so overawed by these things [big bang and long-age cosmologies], just because there is complex maths involved. They don’t realize how much philosophical speculation and imagination is injected along with the maths—these are really stories that are made up.”

Dr Wanser does not think that the work of Barry Setterfield (OP’s subject) is very convincing, and I admit that I don’t understand half of this stuff. However, I would just like to reiterate something you said earlier. In the “Expelled” thread, post 121 you said:

“Actually, there is nothing happening that we don't understand.”

Perhaps I am taking this out of context. If not, can you please answer a few questions for me?

What is dark matter and why can’t it be observed?

Why does background radiation appear to be equal in all directions if earth is not in the center of the universe?

Why is nuclear –as in the nuclei of atoms- interaction constant?

What causes certain elements to be superconductive at high temperatures?

If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?
Click to expand...

You are indeed. Obviously there are million so of things we don't yet understand, many more than we do. It does not follow that the correct answer is "Godidit," which is just improper God-of-the-Gaps ism.

I was referring to the theory of evolution, which is what ID purports to refute. ID alleges that there are certain biological features which cannot be explained by evolutionary pathways. They are wrong. Because we do not yet know how each and every feature of each and every of the millions of species on earth evolved, it does not follow that any of them could not have evolved, or that we have to resort to magic to explain them. We know in general how things do evolve, which indicates that using ToE is the best way to figure out how any individual feature, including bacterial flagella and the blood protein cascade, developed.

What the OP is asking us to believe is not that Big Bang is not correct. I have no idea, and can barely grasp it on a good day. He wants us to believe that all of the world's cosmologists, physicists, astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, biologists and archaeologists are wrong. Because the consensus in all of these fields is that the earth and the universe are billions of years old.

The fact that science is not yet "done" does not mean that it's all wrong. Science is never done.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Apparently the OP is just another typical creationist drive-by coward. One wonders whether they're sincere, and whether they realize how much damage they do their cause by these tactics.
 
Smoke

Smoke

Done here.
Autodidact said:
Apparently the OP is just another typical creationist drive-by coward. One wonders whether they're sincere, and whether they realize how much damage they do their cause by these tactics.
Click to expand...
Well, he's been busy promoting a prophecy that Mitt Romney will become president. ;)
 
Blentyn chan Celi

Blentyn chan Celi

New guy
Autodidact said:
You are indeed. Obviously there are million so of things we don't yet understand, many more than we do. It does not follow that the correct answer is "Godidit," which is just improper God-of-the-Gaps ism.

I was referring to the theory of evolution, which is what ID purports to refute. ID alleges that there are certain biological features which cannot be explained by evolutionary pathways. They are wrong. Because we do not yet know how each and every feature of each and every of the millions of species on earth evolved, it does not follow that any of them could not have evolved, or that we have to resort to magic to explain them. We know in general how things do evolve, which indicates that using ToE is the best way to figure out how any individual feature, including bacterial flagella and the blood protein cascade, developed.

What the OP is asking us to believe is not that Big Bang is not correct. I have no idea, and can barely grasp it on a good day. He wants us to believe that all of the world's cosmologists, physicists, astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, biologists and archaeologists are wrong. Because the consensus in all of these fields is that the earth and the universe are billions of years old.

The fact that science is not yet "done" does not mean that it's all wrong. Science is never done.
Click to expand...

This sounds like a fair assessment. Maybe we can talk about speciation and gene mutation in another thread later on.
 
Rowenn

Rowenn

Member
Before I submit my reply to this thread/post, I first want you to know two things:

1.When I clicked on that link, my computer crashed.... (?!)
2.I highly dislike Mike Huckabee's policies and ideals.

Okay, here's my reply:

I don't believe that this is true, simply because if this was a fallible truth, why is it then that when I search, "CDK decrease in the speed of light" on google.com searches, I only fine links to Faith-based and rather religiously conservative websites such as Conservapedia.com, Idolphin.com, and answersingenesis.com? If this were a subject that would have been scientifically proveable, then would not even the secularist, or even religious scientists support it? In fact, no well-known scientists whether they be religious or not seem to support this theory at the moment. I highly suggest that before you call somone else "dillusional" you find >>credible<< information to support your theories...
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Rowenn said:
Before I submit my reply to this thread/post, I first want you to know two things:

1.When I clicked on that link, my computer crashed.... (?!)
2.I highly dislike Mike Huckabee's policies and ideals.

Okay, here's my reply:

I don't believe that this is true, simply because if this was a fallible truth, why is it then that when I search, "CDK decrease in the speed of light" on google.com searches, I only fine links to Faith-based and rather religiously conservative websites such as Conservapedia.com, Idolphin.com, and answersingenesis.com? If this were a subject that would have been scientifically proveable, then would not even the secularist, or even religious scientists support it? In fact, no well-known scientists whether they be religious or not seem to support this theory at the moment. I highly suggest that before you call somone else "dillusional" you find >>credible<< information to support your theories...
Click to expand...

Didn't you know that those atheist, secular scientists are all either working to suppress the truth of God's word, that the speed of light switches around willy-nilly, or else their materialist assumptions blind them to the obvious truth that our brilliant friend FFH has uncovered? After all, they laughed at Einstein.
 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
francine said:
How did they have days one through three, when the sun wasn't even created until day four?
Click to expand...

I have asked this same question in other topics, but gone no good answer.

The best I got was that the sun and moon were created, God shined his cosmic flashlight. :rolleyes:

When he want light, he would just flip it on, and you would have morning. And when he wanted evening, he would switch off his flashlight.

Genius, isn't it? :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top