Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[ecco]

What point are you trying to make? Just because two things have the same number they are somehow intricately related?

Duh!

The point, which should have been clear, is that the odds against YOU existing are as great as the odds you posted in your OP. Did you forget what you posted in your own OP?

 

[ecco]

Does it come from God? Prove it.

Asking for proof is very unscientific. Ask for evidence.

 

[gnostic]

Kitzmiller has the final word on cosmology?

No, the Kitzmiller vs Dover (2095) was about Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms of public schools as an alternative to Evolution...the trial had nothing to do with cosmology.

One of the focuses of the trial, is that the school board from the Dover Area School District allowed ID’s pseudoscience material - Of Pandas and People (2nd edition 1993) - to be read in science classrooms as a “textbook”.

Behe included introduction to his Irreducible Complexity (1993) in this 2nd edition Of Pandas and People. (Behe wasn’t among the original co-authors to the original publication, but he was author to one chapter in the new edition).

But Michael Behe kept bringing up the Big Bang cosmology, trying to validate Intelligent Design. Behe simply went off-topic.

Should ID be taught as science subject, like in biology?

The answer is “no”, because as the judge said, ID is a theological subject, where the adherents were hiding the fact that “Intelligent Design” is just another name for “Creation” and “Creationism”, and the Designer is another name for the “Creator” or “God” or in the case for JW adherents, “Jehovah”.

ID isn’t science, because there are no evidence that back up ID.

As I had replied to @Eyes to See earlier, even Behe admitted that there were no evidence for ID, in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case, read the transcript below:

Q. [Rothschild] Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

A. [Michael Behe] No, I argued for it in my book.

Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?

A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.​

Behe admitted that there are no “peer review”, no “pertinent experiments or calculations”, no “new data or original research” for Intelligent Design...hence ID isn’t supported by observations or evidence, not even in his own book - Darwin’s Black Box (1996).

Irreducible Complexity doesn’t even qualify as being a hypothesis, because his idea wasn’t falsifiable...and that’s why he could not publish Irreducible Complexity in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Anyway, Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs Dover case had nothing to do with cosmology.

Cosmology (eg the Big Bang) is a different subject to that of -

• how life got started on Earth, which is Abiogenesis, or
• how life evolved over time, which is Evolution.

Studying Evolution don’t require any knowledge about astrophysics or cosmology.

And Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, so it hasn’t achieve the “scientific theory”, and haven’t yet being accepted by science community.

However, Abiogenesis is an active hypothesis, a work-in-progress model, and Abiogenesis is already falsifiable, because evidence have already been tested that inorganic molecules or compounds can chemically turn into organic matters (amino acids), eg

• Miller-Urey experiment (1952),
• Volcanic Spark Discharge experiment (2008),
• H2S-rich Discharge experiment (2010).

H2S is hydrogen sulfide.

Amino acids aren’t the only organic matters produced in the later experiments.

Then there is Ort experiment (1961, performed by Joan Ort) that produced adenine from ammonia and hydrogen cyanide. Adenine is one of 5 nucleobases - components to the nucleic acids (eg components in DNA and in RNA).

What are even more extraordinary is that organic matters (not just amino acids) can be found on meteorites in outer space, such as the Murchison Meteorite (1964).

Some meteorites were found in 1998, to contain water as well as organic matters in salt crystals (halite crystals) from the Zag and Monahans meteorites.

See Organic matter in extraterrestrial water-bearing salt crystals (Queenie H. S. Chan, Michael E. Zolensky, [...], and Kazuhiko Mase, 2018).

Carbohydrates (sugar) are essential biological molecules, such ribose in RNA and deoxyribose in DNA are essential components in nucleic acids. So imagine that ribose were discovered in ancient meteors?

See Extraterrestrial ribose and other sugars in primitive meteorites (Yoshihiro Furukawa, Yo****o Chikaraishi, [...], and Tomoki Nakamura, 2019).

Abiogenesis from extraterrestrial sources would seem as probable as abiogenesis starting in ponds or hydrothermal vents.

 

[ecco]

Funny thing is, the more research, the more reality changes. What kind of reality is that?

Reality doesn't change. The knowledges of reality changes - advances.

The planets have, for many billions of years, revolved around the sun in slightly elliptical orbits.

Ancient knowledge was that the earth was the center of the universe. Knowledge improved when man realized the earth revolved around the sun. With the advent of the telescope and knowledge of gravity, science postulated that the planets revolved in circular orbits. Later on, science realized the orbits were elliptical. Reality didn't change. Our understanding of reality changed.

Your unchanging book states that the moon, like the sun and the stars, is a light. The moon is not a light, it merely reflects light as do venus and mars which your book referred to as stars.

The funny thing about Christians is that they all used to be just like you, i.e. a non-Christian. As such they've seen it from both sides of the fence.

Nonsense, Christians, like Hindus and Jews and Muslims indoctrinate their children almost from the time of birth to believe in their version of a god.

Do you really believe that a child who has recited the Lord's Prayer nightly before going to bed ever was a non-christian? Children "know" about god long before they are mature enough to question the concept.

Science is good for catching buses and airplanes, but it's useless in formulating a truth.

Uh huh. "Truth" like Venus is a star and the moon is a light.

 

[gnostic]

So reality changes? Interesting.

I would agree with both @Heyo &

Reality doesn't change. Sometimes our perception of reality changes but in this case it might be that the law changes. Laws aren't real.

5 Planes of Existence

Reality doesn't change. The knowledges of reality changes - advances.

The planets have, for many billions of years, revolved around the sun in slightly elliptical orbits.

Ancient knowledge was that the earth was the center of the universe. Knowledge improved when man realized the earth revolved around the sun. With the advent of the telescope and knowledge of gravity, science postulated that the planets revolved in circular orbits. Later on, science realized the orbits were elliptical. Reality didn't change. Our understanding of reality changed.

Your unchanging book states that the moon, like the sun and the stars, is a light. The moon is not a light, it merely reflects light as do venus and mars which your book referred to as stars.

What you would consider knowledge in religions as written in scriptures, @rrobs, are only viewed through ancient perspective, that’s are often outdated, flawed and outright wrong.

And it isn’t just about Genesis creation, flood and the Tower of Babel. There are also problems with psalms, Book of Job, and the New Testament gospels and letters. These were written very little understanding of the science behind nature.

How arrogant to think science has a corner on reality. Funny thing is, the more research, the more reality changes. What kind of reality is that?

You have it backwards:

1 Cor 3:19,

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
​

The funny thing about Christians is that they all used to be just like you, i.e. a non-Christian. As such they've seen it from both sides of the fence. Maybe they discovered something you have yet to discover? Or are you a prognosticator and know, like many Christians knew at one time, that you will never ever become a Christian?

Actually you got them backwards, rrobs.

The OT & NT authors were all written by humans, not by God, and they were certainly not omniscient.

Case in point, god’s angry replies to Job, demonstrated a lot of the so-called “knowledge” are nothing more than superstitions and claims using faulty logics.

Whoever wrote Job, was utter idiot, and if you think God actually said all those ridiculous things in Job 38 to 41, then God is the idiot. But no, God didn’t write this book, so the idiocy come from the author.

Scriptures are static. If there are no improvement and advances in knowledge, scriptures will become stagnant and outdated.

Imagine you trying to teach Job 38 to 41 in some science lectures at Oxford or Harvard. You would be laughed off the lecture halls for trying to convince students that OT superstitions are science.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Whoever wrote Job, was utter idiot, and if you think God actually said all those ridiculous things in Job 38 to 41, then God is the idiot. But no, God didn’t write this book, so the idiocy come from the author.

Creating idiots like that is not Intelligent Design.

 

[paarsurrey]

Asking for proof is very unscientific. Ask for evidence.

Do proofs support Atheism or scientific evidences support Atheism? I understand, neither of them supports it, as Atheism is unreasonable, please?
Right, please?

Regards

 

[gnostic]

Do proofs support Atheims or scientific evidences support Atheism, I understand, neither of them support it, Atheism is unreasonable, please?

Your claims are ridiculous and your questions are illogical and naïve.

Science and atheism have nothing to do with each other, because atheism have to do with people not believing in the existence of gods...

...so atheism is more a philosophical stance, not a scientific stance.

That you think scientific evidence are needed to support atheism, when they are completely unrelated to each other, so it is you, who are being unreasonable.

 

[gnostic]

Creating idiots like that is not Intelligent Design.

No the author of Job, has nothing to do with Intelligent Design, but the people from the Discovery Institute - Chapman, Gilder, Johnson, Meyers, Behe, Kenyon, Davis, are all senior members and bunch of dishonest idiots.

I don’t know which organizations is worse in term of dishonest tactics and general stupidity: Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research or Answers in Genesis.

 

[rrobs]

Duh!

The point, which should have been clear, is that the odds against YOU existing are as great as the odds you posted in your OP. Did you forget what you posted in your own OP?

You lost me at, "duh."

Creating idiots like that is not Intelligent Design.

So idiots like you are accidental?

 

[rrobs]

Reality doesn't change. The knowledges of reality changes - advances.

So then you admit to having no idea of reality.

 

[rrobs]

No, the Kitzmiller vs Dover (2095) was about Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms of public schools as an alternative to Evolution...the trial had nothing to do with cosmology.

One of the focuses of the trial, is that the school board from the Dover Area School District allowed ID’s pseudoscience material - Of Pandas and People (2nd edition 1993) - to be read in science classrooms as a “textbook”.

Behe included introduction to his Irreducible Complexity (1993) in this 2nd edition Of Pandas and People. (Behe wasn’t among the original co-authors to the original publication, but he was author to one chapter in the new edition).

But Michael Behe kept bringing up the Big Bang cosmology, trying to validate Intelligent Design. Behe simply went off-topic.

Should ID be taught as science subject, like in biology?

The answer is “no”, because as the judge said, ID is a theological subject, where the adherents were hiding the fact that “Intelligent Design” is just another name for “Creation” and “Creationism”, and the Designer is another name for the “Creator” or “God” or in the case for JW adherents, “Jehovah”.

ID isn’t science, because there are no evidence that back up ID.

As I had replied to @Eyes to See earlier, even Behe admitted that there were no evidence for ID, in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case, read the transcript below:

Q. [Rothschild] Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

A. [Michael Behe] No, I argued for it in my book.

Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?

A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.​

Behe admitted that there are no “peer review”, no “pertinent experiments or calculations”, no “new data or original research” for Intelligent Design...hence ID isn’t supported by observations or evidence, not even in his own book - Darwin’s Black Box (1996).

Irreducible Complexity doesn’t even qualify as being a hypothesis, because his idea wasn’t falsifiable...and that’s why he could not publish Irreducible Complexity in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Anyway, Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs Dover case had nothing to do with cosmology.

Cosmology (eg the Big Bang) is a different subject to that of -

• how life got started on Earth, which is Abiogenesis, or
• how life evolved over time, which is Evolution.

Studying Evolution don’t require any knowledge about astrophysics or cosmology.

And Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, so it hasn’t achieve the “scientific theory”, and haven’t yet being accepted by science community.

However, Abiogenesis is an active hypothesis, a work-in-progress model, and Abiogenesis is already falsifiable, because evidence have already been tested that inorganic molecules or compounds can chemically turn into organic matters (amino acids), eg

• Miller-Urey experiment (1952),
• Volcanic Spark Discharge experiment (2008),
• H2S-rich Discharge experiment (2010).

H2S is hydrogen sulfide.

Amino acids aren’t the only organic matters produced in the later experiments.

Then there is Ort experiment (1961, performed by Joan Ort) that produced adenine from ammonia and hydrogen cyanide. Adenine is one of 5 nucleobases - components to the nucleic acids (eg components in DNA and in RNA).

What are even more extraordinary is that organic matters (not just amino acids) can be found on meteorites in outer space, such as the Murchison Meteorite (1964).

Some meteorites were found in 1998, to contain water as well as organic matters in salt crystals (halite crystals) from the Zag and Monahans meteorites.

See Organic matter in extraterrestrial water-bearing salt crystals (Queenie H. S. Chan, Michael E. Zolensky, [...], and Kazuhiko Mase, 2018).

Carbohydrates (sugar) are essential biological molecules, such ribose in RNA and deoxyribose in DNA are essential components in nucleic acids. So imagine that ribose were discovered in ancient meteors?

See Extraterrestrial ribose and other sugars in primitive meteorites (Yoshihiro Furukawa, Yo****o Chikaraishi, [...], and Tomoki Nakamura, 2019).

Abiogenesis from extraterrestrial sources would seem as probable as abiogenesis starting in ponds or hydrothermal vents.

If you don't see a human cell or the vastness or the universe as indicating ID, then there is no such thing as inelegance at all. Must be awfully soul numbing to think you are merely an accident.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So then you admit to having no idea of reality.

No, science continually gives us a better and better understanding of reality. Those that have no idea of reality are those that deny the sciences.

 

[rrobs]

No, science continually gives us a better and better understanding of reality. Those that have no idea of reality are those that deny the sciences.

I understand there actually is a definite reality, but if what you know about reality constantly changes, then as far as you are concerned, there is no unchangeable reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand there actually is a definite reality, but if what you know about reality constantly changes, then as far as you are concerned, there is no unchangeable reality.

You are mischaracterizing what actually happens. In the sciences the differences between theory and reality are constantly getting smaller. In other words we are getting closer and closer to the right answer. Change is a good thing when it brings us closer to the truth. Meanwhile believers in ancient books of myth are stuck with a version of reality shown to be wrong hundreds of years ago. Holy books have no self correction mechanism. The sciences have such a mechanism. There is cold comfort in extolling the lack of change in a belief that the Earth is Flat because one's holy book tells one so and there is no method to correct it.

 

[rrobs]

You are mischaracterizing what actually happens. In the sciences the differences between theory and reality are constantly getting smaller. In other words we are getting closer and closer to the right answer. Change is a good thing when it brings us closer to the truth. Meanwhile believers in ancient books of myth are stuck with a version of reality shown to be wrong hundreds of years ago. Holy books have no self correction mechanism. The sciences have such a mechanism. There is cold comfort in extolling the lack of change in a belief that the Earth is Flat because one's holy book tells one so and there is no method to correct it.

How do you know science will eventually get reality right? How long might that take? Clearly science has been wrong about many things, probably more than it got right, so you don't even know how far along it really is to getting to the real reality.

The Bible saying the earth is flat is an old and worn thesis. You do understand the phrase,"four corners" is a figure of speech (an idiom to be precise) we still use to this day to mean the entirety of something? "They came from the four corners of the earth" simply means they came from everywhere.

If you are thinking about the mention of four corners in Revelation, it might help to understand that the whole of Revelation is a vision and not meant to describe reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know science will eventually get reality right? How long might that take? Clearly science has been wrong about many things, probably more than it got right, so you don't even know how far along it really is to getting to the real reality.

The Bible saying the earth is flat is an old and worn thesis. You do understand the phrase,"four corners" is a figure of speech (an idiom to be precise) we still use to this day to mean the entirety of something? "They came from the four corners of the earth" simply means they came from everywhere.

If you are thinking about the mention of four corners in Revelation, it might help to understand that the whole of Revelation is a vision and not meant to describe reality.

Understanding the Bible allows one to see that the writers were Flat Earth ers. But most believers have a skewed interpretation because so much of the Bible is wrong. And science has a history of success. Bible based beliefs . . . not so much.

 

[rrobs]

Understanding the Bible allows one to see that the writers were Flat Earth ers. But most believers have a skewed interpretation because so much of the Bible is wrong. And science has a history of success. Bible based beliefs . . . not so much.

Any comments on what I said about "the four corners" being a figure of speech, an idiom, and thus not meant to be taken literally. Have you never heard something like, "they came from the four corners of the earth....?"

I'm pretty sure that "four corner" think is what makes some think the Bible says the earth is flat. Assuming I'm right about the figure of speech (which I am absolutely right), can you see your way to dropping that as part of your proof that the Bible says the earth is flat? Be honest now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any comments on what I said about "the four corners" being a figure of speech, an idiom, and thus not meant to be taken literally. Have you never heard something like, "they came from the four corners of the earth....?"

I'm pretty sure that "four corner" think is what makes some think the Bible says the earth is flat. Assuming I'm right about the figure of speech (which I am absolutely right), can you see your way to dropping that as part of your proof that the Bible says the earth is flat? Be honest now.

I never even used the "four corners" argument. The fact is that the Earth is only referred to as being flat in word and deed in the Bible. But then, literalists have about the worst understanding of the Bible of any Christians.

 

[ecco]

Asking for proof is very unscientific. Ask for evidence.

Do proofs support Atheism or scientific evidences support Atheism?

Evidence does support atheism. There is vast evidence that shows that man created gods, usually in his (man's) own image.

There is no evidence to support that Allah or Shiva or Baantu or the Christian God are real. Certainly they can't all be GOD.

I understand, neither of them supports it, as Atheism is unreasonable, please?

Wrong. Again.