Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[ratiocinator]

Why would I not admit evolution is a theory? That's exactly what it is.

It's both an observed phenomenon and a theory that explains it. Theory in science, is as good as it gets - it's a well tested and supported by evidence explanation of some part of nature. It shouldn't be confused with how 'theory' is used colloquially.

Speaking of observation, nobody has ever observed convergent evolution, or any evolution for that matter. Specifically. nobody has ever observed one genus evolving into another.

We do directly observe speciation, and that's how one genus evolving into another starts. What's more we have copious quantities of evidence for all all levels of evolution. It's silly to deny it.

 

[rrobs]

It's both an observed phenomenon and a theory that explains it. Theory in science, is as good as it gets - it's a well tested and supported by evidence explanation of some part of nature. It shouldn't be confused with how 'theory' is used colloquially.

We do directly observe speciation, and that's how one genus evolving into another starts. What's more we have copious quantities of evidence for all all levels of evolution. It's silly to deny it.

Here is an example of speciation:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

Two birds mated and formed an elephant. Oh, wait, they actually produced another bird. Like I said, Genesis does not preclude evolution within a genus. What is does deny, and what has never been observed, is one genus evolving into another genus. Birds will always be birds and elephants will always be elephants.

 

[rrobs]

No it is an observation. But thanks for admitting that it is correct.

No, it is not an observation. Nobody has ever observed one genus evolving into another genus. We have observed birds evolving into other birds, but we've never observed a bird evolving into a dog.

 

[shunyadragon]

I thought science had determined many years ago that it was already to late. Why then do we keep hammering on ourselves to change? Either they were wrong about it being too late or they're wrong on continuing with pointless efforts. The reality of the situation?.....I just don't know. The whole thing might qualify as never letting a good crisis go to waste.

No, it was not determined that we could not change to positively influence the future effects of Global Warming. It is the view of science that Global Warming will happen, but it is a matter of degree now. Many of the changes advocated by science concerning carbon emissions and other environmental detrimental influences of pollution can make the future better for humanity. not

 

[shunyadragon]

Speaking of observation, nobody has ever observed convergent evolution, or any evolution for that matter. Specifically. nobody has ever observed one genus evolving into another.

We can see species evolving, but that is in perfect accord with Genesis where everything was made "after its kind." The word kind in the Greek bible is "genus." A dog, despite hundreds of varieties, are none the less all members of the genus canis and a canis will never produce anything but another canis. That we have observed and therefore accords with the scientific method.

Your unfortunate view above is motivated by the dark anti-science agenda of an ancient religious view based on a mythology of Genesis. It does not address the vast fossil and genetic evidence for evolution of life billions of years old.

I am a geologist with over 50 years of education and field experience around the world. What is your educational background and experience that gives you the ability to make this negative generalization concerning evolution based only on a religious agenda?

 

[rrobs]

No, it was not determined that we could not change to positively influence the future effects of Global Warming. It is the view of science that Global Warming will happen, but it is a matter of degree now. Many of the changes advocated by science concerning carbon emissions and other environmental detrimental influences of pollution can make the future better for humanity. not

I Googled "global warming too late." The consensus looks to be that it is that it is already too late to avoid severe consequences.

I don't completely discount the possibility, but even if it were possible, people would not have the stomach to give up their energy intensive existence. We'd pretty much have to go to a pre-Industrial Revolution way of life. You or I might be willing to do that, but as a whole, I think it would be a daydream to think we could do that.

 

[rrobs]

Your unfortunate view above is motivated by the dark anti-science agenda of an ancient religious view based on a mythology of Genesis. It does not address the vast fossil and genetic evidence for evolution of life billions of years old.

I am a geologist with over 50 years of education and field experience around the world. What is your educational background and experience that gives you the ability to make this negative generalization concerning evolution based only on a religious agenda?

Not only has evolution of one genus into another genus never been observed, but the fossil evidence could easily fit with the assertion of Genesis that evolution within a genus is possible, but a bird, no matter how evolved, will always be a bird.

While I can certainly respect your experience in geology, I think it nonetheless true that evolution of one genus to another has never been observed. Inferred, perhaps, but never actually observed.

Have I not made it clear that science has its place? I think I was equally clear that it has its limitations. To think it doesn't is tantamount to worshiping it as a god.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Good points. The scriptures say that Jesus will gather us together and that we will be with him from that point on.
1Thess 4:16-17,

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.​

Wherever Jesus will be, we will be with him. Where will Jesus be? The Book of Revelation makes it crystal clear that he will be on earth. In fact, he will be the ruler of the earth. If he's on earth and we're with him, then we will be on earth also. The whole idea of floating around on a cloud playing a harp for eternity is Greek mythology. And I'm glad to have seen that in the scriptures. I'd hate to end up floating around on a cloud playing a harp for eternity!
Thanks

Good point ^ above^ about Not having to 'harp' on anything, even on a cloud.
The people who are 'dead in Christ' and the ones who 'rise first' meaning: they have a first or earlier resurrection over others - Revelation 20:6
These people are the ones who shall ever be with Lord Jesus 'in the heavens '.
Those called to Heaven ( like the people of ' Luke 22:28-30; Daniel 7:18; Revelation 2:10 ' have two (2) jobs to perform:
- Revelation 5:9-10 lets us know they will serve as both: Kings and Priests.
* As kings they will take care of governmental responsibilities for people living on Earth forever.
* As priests they will take care of spiritual duties towards people living on Earth forever.
So, we have a ' little flock ' of Jesus' followers, and Jesus also has ' other sheep '; like the ' sheep ' on Earth found at the time of Matthew 25:31-33,37.
These ' other sheep ' are the humble meek and mild living-on-Earth people who will inherit the Earth, an Earth as described in Isaiah 35th chapter.
Whereas, the ' little flock ' will govern with Jesus ( John 10:16; John 14:19 ; Luke 12:32 )
So, I find the ' will be with him' (Jesus) includes two sets of people:
Just some people resurrected to Heaven as Jesus was resurrected.
The majority of people to be resurrected on Earth - John 3:13 - which includes even King David . An Earth as described at Isaiah 35th chapter.
- Acts of the Apostles 2:34; Acts of the Apostles 24:15; Isaiah 32:1; Psalms 45:16; Ezekiel 34:24.
Any thoughts about Ezekiel 34:23-25 ___________________________________________________________________

 

[shunyadragon]

Not only has evolution of one genus into another genus never been observed, but the fossil evidence could easily fit with the assertion of Genesis that evolution within a genus is possible, but a bird, no matter how evolved, will always be a bird.

While I can certainly respect your experience in geology, I think it nonetheless true that evolution of one genus to another has never been observed. Inferred, perhaps, but never actually observed.

Have I not made it clear that science has its place? I think I was equally clear that it has its limitations. To think it doesn't is tantamount to worshiping it as a god.

You are making it clear from an anti-science perspective without any evidence to support your religious agenda..

The limits of science are clearly defined by Methodological Naturalism, but unfortunately you are defining and limiting science from an ancient religious agenda, which is anti-science.

I am a geologist with over 50 years of education and field experience around the world. What is your educational background and experience that gives you the ability to make this negative generalization concerning evolution based only on a religious agenda?

Still waiting . . .

Also, still waiting for any objective evidence for a world flood described in Genesis. You know, science.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I Googled "global warming too late." The consensus looks to be that it is that it is already too late to avoid severe consequences.
I don't completely discount the possibility, but even if it were possible, people would not have the stomach to give up their energy intensive existence. We'd pretty much have to go to a pre-Industrial Revolution way of life. You or I might be willing to do that, but as a whole, I think it would be a daydream to think we could do that.

' severe consequences ' If it were Not for the coming divine involvement into mankind's affairs.
To comfort us Jesus demonstrated that he could regulate weather phenomenon (climate change) at Mark 6:51; Mark 4:39.
So, yes, according to Scripture it is possible that we have the wonderful future as described in Isaiah 35th chapter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it is not an observation. Nobody has ever observed one genus evolving into another genus. We have observed birds evolving into other birds, but we've never observed a bird evolving into a dog.

Wrong again. It has been observed countless times. But then "observation" is another concept that creationists cannot afford to understand.

By the way, thanks for proving that you have no clue when it comes to evolution. Change of kinds is a creationist strawman. There is no change of kind in evolution.

Let's take you for example. You share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. That ancestor was an ape. Both you and chimpanzees are still apes. No change of kinds. You share a common ancestor with lemurs. That ancestor was a primate, both you are lemurs are still primates. No change of kinds. You share a common ancestor with dogs, that ancestor was a mammal. You and dogs are both mammals. No change of kind. I could keep going. The groups just keep getting larger and larger.

When you do not understand the basics of the science that you are arguing against it is almost impossible to win an argument. Would you care to learn?

 

[ecco]

I feel sorry for anybody who considers their life and intelligence an accident. All hale to Darwin!

I'm pretty sure I explained this to you before in another thread. But, I'll try again...

YOU are an individual. There is not another YOU. YOUR FATHER is an individual. There is not another person exactly the same as YOUR FATHER.

YOU are the product of the one in 100,000,000 sperm YOUR FATHER ejaculated into your mother. If any other sperm fertilized YOUR mother's egg, YOU would not be YOU. You would be someone else who closely resembles YOU (or you could be a woman), but you would not be YOU.



YOUR FATHER is the product of the one in 100,000,000 sperm HIS FATHER ejaculated into HIS mother.

Do you really think your God selected and guided each of those individual sperm? If not, you must admit that YOU are the result of a one in 10,000,000,000,000,000 accident.

And that's just two generations!!!

I'll let you do the math of how many specific sperm had to fertilize how many specific eggs going back to whichever member of the Noah brood you are descended from.

 

[rrobs]

Good point ^ above^ about Not having to 'harp' on anything, even on a cloud.
The people who are 'dead in Christ' and the ones who 'rise first' meaning: they have a first or earlier resurrection over others - Revelation 20:6
These people are the ones who shall ever be with Lord Jesus 'in the heavens '.
Those called to Heaven ( like the people of ' Luke 22:28-30; Daniel 7:18; Revelation 2:10 ' have two (2) jobs to perform:
- Revelation 5:9-10 lets us know they will serve as both: Kings and Priests.
* As kings they will take care of governmental responsibilities for people living on Earth forever.
* As priests they will take care of spiritual duties towards people living on Earth forever.
So, we have a ' little flock ' of Jesus' followers, and Jesus also has ' other sheep '; like the ' sheep ' on Earth found at the time of Matthew 25:31-33,37.
These ' other sheep ' are the humble meek and mild living-on-Earth people who will inherit the Earth, an Earth as described in Isaiah 35th chapter.
Whereas, the ' little flock ' will govern with Jesus ( John 10:16; John 14:19 ; Luke 12:32 )
So, I find the ' will be with him' (Jesus) includes two sets of people:
Just some people resurrected to Heaven as Jesus was resurrected.
The majority of people to be resurrected on Earth - John 3:13 - which includes even King David . An Earth as described at Isaiah 35th chapter.
- Acts of the Apostles 2:34; Acts of the Apostles 24:15; Isaiah 32:1; Psalms 45:16; Ezekiel 34:24.
Any thoughts about Ezekiel 34:23-25 ___________________________________________________________________

Excellent ovservations, but 99% of the verse you quoted are written to Israel before the Day of Pentecost. Those who confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead (Rom 10:9) are born again.

The new birth was made possible by Jesus' resurrection. That said, it is axiomatic that nobody could have been born again, even in the time of the gospels.

Christians, born again of incorruptible seed, are a different breed altogether than Israel. Thessalonians is written to Christians. The things it talks about were simply not available in the OT, including the gospels. 1 Thesselonians 4:17 is clear that Jesus raises the Christians from sleep (death) and gathers those alive in the clouds. It doesn't say heaven. God purified every word in the scriptures 7 times. It behooves us to not change their meaning to fit with popular opinion and accept God's definition instead.

So we will be with Jesus in the clouds (exactly what that is, I don't know) until he comes down to the earth for the battle of Armageddon and sets up his kingdom in the new Jerusalem (all in Revelation). He will sit on a throne in that new kingdom on the earth, and, as Thessalonians said, we will be with him. Therefore, we will be on the earth.

In general, "heaven" is a word first used in Genesis where it is shown to be anything above the earth. The birds fly in heaven and our head is literally in heaven. Popular usage of the word "heaven" is not at all in agreement with the way the scriptures defines it.

Take care.

 

[rrobs]

I'm pretty sure I explained this to you before in another thread. But, I'll try again...

YOU are an individual. There is not another YOU. YOUR FATHER is an individual. There is not another person exactly the same as YOUR FATHER.

YOU are the product of the one in 100,000,000 sperm YOUR FATHER ejaculated into your mother. If any other sperm fertilized YOUR mother's egg, YOU would not be YOU. You would be someone else who closely resembles YOU (or you could be a woman), but you would not be YOU.



YOUR FATHER is the product of the one in 100,000,000 sperm HIS FATHER ejaculated into HIS mother.

Do you really think your God selected and guided each of those individual sperm? If not, you must admit that YOU are the result of a one in 10,000,000,000,000,000 accident.

And that's just two generations!!!

I'll let you do the math of how many specific sperm had to fertilize how many specific eggs going back to whichever member of the Noah brood you are descended from.

Thanks for going through all of that again, but I understood the first time you mentioned that and I couldn't agree more. But what does that have to do with evolution?

Regardless of which sperm made it and gave life to whoever, that whoever would still be a human. It's been that way from the beginning.

 

[ecco]

You may be jumping to conclusions. I have plenty to look forward in the here and now.

That's what you say. But you really don't care about Climate Change. From your posts, it's doubtful that you even belie in it.

So you may look forward to the here and now, but the grand-children of the children of millions of Christians will be living in a different world because you and millions of Christians kept your noses in your Bible and continued to ignore and disparage science.

I still believe much of that comes from fervently believing (hoping?) that the Second Coming will be any day now.


ETA: Oh look, I was right...

I look forward to every day that I can walk with the Lord Jesus on this earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for going through all of that again, but I understood the first time you mentioned that and I couldn't agree more. But what does that have to do with evolution?

Regardless of which sperm made it and gave life to whoever, that whoever would still be a human. It's been that way from the beginning.

Nope, your ancestors go much much much further into the past than organisms that you would call "humans".

Why do you insist on a strawman?

 

[rrobs]

Wrong again. It has been observed countless times. But then "observation" is another concept that creationists cannot afford to understand.

Did anybody take a video of the transformation of one genus to another?

Wrong again. It has been observed countless times. But then "observation" is another concept that creationists cannot afford to understand.

By the way, thanks for proving that you have no clue when it comes to evolution. Change of kinds is a creationist strawman. There is no change of kind in evolution.

Let's take you for example. You share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. That ancestor was an ape. Both you and chimpanzees are still apes. No change of kinds. You share a common ancestor with lemurs. That ancestor was a primate, both you are lemurs are still primates. No change of kinds. You share a common ancestor with dogs, that ancestor was a mammal. You and dogs are both mammals. No change of kind. I could keep going. The groups just keep getting larger and larger.

When you do not understand the basics of the science that you are arguing against it is almost impossible to win an argument. Would you care to learn?

You really should stop making generalizations about my experiences in life and what I do or don't know. Saying I have no clue is based on the thinnest of evidence (none really, it is just an opinion) and is hardly consistent with the scientific method.

All of my ancestors were human.

I attended Georgia Tech School of Biology where they had an excellent curriculum on evolution. I took several course and even then, before I became a Christian, I was skeptical. Like I said, I've seen it from both sides of the fence and therefore I was able to make an informed decision.

While I appreciate your offer, I have already learned the science and decided against it in favor of the scriptures. Would you like to learn about them?

 

[ecco]

Global warming will not kill off all people and leave the earth intact.

Of course, it won't. Nobody says that (except maybe some people trying to build a strawman).

Just two things it will do is cause massive disruptions in where people can live and where food can be produced.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did anybody take a video of the transformation of one genus to another?

Why would they need to do that? You appear to have an overly limited definition of what observation is.

You really should stop making generalizations about my experiences in life and what I do or don't know. Saying I have no clue is based on the thinnest of evidence (none really, it is just an opinion) and is hardly consistent with the scientific method.

You keep presenting the evidence yourself. Don't blame me. It is far from 'thin'.

All of my ancestors were human.

Nope, that is a falsehood. You may believe it, but the evidence tells us that is not the case.

I attended Georgia Tech School of Biology where they had an excellent curriculum on evolution. I took several course and even then, before I became a Christian, I was skeptical. Like I said, I've seen it from both sides of the fence and therefore I was able to make an informed decision.

While I appreciate your offer, I have already learned the science and decided against it in favor of the scriptures. Would you like to learn about them?

If you took those classes how on Earth did you ever pass them? Your posts are amazingly wrong. They are on a middle school level of misunderstanding. And please, you are not skeptical. A skeptic follows the evidence. I don't think you even understand what is and what is not evidence.

 

[rrobs]

That's what you say. But you really don't care about Climate Change. From your posts, it's doubtful that you even belie in it.

So you may look forward to the here and now, but the grand-children of the children of millions of Christians will be living in a different world because you and millions of Christians kept your noses in your Bible and continued to ignore and disparage science.

I still believe much of that comes from fervently believing (hoping?) that the Second Coming will be any day now.


ETA: Oh look, I was right...

Christians are the ones dooming the world? That's rich!

This world has never been a good place. War, sickness, plagues, torture, poverty, racism, and much more, have been the story throughout all of recorded history. Personally, I'm not so arrogant as to think I can change it.

The words "good" and "evil" in the Hebrew scriptures (aka the Old Testament) have nothing to do with our concepts if morality. The Jews had no conception of abstract ideas such as morality. They understood "good" to mean "functional," something that works. "Evil" was understood as "dysfunctional," something that does not work.

Just before the flood of Noah (take it as a fairly tale if you wish, but at least know the fairy tale), God said every thought was "evil" continually. In other words the people were highly dysfunctional. That is where we stand today and it explains global warming. What we have done to the earth highly dysfunctional, and based on history that is unlikely to change. So no, I am not on a crusade to effect the impossible and somehow make this world a utopia. I'll leave others to fail at that task.