1. 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!

Featured Gravity and the Expanding Universe

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by rrobs, Nov 25, 2020.

  1. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,443
    Ratings:
    +407
    Religion:
    Christian
    So what do you look forward to? Dying and that's that? Like the scriptures declare, this life is but a vapor. When I smoke a cigar I exhale and watch the smoke slowly fade away to nothingness.

    If I'm wrong about the future, I've lost nothing. But if you are wrong, you will have passed up a good opportunity. What do I have to loose? Nothing. What do you have to loose? Everything. Not saying you will loose everything. The day before I became a Christian I wasn't one. Today could very well be like that for you. I hope so anyway and I'll pray for you to that end.
     
  2. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,443
    Ratings:
    +407
    Religion:
    Christian
    Evolution is not totally devoid of observation. The problem is that the observations are mixed with a healthy dose of inference.
     
  3. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    38,444
    Ratings:
    +22,636
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Almost all science is based upon a healthy dose of inference. There is no problem with that as long as one tests one's ideas properly. And it is no problem testing evolution. Which is why there is only evidence for the theory of evolution. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. That is why creationist constantly lose in courts. Judges have a firm grasp on the concept of evidence. As shown by our recent election. They are not fooled by sleight of hand when it comes to supporting one's case.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. ecco

    ecco Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    12,908
    Ratings:
    +6,373
    Religion:
    atheist

    It's really incomprehensible.

    Thousands of scientists in dozens of disciplines have concluded that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years and that evolution is true. Overwhelming evidence and you disbelieve it.

    Three thousand years ago a few people who wanted to start a new religion, wrote some stories about how the earth and man began. Then they wrote more that clearly showed a complete ignorance of many things. They wrote more stories indicating the god they had created encouraged slavery, killing of innocents, taking young female orphans to do with as men pleased. With no evidence, you accept this as truth.

    Two thousand years ago a few dozen men wrote stories about an itinerant preacher years after he allegedly lived. Later, a few dozen men get together and select some of these writings to put into a "book". With no evidence, you accept this as truth.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,443
    Ratings:
    +407
    Religion:
    Christian
    I don't recall having said the earth is not 4.5 billion years old. Perhaps I wasn't clear or you misunderstood.

    The second verse of Genesis in most texts say, "the earth was without form and void..." The Hebrew texts can be translated as, "the earth became without form and void..." There are several other verses that indicate that the original earth was destroyed by a cataclysmic event. The upshot is that the original earth that God created, the one He created before it became without form and void could well have been 4.5 billion years old.

    That's what is commonly thought, but it's not accurate. Actually, the book claims it was written by men who were inspired by God. Also, the scriptures are not religion. Religion is man made, the scriptures are God inspired. Huge difference.

    Even if the Bible is a fairy tale, at least one should know the fairy tale before talking about it. It is usually clear when I'm talking with someone who might know the tradition, but they know little of what it actually says. Not to be critical, but I believe you fall into that category. There is nothing wrong with not knowing. The problem comes when someone thinks they know when the facts show they really don't. Most already know what it says before the even crack the book open. Not very scientific.
     
  6. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,443
    Ratings:
    +407
    Religion:
    Christian
    Which of the innumerable books written by genuine scientists that give solid scientific evidence of the truth in Genesis have you studied and discarded? Or is this news to you?
     
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    38,444
    Ratings:
    +22,636
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Once again there are no such books. You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the concept of scientific evidence. Here is a simple question for you:

    What reasonable tests do the authors of those books propose that could conceivably falsify their beliefs? And one cannot shift the burden of proof in those tests. They need to state what sort of observation would refute their beliefs? Please don't give me an "change of kind" nonsense because "kinds" is a term that creationists cannot define properly. They do not have a working definition of the term that they depend upon so heavily. And also the theory of evolution does not rely upon a change of kind, remember, like it or not you are still an ape.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,443
    Ratings:
    +407
    Religion:
    Christian
    I assume you are referring to the word "kind." In Genesis. The Greek word used was "genus." I think I've always talked in terms of genus. If I said "kind" somewhere, then it was sloppy on my part.

    I understand a genus to be a group of species that share certain common traits. As I recall, there are a few different genera of what we call apes. I honestly can't remember a single one, but I do know none of them are homo.

    The gulf between apes and man is wide. Never saw a website like this with intelligent beings sharing their thoughts in great detail in the ape world. Yes, apes have intelligence. So does an earthworm. But on a scale of 1 to 1,000,000, the apes and worms are a 1 and man is a 1,000,000+++.
     
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    38,444
    Ratings:
    +22,636
    Religion:
    Atheist
    No, kind is not genus. Don't make equivocation errors. In fact the old classification system fails because evolution is a fact. The Linnaeus was a creationist, even though he realized that man was an ape. He was a bit conflicted by that. You are still being sloppy in your very very wrong assessment of human intelligence. Remember, man is an ape, you are an ape. You should be saying "man and other apes". And when it comes to intelligence man is not all that much brighter than other apes. In fact there are some intelligence tests where chimps outperform man.

    Do you realize why there is no scientific evidence for creationism yet? You could not find a reasonable test. You need one if you want to claim that there is scientific evidence for creationism. Once again it must be a test based upon the merits of creationism, not based upon a false failing of evolution.

    But for your edification:


    Hominidae - Wikipedia

    The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɪdiː/), whose members are known as great apes[note 1] or hominids (/ˈhɒmɪnɪdz/), are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, of which only modern humans remain.[1]
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    3,235
    Ratings:
    +2,131
    Religion:
    none
    Which would disprove evolution if it happened, You're just displaying the usual creationist ignorance, and it's very boring.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,355
    Ratings:
    +177
    Religion:
    spiritualist

    All humans today, born from sperm and an ovary, the same as parents, grand parents, great grand parents. About the length of a life observing self in a natural human history to quantify, God did not invent me.

    Theism, just talking, as a human already living, owning a human life, pretending.

    For did science, human owned/expressed inventor of his own designed inventions on scientific intent, to design, build, operate use to convert more Earth mass ever be in reality anything else?

    The answer is a direct no. Yet you say I will discuss gravity. Yet you personally did not own inventing gravity, you pretend in groups to discuss information for egotism.

    For natural is a status, space, empty, space irradiated not empty, space with cold gases in them or cold mass form. Just a general observed reality.

    As a human being a human, conscious of self, human with other humans.

    Discussing any topic or want of a discussion by your human say so.

    Science was invented by humans for invention only, its owned origins. For surely you cannot believe that you talk about huge massive bodies in space as if you own them by giving them a word and a name description from a human want?

    Natural is a self observed quoted basic scientific advice. You live on a planet inside of an atmosphere with other life forms, on a planet and can invent.

    You cannot invent unless you think first for a design and the matter for design is abstracted off the body of a planet. Your science invention does not come from anywhere else...but the planet mass. Then you take more mass from off the planet and change it to get energy.

    You create change in science.

    Now if science talks gravity yet says a huge spatial body, unknown to their mind about how big it is...owns all the bodies sitting in it. And then you make a theme about one condition that does not exist in reality. For gravity does not exist by itself....all bodies of discussion are space, empty space, heated irradiating space, gases hot and cold. What status does science as a human personally own?

    Just your own self as a human.

    Sophism was qualified to be described as a contrivance using words.

    Who applies the measure? A human scientist does.

    A human has never lived on Planet Earth as God stone philosophy when it was without form and void, one of your owned teachings. A human scientist had to propose God not existing to own a thesis for how to react to get energy in human reality.
     
  12. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    13,985
    Ratings:
    +2,214
    Please notice Romans 10:1 because that chapter is addressed to Jesus' brothers', the same 'brothers' of chapter 1 Corinthians 15.
    These are the ones who have that first or earlier resurrection to Heaven - Please notice: Revelation 20:6; Revelation 2:10; Revelation 5:9-10.
    How was Jesus ' caught up in the clouds ' - Acts of the Apostles 1:9
    The already resurrected Jesus at that time then ascended to Heaven - Hebrews 9:24.
    Living people can Not live in the clouds. Jesus said like the days of Noah; No up in the clouds happening then.
    Please notice 1 Thessalonians 4:1,13 ( addressed to Jesus' brothers ' ) Jesus' brothers' as also found at Matthew 25:40.
    Jesus' brothers' ( like those of Luke 22:28-30; Daniel 7:18) are Not the same as Jesus' sheep' of Matthew 25:37.
    Jesus has a 'little flock' of sheep and Jesus also has ' other sheep '.
    Jesus' brothers' comprise the ' little or smaller flock ', whereas the ' other sheep ' are the ones to inherit the Earth.
    They are the ' first fruits ' of 1 Corinthians 15:20,23. Resurrected first or first in order or rank and are resurrected to Heaven.
    Please notice John 14:19 because Jesus does Not make a literal return to Earth.
    Rather, the executional words from Jesus' mouth will rid the Earth of the wicked - Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16.

    I read the measurements of New Jerusalem described at Revelation 21:10-25 and wonder where it could possibly fit on Earth ____________
     
  13. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,443
    Ratings:
    +407
    Religion:
    Christian
    That's good, but it's nothing more than a classification of animals. It proves nothing about people coming from apes. Besides, Adam did the same thing:

    Gen 2:20,

    And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.​

    BTW, to show how what science "knows" about the universe changes, often radically, as in this case: New Theory Casually Upends Space and Time

    Is it true? I don't know, but it does show how nebulous scientific knowledge really is.

    Your belief in cosmology/evolution requires no less faith than that of a Christian. You've not observed a Pan evolving into a Home and more than I've observed an event that took place thousands of years ago.
     
    #673 rrobs, Dec 14, 2020
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2020
  14. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,443
    Ratings:
    +407
    Religion:
    Christian
    And you're exciting? OK.
     
  15. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,443
    Ratings:
    +407
    Religion:
    Christian
    I'll give it some thought. Thanks.
     
  16. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,443
    Ratings:
    +407
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well, it will be a new earth (Rev 21:1), so I guess it'll be big enough to hold the New Jerusalem. :)
     
  17. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    13,985
    Ratings:
    +2,214
    Genuine ' wheat ' Christians do care about climate change.
    God will bring to ruin those ruining the Earth - Revelation 11:18 B, so real Christians would Not even think to litter.
    Yes, the grand-children of genuine Christians will be living in a different world the Earth as described in Isaiah 35th chapter.
    Science is Not the teacher or morality. The Bible is about how to serve God.

    Not the '2nd coming' any day now, because first we are informed that the ' final signal ', so to speak, is still ahead of us:
    When the powers that be are saying, " Peace and Security..." that will be the precursor to the coming great tribulation before the 'second coming'.
    - 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3
     
  18. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    3,235
    Ratings:
    +2,131
    Religion:
    none
    Not at all when I'm just correcting the endless repetitive misunderstandings of creationists (like "evolution is just a theory") - they've all been done to death a thousand times - why not go and read through some of the old debates, or actually bother to learn something about science (like what 'theory' means)?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    3,235
    Ratings:
    +2,131
    Religion:
    none
    But there is copious evidence that does show exactly that. For a tiny example from genetics see: Genesis and the Genome [pdf].

    This is another total misunderstanding of what's happening. This appears to be a highly speculative hypothesis that seeks a more fundamental understanding than offered by the present theories. It doesn't change the evidence and the fact that our current theories are a good match to it. We still use Newton's theories for most applications.

    Science changing its view in the light of new evidence means it far, far more likely to be true than blind unyielding faith that refuses to accept evidence even when it directly contradicts it.
     
  20. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    13,985
    Ratings:
    +2,214
    You seem to be referring to a literal coming down. At times, God turning his attention to Earth is in coming down in reference that there will be action on Earth.
    Please read the size measurements about Heavenly New Jerusalem as found at Revelation 21:10-23 and let us know where that city fits ____________

    The ' new earth ' is in connection to 2 Peter 3:13. Not a new planet ( Ecclesiastes 1:4 B) but a new righteous new society. New world of righteousness.

    I've already been told by some that the ' new Earth ' of Revelation 21:1 would have No oceans, No seas.
    Psalms 72:8 informs us that Jesus will have earthly subjects or citizens from sea to sea, so the 'sea' of Rev. 21:1 is Not literal water but about people.
    The restless sea of wicked humanity - Isaiah 57:20; Isaiah 48:22.
    The 'waters' ( people) of Revelation 17:1; Revelation 17:15

    So, since Revelation is written in very-vivid word pictures, then we can see that all of Revelation is Not literal.
     
Loading...