How do you define evolution?

[SkepticThinker]

I can only guess you don't believe the apostle Paul's testimony either. Anyway...P.S. I have come to realize the Bible IS the word of God. Now then this brings up in my mind the account of the three Hebrews in the book of Daniel and their decision. Also, the history of the nation of Israel into the 1st century CE. I see, btw, the fact of DNA and animals that may resemble or not resemble one another.

What makes you believe that?

So you're cool with a God that condones slavery?

 

[nPeace]

Actually, we do. We can test *today* what sorts of things affect the rates of decay. To even *talk* meaningfully about the past, we assume the same laws of physics applied then as now. yes, that is an assumption, but it is a reasonable one to allow us to talk about the past at all. Otherwise, we get into 'last Thursdayism' where everything was made Last Thursday, complete with all memories and everything set up to look old. Anything along that line is just silliness, as far as I can see.



Like the 'assumption' that we can use the laws of physics that apply now to dealing with the past?



Do you realize that 'Cosmic Inflation' is a very different thing than the Big Bang? And that *nobody* has said that Cosmic Inflation had been proved? And that this doesn't negate that we *know* the universe is expanding?

Cosmic Inflation was a serious possibility, but it was well known that more data was required to establish it. that is very different than the Big Bang, which has had data accumulating for the last century.



ALL knowledge about the universe is subject to revision based on new data. That is simply how the universe works. But, we can, and do *know* things to within certain error bars. And the number of decimal places that we *know* increases over time.

Cosmic inflation was not a reasonable assumption?
Has reasonable assumptions been incorrect assumptions?

 

[Polymath257]

Cosmic inflation was not a reasonable assumption?
Has reasonable assumptions been incorrect assumptions?

It was a reasonable *hypothesis*. That is different than being an *assumption*. A hypothesis is subject to testing via observation, for example. Cosmic inflation has never been an established thoery. it has been a hypothesis that explained many observations, but needed more detailed observations to prove it to be correct. As such, it was never an *assumption*.

Many reasonable *hypotheses* have been incorrect.

Part of the *assumption* that the laws of physics are the same now as in the past is in the *definition* of the term 'laws of physics'. If things were different in the past, it simply means we didn't have the correct laws and that our ideas needed to be modified to fit the data from the past.

But, the only way to really talk about specifics in the past is to assume the same laws applied then as now. This is very different than saying the same conditions held then as now. For example, saying the same laws of chemistry held is NOT the same as saying the same chemicals were around (different chemicals, but the same underlying laws governing them). The laws would have to be applied to the different circumstances.

Most of the 'assumptions' that seemed reasonable that later turned out to be false are ones that were inspired by religion or by cultural biases. For example, the assumption that every event must have a cause is one that is now known to be wrong. But it is still commonly used in theological arguments for the existence of a God.

There have also been assumptions about geometry and time that were reasonable at the time, but where the range of possibilities was not recognized (even in mathematics). And, even today, many people have difficulties with anything other than Euclidean geometry (flat spacetime, etc).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What makes you believe that?

So you're cool with a God that condones slavery?

The Bible supports it. Not so sure that God does. But fundamentalists think the Bible is God.

 

[nPeace]

It was a reasonable *hypothesis*. That is different than being an *assumption*. A hypothesis is subject to testing via observation, for example. Cosmic inflation has never been an established thoery. it has been a hypothesis that explained many observations, but needed more detailed observations to prove it to be correct. As such, it was never an *assumption*.

How do you feel about anyone - scientists included - who says that the inflation idea was assumed to be a good explanation?

In the standard big bang model, one assumes that the universe began in an extremely dense, hot state that was expanding rapidly.

Frontiers of Inflationary Cosmology
Robert H. Brandenberger
Physics Department, Brown University,
Providence, R.I., USA
The idea of inflation is very simple. We assume there is a time interval beginning at ti and ending at tR (the "reheating time") during which the Universe is exponentially expanding, i.e.,

with constant Hubble expansion parameter H. Such a period is called "de Sitter" or "inflationary." The success of Big Bang nucleosynthesis sets an upper limit to the time tR of reheating, tR << tNS, tNS being the time of nucleosynthesis.

Since inflation exponentially dilutes the density of pre-existing matter, it is reasonable to assume that the perturbations start off (e.g. at the beginning of inflation) in the vacuum state (defined as a state with no particles with respect to a local comoving observer). The state defined this way will not be the vacuum state from the point of view of an observer at a later time.

Of course, I found more than just two, but that would be enough.
Other "reasonable" assumptions could have been arrived at, evidently.

Many reasonable *hypotheses* have been incorrect.

...as well as assumptions.

Part of the *assumption* that the laws of physics are the same now as in the past is in the *definition* of the term 'laws of physics'. If things were different in the past, it simply means we didn't have the correct laws and that our ideas needed to be modified to fit the data from the past.

Nothing is wrong with admitting that assumptions are made about the "laws of physics"
Scientists admit that all the time. Why can't you?
Do Atheists have a special belief they are trying to defend?

Inflationary cosmology: from theory to observations
...some of the assumptions the SBB modelis built

1) The physical laws at the present time can be extrapolated further back in time and be considered as valid in the early Universe.
2) The cosmological principle holds: “There do not exist
preferred places in the Universe”
3) On small scales, the anisotropic Universe is describedby a linear expansion of the metric around the FRW back-ground...​

But, the only way to really talk about specifics in the past is to assume the same laws applied then as now. This is very different than saying the same conditions held then as now. For example, saying the same laws of chemistry held is NOT the same as saying the same chemicals were around (different chemicals, but the same underlying laws governing them). The laws would have to be applied to the different circumstances.

Sounds like a religious approach to me.
How do you suppose it's different?

Most of the 'assumptions' that seemed reasonable that later turned out to be false are ones that were inspired by religion or by cultural biases. For example, the assumption that every event must have a cause is one that is now known to be wrong. But it is still commonly used in theological arguments for the existence of a God.

Perhaps because it means something different to the modified version in science - similar to fact and theory.
One cannot rightly blame religious people for the borrowed words modified by scientists.
We opt not to use words modified for this modern world too.
For example, we used to say we are happy and gay. We no longer say that.

There have also been assumptions about geometry and time that were reasonable at the time, but where the range of possibilities was not recognized (even in mathematics). And, even today, many people have difficulties with anything other than Euclidean geometry (flat spacetime, etc).

Was that to emphasize that assumptions have been wrong? I think we established that.

 

[rational experiences]

Science studying Jesus wanting an old new resource quote Jesus is not dangerous to humans as it is placed by name before CHrist.

Hierarchy by description he says quotes it.

CH gases that came out of God stone earths inner body. Volcanic hell a physical mass body.

Which would infer Jesus to be far eviler than Christ in scientific status.

So teaching says humans are one form only...holy as humans. Man human woman human baby humans.

Science then asks what Jesus meant.

Teaching said the status Jesus is information that said life was sacrificed as taught by one holy human.man. Reasoned why.

Once a Baby human grown into an adult man human.

As descriptive analogy is relative to human and not names. Titles defined purpose of any human reasoning.

History a science teaching said. The ST ATE.....image recording was encoded by a huge sun blasting earth mass and gas conversion to encode a cause status in heavens body to record.

To record says it existed only because of a huge mass reactive destruction.

Science man psyche was advised stating it is an end result.

The beginning before recorded image existed was a huge blasting sun earth attack.

First images recorded were of earth mass properties not of human man.

Even transmitted feedback proves that scientific status. Mass was recorded first.

So if you believe you can own it in science your claim is I will contact it.

The reason it existed as the state was pure evil.

As you don't own the huge mass conversion of energy that invented the state. Your mind in science however does want to own pre history energy reaction in mass before recording itself existed.

As science themed from when nothing of created form existed. Lied.

That status was a human confession as the scientist man who theories it and had theoried it was living on earth with creation.

Cosmic owned creation and factually men contemplated it's removal by a man's science thesis about nothing itself.

The bible told everyone what the science men had theoried as it is written so as proof of a satanic thesis. Why life was sacrificed in an earth and heavens body mass conversion.

As life a long time ago did die by science caused earth conversion putting the recording of it in our heavens. And it was the actual end of life that had caused it. A long time ago before dinosaurs inherited life.

Previously on earth it's mass had been imaged recorded as the state recording.

Human reasoning. If dinosaur images and human man science image is held in the same one state cloud image. It is proof that it happened a very long time ago.

Just because life has been sacrificed since by pyramid temple science never meant they put the image there. It had been caused a long time ago.

The record was reasoned why man's consciousness was since possessed by his belief to choose to unnaturally sacrifice human life by agreement heavenly advice.

Proven everyday by scientific religious interpretation then human chosen action.

 

[shunyadragon]

Cosmic inflation was not a reasonable assumption?
Has reasonable assumptions been incorrect assumptions?

Your playing the shell game of 'arguing from ignorance' based on an ancient religious agenda. Scientific knowledge changes overtime when new information is revealed. This true of the history of our universe

 

[YoursTrue]

I am saying that we do not know that there is not life on other planets. Just as I never said Christ was not a real person, I did not say that I think humans evolved on other planets. You put a lot of words into the posts of others that they never put there.

Thank you for explaining your point. I belielve life on this planet Earth was placed by God, a superior intelligent power, and not by evolution. Can I "scientifically" explain it all? No, not on the standards of those who do not believe in miracles and/or God, but after thinking about it, including the great creative abilities that we see and can perform, I am convinced that God can do whatever He wants to, and that the earth, moon and stars did not come about by "happenstance," or by themselves without a superior, thinking force.
P.S. Do I believe that mutations happen? Yes. Do I believe they cause lasting forms to continue as in evolution of survival of the fitttest? (No.) Do I believe that scientists can help solve some of mankind's current problems? Yes.
Here's one wonderful reason that the Bible makes this clear:
Ecclesiastes 3:11 - He has even put eternity in their heart; yet mankind will never find out the work that the true God has made from start to finish.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your playing the shell game of 'arguing from ignorance' based on an ancient religious agenda. Scientific knowledge changes overtime when new information is revealed. This true of the history of our universe

We know the reasons the scientific community gives for any changing rules or theorems. But--never do I recall when in school taking tests anything scientific which relates, "This may not always be the case, but right now we think..."

 

[YoursTrue]

How long will "you know"? You don't even have evidence for what you claim "you know".

And the evidence of gravity is that we stick to the ground? among other things. But amazing mankind figured how to 'scientifically' fly upwards, or even level on the earth by car faster than a horse.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am saying that we do not know that there is not life on other planets. Just as I never said Christ was not a real person, I did not say that I think humans evolved on other planets. You put a lot of words into the posts of others that they never put there.

I checked to make sure, here is what you said in part:
"We don't know every planet, so it is presumptuous to declare that only this one has life. What is the significance of having trees? We are the only planet we know of that has living anythings. Doesn't mean that there are no other planets like ours."
Maybe there's someone exactly like another with the same thought processes, hair color, marriage or not, in a faraway place as well. You think? I mean come on -- with evolution, hey, don't you think it could happen? If not, why not?

 

[Polymath257]

How do you feel about anyone - scientists included - who says that the inflation idea was assumed to be a good explanation?

In the standard big bang model, one assumes that the universe began in an extremely dense, hot state that was expanding rapidly.

Frontiers of Inflationary Cosmology
Robert H. Brandenberger
Physics Department, Brown University,
Providence, R.I., USA
The idea of inflation is very simple. We assume there is a time interval beginning at ti and ending at tR (the "reheating time") during which the Universe is exponentially expanding, i.e.,

with constant Hubble expansion parameter H. Such a period is called "de Sitter" or "inflationary." The success of Big Bang nucleosynthesis sets an upper limit to the time tR of reheating, tR << tNS, tNS being the time of nucleosynthesis.

Since inflation exponentially dilutes the density of pre-existing matter, it is reasonable to assume that the perturbations start off (e.g. at the beginning of inflation) in the vacuum state (defined as a state with no particles with respect to a local comoving observer). The state defined this way will not be the vacuum state from the point of view of an observer at a later time.

Of course, I found more than just two, but that would be enough.
Other "reasonable" assumptions could have been arrived at, evidently.

Those are the assumptions *of the model*. That is NOT the same as assuming the model is true. That needs to come from testing and observation.

They are making a *hypothesis* and explaining the assumptions in that hypothesis.

...as well as assumptions.


Nothing is wrong with admitting that assumptions are made about the "laws of physics"
Scientists admit that all the time. Why can't you?
Do Atheists have a special belief they are trying to defend?

Those assumptions are not specific to atheism: the assumption that there is a world out there to be investigated. The assumption that our senses say something about that world. The assumption that we can learn about that world via observation and testing (the scientific method). The assumption that the same physical laws applied in the past.

Those are philosophical assumptions, but ones that are necessary to even talk about the universe and, more specifically, the past. Any denial of those is going down a rabbit hole.

Inflationary cosmology: from theory to observations

...some of the assumptions the SBB modelis built

1) The physical laws at the present time can be extrapolated further back in time and be considered as valid in the early Universe.
2) The cosmological principle holds: “There do not exist
preferred places in the Universe”
3) On small scales, the anisotropic Universe is describedby a linear expansion of the metric around the FRW back-ground...​

Sounds like a religious approach to me.

Nope. It is the rational approach to learning how the universe works.

How do you suppose it's different?

We limit ourselves to testable models.

Perhaps because it means something different to the modified version in science - similar to fact and theory.
One cannot rightly blame religious people for the borrowed words modified by scientists.
We opt not to use words modified for this modern world too.
For example, we used to say we are happy and gay. We no longer say that.

Not a vocabulary issue. The words with religious meanings were wrong. They had to be modified to become correct.

Was that to emphasize that assumptions have been wrong? I think we established that.

Yes. And those assumptions were primarily those arising from religion. Hypotheses are often wrong. Learn the difference.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I checked to make sure, here is what you said in part:
"We don't know every planet, so it is presumptuous to declare that only this one has life. What is the significance of having trees? We are the only planet we know of that has living anythings. Doesn't mean that there are no other planets like ours."
Maybe there's someone exactly like another with the same thought processes, hair color, marriage or not, in a faraway place as well. You think? I mean come on -- with evolution, hey, don't you think it could happen? If not, why not?

What are you raving about? You are starting to make less and less sense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you for explaining your point. I belielve life on this planet Earth was placed by God, a superior intelligent power, and not by evolution. Can I "scientifically" explain it all? No, not on the standards of those who do not believe in miracles and/or God, but after thinking about it, including the great creative abilities that we see and can perform, I am convinced that God can do whatever He wants to, and that the earth, moon and stars did not come about by "happenstance," or by themselves without a superior, thinking force.
P.S. Do I believe that mutations happen? Yes. Do I believe they cause lasting forms to continue as in evolution of survival of the fitttest? (No.) Do I believe that scientists can help solve some of mankind's current problems? Yes.
Here's one wonderful reason that the Bible makes this clear:
Ecclesiastes 3:11 - He has even put eternity in their heart; yet mankind will never find out the work that the true God has made from start to finish.

The process of evolution is change in life that already exists. The theory of evolution is an explanation for the change in life that already exists and is not a theory on the origin of life. I know you have to be told these things constantly, but I have no idea why.

If you believe all that, then why bother posting on this forum about evolution at all? If no amount of reason or evidence will get you to think, then why bother thinking?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And the evidence of gravity is that we stick to the ground? among other things. But amazing mankind figured how to 'scientifically' fly upwards, or even level on the earth by car faster than a horse.

That the there is an attraction between our bodies or other objects and the earth is an observation (evidence). You claim it means gravity. Can you defend that claim and expand on it so that I too know it is gravity that explains the attraction. Don't just say it is gravity. Explain to me what gravity is. Show me it is gravity that keeps me grounded. Show me it isn't magnetism or some force pushing me down to earth.

Then explain to me how the attraction you site as evidence for gravity is different than the fossil evidence supporting evolution. Or the morphological. Or the genetic? Or the...and on and on and on and on....

 

[shunyadragon]

We know the reasons the scientific community gives for any changing rules or theorems. But--never do I recall when in school taking tests anything scientific which relates, "This may not always be the case, but right now we think..."

You're intentionally self afflicted with ignorance as to how 'Methodological Naturalism works. Based on your previous posts, your schooling never got past the very basics if that, and it is apparent you did not understand that.

No, scientists do not remotely talk you propose. There goal is the discover new information, and falsify theories and hypothesis. It is a fact that in science ALL theories and hypothesis are subject to change and found false when new information determines they are false or need to be changed.

It is a matter of fact that science does indeed positively change over time when new information and research justifies this change.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thank you for explaining your point. I belielve life on this planet Earth was placed by God, a superior intelligent power, and not by evolution. Can I "scientifically" explain it all? No, not on the standards of those who do not believe in miracles and/or God, but after thinking about it, including the great creative abilities that we see and can perform, I am convinced that God can do whatever He wants to, and that the earth, moon and stars did not come about by "happenstance," or by themselves without a superior, thinking force.
P.S. Do I believe that mutations happen? Yes. Do I believe they cause lasting forms to continue as in evolution of survival of the fitttest? (No.) Do I believe that scientists can help solve some of mankind's current problems? Yes.
Here's one wonderful reason that the Bible makes this clear:
Ecclesiastes 3:11 - He has even put eternity in their heart; yet mankind will never find out the work that the true God has made from start to finish.

This post makes it abundantly clear that you eject science in terms of an ancient Biblical worldview.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This post makes it abundantly clear that you eject science in terms of an ancient Biblical worldview.

It is a sad way to interpret God, Christianity and the world around us. It makes no sense to me.

There is a dichotomy too. We can learn about gravity, but we cannot learn about biology.

 

[gnostic]

Thank you for explaining your point. I belielve life on this planet Earth was placed by God, a superior intelligent power, and not by evolution. Can I "scientifically" explain it all? No, not on the standards of those who do not believe in miracles and/or God, but after thinking about it, including the great creative abilities that we see and can perform, I am convinced that God can do whatever He wants to, and that the earth, moon and stars did not come about by "happenstance," or by themselves without a superior, thinking force.

But, to believe in God causing miracles or God creating things, such as those narrated in the Bible, don’t require science and don’t even require intelligence.

No, such belief only required FAITH, and faith alone.

Putting the Bible or any other scriptures under the microscope (eg the creation, flood) with what we have learned from different fields of science, only demonstrated the authors’ weaknesses in understanding natural and physical reality, and it also shine the lights on believers’ ignorance, especially those “believers” who are considered “creationists”.

The pitfalls that all creationists fall into, are believing that god wrote these stories in biblical texts, and therefore assuming the Bible itself is infallible or inerrant.

The Bible is definitely not written by god, because there are so many errors, so many inconsistencies, and I am just talking about Genesis 1 to 8.

In Job 38 to 41, the author (whoever he may be) claiming to write what God’s reply to Job’s were, about the injustice of his sufferings. But instead of giving answer to Job, he tried to justify Job’s sufferings with bullying intimidation of his enormous powers with erroneous bragging about him creating this or creating that - in nature.

The author of Job (book) clearly have no real knowledge about natural phenomena, eg sun, stars, Earth, mountains, seas, rain, hails, snows, thunders, etc. Everything god said to Job, were...to be blunt and frank...were wrong and stupid.

Believing in any passages in Job, is believing in superstitions, and superstitions that are erroneous.

People who have studied these things, astronomy, Earth, seas, meteorology, biology, etc, in the last couple of centuries, can easily explain natural phenomena as they are, eg WHAT they are and HOW they work, and even answer the WHY questions, without resorting to “God did it” nonsense.

When you read something like book of Job, and “really think about it”, then you would know that the author, whoever was the real author, was ignorant superstitious fellow, who have no understanding about nature and natural phenomena, and worse of all, depicted God as stupid, petty bully.

I am not saying god is stupid and petty but that the author’s depiction of god is.

 

[YoursTrue]

You can guess whatever you like. I made no mention of Paul and my statements were not about Paul, so your attempt to guess something about my views of Paul are irrelevant.

You came to BELIEVE it is literally dictated by God.

Was there some point to this rambling post that I missed? It is not addressing my post that it is placed in response to.

Nope, there is something about Paul. Because some people don't believe what is written about his experience (from above). I do. And the more I think about it, the clearer, yes, the clearer it becomes that -- God created the heavens and the earth. It did not come about by self-controlled evolution as in the theory of Darwin. Take it as you may. Again -- do I think God causes deformities or birth defects? No. Do I think God has the power to override what He set in motion? Yes, I do.