The Fabric of the Cosmos: What is Space? - Page 7

Evolution deals with biology, physics and astronomy deal with space/time, totally different sciences.  So when you say "evolutionists saying now, to nothing at all", you are looking like quite the fool.  But then, it shows your lack of understanding science on an elementary level, something you've proven time and again.

Secondly, science goes in the direction of evidence and they don't claim to know things that have yet to be discovered.  When they reach that point they say "We don't know.".  You are the one stating that everything came from nothing, not science.

GSDtravels,


The differenteness between me and you, I believe in the beginning of God and you believe in the beginning of dirt (matter). So don't tell me what you believe is more science and what I believe is not, they are both religious.






Shtal.

I don't think so shtal.

Hey Moons :-) Hi you been!


You got the theory; you know it is true, now you just need evidence: that is how the most atheists thinks about it.
I am just having fun on this thread :-)


Shtal.

Keep in mind that Moses edited Genesis from 10 eyewitness accounts.  The accounts were probably written on clay tablets.  Noah would have taken these tablets on the ark with him.  The fact that people wrote down there account before Moses did does not mean that they got it right.  The skeptics will say that the Samarian legend was written before Moses was even alive.  They then imply that Moses copied from them.  This is simply not so.  If you have several people that are eyewitnesses to an event and they all write a story about what they saw, the first one to publish his story isn’t necessarily the one that got the story right.  The fact that somebody published first doesn’t mean that they got the story right. 



Can you show me proof outside the bible of the 10 eyewitnesses or the clay tablets? Are you saying physical evidence  that pre-dates Moses is wrong and the bible that hasn't even been written yet and makes unsupported claims with no physical evidence is right?

Shtal, I'm glad you're having fun.  I have not stated where I stand on belief.  As I have said before, the things I post are the reasons that religion can't be used to rule.  It should remain in the private sector where, by law, it belongs.  My personal beliefs are not really pertinent to the issue at hand and that's the part you never seem to grasp.  Science tests the natural world and comes to a consensus on reality.  Where sceince clashes with religion, and clash it must, science holds the only trump card, evidence.  Religion can only win by deceit, something that is against its basic tenets.  Once it pushes too far, it will not be able to sustain itself, since its core is pure belief.  Once that is brought into the brightest of lights, it will fall and become myth, like all of those which predated it.  As long as there is something to worship, there will always be people willing to collect in its name.  Religion cannot ultimately win a battle with science.  It will end up at the doorstep of the Supreme Court and religion will end up being taxed for its encroachment into the public and political domain.  Some religious people are so busy trying to get everybody else to live by their rules, they ignore the very rules they're imposing on others.

Nobogy is denying anyone their religion.  Religion is pushing past its legal and moral limits in a civil, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religous society, in a Country with a Constitution in place for just that reason.  I can never understand why it's so difficult to live your own life according to your moral dictates and allow others the same in return.  Keep your religion  in your heart, in your home and in your chrkch, but park it when you enter the public sphere.  If you did that, there would be no "War on Christianity", no "War on Religion", there would be peace.  All it takes is abiding by the common laws.

GSDtravels wrote: Science tests the natural world and comes to a consensus on reality.  Where sceince clashes with religion, and clash it must, science holds the only trump card, evidence.  Religion can only win by deceit, something that is against its basic tenets



GSDtravels, can you please define what you mean by science, and tell me your observation of the science and the interpretation of the science.
And that is why I like asking questions about Big Bang theory, and so the text book says 20 billions years ago all the matter in the universe was squish into tiny dot, and it was spinning faster and faster and boom it had exploded…And then unanswered question always comes up, where all this matter come from, you going to say I don’t know that for sure. So if I told you I believe about six-thousand years ago, God created the heavens and earth, like the Bible teaches, you are going to reply to me and say where did your God come from and I honestly don’t know, but the text book says 20 billions years ago there was a Big Bang and you don’t know where the dirt came from, so I believe in the Beginning God and you believe in the Beginning Dirt… Don’t tell me my theory is religious and yours is science; you see GSDtravels they are both religious and not science.
Also, If I correctly understanding! - You are trying to imply that Religion vs. Science or in other words Religious and scientific people debate evolution, what is your unspoken secret here GSDtravels; are you trying to imply that Evolution is part of science?
Both creation and evolution is inherent religious. 
GSDTravels, and if I ask you where did the laws came from, the universe are run by laws, gravity, centrifugal force, antorcha, who gave the laws, and you going to reply that you don’t know. And if I ask you another question where energy did came from to make a Big Bang and you don’t know that either. Here is another example: And if you know the merry-go-round that some playground have and if you put kids on it and you started spinning them in clock-wise as fast as possible you can and let say you got over 100 miles per hour spinning that merry-go-round and then when the kids no longer able to hold on and flew-off by spinning clockwise, that is because the law in physics called conservation angular momentum, so if you understand that law, and if universe began as spinning dot, why are many planets in our universe spinning backwards? You are going to reply to me, saying that is very interesting question!
And so it is very hard for Big Bang theory to make any logic sense.
Also, if you truly believe in evolution then question always come-up where do we come from?
And you will reply, we came from macro-molecule, and then I will ask you? Where did that come from? And you will say from the oceans, from pre-biotic soup and I will ask you again where did that come from? And you will reply - it rain on the rocks for millions of years and so you will pause for a moment, by realizing you came from a rock….
And you call that science GSDtravels?



btw, root meaning of the word science, means knowledge...
Shtal.

Felloffher,



The Bible is sufficient proof. It is an ancient and authentic document. Why do you want proof from outside the Bible? I never provide such evidence for anyone, because your request shows that you are not predisposed to accept it.

Shtal, I hold no degree in any one of the sciences, but that doesn't mean I can't understand what I read and that, I do quite a bit of.  I also had a formal education, complete with all of the requisite sciences, in which I always scored well, though mathematics was my strongest subject.  I do have a bit of engineering in both education and work experience, but nope, none of the pertinent sciences.

I was educated in a Roman Catholic school for 10 years, that's where I learned the bits of biology, evolution, astronomy and chemistry that formed my foundation for the sciences.  But then, the Roman Catholic Church learned about suppressing scientific evidence a long time ago and they don't want to repeat past mistakes.  They went against science and lost, big time.  Instead of collapsing, they changed to include reality, at least in what they saw as actual evidence.  So, I guess that's a point for Roman Catholicism, at least they're a bit more honest than the anything-but-a-doctor Hovinds of the world.

The scientists I trust are the same ones you trust Shtal and Kent Hovind is not among them.  You know he's full of shit and you are being deceitful about it.  You also "believe" in evolution Shtal, whether you admit it or not.

Oh, I almost forgot, here you go.

Claim CE260:

The hypothesis that the solar system formed from the collapse of a revolving nebula is contradicted by the fact that three planets and several moons revolve backwards.

Source:

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 19.

Response:

1. The "backwards" planets and moons are in no way contrary to the nebular hypothesis. Part of the hypothesis is that the nebula of gas and dust would accrete into planetessimals. Catastrophic collisions between these would be part of planet building. Such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons.
   
   The only moons that orbit retrograde are small asteroid-sized distant satellites of giant planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, plus Triton (Neptune's large moon) and Charon (Pluto's satellite). The small retrograde satellites of Jupiter and Saturn were probably asteroids captured by the giant planets long after formation of the solar system. It is actually easier to be captured into a retrograde orbit. The Neptune system also contains one moon, Nereid, with a highly eccentric orbit. It appears that some sort of violent capture event may have taken place. The Pluto-Charon system is orbiting approximately "on its side," technically retrograde, with tidally locked rotation. As these are small bodies in the outer solar system, and binaries are likely to have been formed through collisions or gravitational capture, this does not violate the nebular hypothesis.
   
   Uranus is rotating more or less perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. This may be the result of an off-center collision between two protoplanets during formation. Venus is rotating retrograde but extremely slowly, with its axis almost exactly perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. The rotation of this planet may well have started out prograde, but solar and planetary tides acting on its dense atmosphere have been shown to be a likely cause of the present state of affairs. It is probably not a coincidence that at every inferior conjunction, Venus turns the same side toward Earth, as Earth is the planet that contributes most to tidal forces on Venus.
    
2. Orbital motions account for 99.9% of the angular momentum of the solar system. A real evidential problem would be presented if some of the planets orbited the sun in the opposite direction to others, or in very different planes. However, all the planets orbit in the same direction, confirming the nebular hypothesis, and nearly in the same plane. A further confirmation comes from the composition of the giant planets, which are similar to the sun's composition of hydrogen and helium. Giant planets could hold on to all of their light elements, but small planets like Earth and Mars could not.

The Bible is sufficient proof. It is an ancient and authentic document. Why do you want proof from outside the Bible? I never provide such evidence for anyone, because your request shows that you are not predisposed to accept it.

Oh, you are a funny man Shtal.  No, the Bible is not proof of itself.  So sorry, but it doesn't work that way.  Your assertions do not count as proof of anything but your own convictions.  Those you are entitled to, but you are not entitled to your own facts.