Political Correctness and Darwin

[sudden valley gunner]

If you believe that God created our universe (I do), then it is reasonable to believe that He created that feature of our universe that we call "time." Therefore, He exists outside of time. He might communicate that idea to folks without science by saying something along the lines of "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Good point. And if you look at the bible there is no definitive time frame for the creation of earth.

If I hadn't moved to agnosticism, I would state and hell I guess I still could, that the days are not a literal day or the days mentioned later on that would equate each day to 7,000 years by some interpretations. A day was simply meant as a period of time. Like an elderly person may say "back in my day" simply meaning an era, if you look at the biblical word for day the same way in that context it could be an undistinguished amount of time.

 

[Mr Birdman]

Evidence

You more philosophical types may enjoy this wiki article on "Criteria of Truth".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth

For example, it looks like all have some problems, but "coherence", "consistency" and "correspondence" are the least problematic.



Notice, "Coherence" sounds very much like what a scientist would recognize as a "Theory" and is as close to "proof" as humans are able to come, due to our inherent inability to acquire all facts. This is also why Newtons "laws" of motion, while wrong at a fundamental level (since they don't take into account relativistic effects), work quite well for most situations. When Einstein came along, did we through out all of Newton's work and start over? Nope. We build knowledge on prior knowledge and sometimes throw out archaic, incorrect explanations. Newton knew a celestial object had an elliptical orbit. What he didn't know was the foci of the ellipse moved. Now we do know that and the reason why. Coherence. Our fundamental understanding was incorrect, and now we are closer to understanding what is really going on.

Evolution is exactly the same as the above example. Mankind has been artificially selecting plants and animals for millenia. Nature has been doing so for billions of years. The evidence is overwhelming. Evolution is an observable fact. The Theory of Natural Selection is currently the only coherent theory explaining what we observe and it does so in a spectacularly successful and accurate way. There is no "controversy" to teach and it is extremely unlikely the theory of natural selection will be supplanted, only refined.

Once again you keep mentioning evidence but neglect to offer any proof. EVERY THING THAT HAS EVER EVER EVER BEEN USED TO PROVE EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A LIE. So why do you keep saying that there is evidence but never never never provide any proof of it? Saying it happened that way because you do not believe in God is NOT PROOF.

 

[Mr Birdman]

Days

Good point. And if you look at the bible there is no definitive time frame for the creation of earth.

If I hadn't moved to agnosticism, I would state and hell I guess I still could, that the days are not a literal day or the days mentioned later on that would equate each day to 7,000 years by some interpretations. A day was simply meant as a period of time. Like an elderly person may say "back in my day" simply meaning an era, if you look at the biblical word for day the same way in that context it could be an undistinguished amount of time.

So what you are saying that when God told the Jews in Exodus to work 6 days and take the rest of your life off? The Bible is clear on what a day is. It is not a (period of time) it is 24 hrs repeated over and over again.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

So what you are saying that when God told the Jews in Exodus to work 6 days and take the rest of your life off? The Bible is clear on what a day is. It is not a (period of time) it is 24 hrs repeated over and over again.

Do you even read things context?

 

[Mr Birdman]

Ice core

And yet the science easily refutes any such ridiculous claim:



http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php

The ice core data ties *extremely* closely with other sources such as dates of known volcanic eruptions.

No global flood either in the last million years - lol.

Ice core data?:shocker:You must be kidding what have you been smoking? Never heard of the lost squadron?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Hey Birdman no need PM me. Don't worry I can handle what ever you have to say to me in public.

The discussion between Eye and I were on the specific biblical passages dealing with creation we understood that.

So let me make this clearer to you, in my example an elderly person can say back in my day, when talking to their grandchild and mean an era, at the same time he can say you have one day to clean up your room meaning a literal day. Context.

 

[marshaul]

Did you ever read the Nazi gospels? There was even a documentary show on the History channel not long ago. It is clear that Hitler was a evolutionists he thought he was just getting rid of human weeds. Didn't you here what he said about Jessie Owens? He said it was not fair for his men to compete against such animals.

"Evolutionism" ≠ eugenics.

 

[marshaul]

Oh, and:

EVERY THING THAT HAS EVER EVER EVER BEEN USED TO PROVE EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A LIE.

EVERY THING THAT HAS EVERY BEEN USED TO PROVE CREATIONISM HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A LIE.

I win.

 

[slowfiveoh]

 

[eye95]

Good point. And if you look at the bible there is no definitive time frame for the creation of earth.

If I hadn't moved to agnosticism, I would state and hell I guess I still could, that the days are not a literal day or the days mentioned later on that would equate each day to 7,000 years by some interpretations. A day was simply meant as a period of time. Like an elderly person may say "back in my day" simply meaning an era, if you look at the biblical word for day the same way in that context it could be an undistinguished amount of time.

Could well be. Spencer Tracy makes that argument in Inherit the Wind. Good movie, but a bit ham-handed. Anyway, I don't need that possibility for my faith. The Bible says it took seven days, whatever those seven days were, I accept on faith that God wants me to believe that He created all that we know of in "seven days."

That does not mean that I cannot appreciate science and what it can do for us or cannot appreciate theories as to the origin of things based on observation of how things are now. We just all need to realize that we don't know of the twists and turns things went through getting here, so we can't know for certain how exactly we got here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[georg jetson]

View attachment 10997

You're missin the boat dude. Theory = "attempted explanation". The explanation is about an observable fact. As in our example before: Gravity = fact. Theory of gravity = attempted explanation. You'll get it eventually.

 

[georg jetson]

Could well be. Spencer Tracy makes that argument in Inherit the Wind. Good movie, but a bit ham-handed. Anyway, I don't need that possibility for my faith. The Bible says it took seven days, whatever those seven days were, I accept on faith that God wants me to believe that He created all that we know of in "seven days."

That does not mean that I cannot appreciate science and what it can do for us or cannot appreciate theories as to the origin of things based on observation of how things are now. We just all need to realize that we don't know of the twists and turns things went through getting here, so we can't know for certain how exactly we got here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Dis frickin guy... never ceases to amaze me!

We should always consider that not all things are knowable.

 

[georg jetson]

Oh, and:



EVERY THING THAT HAS EVERY BEEN USED TO PROVE CREATIONISM HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A LIE.

I win.

No win. A tie.

 

[Mr Birdman]

lie

Oh, and:



EVERY THING THAT HAS EVERY BEEN USED TO PROVE CREATIONISM HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A LIE.

I win.

No dork no one has ever tried to prove that duhhhhhhh

 

[Mr Birdman]

lie

More directly, he obviously has great faith in proxy data. Ice cores make good low radioactivity drinks, but there is many a logic misstep from an ice core to stratigraphy. Come on down to WattsUpWithThat.com to learn how proxy data is abused to political ends.

To be sure, I am more comfortable arguing (i.e., defending) a 4.5 billion year old Earth than a ~6000 year old.

How can you be comfortable defending a lie and not science?

 

[slowfiveoh]

You're missin the boat dude. Theory = "attempted explanation". The explanation is about an observable fact. As in our example before: Gravity = fact. Theory of gravity = attempted explanation. You'll get it eventually.

You are too shallow I guess to have this conversation.

The "observation" is that when something is released, it falls down. We named the explanation for this action, to include the math and all other datum, "Gravity". Gravity describes the observation but is ALSO the name of the overall phenomenon, which is in fact the totality of its data. Gravity is NOT merely "falling down". Gravity is the explanation FOR the phenomenon OF falling down, or mass attraction.

Gravity: F = G × [(m1m2)/r²]

"Gravity" as the word is in fact the entirety of the theory. Hence, "Theory of Gravity".

The "observable fact" is "falling". This is not "Gravity". "Gravity" is far more inclusive than that.

It's like when we use the term barometric, or thermodynamic, and thousands of other terms.

Whens the last time you told somebody they "gravitated" off the chair, and you thought it was hilarious?

-The victim "gravitated" (fell, maybe?) to her death in her successful suicide attempt.
-The ball "gravitated" (fell, maybe?) to the tarmac after being hit harshly into the sky by the tennis racket.
-The young sparrow chick "gravitated" (fell, maybe?) out of its nest with a minor forward nudge.

Falling is the action of attractive acceleration of the smaller mass to the larger mass minus any force propelling it.
Gravity is the theory explaining why things fall, amongst other things.

Get it?

"Falling" = action observed.
"Gravity" = theory explaining why.

Class dismissed.
Let me know when you're competent to have this conversation. I'm sure your humility is sure to follow.

 

[eye95]

That attempted explanation turns out to be wrong. It is a good estimate, but not perfect. Einstein got it better, but current theory even disputes that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[marshaul]

Whens the last time you told somebody they "gravitated" off the chair, and you thought it was hilarious?

-The victim "gravitated" (fell, maybe?) to her death in her successful suicide attempt.
-The ball "gravitated" (fell, maybe?) to the tarmac after being hit harshly into the sky by the tennis racket.
-The young sparrow chick "gravitated" (fell, maybe?) out of its nest with a minor forward nudge.

Properly used, the term "gravitate" derives from a stricter usage than you give it credit for (unless I'm misinterpreting your point).

Gravity is, after all, the mutual attractive force between any two massive objects. Gravity, of course, rather than making things "fall", makes them move toward one another. And what does my dictionary say?

gravitate |ˈgraviˌtāt|
verb [ no obj. ]
move toward or be attracted to a place, person, or thing

Yup.

 

[slowfiveoh]

Properly used, the term "gravitate" derives from a stricter usage than you give it credit for (unless I'm misinterpreting your point).

Gravity is, after all, the mutual attractive force between any two massive objects. Gravity, of course, rather than making things "fall", makes them move toward one another. And what does my dictionary say?



Yup.

You're misinterpreting the scientific term. I'm not using the word in any sense but the scientific sense. When two masses are drawn towards each other via the force of gravity, it is "gravitation". Its in the etymology of the word, derived from its root.

When you hear two astrophysicists talking about the drawing of two celestial bodies together, the term often used is "gravitate". You would not say the planets, for example, are "falling" towards each other.

This is to disambiguate the perceived act of "falling", and the totality of "gravity".


This is actually pointing out my entire point far better than you give it credit for here. Either you or Eye (Especially georg jetson).

These are SCIENTIFIC terms, and the inability to embrace them as such because you are used to them being used in normal vernacular is a major hold-up to actually understanding them for what they are.

When we use "gravity" in everyday conversation, it is actually meant to convey seriousness of a situation.
When we use "gravitation/gravitate" in every day conversation, they are used to define the "drawing of individuals together".

When you use "gravity" in science, you are talking about: F = G × [(m1m2)/r²].
When you use "gravitation" in science, you are using it to describe a specific drawing together of masses effected upon by the force of "gravity".
When you use "gravitate" in science, it is used to describe the motion of two masses under the influence of "gravity".

However, in all cases, they are not in their root form, UNLESS they are being used to describe: F = G × [(m1m2)/r²].


This is so perfectly pointing out the problem with two separate strict meanings, but for the purpose of scientific application, only gravity meaning F = G × [(m1m2)/r²] matters.

This is just like, I mean exactly, how people do not understand the term "theory" in its strict, scientific application.


Oh, and:

gravitate


Verb

1 move toward; "The conversation gravitated towards politics"
2 be attracted to; "Boys gravitate towards girls at that age"
3 move due to the pull of gravitation; "The stars gravitate towards each other"




One of these is more precise than the others. One of these is used to describe the motion of stellar objects with mass being drawn to each other.

The others are more interesting in social settings, and not likely a function of actual gravity, but behaviors or actions actually caused by something else other than gravity.

I know some of you have dated fat chicks, but not all of you could have been drawn literally to a larger mass.

:lol::banana:

 

[marshaul]

You're misinterpreting the scientific term. I'm not using the word in any sense but the scientific sense. When two masses are drawn towards each other via the force of gravity, it is "gravitation". Its in the etymology of the word, derived from its root.

When you hear two astrophysicists talking about the drawing of two celestial bodies together, the term often used is "gravitate". You would not say the planets, for example, are "falling" towards each other.

This is to disambiguate the perceived act of "falling", and the totality of "gravity".


This is actually pointing out my entire point far better than you give it credit for here. Either you or Eye (Especially georg jetson).

These are SCIENTIFIC terms, and the inability to embrace them as such because you are used to them being used in normal vernacular is a major hold-up to actually understanding them for what they are.

When we use "gravity" in everyday conversation, it is actually meant to convey seriousness of a situation.
When we use "gravitation/gravitate" in every day conversation, they are used to define the "drawing of individuals together".

When you use "gravity" in science, you are talking about: F = G × [(m1m2)/r²].
When you use "gravitation" in science, you are using it to describe a specific drawing together of masses effected upon by the force of "gravity".
When you use "gravitate" in science, it is used to describe the motion of two masses under the influence of "gravity".

However, in all cases, they are not in their root form, UNLESS they are being used to describe: F = G × [(m1m2)/r²].


This is so perfectly pointing out the problem with two separate strict meanings, but for the purpose of scientific application, only gravity meaning F = G × [(m1m2)/r²] matters.

This is just like, I mean exactly, how people do not understand the term "theory" in its strict, scientific application.


Oh, and:

gravitate


Verb

1 move toward; "The conversation gravitated towards politics"
2 be attracted to; "Boys gravitate towards girls at that age"
3 move due to the pull of gravitation; "The stars gravitate towards each other"




One of these is more precise than the others. One of these is used to describe the motion of stellar objects with mass being drawn to each other.

The others are more interesting in social settings, and not likely a function of actual gravity, but behaviors or actions actually caused by something else other than gravity.

I know some of you have dated fat chicks, but not all of you could have been drawn literally to a larger mass.

:lol::banana:

I'm sorry, but your definition is contrary to modern usage, including strict scientific usage.

"Gravitation" is, in my experience, used in a qualitative sense and never used to refer to objects with mere gravitational influence on one another (stellar objects in orbit, etc). It specifically refers to the fact of one object decidedly moving towards another, independent of the cause of the force.

Let's see what my dictionary says:

gravitate |ˈgraviˌtāt|
verb [ no obj. ]
move toward or be attracted to a place, person, or thing: they gravitated to the Catholic faith in their hour of need.
• Physics - move, or tend to move, toward a center of gravity or other attractive force.
• archaic - descend or sink by the force of gravity.

Pay attention to the bolded parts.

Yup.