Dinosaurs are not real :(

Scougar said:
Hopefully you are not referring to me mrk? I'd love to see a universal sized repeatable test of the big bang ;-)
Click to expand...

Not referring to a particular person, more persons who have displayed a lack of understanding somewhat :p

Anyway, as for your post above, we've already observed the birth of a star system far far away, we already know that a star is born from a singularity and the expansion of our Universe suggests that if put in reverse then everything moves back into a single point. There's a lot more to go in with this theory too but that's basically the gist of it.

There are many scientific theories as to how our Universe started and up at the top is the big bang Theory because it fits the models and evidence that is out there.

The only issue is humans still have a hard time understanding that something can happen from seemingly absolutely nothing - It can happen and does though.

Don't get me wrong, I come from a religious background and do and will follow the cultural traditions that I have been brought up with, but even I know when to stand back and use logic instead of faith.

Truth is that modern day science relies of Mathematics and evidence gathering, theories are then constructed using those models and the theory is continually built upon. On the flip side, modern day religion has had to evolve to work alongside modern day science because if it didn't then it would still be condemning people to whatever fate lay before them.

Besides all that though I always ask myself this, if I follow one God then where do the tens of millions of other people who follow another faith end up when they die? If there's only one God then why are there other religions, why isn't the entire world one religion? Surely God would want his children to only follow him and not any other God since he's the only God?

It just doesn't fit, it feels more artificial, like something man has created over time for the purpose of control, which doesn't work so well in the modern age.

If there is a God then I want to speaks to him because I have many curious questions and I am sure he will enjoy having such a deep conversation, I do not want to hear from another man telling me that God said XYZ because I don't trust what man has to say because I know that man lies and man cannot be trusted. And that's what it boils down to, why doesn't God power down from the sky and tell the world "Look, this is me, I created you and therefore you should worship me otherwise hell awaits" instead of thousands of years of Chinese whispers and revised editions of holy books and billions of lives lost through religious conflict in the process.

I haven't fully proof read everything above as I'm on a short lunch but will check back tonight, just in case someone decides to get shirty :p
 
kedge said:
There are about 20 different types of eyes. Some work with a lens, others work with reflecting surfaces; others (as with the Nautilis) work as in a pinhole camera. The point is, they work--they are fully developed. You don't see a creature that can't see but has only an optical nerve, or only a lens, or only a retina. Many components are needed for sight, even for the Nautilis.
Click to expand...

Yes, each one with varying effectiveness. What about Astyanax jordani, a fish that has evolved to not have eyes due to the lack of light in its environment?

Also, how would you define photoreceptor proteins? They can sense ambient light but are unable to define shapes or the direction of the light. They're not complete eyes and represent how most eyes would have initially began, before evolving to the various levels of complexity that now exist.
 
jmc007 said:
In fact it is, we could go on all day. We are splitting hairs over a stupid point and tbh it is my fault, did I say "Gods literal word."? I think not.
The Jews do not believe the Torah is Gods word, baloney, the Talmud says that God dictated four books of the Torah, but that Moses wrote Deuteronomy in his own words.
I think this statement from the Judaism reform, "We affirm that Torah is a manifestation of (ahavat olam), God's eternal love for the Jewish people and for all humanity." sums up my idea of Gods word.
Click to expand...

That is not the literal word of God however, which is the precise terminology I was disputing with Usher and you decided I was the ill-informed one. I also did not refer to the Torah, but to the Hebrew Bible in it's entirety as in the Tanakh, the difference in context I will explain in a moment....

The fact is that Biblical Inerrancy is entirely subjective and that the mainstream Christian denominations do not take the Bible to be the literal word of God and that there is significant difference between how Conservative Literalism and the Mainstream Christianity define Biblical inerrancy. Evangelical belief assumes that Moses received the first Five books by direct revelation, whereas both Modern Judaism and mainstream Christianity believe that it was received by divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit, and rather than being the Literal Word of God it is a central book in the Jewish and Christian canon that provides guidance on the relationship between man and God as well as a symbolic history of the Jewish People.

As for the Torah, it is Jewish Tradition that the Pentateuch was revealed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai and as such is the Word of God (although as I have pointed out, the Literal Word of God and the Inspired Word of God are two separate definitions), however the Torah is only a part, albeit the foundation of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the Hebrew Bible includes narratives, histories and prophecies that are not necessarily considered the Word of God, let alone the Literal Word of God.....added to this are the Oral Traditions associated with Judaism and we again have a significant difference between The Literal Word of God and the Inspired Word of God and how the respective texts are considered.

Neither the Christian or Hebrew Bibles are considered the Literal Word of God in the same way that the Qu'ran is. That is not to say that they do not contain the word of God or that in some parts they do not specifically say "And the Lord said......" etc and thus have a literal meaning in that particular context, however Academically speaking the Texts, when taken as a whole are not the literal word of God, they may contain the word of God, but they also contain metaphor, symbolism, histories, traditions, and so on that are not directly related to revelation and as the quotes from various sources I pointed to in my original response testify, they are not to be taken literally as a whole.

Fritz Rothchild states in his book "Truth & Metaphor of the Bible" , which is about Jewish Biblical Exegesis:
"The view that the Bible contains God's message to man has led to ever new interpretations, since it constantly forced believing readers of the Bible to reconcile the words of the sacred text with whatever they held to be true on the basis of their own experience, the canons of logic, contemporary science, and their moral insights.... The traditionalist will always feel called upon to interpret the text so that it reflects not ancient error but the highest standards of trustworthy knowledge and insight of his own time."
Click to expand...

Effectively it is about the concepts rather than the words that are important to Judaism (and Christianity), that the world was created by God, that he planned and designed the world for Man. The other details of the biblical accounts should not be taken literally, but metaphorically or symbolically.

Thus a literal reading of the Bible, misses the point of the Bible itself, which by it's own contradictions doesn't support literal interpretation. Like poetry and certain kinds of prose, which sometimes speak in metaphors and symbols, the Bible as a whole does not intend these stories to be taken literally. It is about the message and getting that message over to the people in words and concepts they will understand. This is what both Christianity and Judaism regard as the mainstream status of their respective Bibles.

Incidentally, which Christian denomination are you.....from your reference to Moses I would assume Mormon or similar?
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
:confused:

So now you are saying that since an intermediate structure cannot be found that is similar to 'a creature that can't see but has only an optical nerve, or only a lens or only a retina', that the eye remains a mystery?

I just wanted to check you are actually saying that.
Click to expand...
Eh!, what?.....

What was disscussed previously.... all organs appear fully developed, you then said the nautilus has a partly developed EYE, but the nautilus has a fully functioning eye so it is not partly developed.
 
Raikiri said:
Yes, each one with varying effectiveness. What about Astyanax jordani, a fish that has evolved to not have eyes due to the lack of light in its environment?

Also, how would you define photoreceptor proteins? They can sense ambient light but are unable to define shapes or the direction of the light. They're not complete eyes and represent how most eyes would have initially began, before evolving to the various levels of complexity that now exist.
Click to expand...
According to your theory. Are you talking about the "blind fish"?, probably due to loss of a function in other words degeneration not macroevolution.
 
Not the old eye argument again. The nonsense about the eye having to exist as a complete organ or not at all has been disproven by science. Read the Wikipedia article on the evolution of the eye. Whilst I understand that people don't automatically like Wiki articles, this one is a short summation and references "hard" science papers, i.e. peer-reviewed publications.

Also, there was a lovely summation of the scientific background for the Big Bang by Stephen Hawkins on a series called "Curiosity", in a programe entitled "Does God exist?". Worthy of a watch, IF you have an open mind.
 
Last edited:
kedge said:
According to your theory. Are you talking about the "blind fish"?, probably due to loss of a function in other words degeneration not macroevolution.
Click to expand...

Not a loss of function, no, that would suggest that they still have eyes. It's an evolutionary split, the same species in two different environments and one has changed. Evolution doesn't always mean gaining something.

And what about my other question? Photoreceptor proteins are incomplete eyes, are they not?
 
bhavv said:
No my ideas were purely based on Biology.

The only way it is possible to create a human child is with a human sperm and egg. If you even had the most basic GSCE level understanding of genetics, you would know this.

Jesus would have needed half of his chromosomes to have come from a human father to be a valid human offspring, his existance would have only been possible if he had a human father that had impregnated Mary.

Now according to the bible, Jesus's father was God, and therefore according to genetics, God cant have been anything other than human.

A 'holy ghost' cannot create a human child, it is 100% impossible, and no amount of faith can deny basic proven science. The only way Jesus could have existed is if his father was a human.
Click to expand...
That's understandable because of your basic worldview. Your allowance of the acceptance of a spirit person such as God is not permitted in your day to day scenarios.
 
kedge said:
According to your theory. Are you talking about the "blind fish"?, probably due to loss of a function in other words degeneration not macroevolution.
Click to expand...

If the loss of function would have been due to a DNA variation, which was then passed on to future generations which were able to suceed in their environment, then yes, that would be an evolutionary change.

Nowhere does evolution state that evolutionary changes have to be physically beneficial or an improvement' Any genetic change which creates a new phenotype which allows the organism to succeed in its environment is an example of evolution.
 
Raikiri said:
And what about my other question? Photoreceptor proteins are incomplete eyes, are they not?
Click to expand...
I'm not a scientist, why don't you challenge Dr Walt Brown in a scientific written debate, hey, it's been open for 31 years and yet no scientist will accept his offer, what are they afraid of?. Why has there never been a proper public dialogue of science on science?.
 
kedge said:
Eh!, what?.....

What was disscussed previously.... all organs appear fully developed, you then said the nautilus has a partly developed EYE, but the nautilus has a fully functioning eye so it is not partly developed.
Click to expand...

Haha, no, that's not what I said.

The argument from creationist is there can be no intermediate eye structure from the human eye. The nautilus shows this is possible. Yes, it is a fully functioning eye, of course it is. But it shows that it is not necessary for all components of the human eye to be as it is in order to function as an eye.

Asking to see an animal that has 'just an optical nerve or just a lens' is, at it's best, an amusing question based on misunderstanding, or at it's worst, an infuriatingly stupid one based on trying so hard to find an inconsistency that it disregards logic altogether.

You are not going to find such a thing as evolution just doesn't work that way, why would it select for something entirely pointless? Likewise, you obviously don't find mammals with fleshless bones protruding out of their torsos nor would you expect to find them. Instead, arms ancestrally evolved from something very un-arm like to becoming arm like with all parts developing slowly over millions of years. Evolution does not suggest that first of all a bone pops out, then a few thousand years later some muscle appears and then skin etc. It's the same with the eye.
 
kedge said:
I'm not a scientist, why don't you challenge Dr Walt Brown in a scientific written debate, hey, it's been open for 31 years and yet no scientist will accept his offer, what are they afraid of?. Why has there never been a proper public dialogue of science on science?.
Click to expand...

Because it's complete crap! It's like asking me to engage with a 5000 year debate with a goldfish over the merits that Tiger Woods brought to the world of golf. There is nothing to be gained from wasting time on someone who is frankly an idiot.
 
kedge said:
I'm not a scientist, why don't you challenge Dr Walt Brown in a scientific written debate, hey, it's been open for 31 years and yet no scientist will accept his offer, what are they afraid of?. Why has there never been a proper public dialogue of science on science?.
Click to expand...

Because what Dr. Walt Brown claims isn't science, and he would do exactly what you're doing now when faced with evidence against his beliefs; he would try to change the subject.
 
bhavv said:
Nowhere does evolution state that evolutionary changes have to be physically beneficial or an improvement'.
Click to expand...
What!, eh! ??, evolutionary scientists claim bacteria evolved over eons of time into a human being, so of course there would have to be major organ transitions etc a distinctive beneficial change, they claim that life came from none living matter, all observations show that life comes only from life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom