Do You Believe In Evolution

[LittleNipper]

Oh groan.....I keep asking, how does a country with such a well-developed education system keep turning out people with such woeful knowledge about science....?

Nipper, I suppose that you would therefore claim that gravitational theory isn't a theory....?

The education system taught me to think and not just accept. I would claim that there is a force that holds the universe together. Your theory is that GOD has nothing to do with that ---- we can both call it gravity... It's still a miracle.

[Drawz]

The education system taught me to think and not just accept. I would claim that there is a force that holds the universe together. Your theory is that GOD has nothing to do with that ---- we can both call it gravity... It's still a miracle.

It's not a theory that God has nothing to do with gravity. There just isn't any evidence that He does.

[Koushi Shinigami]

The education system taught me to think and not just accept.



(snip)

Wait a second. Isn't that exactly what you are here claiming the educational system DOES NOT do?

[Koushi Shinigami]

When something works it is not a theory. The proof is in the car. As I said----- practical science.

Nope. Those are all still theories. The fact that they work means that we still use them. If a better theory is developed, it will replace one currently in use and knowledge will advance.

At one time there was an aerodynamic theory there was a sound barrier. That theory was used in aircraft design until a theory was developed that would allow us too travel faster than sound. Then that theory replaced the old one. It took a lot of experimentation and testing, but eventually, it was worked out.

[captusa]

Simply because it goes against what God has put forth in the Bible. That Word of God, tells him he is a sinner and Christ came as his Savior and died & arose on his behalf. If one cannot have faith in the Creator God's record, how can said christian place his faith in his Savior God's message... You explain that. And it would seem to me, that if I'm arrogant for making a fellow christian question his faith, what exactly is the christian who says God's Word is invalided according to the wisdom of men?

I can't argue your point but you can take it up with the billion or so Catholics and their theologians and scientists that accept evolution as being consistant with Christianity.
YOU can have a different opinion but are arrogant in concluding that your opinion on Christianity supercedes the Pope and billions of Catholics that consider themselves Christians even if they disagree with you.

[captusa]

Well, the last I heard I still live in a Republic that once supported the first amendment.

And the 1st Amendment implies that you nor anyone else (Jew, Moslem, Catholic...) can use the government to impose your religious beliefs as fact.

[captusa]

The education system taught me to think and not just accept. I would claim that there is a force that holds the universe together. Your theory is that GOD has nothing to do with that ---- we can both call it gravity... It's still a miracle.

Accepting Einstein's Deistic view, God created a universe with innate immutable laws.
Science attempts to discover those laws and the Creator does not, did not and will not change those immutable laws.

[biggles53]

Simply because it goes against what God has put forth in the Bible. That Word of God, tells him he is a sinner and Christ came as his Savior and died & arose on his behalf. If one cannot have faith in the Creator God's record, how can said christian place his faith in his Savior God's message... You explain that. And it would seem to me, that if I'm arrogant for making a fellow christian question his faith, what exactly is the christian who says God's Word is invalided according to the wisdom of men?

The question you keep failing to address (and I can see that it would be embarassing for you) is NOT your justification for feeling differently about what the Bible does or doesn't say...........it is your insistence that those who support evolutionary theory are gainsaying the word of your god.

So, I ask again........what part of you thinking that you know better than all those other Christians, who no doubt also have read their Bibles and come to their conclusions, isn't an example of "arrogance".....?

[biggles53]

at least you admit it...

Honestly though, Im not sure if my view of you is different or if you have actually changed your style; but I dont find you as condescending or arrogant as I used to.

I'm a marshmallow...you know that Cam...

[biggles53]

The education system taught me to think and not just accept.

Hahaha.......the irony.....!! Mate, your position STARTS at acceptance....! Your bottom line is that there must be a god.........everything else that you learn or understand is made to fit that baseline belief....if a piece of science disagrees with your belief then science must be wrong. That's not "thinking", that's blind acceptance of dogma.......

I would claim that there is a force that holds the universe together.

There are several and we can measure them.....

Your theory is that GOD has nothing to do with that

Not quite....'my' theory makes no comment about gods - it works perfectly well without considering them....

---- we can both call it gravity... It's still a miracle.

No....it's physics....

[camarozz]

I'm a marshmallow...you know that Cam...

Soft and Squishy?

Great toasted on an open fire?

[biggles53]

Soft and Squishy?

Great toasted on an open fire?

I'm hoping you Christians stopped doing that to us unbelievers some time ago...........

[camarozz]

I'm hoping you Christians stopped doing that to us unbelievers some time ago...........

only if you're not a witch...

[tzor]

So, is any of this going to enable time travel or interstellar space travel.

I'm a little late on this part of the discussion, so I apologise if this wasn't covered already but basically no. The Higgs particle is a part of the Standard Model that does not account for either gravity or general relativity. You need to get into the Super Standard Model that addresses Supersymetry in order to get into that area.

(You know what the ironic part of interstellar space travel is? It's not relativity - general or specific - because if you could get close enough to the speed of light you could easily visit places hundreds of light years away in little time - the earth would have experienced hundreds of years of history when you return but that's a minor point. The real problem is that even imagined propulsion systems can barely get us to speeds where relativity becomes a factor in the equations. If you could come up with a system you wouldn't survive the acceleration.)

[tzor]

You're not nit-picking.....you're just completely ignoring the point I was making...! That point was NOT about theories concerning tides; it was NOT about circular vs eliptical orbits.......the explanation has already been well made that science is all about correcting errors in knowledge. The point being made was that C and G's work was at odds with the scripturally based claim that the earth lay at the centre of the universe. They demonstrated this to be false. Did they get everything right...? Of course not. Scientific endeavour rarely 'gets it all right' in the first instance - that's why we keep searching..!

And you have completely ignored my point. The example is not a case of scripture trying to dominate science. The sceintific theory was literally above everyone's heads and was, as a result, generally ignored. The real problem was when he attempted to use this exceptionally technical (and ironically incorrect) argument to push that SCRIPTURE was in error.

Thus is was not a case of scripture suggesting that science was in error, but science suggesting that scripture was in error.