Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[LIONOFZION]

I believe Firestorm would actually find it much more valuable to read a good study bible than any number of books on evolutionary theory.

" For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
Heb. 4:12

Just my humble opinion

 

[Richo83]

H2F? Any response?

 

[Barry Zuckercorn]

I just stumbled upon this thread now HP.

It's a good thread but I dont really get how you're trolling Judd here?

 

[Barry Zuckercorn]

This may be abit close minded on my part but i would think less of a person if i found out that they believed in intelligent design.

It would mean that they had completely ignored a huge amount of scientific evidence so they can continue to believe in creationism which has apsolutely no scientific evidence to back it up.

If you ignore scientific fact (which evolution is) then you are either stupid or incredibly delusional.

Not close minded at all my friend. Belief in intelligent design should be illegal and punishable by death.

 

[H2F]

What the **** are you crapping on about? Give up this ridiculous pretense that you're a scientist for christ's sake.

Newton - good guesser with little foundation for his theories? Are you kidding me? There probably wouldn't be science as we know it if it wasn't for Newton.

Newtonian mechanics were subsumed by Albert's GR Theories, not destroyed - they still exist as a subset of GR if I'm not mistaken. They were good enough to get man to the moon and back and could do the same for a Mars trip. Albert of course did revolutionize the way we look at the universe (Newton's universe basically) especially in terms of time and space.

Despite Albert's breakout 1905, Newton's Principia Mathematica remains man's greatest scientific masterpeice.

Einsteins imagination is what made him such a great Physicist. That is the character trait that stands him above all for mine. It was Einsteins imagination that enabled him to take Newtonian gravitational math and create special relativity.

By the way I read somewhere a few years ago that Einstein had a painting of Newton in his house, so it's nice to know my man thought highly of Newton, even though Newton turned into a sniper of fellow scientists in his twilight years. Again it shows the character of the two people and how Einstein did more to open the minds of mankind and our quest to seek out the Universe.

By the way wasn't Newtons Principia Mathematica just an incorrect theory of relativity anyway? As for your other stuff I will answer it later I am flat out ...

 

[The Captain]

Intelligent Design...Ha!

 

[Chief]

We should introduce a Hodge2Franklin Constant as a value for how much shit you talk in each post.

H2F dude you got served...

 

[Niximus]

H2F dude you got served...

Just hope he doesn't start with Achy Breaky Heart or...It's on!

 

[The rabbi]

I believe Firestorm would actually find it much more valuable to read a good study bible than any number of books on evolutionary theory.

" For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
Heb. 4:12

Just my humble opinion

I have no problem with him reading a bible or anything on Evolutionary biology. It is just a good idea when commenting on a topic to have done some work and are actually informed about it. Why not read both?

 

[LIONOFZION]

I have no problem with him reading a bible or anything on Evolutionary biology. It is just a good idea when commenting on a topic to have done some work and are actually informed about it. Why not read both?

Very true. You need to find out the truth for yourself and not blindly trust someone else's worldview just because they tell you it is truth, whether that someone be your high school science teacher, university professor, your parents or local pastor.

If there are two sides to a problem, it would be a very one-sided discussion if the participants only had an understanding of one of those sides.
Many atheists actually demonstrate a higher level of spiritual development than people who believe in a God (or Gods) purely on blind faith, because they are skeptics and actually question things.

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
2 Tim. 2:15

 

[Richo83]

Very true. You need to find out the truth for yourself and not blindly trust someone else's worldview just because they tell you it is truth, whether that someone be your high school science teacher, university professor, your parents or local pastor.

If there are two sides to a problem, it would be a very one-sided discussion if the participants only had an understanding of one of those sides.
Many atheists actually demonstrate a higher level of spiritual development than people who believe in a God (or Gods) purely on blind faith, because they are skeptics and actually question things.

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
2 Tim. 2:15

Wow, what a refreshing and honest take from the religious side.

 

[H2F]

You're talking meaningless twaddle again. Einstein himself called his cosmological constant his "biggest blunder". His 'god' was his much-loved concept of a static, finite yet unbounded universe but to keep it (from collapsing) he needed to tweak GR by introducing a force to oppose gravity - antigravity. His cosmological constant was the value given to antigravity so that it could act as a counterbalance to gravitational attraction and keep his static universe in a state of equilibrium. Once Hubble showed the universe was expanding, Albert had to admit his mistake.

Oh deary me, 'my greatest blunder' was finally solved half a century later by a space telescope. How stupid must I be?

Give me a break will you?

It is true that his cosmological constant did make a comeback in the 1990s when dark energy was postulated to explain the exponential expansion of the universe. Altho there are similarities between Albert's antigravity and dark energy, dark energy has little to do with Einstein and the cosmological constant did not "set us on the path to find" it (and Einstein and the constant have nothing to do nothing to do with dark matter). The cosmological constant is just a value that can be given to dark energy.

Make up your mind ... We all know that Dark Energy is Einsteins cosmological constant, so what else is there to be said here. Nice try

Interestingly, Albert's love of his static universe prevented him from seeing that his GR theory predicted an expanding universe (and therefore a big bang theory). If he had have seen that, he may have moved a bit closer to Newton as the greatest scientist. He also rejected much of quantum (esp the uncertainty bit) because of his concept of the universe.

Have a look at the EPR paper written by Einstein and a couple of subordinates if I recall. In it Einstein talks about particles of 'non-locality' I think that is the terminology, affecting each other. Obviously this could not occur with special relativity, so don't tell me Einstein hadn't looked hard at Quantam mechanics before raising some questions.

Now with all that you've got wrong, it's hard to see that your "evolutionary constant" and the references to "dark matter and dark energy" is anything other than unmitigated crap. Unless you'd like to expand on it....

We should introduce a Hodge2Franklin Constant as a value for how much shit you talk in each post.

This made me laugh. I deserved it.

 

[The rabbi]

Oh deary me, 'my greatest blunder' was finally solved half a century later by a space telescope. How stupid must I be?

Give me a break will you?

I would suggest that he was talking about Edwin Hubble the Astronomer not the telescope named after him. In 1929 Hubble reported the distance-redshift for galaxies. It was interpreted as arising from the universes expansion. In 1922 Aleksandr Friedman came up with the first model of an explicitly expanding universe but he died in 1925. In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Priest, formulated his own model for an expanding universe. Then in 1931 he formulated his "Big Bang model" as it came to be called. Although he did not invent that term. If I remember right it was Fred Hoyle who used it derogatively to mock the model that he thought was wrong.

 

[The rabbi]

"We should introduce a Hodge2Franklin Constant as a value for how much shit you talk in each post."

Java Blue, I try to avoid making or commenting on comments like this but it really did make my laugh. It is going into my "classic quotes" file.

 

[The rabbi]

Wow, what a refreshing and honest take from the religious side.

Come to the dark side Richo83. It is your destiny!!!!!

 

[JavaBlue]

I would suggest that he was talking about Edwin Hubble the Astronomer not the telescope named after him. In 1929 Hubble reported the distance-redshift for galaxies. It was interpreted as arising from the universes expansion. In 1922 Aleksandr Friedman came up with the first model of an explicitly expanding universe but he died in 1925. In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Priest, formulated his own model for an expanding universe. Then in 1931 he formulated his "Big Bang model" as it came to be called. Although he did not invent that term. If I remember right it was Fred Hoyle who used it derogatively to mock the model that he thought was wrong.

Yes and thx. It does seem H2F has got his Hubbles mixed up.

 

[H2F]

H2F got p3wned hard by JavaBlue.

I am thinking by admitting it I will be let off nicely.

Been 3 years coming.

 

[H2F]

H2F dude you got served...

[YOUTUBE]3EebObs-vC0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[JavaBlue]

H2F got p3wned hard by JavaBlue.

I am thinking by admitting it I will be let off nicely.

Been 3 years coming.

ok. Played. We'll call it a pawn each then...

 

[The rabbi]

The Hodge to Franklin Constant​

 

[The rabbi]

Here is a quote from St. Augustine who was the Bishop of Hippo in North Africa from 396-430 A.D.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens and the other elements of this world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and relative positions… Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of the Holy Scriptures, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

St Augustines Literal Commentary on Genesis (1.19.41):

This quote is for my Christian brothers and sisters.
Please take note.

Rabbi

​

 

[Chief]

Very true. You need to find out the truth for yourself and not blindly trust someone else's worldview just because they tell you it is truth, whether that someone be your high school science teacher, university professor, your parents or local pastor.

If there are two sides to a problem, it would be a very one-sided discussion if the participants only had an understanding of one of those sides.

But there are thousands of origin myths. Why do believers in the Abrahamic myths always seem to lay claim as being one of two sides to a story?

Unless the two sides are "fact" and "fiction". In which case, I'll leave it up to you to decide on which side the Old Testament and its various spin-offs sit.

 

[Chief]

Right. So your answer is to pick on typing mistakes. Your parents must be thrilled.

The first part was a short hand way of asking you to define the word - I truly didn't know which you meant.

This was my statement:

You say it can't be defined but start to define it by eliminating explanations.

Interesting that you focused on what you thought was a taunt and ignored the actual answer.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Often both sides of the debate are completely clueless.

[YOUTUBE]mICW7_llfR0[/YOUTUBE]

In response to what Fire Storm has posted on this thread and elsewhere.

[YOUTUBE]wKjxFJfcrcA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Chief]

Often both sides of the debate are completely clueless.

He's a young bloke who faltered or umm'ed and ah'ed when given some tricky, completely bogus, statements and questions by the stupid old creationist who has more practice at bamboozling an opponent with bullshit.