I may have to change my stance on this to give hooker some help. It seems to be hooker v. The rest of the forum lol Sent from my SGH-T959 using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2
Hey i sometimes question gravity... It can be a real ***** sometimes and electrons man they are everywhere i dont understand why more people are not complaining
I'm on Hook's side in this one, I don't see how it could be any other way. I've just kept silent because if I can't understand why more people don't see the science, then I'm sure as hell not going to be able to explain it
Well measuring the distance stars are from Earth is measurable. It's call Math. And you are skeptical of all observable science?
The earth has always fluctuated in temperature, now we just have people who were smart enough to con the gullible into believing they are responsible for it. Al Gore and company are laughing all the way to the bank.
Originally as I understand it. Darwin observed and described observable things and coined the term "natural selection." For example as someone on here described, the necks of some Giraffes being longer than those of other Girafffes. Those with shorter necks eventually starved because they were ill equipped to endure the stressful conditions of droughts etc... That may be observable through fossil records etc... but it does not require a change of genetic traits. It requires a passing on of existing superior traits (tallness) and a dying away of inferior traits (shortness). Based on what he saw, he postulated that one species seems to have evolved from another species because he observed similar structural traits among different species. Though he provided no proof, he predicted the fossil evidence would eventually be discovered linking one form of life to another. For example, since birds and dinosaurs both have similar anatomical structures, one must have "evolved" from the other. From there the term has been used to postulate how one kind of animal such as an amphibian can eventually evolve into another kind of animal... a human. That has not and likely will not become proven. However, because one aspect of "evolution" may be observable, it does not prove the theory of evolution in its entirety. Darwin himself believed a "missing link" would be found and as I recall, even stated that in the event the link is not found, his theory should be abandoned. So anyway, while certain evidences support certain observable examples of "evolution," the unobservable points make it impossible to prove "all" of evolution. That is where, I believe, most of the conflict comes from. Science that provides the unequivocable support required to truly be considered scientific fact is as you said undeniable and I, as a Bible believing Christian, have no problem with it. Our conflicts comes and I believe rightly so, when we make complete or partial assumptions without evidence because we see something in the natural world that "appears" explainable. I will take the same stance against Christians who make claims concerning what the Bible teaches but does not teach. While God gives us a great deal of insight into creation, there is much more that we are not told and as Christians, should not just make it up to win an argument. That makes us all look pretty silly IMO.
I completely agree, the is all political hype. Nobody wants dirty drinking water. But when you look into the politics of it , you"ll see how the government wants control of everything. Including your guilty conscience. We have global climate change with combustion engines or battery cars.
Even math has tolerances. There is a reasonable amount of variance. So what are the tolerances and what is the standard of which it is measured? Serious question. When they say a billion light years, what is the +- on that? I work with math daily and everything I do is set to a standard. I work in very small increments of math and there can be huge differences in tolerances. Typically we are not asked to work any closer than .0001 but there are standards set to .000005. But typically I work to .001. Temperature can affect our tolerances as well. And math is probably the most exact science there is. I guess I just have a hard time with absolutes. sent from my samsung note 2
speciation has been observed The micro vs macro evolution thing. Of course macro is not observable. We are looking at a very limited time frame in which we can currently observe. But to conclude that many occurances of micro evolution of a species over a billion years can create an entire new species is not an absurd notion. Yes, this is where the conflict comes from. That and a lot of misunderstanding of the term evolution and it's principles. Just read this thread. From many like observations, we can make some pretty accurate statements.
Speciation... that would be the trait changes of animals such as the stickleback fish that allowed them to change to a different environment. That would fall under the same category as the giraffe with the shorter neck dying off. Is that correct? Even in Genesis, God brought animals onto the ark by kind, not species. There was likely no Labrador Retrievers but dingos or wolves or something similar. Speciation is a form of adaptation which, yes, occurs naturally. But that is not evolution whereby a reptile becomes a mammal. That is why we have to be careful of our definitions because they sometimes get easily "cross pollinated" if we aren't careful and we end up conceding agreement with positions to which we are opposed.
Muzzy that was a lot of great info... But I think you lost me. I'm going to need to reread it when I get home from work lol Sent from my SGH-T959 using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2
Same here. But these types of discussions are fun. I enjoy them as long as everyone is debating with thought.
