I would like to know why...

Originally posted by Halitose
IOkay, be my guest. Prove Christianity wrong.

I realize this was in response to someone else's proposition, but...

...there's enough evidence to conclude Christianity is based on fiction (and/or mythology), in my opinion...obviously not yours. Since you will make the statement that Christianity is truth and is a fact, the onus would be on you to prove it so.

Originally posted by David C
I realize this was in response to someone else's proposition, but...

...there's enough evidence to conclude Christianity is based on fiction (and/or mythology), in my opinion...obviously not yours. Since you will make the statement that Christianity is truth and is a fact, the onus would be on you to prove it so.

Christianity is my belief, and as such is my "truth"; I do not however, demand you to recognise it as such. Hence I take mainly a defensive (and easier) position to this proposition.

Originally posted by Halitose
Christianity is my belief, and as such is my "truth"; I do not however, demand you to recognise it as such. Hence I take mainly a defensive (and easier) position to this proposition.

Bravo!

edit: How's the weather up there on that High Road? Fair to imaginary? 😉

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It is relatively rare for scientific theories to be changed wholesale. For example, Newton's theories of gravity have remained relatively unchanged for the last 5 centuries or so. Darwin's theory of evolution is, itself evolving, but has not significantly changed since Darwin penned it in 1859. The revisions that are being made in science are made ...[text shortened]... 't fit with their world view, they try to change the world to fit in with their own prejudices.

First off, creationism has nothing to do with my particular conversation here. Second, Newton's theories are a perfect example of a total rethinking of scientific law. Einstein's relativity was necessary to explain velocities near the speed of light and extreme gravitational fields. As you may know, he completely rejected the absolute space and linear time that were the foundations of Newton's ideas. He combined the two into a space-time and explained gravity in terms of geometry.....hardly a slight modification. On top of that, we have found Newtonian physics to fail at the molecular level as well. Quantum mechanics lies in direct contradiction to Newton on many heads, one of which is a probabilistic vs. deterministic predictability of motion. If you think Newton's law has remained constant, you would have been right in the 1800's.

Originally posted by David C
Bravo!

edit: How's the weather up there on that High Road? Fair to imaginary? 😉

How's the weather up there on that High Road? Fair to imaginary? 😉

Lol, its misty, dreary, lonely and cold at the moment.

Originally posted by Halitose
As the self-proclaimed biologist on this forum, I'm sure you'd be able to help me.

One of the processes in the greater Theory of Evolution is abiogenesis or spontaneous generation. Has science ever produced life from non-life? Perhaps simulated within the crude pre-biotic environments that were supposed to spawn so great a process. By life I mean the ...[text shortened]... o acids were produced with a lovely wishful-thinking explanation of how this would produce life.

The experiment where amino acids were produced from the simple constituants and an abundant energy supply is not, of course, universal proof that this is how life evolved. However these amino acids were produced in a small tub in a matter of a couple of weeks. During the evolution of early life there actually was a period of between 50,000 and 150,000 years when life was thought to evolve, and also in terms of scale instead of a small beaker there were the entire oceans for life to evolve in. The first 'life' probably wasn't very alive at all, it probably represented a simple version of modern day viruses, which can only be classed as semi-alive. All the original 'organisms' had to do was replicate their primative genetic material (probably RNA), once the environment started to run short on resources then natural selection would kick in favouring the more stable genetic configurations. Over thousands of millions of billions of relications / generations, these simple living / non-living organisms became more complex.

I'm afraid the details are rather sketchy, but hey, it was about 4 billion years ago.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The experiment where amino acids were produced from the simple constituants and an abundant energy supply is not, of course, universal proof that this is how life evolved. However these amino acids were produced in a small tub in a matter of a couple of weeks. During the evolution of early life there actually was a period of between 50,000 and 150,000 ...[text shortened]... mplex.

I'm afraid the details are rather sketchy, but hey, it was about 4 billion years ago.

Don't viruses need hosts to reproduce?

Originally posted by Will Everitt
Well I would expect that a cell would folow the same principles of evolution that a bird would for example a cell with more mitochondira does better then one with fewer. I am not 100% sure about thsi as i know little on the subject but i can imagine a cell might find it does better when it is next to another cell for example if a waste product of one is ...[text shortened]... vast times this process would take and if you imagine it to quickly the it would seem unlikely.

Yes, that's Lynn Marquilus' endosymbiotic theory. Not bad!!

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]I disagree. God has created man with the ability conceptualize and reason.

This is true.

II Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and a sound mind.

God has given us the ability to discover the mysteries of his creation.

Science is a human establishment of reason designed to descr ...[text shortened]... versa. Just because we haven’t figured it out yet does not mean that the two are not connected.

We seem to have opposite views here on one point. I'm not sure I can convince you to change your mind, but you seem to be saying that : scientific law=the physical universe
I'm saying exactly the opposite.
Here are some of my reasons:
1. I agree when you say that the physical world is constant and would continue without our existence. (although I can't really know that, I guess)
2. If science could accurately describe a physical world, i.e. if it was true according to the correspondence theory, it would reflect the unchanging nature of the physical world.
3. Science is not static, it changes. Often the changes are quite drastic, with previous axioms and basic ideas overturned in favor of something new.
4. If science changes its view in favor of something new, it becomes obvious that the previous view was insufficient and even false.
5. If science continues to progress as it has, then we can never be certain that our current ideas (and thats exactly what they are - human ideas) accurately reflect the physical world. They will eventually be overturned as we seek to explain new phenomena.

For these reasons I think that the physical world is NOT encompassed or perhaps even accurately reflected in the laws of science.

Originally posted by yousers
First off, creationism has nothing to do with my particular conversation here. Second, Newton's theories are a perfect example of a total rethinking of scientific law. Einstein's relativity was necessary to explain velocities near the speed of light and extreme gravitational fields. As you may know, he completely rejected the absolute space and linear t ...[text shortened]... on. If you think Newton's law has remained constant, you would have been right in the 1800's.

Newton’s laws still apply they are not perfect but they serve a job well they explain the majority of situations. I think they are an important development in the way science progresses also they helped inspire the "updates" it would of been wrong of Newton if he thought there might of been situations where they didn’t apply and so didn’t publics them. You could think Newton’s laws were 10 steps forward and then when the exceptions where found 1 step back as the overall impact is still positive.

Originally posted by Halitose
Oh, you mean indirectly - scientific observations disagree with scientific data deduced from the Bible. Check out the thread "A layer of Paint" for my criticism of radioactive dating - before it degenerated to a diatribe of "Lucy-namecalling". I think that thread is currently at the bottom of page 1.

Even if the radiometric dating was correct, the B ...[text shortened]... ight in a vacuum without gravitational interference was 3 m/s then you might be on to something.

Criticism of radioactive dating is fine. But you had no conclusive proof that it was wrong, only baseless assertions. I believe you were part of the "Lucy namecalling" too....

Originally posted by Halitose
Radioactive decay can be vastly influenced from a sub-atomic level, a subject where modern science is still groping in the dark.

Prove this. I don't see how you can if science is still 'groping in the dark'....

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Criticism of radioactive dating is fine. But you had no conclusive proof that it was wrong, only baseless assertions. I believe you were part of the "Lucy namecalling" too....

Criticism of radioactive dating is fine. But you had no conclusive proof that it was wrong, only baseless assertions.

I'll concede as much, without the "baseless assertions" part - my assertions were based on science as much as yours, if not more. (I was taking nothing for granted)

I believe you were part of the "Lucy namecalling" too...

An assertion I won't deny. Is that a problem?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Prove this. I don't see how you can if science is still 'groping in the dark'....

Sub-atomic particles - string theory, quantum theory. It was a matter of speaking.

Originally posted by Halitose
Sub-atomic particles - string theory, quantum theory. It was a matter of speaking.

I'll agree that we still have alot to learn, but we're working on it every day. I'd suggest that you are a little more carefull with your verbage in the future.