The Greatest Scientist Wrote The Bible

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1288069404' post='2182618']Anybody with half a brain that has seen a ship come over the horizon could tell you that the world is NOT flat, it has always been described as curved.[/quote]I imagine sailors, merchants, scholars, and leaders even thousands of years ago realized the Earth wasn't flat... I imagine they also realized that the Earth was some kind of sphere.

Religious people can be a hit or miss in these categories. In fact one of the strongest resistance for Columbus's journey around the world was an Archbishop who argued that he was wrong; namely that his ideas were unsubstantiated and his calculations bluntly wrong. The Archbishop argued the world was LARGER than Columbus proposed, that there may be another landmass between Europe and Asia, that his idea that chains of islands would resupply them ALL the way to Asia was a joke, and that it would take months to reach their destination... that the effect on the crew and ship were unheard of and then sailing into unknown waters.

In this case... it hit rather right on, I'm glad the good little archbishop didn't skip his science classes. Though Columbus's journey definitely was a significant step in the right direction, so in hindsight the archbishop's argument against the exploration seems a bit small to me. But still a lot of people imagined the world as flat even when the reasoning, evidence, and experts smacked them in the face. [i]Sort of like evolution...[/i]

Edited October 26, 2010 by Mr Cat

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1288070798' post='2182627']
I imagine sailors, merchants, scholars, and leaders even thousands of years ago realized the Earth wasn't flat... I imagine they also realized that the Earth was some kind of sphere.

Religious people can be a hit or miss in these categories. In fact one of the strongest resistance for Columbus's journey around the world was an Archbishop who argued that he was wrong; namely that his ideas were unsubstantiated and his calculations bluntly wrong. The Archbishop argued the world was LARGER than Columbus proposed, that there may be another landmass between Europe and Asia, that his idea that chains of islands would resupply them ALL the way to Asia was a joke, and that it would take months to reach their destination... that the effect on the crew and ship were unheard of and then sailing into unknown waters.

In this case... it hit rather right on, I'm glad the good little archbishop didn't skip his science classes. Though Columbus's journey definitely was a significant step in the right direction, so in hindsight the archbishop's argument against the exploration seems a bit small to me. But still a lot of people imagined the world as flat even when the reasoning, evidence, and experts smacked them in the face. [i]Sort of like evolution...[/i]
[/quote]
The ancients considered that the world was a dome or a sphere, the egyptians proved it was circular over 3000 years ago, nobody thought the earth was flat.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1288072735' post='2182631']The ancients considered that the world was a dome or a sphere, the egyptians proved it was circular over 3000 years ago, nobody thought the earth was flat.[/quote]Just because something is common knowledge, proven, and well established doesn't make it known or accepted by [b]ALL[/b].

It's like the scientific theory of evolution... If 500 years from now someone looked back on the 20th century and asked "[i]why didn't anyone accept evolution?[/i]" One would answer, that's not true... It was accepted by scientists, educators, politicians, doctors, and so on. It was proven and demonstrated. On the other hand if someone asked, "[i]why did people reject evolution in the 20th century?[/i]" Well... yeah.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Mr Cat

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288021992' post='2182330']
In a recent post, "Archeology Cat" says the Bible is not concerned with the "hows" of science.



Response:



[color="#2A2A2A"][font="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][url="http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43"]http://75.125.60.6/~...task=view&id=43[/url][/size][/font][/color]
[font="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif"][size="3"][color="#2A2A2A"] [/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]
After going through about half a dozen of these, I have yet to find one that makes any sense. A. Cat also had similar results. Perhaps you should go through each one and explain how they relate, or concede that the original post was croutons and you haven't even checked them out for yourself.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1288074699' post='2182637']
Just because something is common knowledge, proven, and well established doesn't make it known or accepted by [b]ALL[/b].

It's like the scientific theory of evolution... If 500 years from now someone looked back on the 20th century and asked "[i]why didn't anyone accept evolution?[/i]" One would answer, that's not true... It was accepted by scientists, educators, politicians, doctors, and so on. It was proven and demonstrated. On the other hand if someone asked, "[i]why did people reject evolution in the 20th century?[/i]" Well... yeah.
[/quote]

We are not discussing evolution which is a theory, but the fact that the earth is round.

I'm sure if you talked to all 6 billion people on earth you will find some poor soul that mistakenly thinks the earth is flat.
but in general people have known for several thousand years the earth is curved.

[sixpence]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288052654' post='2182531']
90% of what I've written have been my own words, so you ought to be careful with your over-exaggerations.
[/quote]

Huh?? Saying I am a fan of some activity does not imply that it is the main thing I do with my life. I see not over-exaggerations

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1288137608' post='2182833']We are not discussing evolution which is a theory, but the fact that the earth is round.

I'm sure if you talked to all 6 billion people on earth you will find some poor soul that mistakenly thinks the earth is flat.
but in general people have known for several thousand years the earth is curved.[/quote]I'm sure you call the scientific theory of gravity just a theory then... I should of knew better.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1288147802' post='2182887']
I'm sure you call the scientific theory of gravity just a theory then... I should of knew better.
[/quote]
Well yes, since gravity is both a law and a theory I just might
Theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena used to make testable predictions: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Evolution is a theory supported by a number of facts, but like most theories all the details are not yet in.

That the earth is round is not a theory, but a fact.

[ardillacid]

Where Shady at?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1288201019' post='2182997']Well yes, since gravity is both a law and a theory I just might
Theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena used to make testable predictions: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Evolution is a theory supported by a number of facts, but like most theories all the details are not yet in.

That the earth is round is not a theory, but a fact.[/quote]I am going to have to strongly disagree.

The scientific theory of evolution is both a fact and a theory. In the same way that the scientific theory of gravitation is both a fact and a theory. Both are observable and explainable phenomena. In fact many scientists who taught me biology at the college I am at, argue that technically we understand more and have more proof for the theory of evolution than any other scientific theory. Which technically we do.

Modern scientists tend to avoid the word "[i]law[/i]" as it is merely describing an observable universal phenomena, it lends to sounding too certain and is highly argumentative, even for gravitation. They tend to use the word "[i][b]fact[/b][/i]"for an observable phenomena, which the scientific theory of evolution is a fact.

If it wasn't much of our modern science and biology wouldn't make sense or frankly wouldn't work.

Scientifically evolution is as certain as certain gets.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Winchester]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1288021992' post='2182330']
Scientists be lying
[img]http://punkworldviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/icp2.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
Shady is a juggalo?

[sixpence]

Shayyyydyyyyyy.....
where r uuuuuuu???

we missss uuuuuuuuuu

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1288214498' post='2183053']Shayyyydyyyyyy.....
where r uuuuuuu???

we missss uuuuuuuuuu[/quote]

[kafka]

I warned him he was going to wear himself out, somewhere in one of these threads.

[Winchester]

It's quite possible he's just busy.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1288210532' post='2183040']
I am going to have to strongly disagree.

The scientific theory of evolution is both a fact and a theory. In the same way that the scientific theory of gravitation is both a fact and a theory. Both are observable and explainable phenomena. In fact many scientists who taught me biology at the college I am at, argue that technically we understand more and have more proof for the theory of evolution than any other scientific theory. Which technically we do.

Modern scientists tend to avoid the word "[i]law[/i]" as it is merely describing an observable universal phenomena, it lends to sounding too certain and is highly argumentative, even for gravitation. They tend to use the word "[i][b]fact[/b][/i]"for an observable phenomena, which the scientific theory of evolution is a fact.

If it wasn't much of our modern science and biology wouldn't make sense or frankly wouldn't work.

Scientifically evolution is as certain as certain gets.
[/quote]

Microevolution is fact and can and has been observed. Macroevolution cannot and has not been observed, and may or may not be fact, much of it is conjecture and theory.

No scientist, ever, has observed one species evolving into another species (macroevolution). Many scientists however have observed slight developments within a species (microevolution).

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1288288476' post='2183247']
Microevolution is fact and can and has been observed. Macroevolution cannot and has not been observed, and may or may not be fact, much of it is conjecture and theory.

No scientist, ever, has observed one species evolving into another species (macroevolution). Many scientists however have observed slight developments within a species (microevolution).
[/quote]
Actually yes they have:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101020151324.htm

[KnightofChrist]

Actually not in this case, "appear to be becoming different species" is not actually is becoming a different species. Perhaps it will be, perhaps not. But for right now this appears to be nothing more than another case of hyped up science. The "new species" is still a member of the Anopheles gambiae species complex. The "new species" is a cross-breeding of different[size="2"] mosquitoes within the [/size]Anopheles gambiae species complex. Much like two different breeds of dog breeding with one another the mutt is not a new species.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1288288476' post='2183247']
Microevolution is fact and can and has been observed. Macroevolution cannot and has not been observed, and may or may not be fact, much of it is conjecture and theory.

No scientist, ever, has observed one species evolving into another species (macroevolution). Many scientists however have observed slight developments within a species (microevolution).
[/quote]Firstly, whenever someone pulls the "[i]macro vs micro[/i]" evolution, to someone who has studied the subject, it sounds as nonsensical as this: "[i]I accept MICRO-economics but not MACRO-economics.[/i]" To put it simply, if it works on one level it is going to work on ALL levels. This kind of distinction of micro or macro isn't even used in the scientific theory of evolution anymore, it's not relevant, and when it was used it was just referring basically how far we were stepping back into the "[i]big picture[/i]".

Secondly, a scientific theory is the best explanation possible for an observable phenomena. It is NOT "[i]conjecture[/i]". Unless you think the scientific theory of electromagnetism is just speculative conjecture too, if that is the case I invite you to jam your finger into an electrical outlet to see how speculative or nonfactual it is. But shockingly, literally, I am teasing you. It is just nonsense to deny evolution because it is a "[i]scientific theory[/i]".

Thirdly, scientists do observe changes from one species to another, though I guess any example I give you will tell me is insufficient somehow. Because of course you want to perpetuate nonsense. So just in case I am wrong. Geologically the Earth is about 4.5 billion years of age, the human species has only been around for more than 200,000 years. Which to note the species that existed 200,000 years ago wouldn't be homo sapians sapians, and I would hardly consider them human like we would today. We have discovered also many other species of human that were close to us that apparently had intelligence, indications show they not only had primitive technology but culture. So at one time NO homo sapians sapians, but we had the species, THEN after thousands of years homo sapians sapians. THIS IS AN OBSERVATION and a FACT.

We can see this sort of change ALL through the fossil record that we have spent more than a hundred years now piecing together. All these arguments against the theory of evolution basically is using an old playbook. KnightofChrist if I magically transported you back to 1850, your objections and reservations not only would be valid, but you would find other scientists crying the same things. Through the course of the 19th century these objections and reservations had answers, by the end of the 19th century these arguments you raise just weren't valid at all anymore. For the reason that all impeding doubt about the scientific theory of evolution was put to rest.

In the early 20th century the scientific theory of evolution in the scientific community held a STRONG consensus and was commonly accepted. By the 21st century it is the single most well supported, accepted, and understood scientific theory we have. So it's like your rushing into a battle that has been resolved for more than a hundred years now with outdated technology. It's like if we dropped a 1st century roman legion against a 21st century platoon of marines. Like shooting fish in a barrel. But if you really insist I guess we could give you a confederate uniform and musket, let you march on DC, just in case that might workout.[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1288295445' post='2183268']Actually not in this case, "appear to be becoming different species" is not actually is becoming a different species. Perhaps it will be, perhaps not. But for right now this appears to be nothing more than another case of hyped up science. The "new species" is still a member of the Anopheles gambiae species complex. The "new species" is a cross-breeding of different[size="2"] mosquitoes within the [/size]Anopheles gambiae species complex. Much like two different breeds of dog breeding with one another the mutt is not a new species.[/quote]I wonder if you ever wonder how dogs came about, from wolves maybe? I also wonder how you look at the vast variety of dogs that HUMANS created through selective breeding ([i]which supports evolution[/i]) and pretend that this means absolutely nothing. The domestication of many animals and plants meant that over the course of hundreds to thousands of years dramatic changes occurred.

[center][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Poecilia_reticulata_01.jpg[/img][/center]

To the left, [i]Poecilia wingei[/i]. To the right, [i]Poecilia reticulata[/i]. This is from an experiment from Doctor John Endler who took a population of 200 live birth guppies on the island of Trinidad from a natural pool with strong predator activity to another natural pool devoid of guppies with weak predator activity. After two short years the changes were apparent. The fins, scales, coloration, configuration, shape, size, and eye location had CHANGED. So much so that they were no longer [i]reticulata[/i] but what scientists refer to as [i]wingei[/i]. Because of their mating practices its unlikely that either species will naturally intermix again. They are commonly treated even by aquarists as a separate species from the common guppy.

Even though the terminology is outdated, if you want to pretend this isn't a clear observation of macro-evolution into a new species today, your daft. If this kind of evolution could happen in two years, just imagine what could happen through hundreds, to thousands, to millions, to billions of years of evolution. To put it simply, [b]a lot[/b]. I use this example because if you seriously take any kind of science major in higher education this example will be most likely used, partially to see if a student is able to grasp what happened in this experiment. There are a lot more experiments of similar nature, but to source this scientific experiment you can read about it in Endler's work "[i]Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata.[/i] " in 1980. But knowing you KnightofChrist, you won't see it, and give us your expert opinion in... to tell us why it isn't.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Mr Cat

[KnightofChrist]

[left] [quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1288300508' post='2183278']
Firstly, whenever someone pulls the "[i]macro vs micro[/i]" evolution, to someone who has studied the subject, it sounds as nonsensical as this: "[i]I accept MICRO-economics but not MACRO-economics.[/i]" To put it simply, if it works on one level it is going to work on ALL levels. This kind of distinction of micro or macro isn't even used in the scientific theory of evolution anymore, it's not relevant, and when it was used it was just referring basically how far we were stepping back into the "[i]big picture[/i]".[/quote]

There is no need for insulting someone whom has also studied the subject and arrived at a different conclusion that you have sir. This does not change the fact that marco-evolution has not truly been observed. It makes an assumition, that because mirco-evolution is true then marco-evolution must be true.

[quote]Secondly, a scientific theory is the best explanation possible for an observable phenomena. It is NOT "[i]conjecture[/i]". Unless you think the scientific theory of electromagnetism is just speculative conjecture too, if that is the case I invite you to jam your finger into an electrical outlet to see how speculative or nonfactual it is. But shockingly, literally, I am teasing you. It is just nonsense to deny evolution because it is a "[i]scientific theory[/i]".[/quote]

Much of what is in the realm of marco-evolution theory is theory and conjecture. Electromagnetism can be observed, marco-evolution, if true, cannot be observed, as it takes millions of years to happen, again if true.

[quote]Thirdly, scientists do observe changes from one species to another, though I guess any example I give you will tell me is insufficient somehow. Because of course you want to perpetuate nonsense. So just in case I am wrong. Geologically the Earth is about 4.5 billion years of age, the human species has only been around for more than 200,000 years. Which to note the species that existed 200,000 years ago wouldn't be homo sapians sapians, and I would hardly consider them human like we would today. We have discovered also many other species of human that were close to us that apparently had intelligence, indications show they not only had primitive technology but culture. So at one time NO homo sapians sapians, but we had the species, THEN after thousands of years homo sapians sapians. THIS IS AN OBSERVATION and a FACT.



There is observation and theory
We can see this sort of change ALL through the fossil record that we have spent more than a hundred years now piecing together. All these arguments against the theory of evolution basically is using an old playbook. KnightofChrist if I magically transported you back to 1850, your objections and reservations not only would be valid, but you would find other scientists crying the same things. Through the course of the 19th century these objections and reservations had answers, by the end of the 19th century these arguments you raise just weren't valid at all anymore. For the reason that all impeding doubt about the scientific theory of evolution was put to rest.[/quote]

Again no need to insult, the fact remains the above statement is not an observation of human evolution. No one observed human evolution, observation of the fossil record is not the same as observation of human evolution. Based on the fossil record science estimates, conceptualizes and theorizes how humans may have evolved. Human evolution is a scientific theory based on evidence but not on observation.

[quote]In the early 20th century the scientific theory of evolution in the scientific community held a STRONG consensus and was commonly accepted. By the 21st century it is the single most well supported, accepted, and understood scientific theory we have. So it's like your rushing into a battle that has been resolved for more than a hundred years now with outdated technology. It's like if we dropped a 1st century roman legion against a 21st century platoon of marines. Like shooting fish in a barrel. But if you really insist I guess we could give you a confederate uniform and musket, let you march on DC, just in case that might workout.I wonder if you ever wonder how dogs came about, from wolves maybe? I also wonder how you look at the vast variety of dogs that HUMANS created through selective breeding ([i]which supports evolution[/i]) and pretend that this means absolutely nothing. The domestication of many animals and plants meant that over the course of hundreds to thousands of years dramatic changes occurred. [/quote]

Dogs and Wolfs still belong to the same species Canis Lupus. There are different sub-species of Canis Lupus but dogs are not another species.

[/left][quote]To the left, [i]Poecilia wingei[/i]. To the right, [i]Poecilia reticulata[/i]. This is from an experiment from Doctor John Endler who took a population of 200 live birth guppies on the island of Trinidad from a natural pool with strong predator activity to another natural pool devoid of guppies with weak predator activity. After two short years the changes were apparent. The fins, scales, coloration, configuration, shape, size, and eye location had CHANGED. So much so that they were no longer [i]reticulata[/i] but what scientists refer to as [i]wingei[/i]. Because of their mating practices its unlikely that either species will naturally intermix again. They are commonly treated even by aquarists as a separate species from the common guppy.
[left]
Even though the terminology is outdated, if you want to pretend this isn't a clear observation of macro-evolution into a new species today, your daft. If this kind of evolution could happen in two years, just imagine what could happen through hundreds, to thousands, to millions, to billions of years of evolution. To put it simply, [b]a lot[/b]. I use this example because if you seriously take any kind of science major in higher education this example will be most likely used, partially to see if a student is able to grasp what happened in this experiment. There are a lot more experiments of similar nature, but to source this scientific experiment you can read about it in Endler's work "[i]Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata.[/i] " in 1980. But knowing you KnightofChrist, you won't see it, and give us your expert opinion in... to tell us why it isn't.[/quote]


[/left]Then Dr. Breden, I and others are daft in your eyes. Endlers ([i]Poecilia wingei)[/i] can and do breed with Guppies ([i]Poecilia reticulata), [/i]and the offspring is fertile. In every case of inter species breeding I have heard of the offspring is infertile. It is in fact hotly contested by scientists based on genetics of the two fish that each belongs to different species. Genetic evidence shows they are the same species.

Edited October 28, 2010 by KnightofChrist