Evolution is a fact!

Originally posted by KellyJay
I understand your position, I'm still asking you these two questions,
simply seeing that microwave background where we thought it
should be...[b]does that mean it is there for the reasons we think?
Could we be right in the location and still wrong as to why?
Kelly
edit had to modify my post when I realized I asked you 2 questons. 🙂[/b]

Bit of a crap shoot really, an omnipotent God could construct things as we see them to deceive us into thinking the earth revolved around the common center of gravity with the sun and so forth, continental drift was an illusion, the entire field of paleontology was a waste of time because it contradicted some Bishop's estimate of the age of the Earth, but I doubt it.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Bit of a crap shoot really, an omnipotent God could construct things as we see them to deceive us into thinking the earth revolved around the common center of gravity with the sun and so forth, continental drift was an illusion, the en ...[text shortened]... d some Bishop's estimate of the age of the Earth, but I doubt it.

I think I shall write a book,
about a god, that's oh so strong
and everyone that don't believe,
I will easily prove them wrong
"how will I ever do this deed?"
you may ask me any day
and I'll just say ,"In fact He is ,
He told me, by the way
How can you doubt the words so true
That god told me to write.
He's so strong and powerful
He created day and night."


got more ideas than I got time to write it lol

Originally posted by frogstomp
"It in no way diminishes the importance of the chemical bond to know that it arises from quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, and the prevalence of temperatures and pressures that allow atoms and molecules to exist. Similarly, it does not diminish the significance of life on Earth to know that it emerged from physics and chemistry and the special historic ...[text shortened]... condition that are no less wonderful for being emergent phenomena."
.....Murray Gell Mann

Think I'm in pretty good company about abiogenesis.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Bit of a crap shoot really, an omnipotent God could construct things as we see them to deceive us into thinking the earth revolved around the common center of gravity with the sun and so forth, continental drift was an illusion, the entire field of paleontology was a waste of time because it contradicted some Bishop's estimate of the age of the Earth, but I doubt it.

Okay, leave God out of it, why do you automatically have to bring
God into any question I ask? The questions were simply, could
we be right about the location, but wrong about why? My views
or your views on God have nothing to do with that question, it is
simply a question on is is possible we (humans) could be right
in one respect and wrong in another. Even an agreement it is
possible we could be right about the location, but wrong about why
does not mean God had anything to do with anything. They were
just simple questions! Is the fear of God so great no question is
simple any more, without covering how a creationist may view
the answer? If I were to bring up something about your answer,
then you can deal with it.
Kelly

Originally posted by frogstomp
Think I'm in pretty good company about abiogenesis.

You must love the topic to respond to your own posts. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, leave God out of it, why do you automatically have to bring
God into any question I ask? The questions were simply, could
we be right about the location, but wrong about why? My views
or your views on God have nothing to do with that question, it is
simply a question on is is possible we (humans) could be right
in one respect and wrong in another ...[text shortened]... he answer? If I were to bring up something about your answer,
then you can deal with it.
Kelly

OK
The Big Bang Theory predicted the microwave background and it was found just where it had to be.
That's strong evidence that the theory is correct.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You must love the topic to respond to your own posts. 🙂
Kelly

I certainly do, and seeing that the thread was initiated as a with the intent to talk about my views on how chemistry and quantum mechanics effected abiogenesis , I thought an similar opinion from a Nobel Laureate for his work in quantum mechanics might illustrate that that the underlying premises of my view are sound science.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
OK
The Big Bang Theory predicted the microwave background and it was found just where it had to be.
That's strong evidence that the theory is correct.

Well I will agree with that, but it still only proves one thing and
that is that the microwave background was where we thought it
would be, not why it is there. Again, it is as you claim too, good
evidence for the theory I'm not denying that.
Kelly

Originally posted by KneverKnight
OK
The Big Bang Theory predicted the microwave background and it was found just where it had to be.
That's strong evidence that the theory is correct.

That is how theoretical physics works. What Kelly Jay would need to do to contend the conclusion is incorrect is propose an alternate conclusion based of the same data or present new data that somehow makes the original conclusion no longer sustainable.
He would need more than just questioning the interpretation of the data unless he could show where the interpretation is incorrect.
Quite a challenge!
I'm not taking up that one as I got my head full of possible ways to "close" the universe and then formulate a way for a black hole to turn white.

Originally posted by frogstomp
That is how theoretical physics works. What Kelly Jay would need to do to contend the conclusion is incorrect is propose an alternate conclusion based of the same data or present new data that somehow makes the original conclusion no longer sustainable.
He would need more than just questioning the interpretation of the data unless he could sh ...[text shortened]... ble ways to "close" the universe and then formulate a way for a black hole to turn white.

I agree with you, to dispel what you are saying I would have to do
just as you said, and I admit I cannot. Such is science's strenght
and weakness if I am going to approach this as a scientist. I am
not a scientist, but none-the-less what I have said is still true.
Getting the location right does not mean that it is there for the
reasons you believe.
Kelly

It is there for the reason postulated, namely the plasma cooling enough so that electrons can combine with atoms and become transparent to light.
That is why we can see it, the plasma is opaque to light, light is bouncing around within like a neon sign.
Anyways, I've said too much about this in this thread, just wanted to show how a theory can be taken for correct with overwhelming evidence in its favour.
Now I'll drop the topic and stop polluting this thread.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree with you, to dispel what you are saying I would have to do
just as you said, and I admit I cannot. Such is science's strenght
and weakness if I am going to approach this as a scientist. I am
not a scientist, but none-the-less w ...[text shortened]... oes not mean that it is there for the
reasons you believe.
Kelly

What I don't get is why you must take the stories in the OT literally , or even as God's word. It might just be the israelite priests re-writing the stories that were going around the Middle East at that time and earlier and replacing the polytheistic gods of the Akkadians with their monotheistic God.
As well as their attributing to the conquest of Canaan to God will and ordering atrocities.
There really is a big difference between the way OT makes god appear just like any of the other deities around in the stone-age and Christ who's words of love, brotherhood and salvation are why you are a Christian.
Remember that. You have Christ's definition of God, that should be enough.

Originally posted by frogstomp
What I don't get is why you must take the stories in the OT literally , or even as God's word. It might just be the israelite priests re-writing the stories that were going around the Middle East at that time and earlier and replacing the polytheistic gods of the Akkadians with their monotheistic God.
As well as their attributing t ...[text shortened]... a Christian.
Remember that. You have Christ's definition of God, that should be enough.

You want my life story, because that would be the answer to this
question? I'll just give you the sort version, I was a druggie, I
loved sex more than relationships, I was a person that you could
trust up to a point, only. Jesus Christ changed my life and that
over 24 years ago when I was 25, I believe He is real, I can only
tell you I trust him more than I do our thoughts about various
subjects. I can be wrong at times, I do not have problem one stating
that. I just think we (mankind) at times think our logic is flawless
when it isn't, but at times we cannot know our errors because they are
beyond our abilities to see. A time machine would answer some
quesitons for me at least. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You want my life story, because that would be the answer to this
question? I'll just give you the sort version, I was a druggie, I
loved sex more than relationships, I was a person that you could
trust up to a point, only. Jesus Christ changed my life and that
over 24 years ago when I was 25, I believe He is real, I can only
tell you I trust him more ...[text shortened]... ond our abilities to see. A time machine would answer some
quesitons for me at least. 🙂
Kelly

Christianity isn't a house of cards, ready to collapse if a Joker is pulled out. The foundation of it is the words of Christ and there's indications the He thought the OT was man written, and said as much in Matthew 5. When you read 5:17-20 don't you get the sense that scribes had written down scripture incorrectly. He continues with a few example that he starts with " Ye have heard it said " and not "this is the Law..."

5:44-48 Is a decent answer to anyone that contends that the Father was accurately portrayed in the old testament.

Words he spoke hit home to the priests who, although they didn't see him as the Messiah, shortly after His death began a rethink of the religion and especially the view of biblical literacy. In that sense He had accomplished his mission
This is the major factor in why I am against the Pauline doctrine, that and if Christ truely is God, all scripture must he viewed under the Light of His words, any other view diminishes Christ and relegates him to the role of theologian.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Christianity isn't a house of cards, ready to collapse if a Joker is pulled out. The foundation of it is the words of Christ and there's indications the He thought the OT was man written, and said as much in Matthew 5. When yo ...[text shortened]... diminishes Christ and relegates him to the role of theologian.

What words of Christ do you think I should look at when it comes to
viewing the views of man, and OT scripture?
Kelly