Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Things in nature do look designed, but only in the way that the natural process of evolution would design them, that is to say designed through natural forces that shape and form according to selection and mutation.
    Hello Rose

    There is NO "design process" in evolution. I am saying that for you. This is what you must say in order to believe in evolution.
    Hello David

    Did you notice I said "look designed"? Organisms are not intelligently designed by a creator, rather they are designed by the natural process of natural selection to be able to survive in their environment. If organisms don't evolve properly to be able to adapt to their environment they die off, simple as that.


    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    She was an advocate for evolution right up to her death (not long ago), but she did not agree with the evidence/argument presented by Evolutionists.

    Unfortunately, the false published material of long past is there to keep us confounded and is regurgitated by those not keeping up. The word of God has not changed from the day it was first given.

    If you are never going to know for sure, why waste time reading about those things you can never be sure of?

    God designed humans to be "clever" and creative. Humans can make clothes and decide when and where to wear them. How "clever" does that make God which designed of man? I am sure of that.
    If there is a creator god why didn't he make humans with a better body to start with? Our bodies are much more fragile then many other species of animals. Women die in childbirth at a much higher rate than any other animal (it's rare for any other animal to die in childbirth), if animals die in childbirth their offspring also end up dying, so the species ends up dying off. Also, humans suffer greatly from back problems because of our standing position. If god made humans to walk upright why didn't he design our spines to work optimally in that position? Eyesight starts deteriorating with most humans in their mid to late forty's, yet the Bible says that god gave humans seventy years ... why would he design our eyes to give out before our bodies? I could go on ...

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The sensible thing for evolution (assuming evolution could decide or design) would be for that particular flower to make pollination easier; not more difficult. For every bird that did not have a long enough beak (and the bird can only survive on that one flower), the bird born with the short beak dies. It is too late to decide to grow a longer beak once it is dead. The flower would also not reproduce when it puts its nectar out of reach of the bird. A step too far in the opposite direction for both parties causes death to both. We envisage that with varying lengths of beak and flower chambers that started off short and of varying lengths, a point of equilibrium is reached, in which beaks do not get shorter and chambers do not get longer. Evolution must therefore have stopped for that pairing. Where else would evolution of that flower or that bird in this symbiotic relationship lead to? There is no sense for the flower to lengthen its chamber without first telling the bird to lengthen its beak. Without that essential communication in evolution, the symbiotic relationship would not continue in the direction it has taken. The only reasonable explanation is that it had to be designed that way from the start.

    All the best
    David
    Evolution is not teleological, it does not have a purposeful end in mind ... if organisms don't reproduce well they die off, it happens all the time in nature. Evolution is a process of trial and error, if it doesn't work out it changes or dies off ... we see this all the time in nature. 95% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct, which fits perfectly with theory of evolution ... it doesn't fit with the idea of a intelligent designer, unless he's really bad at designing!

    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hello David

    Did you notice I said "look designed"? Organisms are not intelligently designed by a creator, rather they are designed by the natural process of natural selection to be able to survive in their environment. If organisms don't evolve properly to be able to adapt to their environment they die off, simple as that.
    Hello Rose
    You also said; "in the way that the natural process of evolution would design them". Evolution relies on incremental small changes which we can call adaptation. There is no design element at all to evolution and the word "design" ought not to be mentioned in any way with it by an evolutionist. Everything has formed by random chance starting from the point of atoms, then stars, then the elements made by the stars. Then all the different molecules have randomly formed from the elements and the molecules have randomly formed to the point of everything we see. There has not been a designer involved anywhere in the process unless that is the only explanation for how atoms or the most basic components of matter are made. Hence, I did ask the question; "What if there is a God (a designer who kick-started the process).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    If there is a creator god why didn't he make humans with a better body to start with? Our bodies are much more fragile then many other species of animals. Women die in childbirth at a much higher rate than any other animal (it's rare for any other animal to die in childbirth), if animals die in childbirth their offspring also end up dying, so the species ends up dying off. Also, humans suffer greatly from back problems because of our standing position. If god made humans to walk upright why didn't he design our spines to work optimally in that position? Eyesight starts deteriorating with most humans in their mid to late forty's, yet the Bible says that god gave humans seventy years ... why would he design our eyes to give out before our bodies? I could go on ...
    If only you had the power to create your own perfect human, we could tell if you are correct. I think none of us have the intelligence to be able to design better than the human body is, taking into account the human body being optimally designed to give it the greatest amount of skills and adaptability to its environment. It is easy to say the body should have this or that, but how do you know what difficulties that would involve? I mentioned intelligence and that is what separates us from the animals. The brain is incredibly complex. Our intelligence enables us to reason. I think when you look at all the abilities and skills of all individuals put together and put that capability into one person, then that shows how incredible the human body and mind has been designed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Evolution is not teleological, it does not have a purposeful end in mind ... if organisms don't reproduce well they die off, it happens all the time in nature. Evolution is a process of trial and error, if it doesn't work out it changes or dies off ... we see this all the time in nature. 95% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct, which fits perfectly with theory of evolution ... it doesn't fit with the idea of a intelligent designer, unless he's really bad at designing
    Maybe 99.9999999....%? of all species have died off. What really is a species that is part-way defined by all the intermediary steps between species? Maybe you are a different species to me, because there are probably more minor differences between us than there are similarities.

    All the best
    David
    Last edited by David M; 09-12-2013 at 05:22 AM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rose
    You also said; "in the way that the natural process of evolution would design them". Evolution relies on incremental small changes which we can call adaptation. There is no design element at all to evolution and the word "design" ought not to be mentioned in any way with it by an evolutionist. Everything has formed by random chance starting from the point of atoms, then stars, then the elements made by the stars. Then all the different molecules have randomly formed from the elements and the molecules have randomly formed to the point of everything we see. There has not been a designer involved anywhere in the process unless that is the only explanation for how atoms or the most basic components of matter are made. Hence, I did ask the question; "What if there is a God (a designer who kick-started the process).
    Hello David

    Everything cannot be lumped into random chance, much of what happens in the universe is predictable. Negative and positive always attract each other, certain atoms always make bonds with other atoms, when certain molecules are combined specific chemical reactions occur, when certain elements are put under pressure, heat or are frozen they react in predictable ways ... these reactions do not happen randomly they can be predicted. For example if you combine 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen you will always get a molecule of water ... it's predictable, not random. The same goes for what happens in the heart of stars like our sun - under extreme pressure and heat hydrogen atoms produce helium through the process of fusion ... it's predictable not random. Predictability is what allows us to make all the components in our cars, computers and medicines ... elements will always react in the same way.

    If you feel the need for a god to "kick start" the universe, then that is something that will never be able to be proven one way or the other because it brings up the age old question of "Who created god?". And yes, I know the answer that is given is that god didn't need to be created because he has always existed, but that is not a valid reason. I could just as easily say the same for the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    If only you had the power to create your own perfect human, we could tell if you are correct. I think none of us have the intelligence to be able to design better than the human body is, taking into account the human body being optimally designed to give it the greatest amount of skills and adaptability to its environment. It is easy to say the body should have this or that, but how do you know what difficulties that would involve? I mentioned intelligence and that is what separates us from the animals. The brain is incredibly complex. Our intelligence enables us to reason. I think when you look at all the abilities and skills of all individuals put together and put that capability into one person, then that shows how incredible the human body and mind has been designed.
    Should anything be too difficult for a god who supposedly created the universe?

    Yes, I agree human brains are complex, but so is a chimpanzee's brain and a bonobo's brain. The human brain differs from other primate brains by very little, we have more neurons and specific areas of our brains are more developed which allows for language, speech and reasoning skills making us self aware. Because of a mutation in a specific gene that limited the number of neurons our ancestors brains produced the number of neurons was able to increase, thus allowing for more data processing capacity and reasoning abilities to develop. Scientists are discovering more and more how slight variations in genes or gene expression leads to large differences in abilities. Biology, genetics and evolution are fascinating fields of study, with new discoveries happening daily.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Maybe 99.9999999....%? of all species have died off. What really is a species that is part-way defined by all the intermediary steps between species? Maybe you are a different species to me, because there are probably more minor differences between us than there are similarities.

    All the best
    David
    The definition of a species is organisms that can interbreed and reproduce. If organisms in the same species are separated for long periods of time speciation occurs, which means that enough genetic variation and mutationhas happened in the DNA, making it impossible for those organisms to reproduce.

    Take care
    Rose
    Last edited by Rose; 09-13-2013 at 09:20 AM.
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Rose

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hello David
    Everything cannot be lumped into random chance, much of what happens in the universe is predictable. Negative and positive always attract each other, certain atoms always make bonds with other atoms, when certain molecules are combined specific chemical reactions occur, when certain elements are put under pressure, heat or are frozen they react in predictable ways ... these reactions do not happen randomly they can be predicted. For example if you combine 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen you will always get a molecule of water ... it's predictable, not random. The same goes for what happens in the heart of stars like our sun - under extreme pressure and heat hydrogen atoms produce helium through the process of fusion ... it's predictable not random. Predictability is what allows us to make all the components in our cars, computers and medicines ... elements will always react in the same way.
    Man has determined physical and chemical laws according to what already exists and is working. Some things can be predictable based on those laws. All man can do is describe events by formulae. There is a level that within predictability, there is randomness. When we look deep into this as possible we end up in quantum physics where nothing appears certain. According to John Wheeler (eminent physicist);” Instead of a traditional static, unchanging zero state, quantum mechanics allows for far more dynamic, chaotic possibilities”. What brings order out of chaos is the unanswerable question. We have order and the progression appears to going towards chaos. Man brings order to chemicals/material things and then those things which he has made, eventually decay into disorder again. Evolution has had no maker to bring order to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    If you feel the need for a god to "kick start" the universe, then that is something that will never be able to be proven one way or the other because it brings up the age old question of "Who created god?". And yes, I know the answer that is given is that god didn't need to be created because he has always existed, but that is not a valid reason. I could just as easily say the same for the universe.
    We know the universe exists, because we see it. The universe will exist when we do not. Just because something cannot be seen does not mean it does not exist. We deal with what we have. I appreciate science has to try and find out as much as possible and is forging links as with evolution to come up with an explanation. Is it predictable that man will find out everything and when he has, he will be as God, or is it predictable man will not find out everything?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Should anything be too difficult for a god who supposedly created the universe?
    That which is impossible for man to know, is not impossible for God, because God already knows it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Yes, I agree human brains are complex, but so is a chimpanzee's brain and a bonobo's brain. The human brain differs from other primate brains by very little, we have more neurons and specific areas of our brains are more developed which allows for language, speech and reasoning skills making us self aware. Because of a mutation in a specific gene that limited the number of neurons our ancestors brains produced the number of neurons was able to increase, thus allowing for more data processing capacity and reasoning abilities to develop.
    Brains are similar, but the same old argument continues. Science has no alternative other than to find a connection between the similarities to prove an evolutionary link. There is no way of proving that the scientific explanation is correct however good the explanation appears to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Scientists are discovering more and more how slight variations in genes or gene expression leads to large differences in abilities. Biology, genetics and evolution are fascinating fields of study, with new discoveries happening daily.
    Man is discovering what already exists. Man finds something and then has to explain its existence. Man does not know anything about what has not been discovered and you do not know anything about what man will not find out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    The definition of a species is organisms that can interbreed and reproduce. If organisms in the same species are separated for long periods of time speciation occurs, which means that enough genetic variation and mutation has happened in the DNA, making it impossible for those organisms to reproduce.
    As I see it, we begin with basic organisms that are not species at first, any species. Those organisms breed in which small changes take place until the changes become so great as the new organisms cannot breed with the original organisms and only those organisms that can breed belong to a species. Within those species you say that the organisms change to the point that separate species form and those species cannot interbreed. From the original organisms, there were many changes taking different directions so that multiple species occurred and those multiple species could then not interbreed and produce offspring. Kinds are species that cannot interbreed. We can agree the Bible definition of a kind, a as a species that cannot interbreed. Once again, the problem of the theory of evolution is that too many steps are not provable and a what point is "a gene too far" whereby reproduction ceases? On paper there is an infinite variation within organisms and species to say that evolution might have possibly happened and given enough time it could have happened. Maybe God created the kinds and there has been so much variation of the species within kinds that that the kinds begin to look as if they could be related. The fact is, we are all traced back to chemicals and molecules and atoms.

    All the best
    David

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rose


    Man has determined physical and chemical laws according to what already exists and is working. Some things can be predictable based on those laws. All man can do is describe events by formulae. There is a level that within predictability, there is randomness. When we look deep into this as possible we end up in quantum physics where nothing appears certain. According to John Wheeler (eminent physicist);” Instead of a traditional static, unchanging zero state, quantum mechanics allows for far more dynamic, chaotic possibilities”. What brings order out of chaos is the unanswerable question. We have order and the progression appears to going towards chaos. Man brings order to chemicals/material things and then those things which he has made, eventually decay into disorder again. Evolution has had no maker to bring order to it.

    We know the universe exists, because we see it. The universe will exist when we do not. Just because something cannot be seen does not mean it does not exist. We deal with what we have. I appreciate science has to try and find out as much as possible and is forging links as with evolution to come up with an explanation. Is it predictable that man will find out everything and when he has, he will be as God, or is it predictable man will not find out everything?

    That which is impossible for man to know, is not impossible for God, because God already knows it.


    Brains are similar, but the same old argument continues. Science has no alternative other than to find a connection between the similarities to prove an evolutionary link. There is no way of proving that the scientific explanation is correct however good the explanation appears to be.

    Man is discovering what already exists. Man finds something and then has to explain its existence. Man does not know anything about what has not been discovered and you do not know anything about what man will not find out.
    Hello David

    Do you realize that you have already made a choice of who to believe? You have choosen between the facts and evidence presented by scientists, and primitive men who believed that thunder was the booming voice of god. The only knowledge you have of god is from an ancient book that has been proved wrong over and over again! Science on the other hand could not continue if its predictions were consistently wrong. Religious writings are not held to the same criteria, or standard, so it doesn't matter how wrong they are people still believe in them

    You have no first hand knowledge of gods existence, all your information comes from the writings of primitive men who lived in a time when everything was magical and mysterious. Why would you choose to believe in their magical thinking when science has solid evidence backed up by methods that work and are predictable? A computer works because all of the laws and principles discovered by science are true, it doesn't matter what any individual says to the contrary ... the proof is that things work.

    Granted, science does not have all the answers, but when things don't work they are discarded and new theories are tested. Excuses and justifications don't have to be made as to why things don't work, all that needs to be said is the theory was wrong and they need to try again. The scientific method is testable, if theories fail the test they are discarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    As I see it, we begin with basic organisms that are not species at first, any species. Those organisms breed in which small changes take place until the changes become so great as the new organisms cannot breed with the original organisms and only those organisms that can breed belong to a species. Within those species you say that the organisms change to the point that separate species form and those species cannot interbreed. From the original organisms, there were many changes taking different directions so that multiple species occurred and those multiple species could then not interbreed and produce offspring. Kinds are species that cannot interbreed. We can agree the Bible definition of a kind, a as a species that cannot interbreed. Once again, the problem of the theory of evolution is that too many steps are not provable and a what point is "a gene too far" whereby reproduction ceases? On paper there is an infinite variation within organisms and species to say that evolution might have possibly happened and given enough time it could have happened. Maybe God created the kinds and there has been so much variation of the species within kinds that that the kinds begin to look as if they could be related. The fact is, we are all traced back to chemicals and molecules and atoms.

    All the best
    David
    There is no problem with the theory of evolution ... it is testable. All living things can be traced back to a common ancestor because DNA is the information source all life draws from. Evolution happens over time, micro steps add up to macro steps, there is nothing mysterious about the process. On the other hand when you introduce the Biblegod into the picture all sorts of problems arise ... you have to resort to saying things like "Maybe god did this, or maybe god did that" and introduce terms like "kinds" which have no scientific meaning.

    The bottom line is that god is not necessary for the theory of evolution to work, the only reason primitive men inserted god into the picture is because they were ignorant of science ... you don't have to hold on to beliefs that were held in ignorance, you can move forward as understanding, and knowledge are made available. If the Biblegod were truly who the authors say he is, where is the evidence of his existence? Why has he made himself invisible? Why would he make modern humans dependent on the writings of ignorant, primitive men who had no scientific knowledge or understanding, in order to know him? Lastly, the single most important thing to the Biblegod is that humans worship and praise him ... sounds an awful lot like the rules of an arrogant, power-hungry human dictator to me.

    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    East of West!
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hello David

    Do you realize that you have already made a choice of who to believe? You have choosen between the facts and evidence presented by scientists, and primitive men who believed that thunder was the booming voice of god. The only knowledge you have of god is from an ancient book that has been proved wrong over and over again! Science on the other hand could not continue if its predictions were consistently wrong. Religious writings are not held to the same criteria, or standard, so it doesn't matter how wrong they are people still believe in them

    You have no first hand knowledge of gods existence, all your information comes from the writings of primitive men who lived in a time when everything was magical and mysterious. Why would you choose to believe in their magical thinking when science has solid evidence backed up by methods that work and are predictable? A computer works because all of the laws and principles discovered by science are true, it doesn't matter what any individual says to the contrary ... the proof is that things work.

    Granted, science does not have all the answers, but when things don't work they are discarded and new theories are tested. Excuses and justifications don't have to be made as to why things don't work, all that needs to be said is the theory was wrong and they need to try again. The scientific method is testable, if theories fail the test they are discarded.



    There is no problem with the theory of evolution ... it is testable. All living things can be traced back to a common ancestor because DNA is the information source all life draws from. Evolution happens over time, micro steps add up to macro steps, there is nothing mysterious about the process. On the other hand when you introduce the Biblegod into the picture all sorts of problems arise ... you have to resort to saying things like "Maybe god did this, or maybe god did that" and introduce terms like "kinds" which have no scientific meaning.

    The bottom line is that god is not necessary for the theory of evolution to work, the only reason primitive men inserted god into the picture is because they were ignorant of science ... you don't have to hold on to beliefs that were held in ignorance, you can move forward as understanding, and knowledge are made available. If the Biblegod were truly who the authors say he is, where is the evidence of his existence? Why has he made himself invisible? Why would he make modern humans dependent on the writings of ignorant, primitive men who had no scientific knowledge or understanding, in order to know him? Lastly, the single most important thing to the Biblegod is that humans worship and praise him ... sounds an awful lot like the rules of an arrogant, power-hungry human dictator to me.

    Take care,
    Rose
    Hi Rose:

    I want to comment on one point you said. "The scientific method is testable, if theories fail the test they are discarded."

    That statement is NOT true! If a theory fails it is NOT always discarded. First of all the scientific methods are NOT testable. Einstien proposed lots of theories which unless we are able to produce a perfect vaccuum environment cannot be tested with any degree of reliability. The whole evolutionary origin argument has never been "tested". You know and I know that will NEVER happen. The first primordial soup cannot be duplicated now or ever! So scientists test aspects of the evolutionary model and then speculate about the origins of the model. Never discarding things which they have no interest in proving or falsifying. And if anyone ever does falsify one of the beloved building blocks of the evolutionary model the person is declared a quack and the scientific community moves on as if they are still correct.

    http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

    The official explanation of the NASA image states, "Appearances can be deceiving. In this NASA Hubble Space Telescope image, an odd celestial duo, the spiral galaxy NGC 4319 [center] and a quasar called Markarian 205 [upper right], appear to be neighbors. In reality, the two objects don't even live in the same city. They are separated by time and space. NGC 4319 is 80 million light-years from Earth. Markarian 205 (Mrk 205) is more than 14 times farther away, residing 1 billion light-years from Earth. The apparent close alignment of Mrk 205 and NGC 4319 is simply a matter of chance." Professional astronomers seem to be so enamored of their 'redshift equals distance' theory that it damages their eyesight.

    Stephan's Quintet
    In "Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies" (p. 96-101) Halton Arp discusses the five interacting galaxies NGC 7317, 7318A, 7318B, 7319, and 7320 that constitute Stephan's Quintet. The last one, NGC 7320, has a redshift value of 800 km/sec. The other four have redshifts of either 5700 km/sec or 6700 km/sec. Mainstream astronomers therefore claim those last four are about eight times farther away from us than NGC 7320. Therefore, they say, there cannot be any interaction between 7320 and the others.

    Arp states "The deepest 200 inch (Mt. Palomar) plates that I have been able to obtain clearly show a 'tail' coming out of the southeast end of NGC 7320." He points out, "A tail like this from NGC 7320... must be an interaction tail - which could arise only from physical interaction with the adjacent high-redshift members of the Quintet."

    He then states that at least one amateur has been able to see the tail but, "it is amazing that so many professionals have difficulty seeing it." NASA routinely crops their images of Stephan's Quintet to exclude the area where this tail would be seen.

    However, my good friend, amateur astronomer John Smith acquired a full image of the Quintet.


    The large, dark galaxy on the left is the low redshift NGC 7320. Then going counter-clockwise we have 7317, 7318A, 7318B, and 7319. At the top of the image is the small galaxy NGC 7320C. After some digital image processing (which only increased contrast), the result shown below was obtained.



    It is apparent that a 'tail' does indeed extend out from NGC 7320 toward the left. In fact it appears to curve around and connect to the small galaxy NGC 7320C. The redshift of this small companion galaxy is z = 0.02 which is about 10 times that of NGC 7320.

    So, once again we have evidence of a physical connection between two objects that have vastly different redshift values.


    Inherent Redshift
    Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete steps. He suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherentiredshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger fraction of a quasar's total redshift.

    In addition, these inherent redshift z values of quasars seem to be quantized! Unusually tight groupings of those calculated values occur centered around values of
    z = 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, etc... such that (1+z2) = 1.23(1+z1). [For example, 1.23(1+0.3) = 1.60].
    The very existence of this quantization alone, is sufficient proof of the failure of the idea that redshift is only an indicator of recessional speed (and therefore distance). This quantization means (under the redshift equals distance interpretation) that quasars all must lie in a series of concentric shells with Earth at the center of the entire arrangement. Copernicus found out a long time ago that Earth isn't at the center of anything!

    Recently mainstream astronomers have joyfully announced that they can find no quantization effects in the observed redshift values of quasars. Of course not! The raw measured total redshift values of the universal set of all known quasars are not quantized. It is the inherent redshift z values that are!

    Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope.

    Evidence Says Arp is Right - A Quasar In Front of a Nearby Galaxy
    The final irrefutable falsification of the "Redshift equals distance" assumption is the following image of galaxy NGC 7319 (Redshift = 0.0225). The small object indicated by the arrow is a quasar (Redshift z = 2.11) This observation of a quasar between the galaxy and Earth is impossible if the quasar is over ninety times farther away than the galaxy.



    In fact, a higher magnification image of the quasar (below) shows a "jet" of matter extending out from the center of NGC 7319 toward the quasar.





    So, Arp is correct in his contention that redshift is caused mainly by an object's being young, and only secondarily because of its velocity. Therefore, quasars are not the brightest, most distant and rapidly moving things in the observed universe - but they are among the youngest.

    The Big Bang Theory is false - not because I or others claim it to be false - but because it has been scientifically falsified by the work of people such as Halton Arp and his associates.Arp now lives in retirement in Germany.


    I know you insist that Dr. Arp is a quack and that his theories have been proven "false"... BUt that is just not the case... There are questions to parts of his theories but the fact that his work falsified the Big Bang model means that science should GIVE UP THE BIG BANG MODEL! But no one has!!


    Namaste,

    Mystykal
    Last edited by Mystykal; 09-18-2013 at 03:04 AM.
    Mystykal

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Mystykal,


    Why are you posting that BS again? Arp's theories have been tested and there is no evidence for his claims. That website you posted is committed to pseudoscience. Arp never falsified the Big Bang theory. That is something crackpot creationist have claimed. And you obviously believe the Bs because I have debunked your claims before and here you are again posting that junk. It really inspires confidence in a creator when creationists have to lie about their arguments. And they are lying about Arp's claims because the TRUTH is out there. It's pretty funny you think the Big Bang model has been proven wrong by Arp.

    You can read what happens when REAL science is explored. Theories with no evidence are then discarded.
    http://scientopia.org/blogs/galactic...sar-redshifts/


    Here is the conclusion for Arps theory. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633...41T

    We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, namely the Karlsson log(1+z) model and Bell's decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, we do two tests. First, using different criteria, we generate four sets of QSO-galaxy pairs and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell's previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high-completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model. These results support the hypothesis that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp#Critics

    "... the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [...] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency."[10]
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystykal View Post
    Hi Rose:

    I want to comment on one point you said. "The scientific method is testable, if theories fail the test they are discarded."

    That statement is NOT true! If a theory fails it is NOT always discarded. First of all the scientific methods are NOT testable. Einstien proposed lots of theories which unless we are able to produce a perfect vaccuum environment cannot be tested with any degree of reliability. The whole evolutionary origin argument has never been "tested". You know and I know that will NEVER happen. The first primordial soup cannot be duplicated now or ever! So scientists test aspects of the evolutionary model and then speculate about the origins of the model. Never discarding things which they have no interest in proving or falsifying. And if anyone ever does falsify one of the beloved building blocks of the evolutionary model the person is declared a quack and the scientific community moves on as if they are still correct.



    Namaste,

    Mystykal
    Hi Mystykal

    Scientific theories that fail are discarded in the sense that they cannot be used as a foundation for understanding the underlying principles until they have been revised and retested. Speculation happens all the time, but speculation gets you nowhere until your predictions become models that are testable and hold up.

    Origins of life are still in the speculation stage, since no one has been able to create life from chemicals yet, the same goes for the origins of the universe. Evolution on the other hand happens before our eyes and can be seen on the micro and macro levels, the same holds true for understanding the formation of the universe beginning about 300,000 years after its birth.

    God will never be able to be tested unless he reveals himself in a manner that can be physically experienced by all people. Revealing himself to primitive men through a booming voice that sounds like thunder just doesn't cut it!

    Take care
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Rose

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hello David

    Do you realize that you have already made a choice of who to believe? You have chosen between the facts and evidence presented by scientists, and primitive men who believed that thunder was the booming voice of god.
    That is your opinion. You cannot question people living at the time of Jesus (who were not primitive bronze-age people) and who wrote their testimony which we have on record.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    The only knowledge you have of god is from an ancient book that has been proved wrong over and over again! Science on the other hand could not continue if its predictions were consistently wrong. Religious writings are not held to the same criteria, or standard, so it doesn't matter how wrong they are people still believe in them
    You talk from selective ignorance. I have reasons to believe God's word, but then there is no point discussing prophecy with you. Science makes hypotheses, which are often wrong. I agree, scientific theories are good in the sense of derived mathematical equations which can be reliably used, but that is not to say the theories are perfect and the most accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    You have no first hand knowledge of gods existence, all your information comes from the writings of primitive men who lived in a time when everything was magical and mysterious. Why would you choose to believe in their magical thinking when science has solid evidence backed up by methods that work and are predictable? A computer works because all of the laws and principles discovered by science are true, it doesn't matter what any individual says to the contrary ... the proof is that things work.
    Fulfilled prophecy is proof. You ignore prophecy and believe none have been fulfilled, so end of discussion on this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Granted, science does not have all the answers, but when things don't work they are discarded and new theories are tested. Excuses and justifications don't have to be made as to why things don't work, all that needs to be said is the theory was wrong and they need to try again. The scientific method is testable, if theories fail the test they are discarded.
    Certain things are not testable and so the scientific principle cannot be applied. Hypotheses remain where something is not testable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    There is no problem with the theory of evolution ... it is testable. All living things can be traced back to a common ancestor because DNA is the information source all life draws from. Evolution happens over time, micro steps add up to macro steps, there is nothing mysterious about the process. On the other hand when you introduce the Biblegod into the picture all sorts of problems arise ... you have to resort to saying things like "Maybe god did this, or maybe god did that" and introduce terms like "kinds" which have no scientific meaning.
    Evolution is not testable when scientists cannot produce anything like a dna molecule or prove the links that are being claimed. At best there are similarities and possibilities.
    Actually Rose, you brought into the subject "kinds" by when referring to organisms that evolved to the point where they could not interbreed among the species. I was confirming the point that we end up with "kinds". It is just a matter of how those "kinds" came to be; creation or evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    The bottom line is that god is not necessary for the theory of evolution to work, the only reason primitive men inserted god into the picture is because they were ignorant of science ... you don't have to hold on to beliefs that were held in ignorance, you can move forward as understanding, and knowledge are made available. If the Biblegod were truly who the authors say he is, where is the evidence of his existence? Why has he made himself invisible? Why would he make modern humans dependent on the writings of ignorant, primitive men who had no scientific knowledge or understanding, in order to know him?
    You have all the answers to those questions in the Bible. I understand, and I accept. You do not accept, which begs the question; did you ever understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Lastly, the single most important thing to the Biblegod is that humans worship and praise him ... sounds an awful lot like the rules of an arrogant, power-hungry human dictator to me.
    What if someone insults you as the mother of your children or makes insults about your children which you find offensive and hurtful? This has nothing to do with being "power hungry". This is a term you want to use as an excuse for not believing in God. God is all powerful (compared to humans) and it is just as well God is long-suffering and loving as well as being the righteous judge. The fact that we are here and we have the opportunity to see God has proved himself by the things that are made (not evolved), and that events are taking place in the nations as predicted by God, we can be assured of his promises in the future. This is not a message which can be accepted by the masses and that is a never-ending battle between those in the know and those without the knowledge.

    Alas, Rose, we are unable to reason about the Bible, because you are now blinkered to accept that it might be true. You are not averse to quoting words from it to suit your purpose. If only you could see the words of wisdom and "get understanding". It is inevitable that many of the subjects on this forum will have some connection to the Bible so most of the time, we are going to disagree and all we can do is express our opinions and leave it at that. This is not the place to have arguments, and as you say, and quote, we have to try and reason.

    Have you anything more to say about high altitude fossils?

    All the best

    David
    Last edited by David M; 09-20-2013 at 03:40 AM.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello L67
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Mystykal,
    Why are you posting that BS again?
    why are you bothering to quote on a subject that has nothing to do with this thread. I would like to ask you a question and this can be started in another thread and not continued here.

    As I read the articles you gave the links to, it becomes obvious to me that science has reached the limit of measuring distances using the triangulation method. The angles are just too small to measure accurately. It now appears that science is using red-shift to gauge distance and distance means age. Maybe this is not an accurate method to take over from the triangulation method. What else besides red shift can be used to determine distance or age?

    David

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •