"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Jan 22, 2012 Full story: Examiner.com 13,514

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Full Story

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#5564 May 19, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's the same curve of frequencies everywhere, yes?
Yes. Here's a pic:

http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/arcade/cmb_s...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#5565 May 19, 2012
The pet whisperer wrote:
<quoted text>
Then by all means, do tell what I didn't understand.
Science specifically claimed a spike,
No, it predicted a very specific curve of intensities.
without expressing what exactly it measured and which of the elements that could not contribute to the measurement,
No radiation from stars or galaxies is included in the CMB.
as well as what entities could, as CMB is a hodgepodge of elements,
No, it is not.
coming from all of space and time,
No, from a very specific time: when the universe had cooled enough to become transparent to radiation.
still to this day and always will, as long as there are celestial bodies..
Wrong. it is not from celestial bodies.
That spike ment that it is at a specific frequency, with a specific range that not all this entities can have.
Not a specific frquency. A specific temperature. A range of frquencies and intensities determined by that temperature.
If all have it, prove they all posess the same exact qualities. Are all the entities radio waves? Lol
No, the radiation from stars and galaxies is quite distinct from the CMB.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

#5566 May 19, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not understand.
Natural selection means that what ever was chosen by nature IS THE SELECTION. There is no falsification for that.
It is not falsifiable. That is an absolute fact. You can not logically falsify natural selection. Period.
So your point is that natural selection is an observation, and therefore is a fact. Facts cannot be falsified.
So what is the problem?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5567 May 19, 2012
The pet whisperer wrote:
No, how all the celestial bodies must die, because they put off such massive amounts of radiation.
Most All that radiation goes into space, including all the radio waves that science used to measure the CMB, instead of using all the CMB waves.
But eventually all the stars will burn out, and the universe will grow cold dark and dead.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

#5568 May 19, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Wars kill a lot of people and significantly affect the gene pool. Natural selection?
That could come under genetic drift

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5569 May 19, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> But eventually all the stars will burn out, and the universe will grow cold dark and dead.
The CMB is found by looking back to the very early formation of the universe. You do realize the farther you look the earlier or closer to the beginning of time you see right?
But we do see microwaves emitted by the milky way since that time.
That is not what the target is however. The target is beyond the
visible horizon and we can only see the edge like a cloud, but it existed before the galaxies and beyond them. So we know it is not residual emissions from the galaxies , but traces predicted by the BBT as it was 13 bya and farther.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horizon_pro...

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

#5570 May 19, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
So is there a philosophical difference between animals "waring" against each other and humans waring against each other?
<quoted text>
If natural environment just refers to the environment in which some population of some species lives isn't the environment then always "natural"? Meaning if humans artificially tinker with some environment then the new environment is artificially produced from the old environment, but it's still a new natural environment and the population(s) need to adapt to the "artificial changes".
I'm just throwing some thoughts out. This is obviously a vague concept.
If consciousness is a "natural product" why would it be artificial for the natural product to affect nature?
You might want to start with the philosophical definition of "artificial" and "natural"

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#5571 May 19, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has no direction. An organism with gills may have an ancestor with lungs. There is nothing in the theory of evolution to dismiss that, the theory supports it.
Humble Brother, lets go through a little exercise here: a classic demonstration of your goal post shifting.
You started, post #4883:
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
The particular subject is:
1. falsification through finding some fossil in some "wrong timeline"
2. evolution being able (or not) to flow in a manner that species evolve, disappear and "re-evolve"
To which the answer was and is YES to (1) and NO to (2). For the reason of statistical unlikelihood given, just for starters. But then you ask, on the same subject:
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Given enough time and if the natural environment got not so friendly for land creatures. Do you think some land creature could evolve into some fish again?
And again the answer was NO, because that would require the step by step dialing back of every mutation since arriving on land, and that is incredibly unlikely (both for the statistical reasons stated, and natural selection).

The creature could go back to the water, potentially even become a water breather again, but could never be mistaken for a fish...as per your question post #4882, where you are suggesting that evolutionists would use the excuse of "evolving twice independently" to explain a rabbit in the Cambrian, should one be found.

You then shift the goalposts slightly:
humble brother wrote:
Can natural selection direct evolution of some population of an mammal species into the direction to develop gills from their lungs and thus become creatures of the water?
To which the answer is definitely NO if by gills you mean something that could be mistaken for a fish's gills. And that is the context of this thread. I thinks its clear by now that your suggestion, that evolutionists would try to claim double evolution for the rabbit (or now, the fish as well), is DEAD. But lacking any of your claimed humility, you do not concede the point but shift the goalposts again:
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if an organ pumps water through and extract oxygen from the pumped water then what you have are GILLS. Period.
Yes, but you still wont have any gills that could be mistaken for fish gills.

You have merely retreated, without admitting it, to a position bearing no resemblance to your original claim. No, a rabbit could not evolve twice from different lines. No, a mammal going back to the water could never be mistaken for a fish. No, a mammal going back to the water would be extremely unlikely to evolve gills that could be mistaken for a fish’s gills.

Yes, a mammal might evolve some organ that could extract oxygen from water. But that was not your original question or point.

You DEFINED the “particular subject” right at the start of the thread, points (1) and (2) in post 4882. Check it again.

So, in spite of your slippery argumentation, we have explained how evolution is a scientific, falsifiable theory, and that no biologist would concoct any cock and bull about that rabbit “evolving twice”.

Do try to be honest about this. The point is made, accept it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#5572 May 19, 2012
In the above post, all references to post 4882 should read, to Post #4883.

The point remains.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#5573 May 19, 2012
The pet whisperer wrote:
Space cannot get to absolute zero. Too many different kinds of radiation from all galaxies.
Well, before you move on, will you accept that Polymath and others have patiently and accurately explained to you why the background radiation predicted by the BB and found in space, could not be mistaken for any other kind of radiation, and this is why scientists found that it was excellent confirmation of the BB theory?

Go on, at least concede something that has been made clear, or we will all have to write you off as completely crackers.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

#5574 May 19, 2012
humble brother wrote:
So the problem I know have is:
If the selections of man are artificial, why are not the selections of other species artificial?
Does someone have an answer?
Define artificial
The pet whisperer

United States

#5575 May 19, 2012
If you have rebuttal, we are waiting.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#5576 May 19, 2012
The pet whisperer wrote:
If you have rebuttal, we are waiting.
WWIJD: What Would Imaginary Jesus Do ?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#5577 May 19, 2012
The pet whisperer wrote:
If you have rebuttal, we are waiting.
You and nobody is not 'we'.
The pet whisperer

United States

#5578 May 20, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it predicted a very specific curve of intensities.
<quoted text>
No radiation from stars or galaxies is included in the CMB.
<quoted text>
No, it is not.
<quoted text>
No, from a very specific time: when the universe had cooled enough to become transparent to radiation.
<quoted text>
Wrong. it is not from celestial bodies.
<quoted text>
Not a specific frquency. A specific temperature. A range of frquencies and intensities determined by that temperature.
<quoted text>
No, the radiation from stars and galaxies is quite distinct from the CMB.
Ah, in other words, you choose to be a willing idiot. Ok. Why should you change now.

Below is all that is in CMB. Show us the single entity measured and prove it has only one source.
CMB stands for Cosmic Microwave Background. It is also sometimes called the CBR, for Cosmic Background Radiation, although this is really a more general term that includes other cosmological backgrounds, eg infra-red, radio, x-ray, gravity-wave, neutrino. The CMB contains hugely more energy than any other cosmic radiation source, however, so it is the dominant component of the overall CBR spectrum. Other acronyms, such as CMBR, are also sometimes used!
The pet whisperer

United States

#5579 May 20, 2012
The only reason the vastness and frozen wasteland that seems to go on forever does not descend into a total deep freeze, is because of the radiation emitted by the billions of suns and celestial bodies in space.

If as you evolutionary morons on here claim, that the big bang were responsible for the CMB, while you also claim that earth is some 4.5 billion years old and light from the furtherest reaches of space is about 14.6 billion years old, the vast cold of an endless space should have plunged everything into absolute zero long ago.

All the different kinds of radiation from the billions if not trillions of celestial bodies keep the endless space just above absolute zero.

Don't hurt your little pea sized brains considering what a 5th grader should understand, given the available information, children.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Level 2

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#5580 May 20, 2012
humble brother wrote:
This odd notion of human choices being artificial in relation to evolution separates the human species from evolution.
No it doesn't. Humans are firmly anchored to the animal kingdom, and thus inseparable from evolution.}

Do you have a point?
The pet whisperer

United States

#5581 May 20, 2012
With the recent revelation from science, that claims Einstein was wrong about gravity and that scientists proved it--gravity could be made 17 times more powerful with a spinning motion, much of science is wrong in so many other ways, like the following.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Level 2

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#5582 May 20, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
What is the probability that I am a delusional amputee in a nuthouse who still sees two hands when I have had one removed?
That's a stumper - difficult to grasp - and hard to put your finger on.
The pet whisperer

United States

#5583 May 20, 2012
Some of the following is wrong, which will impact so much more. We now know gravity is 17 times greater at the least, than Einstein or Newton thought. That means things that have mass exert a force 17 times greater than their mass, when spinning. That is at the least, because personally, I believe that gravity is influenced by all the other gravity produced within its universe, with a black hole as the braking system, so that gravity does not over rev.

all know from Newtonian Mechanics that things that have mass exert a gravitational force which is proportional to their mass (ie. the more mass something has, the more gravitational pull it exerts). For example, the Earth's gravity is what keeps us from falling off it. Moreover, the galaxies in our local group are actually moving toward each other due to gravity. The density of matter in our group is high enough to overcome the force of the expansion of our universe. On a larger scale, our universe also has a specific density of matter, but that is a very hard quantity to determine because we do not know just how big the universe is. Based on the rate of expansion of our universe, however, we can figure out what the critical density of our universe is. The "critical density" refers to the minimum density of the universe that would be needed to have enough "gravitational pull" to overcome the expansion of the universe and cause it to re-collapse. We define a parameter omega as the (actual density of the universe)/(critical d

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Science News (Sep '13) 3 min positronium 2,947
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 37 min Dogen 134,258
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 5 hr DanFromSmithville 13,630
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 7 hr Dogen 718
How would creationists explain... 16 hr Chimney1 439
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 18 hr DanFromSmithville 507
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
More from around the web